Library / Religion / Facts and Assertions: or a Brief and Plain Exhibition of the Incongruity of the Peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Rome
[Picture: Public domain book cover]
FACTS AND ASSERTIONS:
OR
A BRIEF AND PLAIN EXHIBITION
OF THE
INCONGRUITY OF THE PECULIAR DOCTRINES
OF
The Church of Rome
WITH THOSE,
BOTH OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES,
AND OF THE
EARLY WRITERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH CATHOLIC.
* * * * *
BY
GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B.D.
RECTOR OF LONG-NEWTON, AND PREBENDARY OF SALISBURY.
* * * * *
It is the part of mere triflers to propound and to speak the things
which are not written. Athanas. Epist. ad Scrap. Oper. vol. ii. p.
29.
* * * * *
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR C. J. G. & F. RIVINGTON,
Booksellers to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
ST. PAUL’S CHURCH-YARD,
AND WATERLOO-PLACE, PALL-MALL.
* * * * *
1831.
[410]
* * * * *
GILBERT & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. John’s Square, London.
* * * * *
ADVERTISEMENT.
IT has been suggested to me, that _A brief and plain Exhibition of the
utter Incongruity of the peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome with
those both of the Sacred Scriptures and of the early writers of the
Christian Church Catholic_ might be useful as a small Tract for general
circulation.
This suggestion has given rise to the present little manual. As for
those, who either desire more copious information on the subject, or who
may wish to see my authorities in the original Greek and Latin: I refer
them to the second edition of my Difficulties of Romanism, printed for
Messrs. Rivingtons, St. Paul’s Church-Yard, and Waterloo-Place, London,
1830.
If, from the Written Word of God and from the Fathers of the three first
ages, any Latin Divine can make out an historical case, for _The alleged
Apostolicity of the peculiarities of the Church of Rome_, better than the
failures of Mr. Berington and Bishop Trevern of Strasbourg: let him by
all means come forward, whether he be Bishop or Priest or Deacon. The
Bible and the Fathers of the three first centuries, whence alone any
historical substantiation of the assertions made by the Romish Clergy can
be deduced, are open to them as well as to ourselves.
Respecting opinions in the abstract, ingenious men may dispute for
ever: but FACTS are of a more stubborn and intractable quality.
Assertions of the apostolicity and perpetuity and immutability and
primeval universality of Romish Peculiarities are cheaply made: but FACTS
and ASSERTIONS are matters widely different from each other.
To the satisfactory test of BARE FACTS I have brought the peculiar
doctrines and practices of Romanism.
Let the Latin Clergy, if it be in their power, set aside my FACTS, and
historically substantiate their own ASSERTIONS.
Long-Newton Rectory,
August 3, 1830.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
CHAPTER I.
Introductory Statement 7
CHAPTER II.
Transubstantiation 9
CHAPTER III.
Purgatory 24
CHAPTER IV.
Unwritten Tradition and Insufficiency of the Written Word 29
alone
CHAPTER V.
Meritorious Satisfaction 39
CHAPTER VI.
Saint-worship, Image-worship, Relic-worship, Cross-worship 44
CHAPTER VII.
Papal Supremacy 55
CHAPTER VIII.
Remarkable acknowledgements made by the Romish Clergy 59
CHAPTER IX.
Extraordinary theological practices of the Romish Clergy 62
CHAPTER X.
Conclusion 72
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.
THE great and constant boast of the Latin Clergy is: that _The Catholic
or Universal Church of Christ from the very beginning_, has ALWAYS
taught the doctrines which are now taught by the Church of Rome; that
These doctrines are revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures, and that
They have ALWAYS _been set forth and maintained by those early
ecclesiastical writers who are commonly styled the Fathers_.
I. On these points lest we should labour under any mistake, let us hear
the positive declarations of the Council of Trent, which sat in the
sixteenth century, and which by the Romanists is considered as having
finally set at rest all disputes respecting the points of doctrine
litigated between themselves and the Reformed. {7}
The declarations of that last reputed infallible General Council run in
manner following.
1. This faith was ALWAYS in THE CHURCH OF GOD. {8a}
2. THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH thus ALWAYS understood. {8b}
3. This matter was ALWAYS held for certain in THE CHURCH OF GOD. {8c}
4. THE SACRED SCRIPTURES declare, and the tradition of THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH has ALWAYS taught. {8d}
5. Since, by the testimony of SCRIPTURE, by apostolical tradition, and
by the unanimous consent of THE FATHERS, the matter is perspicuous:—no
one ought to doubt. {8e}
6. The Council of Trent, following the testimonies of THE SACRED
SCRIPTURES and THE HOLY FATHERS and the most esteemed Councils and the
judgment and consent of the Church herself, determines, confesses, and
declares, these doctrines. {8f}
II. Here we have no ambiguity. The Church of Rome, we see, speaking
through the organ of the Council of Trent, declares: that _Her doctrines
are revealed in Holy Scripture_; and that, Expressly as such, _they
have always been unanimously taught by the Fathers_, _and have always
been invariably received by the Church Universal_. {8g}
III. Now the meanest capacity will at once perceive: that, _In making
this declaration_, the Church of Rome asserts, _not merely a point of
opinion_, but AN ABSOLUTE MATTER OF FACT.
The simple question, therefore, is: Whether the asserted FACT _be
capable of substantiation by competent_ EVIDENCE.
1. In submitting this matter to the plain and honest inquirer, it is
obvious, that nothing more is necessary: than, first, to state any
particular doctrine of the Roman Church; next, to bring forward either
the silence or the declarations of Scripture; and, lastly, to adduce the
testimony of the Fathers.
2. By the adoption of such a plan, without a grain of any extraordinary
learning, and by the mere exercise of common sense, every reader will be
enabled fully to judge for himself.
3. Nor can a member even of the Roman Church justly refuse to hear me.
For the present is simply A QUESTION OF FACT: and, by Mr. Berington, one
of his own Clergy, he is distinctly assured; that _It is no article of
Catholic Faith_, that the Church cannot err in MATTERS OF FACT. {9}
Under the express sanction, therefore, of Mr. Berington, the laic
gentlemen of the Roman Church will, I hope, be persuaded to indulge me
with their company.
CHAPTER II.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
I SHALL begin with subjecting, to the test proposed by the Council of
Trent itself, the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
I. The following, as defined by the Council of Trent, is the doctrine of
the Roman Church with respect to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
1. In the sacrament of the Eucharist, _after the consecration of the
bread and wine_, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is,
truly and really and substantially, contained, _under the species of
those sensible objects_: so that, immediately after consecration,
the true body and the true blood of our Lord, _together with his soul
and divinity_, exist under the species of bread and wine: for, _by
the very force of the words themselves_, _the blood exists under the
species of the wine_; and the body, under the species of the bread.
But, furthermore, _by virtue of that natural connection and
concomitance_, through which the parts of the Lord, _after his
resurrection from the dead_, are mutually joined together, _the body
exists under the species of the wine_, _the blood exists under the
species of the bread_, _and the soul exists under the species both of the
bread and the wine_. The divinity, moreover, _on account of its
admirable hypostatic union with the body and the soul_, _similarly exists
alike under each species_. Wherefore, _under each species and under
both species_, so much as even the whole is contained. _For the entire
Christ exists both under the species of bread_, _and under each particle
of that species_: and the entire Christ exists, _both under the species
of wine_, and under all the particles of that species. Hence,
through the consecration of the bread and wine, _there takes place a
conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the
body of our Lord Christ_, _and of the whole substance of the wine into
the substance of his blood_: _which conversion is properly and
conveniently denominated Transubstantiation_.
2. _All the faithful are bound to offer to the Eucharist that same
adoration of Latria_, which is paid to the Deity: _for such adoration
rests upon the belief_, _that in that sacrament there is substantially
present the filial God_, concerning whom the Father pronounced; _Let
all the angels of God worship him_. And, analogously, _in point of
beneficial efficacy_, the Eucharist, _being the identical sacrifice
which Christ __offered upon the cross_, _must be deemed a true
propitiatory sacrifice_, making satisfaction, _each time that it is
offered_, not only for the living, _but likewise for the dead in the
Lord who have not as yet been fully purified_. {11a}
II. Let us now hear Scripture with respect to this same holy sacrament.
1. I am the living bread, which came down from heaven. _If any man
eat of this bread_, he shall live for ever: _and the bread that I will
give is my flesh_, which I will give for the life of the world. _The
Jews_, therefore, strove among themselves, saying: _How can this
man give us his flesh to eat_? Then Jesus said unto them: Verily,
verily, I say unto you; _Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man
and drink his blood_, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh,
and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life: _and I will raise him up at
the last day_. For my flesh is meat indeed: _and my blood is drink
indeed_. He, that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, _dwelleth
in me_, and I in him—These sayings said he in the synagogue, _as he
taught in Capernaum_. Many, therefore, of his disciples, _when
they had heard this_, said: This is an hard saying; _who can hear
it_? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, _he
said unto them_: Doth this offend you? _What and if ye shall see the
Son of man ascend up where he was before_? IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT
QUICKENETH: THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING. THE WORDS, THAT I SPEAK UNTO
YOU, ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE. {11b}
When our Lord enforced the necessity of eating his flesh and of drinking
his blood, the Jews and even his disciples, understanding him literally
just as the Romish Clergy now expound his language, murmured at so hard
a saying, and asked how he could possibly give men his flesh to eat.
Whereupon Christ, in the avowed way of explanation, immediately declared:
that the words, which he spake, are spirit; and that _the flesh
profiteth nothing_. Clearly, therefore, according to his own distinct
explanation, his words are to be understood spiritually or
figuratively, not carnally or literally.
2. As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, _and
brake_, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take, eat; _this is
my body_. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them,
saying: Drink ye all of it; _for this is my blood of the New
Testament_, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. _But I
say unto you_: I will not drink henceforth of THIS FRUIT OF THE VINE,
until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
{12a}
(1.) The authoritative interpretation of such language, as that which is
here employed by our Lord, had already been given by him at Capernaum.
His words are to be understood spiritually or figuratively: just as
when he declared himself to be a vine and his disciples to be
branches. {12b}
Accordingly, even after consecration, when the Romish Clergy assert the
wine to have been literally transubstantiated into the actual material
blood of Christ; he himself still calls it this fruit of the vine: an
appellation, if we receive as scriptural truth the doctrine of
Transubstantiation, then clearly false and erroneous and inaccurate.
(2.) We may note, that the Apostles expressed not the least surprise, or
uttered the smallest murmur, on account of our Lord’s phraseology, when
he instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist.
The reason is obvious, though the fact is highly worth our special
attention. They had heard and recollected his own explanation of the
parallel language which he employed at Capernaum. Hence they now, as a
matter of course, understood him to speak figuratively, not
literally: and hence, what was the natural result, his words now gave
them NO offence.
3. I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you:
that The Lord Jesus, the night in which he was betrayed, _took
bread_: and, when he had given thanks, he brake, and said:
Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: _this do in
remembrance of me_. After the same manner also, the cup, _when he
had supped_, saying: This cup is the New Testament in my blood: _this
do ye as oft as ye drink_, in remembrance of me. For, _as often as
ye eat_ THIS BREAD and drink THIS CUP, _ye do shew the Lord’s death
till he come_. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat THIS BREAD and drink
THIS CUP of the Lord unworthily, _shall be guilty of the body and blood
of the Lord_. But let a man examine himself: and so let him eat of
THE BREAD, and drink of THE CUP. {13a}
(1.) The language of St. Paul exactly corresponds with the language of
Christ.
Even after consecration, the Apostle, we may observe, still repeatedly
calls the elements this bread and this cup or the bread and _the
cup_. Yet he could not truly have thus called them: if, all the while,
they had become, by transubstantiation, literal human flesh and literal
human blood.
(2.) We may here again note, that the true doctrine of the Eucharist,
as undoubtedly delivered by St. Paul to the gentile converts of Corinth,
does not appear to have excited either surprise or offence.
Whence the presumption, or rather indeed the certainty, is: that, in
delivering it to them, he distinctly taught, on the authority of his Lord
and Master, that it is the spirit which quickeneth, that _the flesh
profiteth nothing_, and that _the words spoken by Christ are spirit and
life_.
4. As our Saviour thus fully explains his own phraseology: so, in strict
congruity with his explanation; on the existence, of the soul and
divinity of Christ in the consecrated elements, and on the adoration of
those elements with the very same adoration as that which is paid to the
Deity, Holy Scripture is PROFOUNDLY SILENT.
From whatever quarter the duty of such worship was learned by the Romish
Priesthood, it assuredly was not learned from the Bible. The written
word of God neither enjoins it, nor gives a single instance of its ever
having being paid either in the time or with the sanction of the
Apostles.
5. EQUALLY SILENT also is the Bible, respecting the alleged
circumstance: that _The celebration of the Eucharist is a true
propitiatory sacrifice both for the quick and for the dead_.
The Church of Rome, indeed, teaches this doctrine: but she did not
learn it from Scripture.
III. We may now, with advantage, proceed to hear the declarations of the
Fathers concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
1. Clement of Alexandria lived in the second century.
(1.) The Scripture has named wine A MYSTIC SYMBOL of the holy blood.
{14a}
(2.) Know well, that the Lord himself also partook of WINE: for he
himself also was a man. And he blessed the wine, saying: Take,
drink; this is my blood, the blood of the vine. The holy stream of
exhilaration ALLEGORICALLY REPRESENTS the Word, who poured himself out on
behalf of many, for the remission of sins. {14b}
2. Tertullian flourished at the end of the second and at the beginning
of the third century.
(1.) We must not call our senses in question, lest we should doubt
respecting their fidelity even in the case of Christ himself. For, if we
question their fidelity, we might be led to say: that Christ—TASTED A
DIFFERENT FLAVOUR OF THE WINE WHICH HE CONSECRATED IN MEMORY OF HIS OWN
BLOOD. {15a}
(2.) If Christ declares, that The FLESH profiteth nothing; the sense
must be decided from the matter of the saying. For, because the Jews
deemed his discourse hard and intolerable, as if he had truly determined
that his FLESH was to be eaten by them: in order that he might dispose
the state of salvation TOWARD THE SPIRIT, he promised; It is the SPIRIT
that quickeneth. And thus he subjoined: The FLESH _profiteth
nothing_, namely, to quicken. There follows also, WHAT HE WOULD HAVE US
UNDERSTAND BY SPIRIT. The words, which I have spoken unto you, _are
spirit and life_. {15b}
(3.) Christ reprobated, neither the water of the Creator with which he
washes his people, nor the oil with which he anoints them, nor the
fellowship of honey and milk with which he feeds them as infants, nor the
BREAD by which he REPRESENTS his own body: for, even in his sacraments,
he needs the beggarly elements of the Creator. {15c}
3. Athanasius flourished in the fourth century.
When our Lord conversed on the eating of his body, and when he thence
beheld many scandalised, he forthwith added: Doth this offend you?
What if ye shall behold the Son of man ascending where he was before?
It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. _The
words_, which I speak unto you, are spirit and life. Both these
matters, THE FLESH and THE SPIRIT, he said respecting himself. And he
distinguished the spirit from the flesh: IN ORDER THAT, BELIEVING BOTH
THE VISIBLE AND THE INVISIBLE, THEY MIGHT UNDERSTAND HIS SAYINGS TO BE
NOT CARNAL BUT SPIRITUAL. For TO HOW MANY PERSONS COULD HIS BODY HAVE
SUFFICED FOR FOOD: SO THAT IT MIGHT BECOME THE ALIMENT OF THE WHOLE
WORLD? But, that he might divert their minds from carnal cogitations,
and that they might learn the flesh which he would give them to be
supercelestial and spiritual food: he, on this account, mentioned the
ascent of the Son of man to heaven. The words, said he, _which I speak
unto you_, are spirit and life. As if he had intimated: My body shall
be exhibited and given as food for the world; so THAT THAT FOOD SHALL BE
GIVEN TO EACH ONE SPIRITUALLY, and shall to all be a preservative to the
resurrection unto life eternal. {16a}
4. Eusebius of Cesarea lived in the fourth century.
(1.) Christ himself gave the SYMBOLS of the divine economy to his own
disciples; commanding, that the IMAGE of his own body should be made.
{16b}
(2.) He delivered to us, that we should use the bread as the SYMBOL of
his own body. {16c}
5. Ambrose lived in the fourth century.
In the Law, was the shadow: in the Gospel, is the IMAGE: in heaven, is
the REALITY. Formerly, a lamb was offered, a calf was offered: now,
Christ is offered—Here, he is in an IMAGE: there, he is in REALITY. {16d}
6. Macarius the Egyptian lived in the fourth century.
In the Church are offered bread and wine, the ANTITYPE of Christ’s flesh
and blood: and they, who partake of the visible bread, eat the flesh of
the Lord SPIRITUALLY. {16e}
7. Gregory of Nyssa lived in the fourth century.
Since this holy altar, at which we stand, is in its nature only a common
stone, differing nothing from those other flat tablets, which are built
into our walls or which ornament our pavements; but, when it has been
dedicated to the service of God and has received the benediction, it is a
holy table, an unpolluted altar, no longer indiscriminately handled by
all, but touched only by the priests and even by them with pious caution:
and, again, since the bread is originally mere common bread; but, when
the mystery shall have wrought its sanctification, it is both called and
is the body of Christ: THUS the mystic oil, THUS the wine, though of
small value before the benediction, respectively operate with mighty
power after sanctification by the Spirit. The SAME potency of the word,
moreover, effects a venerable and honourable priest: when, through the
newness of the benediction, the individual is separated from common
fellowship with the many. For, only yesterday and the day before, he was
nothing more than one out of the many, nothing more than one of the
laity: but now he is set forth, as a leader, as a precessor, as a teacher
of piety, as a heirophant of the hidden mysteries. And these things he
does, not at all changed in body or in form: but he does them; being, in
outward appearance, the same person that he was before; though, in his
invisible soul, through a certain invisible power and grace, being
transmuted into a better condition. {17a}
8. Cyril of Jerusalem lived in the fourth century.
(1.) While eating, the communicants are commanded to eat, not bread and
wine, but the ANTITYPE of the body and blood of Christ. {17b}
(2.) As ALSO the bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the
Holy Spirit, is no longer bare bread, but the body of Christ: so
LIKEWISE, after the invocation, this holy ointment (the ointment or
chrism formerly used in the rite of Confirmation) is no longer mere
ointment, nor as one may say common ointment. {17c}
9. Augustine flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries.
(1.) The Lord, when he gave the SIGN of his body, did not doubt to say:
This is my body. {18a}
(2.) These are sacraments, in which, not what they are, but _what they
shew forth_, is the point to be always attended to: far THEY ARE THE
SIGNS OF THINGS, BEING ONE THING, AND SIGNIFYING ANOTHER THING. {18b}
(3.) Christ instructed them, and said unto them: _It is the spirit that
quickeneth_; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words, _which I speak
unto you_, are spirit and life. As if he had said: Understand
SPIRITUALLY what I have spoken. You are NOT about to eat this identical
body, which you see; and you are NOT about to drink this identical blood,
which they who crucify me will pour out. I have commended unto you a
certain sacrament: which, if SPIRITUALLY understood, will vivify you.
Though it must be celebrated visibly, it must be understood invisibly.
{18c}
(4.) In the interpretation of figurative passages, let the following
canon be observed.—
If the passage be preceptive, either forbidding some flagitious deed and
some heinous crime, or commanding something useful and beneficent: then
such passage is NOT FIGURATIVE. But, if the passage seems, either to
command some flagitious deed and some heinous crime, or to forbid
something useful and beneficent: then such passage is FIGURATIVE.
Thus, for example, Christ says: _Unless ye shall eat the flesh of the Son
of man and drink his blood_, ye shall have no life in you.
Now, in these words, he seems to command a heinous crime or a flagitious
deed. THEREFORE THIS PASSAGE IS A FIGURE. {18d}
10. Theodoret lived in the fifth century.
(1.) Our Saviour interchanged the names: for to his body be gave the
name of the SYMBOL, while to the SYMBOL he gave the name of his body;
and, having called himself A VINE, he applied the appellation of his
blood to the SYMBOL.—Our Lord required: that they, who partake of the
divine mysteries, should not attend to the nature of the things which
they see; but that, in the change of names, they should believe that
change which is wrought by grace: inasmuch as he, who called his own
natural body wheat and bread, and who further bestowed upon himself
the appellation of a vine, honoured also the viable SYMBOLS with the
name of his body and blood; NOT CHANGING THEIR NATURE, BUT ADDING
GRACE TO NATURE. {19a}
(2.) THE MYSTIC SYMBOLS, AFTER CONSECRATION, PASS NOT OUT OF THEIR OWN
NATURE: FOR THEY REMAIN IN THE FORMER SUBSTANCE and shape and appearance:
and they are seen and touched, such as they were before. But they are
understood to be what they were: and they are believed and venerated, as
being those things which they are believed. Compare, therefore, the
IMAGE with the ARCHETYPE; and you will perceive their resemblance: for
the TYPE must needs be similar to the TRUTH. {19b}
11. Pope Gelasius lived in the fifth century: and, in his quality of a
Pope speaking judicially or controversially, it is thought, that he
specially merits the attention of the Romish Clergy.
Certainly, the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord, which we
receive, are a divine thing: because, by these, we are made partakers of
the divine nature. Nevertheless, THE SUBSTANCE OR NATURE OF THE BREAD
AND WINE CEASES NOT TO EXIST: and, assuredly, the IMAGE and SIMILITUDE of
the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the
mysteries. {19c}
12. Vacundus lived in the sixth century.
The sacrament of adoption may be called adoption: just as the sacrament
of the body and blood of Christ, which sacrament is in the consecrated
bread and wine, we are wont to call his body and blood. NOT, INDEED,
THAT THE BREAD IS PROPERLY HIS BODY, OR THAT THE WINE IS PROPERLY HIS
BLOOD: but we so denominate them, because they contain the mystery (or
sacrament) of his body and blood within themselves. Hence it was, that
our Lord called the consecrated bread and wine, which he delivered to his
disciples, his own body and blood. {20a}
13. Ephrem of Antioch flourished in the sixth century.
The body of Christ, which is taken by the faithful, NEITHER DEPARTS FROM
ITS SENSIBLE SUBSTANCE, on the one hand: nor remains separated from
intellectual grace, on the other hand. And spiritual baptism, likewise,
being whole and single, both retains the propriety of ITS SENSIBLE
SUBSTANCE, I mean THE WATER: and loses not that, which it hath become.
{20b}
14. The venerable Bede flourished in the eighth century.
The Lord, in the Supper, gave to his disciples the FIGURE of his holy
body and blood. {20c}
15. Amalar of Triers lived in the ninth century.
(1.) Sacraments ought to have a certain SIMILITUDE of those things,
whereof they are sacraments. Let us, therefore, say: that the
officiating priest bears a SIMILITUDE to Christ, AS the bread and wine
bear a SIMILITUDE to the body and blood of Christ. {20d}
(2.) After a certain mode, the sacrament of the body of Christ is
Christ’s body. For, unless sacraments had a certain SIMILITUDE of those
things whereof they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all:
but, FROM THIS VERY SIMILITUDE, THEY COMMONLY RECEIVE THE NAMES OF THE
THINGS THEMSELVES. {21a}
16. Walafrid Strabo lived in the ninth century.
Christ, in the Supper, which, before his betrayal, he had celebrated with
his disciples after the solemnisation of the ancient Passover, delivered
to the same disciples the sacraments of his body and blood IN THE
SUBSTANCE OF BREAD AND WINE:—and taught them; that they ought to pass,
from things CARNAL to things SPIRITUAL, from things EARTHLY to things
HEAVENLY, from IMAGES to TRUTH. {21b}
17. Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mentz, lived in the ninth century.
LATELY, indeed, SOME INDIVIDUALS, not thinking rightly concerning the
sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, have said: that _That very
body and blood of the Lord_, which was born from the Virgin Mary, _in
which the Lord himself suffered on the cross_, _and in the which he rose
again from the sepulchre_, _is the same as that which is received from
the altar_. IN OPPOSITION TO WHICH ERROR as far as lay in our power,
writing to the Abbot Egilus, WE PROPOUNDED WHAT OUGHT TRULY TO BE
BELIEVED CONCERNING THE BODY ITSELF. {21c}
18. Bertram of Corby lived in the ninth century.
Let us now consider the question: Whether the identical body, _which
was born from Mary and suffered and died and was buried_, _and which now
sits at the right hand of the Father_, is that, _which in the Church is
daily received by the mouth of the faithful through the mystery of the
sacraments_.—
ACCORDING TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CREATURES, WHAT THEY WERE BEFORE
CONSECRATION, THAT ALSO THEY ARE AFTER IT.—
Spiritual flesh which is received by the mouth of the faithful, and
spiritual blood which is daily given to be drunk by the faithful, DIFFER
from the flesh which was crucified and from the blood which was shed by
the knee of the soldier.
THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT ME SAME. {22}
IV. The plain inquirer will now judge for himself: whether the romish
doctrine of Transubstantiation, with the associated practice of adoring
as God the consecrated elements, be taught either in Scripture, or by the
early Fathers.
As for Scripture, sufficient has already been said: and, with respect to
the evidence afforded by the ancient Doctors of the Catholic Church,
those Doctors, we see, protest against any such new-fangled notions,
not only during the three first centuries, but down even to the ninth
century; and they protest, moreover, in every possible way that could
well have been either required or imagined.
1. According to their interpretation of Scripture, which manifestly
was the interpretation received as orthodox by the universal Church at
the times when they respectively flourished, we have the following very
distinct and very important results.
(1.) The consecrated elements are IMAGES or SYMBOLS or TYPES or SIGNS or
REPRESENTATIONS of the body and blood of Christ.
(2.) Communicants do NOT partake of that literal body and blood, in
which the Lord suffered and which he shed on the cross.
(3.) The symbols of bread and wine, AFTER consecration, STILL REMAIN
UNCHANGED IN THEIR ORIGINAL SUBSTANCE: and, consequently, they are NOT
transubstantiated.
(4.) Christ called the bread and wine his body and blood, IN THE SAME
SENSE and ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE that he called himself a vine.
(5.) When the early writers style the bread and wine _the body and blood
of Christ_; or when they say, that _the bread and wine are the body and
blood of Christ_; or when they affirm, that _the bread and wine are
changed into the body and blood of Christ_: they themselves state, by way
of explanation, that they only speak metonymically and figuratively. For
they distinctly tell us: that they are wont to call the bread and wine
Christ’s body and blood; NOT BECAUSE THE BREAD IS PROPERLY HIS BODY, OR
BECAUSE THE WINE IS PROPERLY HIS BLOOD; but only because they contain the
sacrament of his body and blood within themselves, or because the IMAGE
and SIMILITUDE of his body and blood are exhibited in the due celebration
of the Eucharist.
(6.) Hence, in strict consistency, the sole change in the elements,
produced by consecration, is said, by the same early writers, to be a
MORAL and not a PHYSICAL change. For they pronounce it to be such a
change, as is produced in the confirmatory chrism or in the stone of an
altar-table or in the baptismal water; when, by consecration, they cease
to be secular, and are devoted to sacred purposes: and, even yet more
remarkably, they pronounce it to be such a change, as is produced in a
man; when, by ordination, he ceases to be a laic, and becomes a clerk.
2. Nor do we thus find, in the old Doctors of the Church, a mere simple
anticipatory protest against the modern Romish dogma, of
Transubstantiation: we may note also, in the case of Raban and Bertram, a
formal direct synchranical protest against the wild notion of
Christ’s CORPOREAL or LITERAL or SUBSTANTIAL _presence in the
Eucharist_, when, in the ninth century, and under the fostering
management of Paschase Radbert, it was attempting to creep into the
hitherto untainted Western Churches.
No sooner was the idle phantasy started; that _The identical body and
blood of Christ_, in which he was born from the Virgin Mary, _is
literally and substantially received from the altar_: than it was
distinctly and openly opposed, on the specific ground, not only of _its
abstract scriptural falsehood_, but likewise of its palpable novelty
and its then scanty reception. For all these three points are clearly
set forth by Archbishop Raban in his three very remarkable expressions,
LATELY, and SOME INDIVIDUALS, and NOT THINKING RIGHTLY.
CHAPTER III.
PURGATORY.
FROM the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation, I shall pass on to the
Romish doctrine of Purgatory.
I. Respecting a Purgatory, into which the souls of all, save those who
are immediately conveyed to Hell, pass forthwith after death; in order
that, by its fiery pains, they may be purified from the remainder of
their corruption, and at the same time by personal suffering may make
satisfaction to God for their hitherto unexpiated offences: the Church of
Rome, speaking through her organ the Council of Trent, thus defines and
pronounces.
There is a Purgatory: and the souls, there detained, _are assisted
by the suffrages of the faithful and most especially by the acceptable
sacrifice of the altar_. {24}
II. Such is the authorised doctrine of the Roman Church: let us now see,
whether the existence of a Purgatory in the unseen world be revealed in
Scripture.
1. On this point, we may begin with very safely remarking: that, from
the first verse of Genesis to the last verse of the Revelation, God’s
written word, whether jewish or christian, SAYS NOT A SINGLE SYLLABLE
concerning the existence of any such place as a romish Purgatory.
Whence, of course, it is EQUALLY SILENT, respecting the extraordinary
alleged fact: that, Souls, there detained, _are assisted by the
suffrages or prayers of the faithful and most especially by the
acceptable sacrifice of the altar_.
2. But Holy Scripture is not merely SILENT on this subject: by
anticipation, it even FLATLY CONTRADICTS the popish doctrine before us.
I heard a voice from heaven, saying unto me: Write; _Blessed are
the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth_: Yea, _saith the
Spirit_, THAT THEY MAY REST FROM THEIR LABOURS; _and their works do
follow them_. {25}
If, as the Romish Clergy teach, even those, who die in the Lord, pass
into Purgatory, where they suffer pains equal to those of Hell in
intensity and inferior to them only in duration: certainly, such souls
can with no truth be said henceforth to rest from their labours.
3. In reality, the very notion of a Purgatory stands irreconcileably
opposed to the whole scheme and analogy of Scripture.
For the doctrine of a Purgatory holds out the speculation: that, _By
penal suffering_, we both may be purified from our sins, _and likewise
may make personal meritorious satisfaction to God for them_.
Whereas Scripture teaches us: that _We are justified from our sins by the
sole merits of the Son_, and that _We are sanctified from our pollutions
by the exclusive ordinary operation of the Spirit_.
On the present point, then, are we to believe the Bible, or the Council
of Trent and the Latin Priesthood?
4. Finding it impossible to establish the existence of a Purgatory from
the genuine written word of God, the Romish Clergy attempt to
substantiate it from a text in the Apocrypha.
_When Judas had made a gathering throughout the __company to the sum of
two thousand drachms of silver_, he sent it to Jerusalem, _to offer a
sin-offering_; doing therein well and honestly, _in that he was mindful
of the resurrection_ (for, _if he had not hoped that they that were
slain should have risen again_, _it had been superfluous and vain to pray
for the dead_), _and also in that he perceived that there was great
favour laid up for those that died godly_. _It was a holy and good
thought_. Whereupon, he made a reconciliation for the dead, _that
they might be delivered from sin_. {26a}
Now this text, even if we could admit the canonical authority of a book
which praises self-murder, and which apologises for its own defects,
{26b} would stand the Latin Priesthood in small stead: for _it never once
mentions any Purgatory_; and the persons, moreover, for whom Judas
attempted to make reconciliation, were actually men who had died _in the
mortal sin of idolatry unrepented of_, and consequently were men who (by
the determination of the Council of Trent) had passed not into Purgatory
but into Hell. {26c}
In truth, however, for the too evident purpose of serving a turn, the
doctors of the Council of Trent, in defiance of the universal testimony
of the early Church as expressed most distinctly by Melito and Cyril and
Ruffinus and Jerome and Epiphanius and Athanasius, have foisted into the
genuine canon of inspired Scripture, those mere unauthoritative human
compositions, which are commonly styled apocryphal, and for the simple
quoting of which about the close of the sixth century, Pope Gregory the
great absolutely makes a regular formal apology. {26d}
As one out of our many witnesses against these daring innovators, let us
hear, from the fourth century, the venerable Cyril of Jerusalem, while
officially instructing his Catechumens in order to their baptism.
Read the twenty and two books contained in the Old Testament: but
WITH THE APOCRYPHA HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON. _Study diligently those
twenty and two books_ ALONE, _which also with confidence are read in the
Church_. The Apostles and the ancient Bishops, _who delivered those
books to us_, were much wiser than you. As children of the Church,
therefore, _set not upon her authorised documents the adulterating seal
of a false impression_. {27a}
This adulterating seal of a false impression, so strongly reprobated by
Cyril in the fourth century, was, in the sixteenth century, employed,
without the least scruple, for the impious corruption of God’s written
word, by the Romish Clergy at the Council of Trent.
III. From Scripture, let us proceed to the early Fathers of the Church.
I. In the way of negative evidence, Polycarp the disciple of St. John,
Athenagoras, and Irenèus, who collectively flourished during a period
which extends from the latter end of the first to the latter end of the
second century, are TOTALLY SILENT respecting the existence of a
Purgatory; even when the nature of their subject is such, that, had they
been acquainted with the doctrine, they must have mentioned it. {27b}
2. In the way of positive evidence, Clement of Rome the disciple and
fellow-labourer of St. Paul, Ignatius the disciple of St. John, Justin
Martyr, Hippolytus, and Cyprian, who collectively flourished during a
period which extends from the year 63 to the year 258, either by
anticipation EXPRESSLY CONTRADICT, or else use language PALPABLY
INCOMPATIBLE WITH, the doctrine of a Purgatory. {28a}
3. When this doctrine began to creep into the Church, the individuals,
who started it, could not agree among themselves, either as to _its
nature_, or as to its certainty, or as to its chronological location:
and, what is sufficiently whimsical, not one among them agreed with the
present Church of Rome. {28b}
Now, if the doctrine of a Purgatory had been uniformly and
universally and constantly held in the Church Catholic from the very
beginning, as the Romish Clergy would persuade us: it is quite clear,
that this curious discrepance could never have occurred.
4. At present, the members of the Latin Church pray for the dead,
_with the avowed object that their souls may be delivered from
Purgatory_: but, when prayers for the dead first came into use, those
prayers were offered up with no such purpose and intention.
Let it be known and observed (for many are ignorant of the circumstance):
that, at the commencement of the practice, supplication was made, not
that souls might be delivered from Purgatory, but _that they might be
partakers of the first resurrection_: {28c} and the notion itself
evidently originated from a gratuitous interpretation of a well known
obscure text in the Apocalypse. {29a}
5. The unauthorised practice of praying for the dead, under any
aspect, being thus plainly a mere innovation upon the primitive
simplicity of the Gospel; its utility, as we learn from Cyril of
Jerusalem, was questioned by MANY, even so late as the middle of the
fourth century. Finding not a vestige of the thing in the whole Bible,
and naturally judging that we can know nothing about the matter save from
a distinct revelation, they very sensibly asked: _How is the soul
benefited by any such mention of it_, _whether it depart from this world
with sin or without sin_? {29b}
It were well, if the Romish Clergy, when they boast of the immutability
of their doctrine and practice, would account of these odd variations.
IV. Meanwhile, let the sober inquirer judge for himself, whether there
be even a shadow for the idle plea: that the doctrine of Purgatory is
revealed in the Bible, and that it was maintained from the beginning by
all the early Fathers.
CHAPTER IV.
UNWRITTEN TRADITION AND INSUFFICIENCY OF THE WRITTEN WORD ALONE.
I SHALL next proceed to examine the Romish assertions respecting
Unwritten Tradition and the Insufficiency of the Written Word alone.
I. Although the Church of Rome, speaking through the Council of Trent,
claims the Written Word of God as a voucher for her doctrines; yet, as if
conscious, that, from Scripture ALONE, her peculiarities cannot be
established as a part of divine revelation, she asserts: that _Unwritten
Tradition ought to be __had in_ EQUAL reverence with the Written Word;
so that, what cannot be proved from the Written Word, _must be
received without hesitation_, _if it be propounded by Unwritten
Tradition_.
From this assertion it evidently results: that, _Without the concurrence
of a supplemental Unwritten Tradition_, _the Written Word or the Holy
Bible is defective and insufficient as a rule of faith and practice_.
The Holy Synod, say the doctors of the Council of Trent, perceiving,
that this faith and discipline are contained, _both in the Written
Books_, _and in the Unwritten Traditions which have descended to us from
Christ and his Apostles_, receives and venerates, _after the example of
the orthodox Fathers_, WITH AN EQUAL AFFECTION AND PIOUS REVERENCE, _both
all the Books of the Old and New Testaments_, _and likewise the
Traditions themselves_, whether appertaining to faith or to morals, _as
if orally dictated from Christ and the Holy Spirit_, _and as preserved by
continual succession in the Church Catholic_. {30}
II. Let us now hear what Scripture says on the topic at present under
discussion.
1. The unwritten traditions of the Rabbins, by which they made void the
Law of God, claimed to have been delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai by the
Lord himself: and their pretended authenticity rested precisely upon the
same mode of reasoning, as that employed, for their parallel unwritten
traditions, by the Clergy of the Roman Communion. Yet Christ reprobated
such vain unhallowed phantasies in language and on principles, which
equally apply to the antiscriptural unwritten traditions of the Latin
Church.
He answered and said unto them: _Why do ye also transgress the
commandment of God by your tradition_? For God commanded, saying:
_Honour __thy father and thy mother_; and: _He that curseth father or
mother_, let him die the death. But ye say: _Whosoever shall say to
his father or his mother_; _It is a gift by whatsoever thou mightest be
profited by me_; and honour not his father or his mother, _he shall be
free_. _Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your
tradition_. {31a}
Now where is the perceptible difference, between the conduct of the
Jewish Rabbins, and the conduct of the Romish Clergy?
(1.) The Written Word commanded: that a man should honour his father and
mother.
But the Jewish Rabbins made this commandment of none effect by their
Unwritten Tradition: that, if a man vowed to dedicate his substance to
God, he was not bound to relieve out of it the necessities of his
parents.
(2.) The Written Word has prohibited the bowing down before graven
images and the invocation of any being save the Deity.
But the Romish Clergy have made this prohibition of none effect by their
Unwritten Tradition: that images may be worshipped relatively with the
worship due to their prototypes, that dead saints may be justifiably
invocated to give us their intercessory assistance, and that, provided
only we take care to denominate the worship of the Saints and the Virgin
Dulia and Hyperdulia while we rigidly style the worship of the Deity
Latria, we may laudably (after the precise manner of the old Pagan
idolaters {31b}) kiss and uncover our heads and fall prostrate before
their images, duly through each image (again on the exact avowed
principle of the same Old Pagan idolaters {31c}) referring to each being
represented by such image his own appropriate reverence and adoration.
{32a}
2. A similar admonition, against the vanity of following Unwritten
Tradition rather than the certainty of the Written Word, is given by the
Apostle St. Paul.
As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, _so walk ye in
him_; rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, _as ye
have been taught_, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware,
lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, _after the
tradition of men_, after the rudiments of the world, _and not after
Christ_. {32b}
3. The romish pretence of an EQUALLY _authoritative Unwritten
Tradition_ plainly involves an assertion of _the Insufficiency of the
Written Word_. But the written Word declares its own Sufficiency.
Therefore, on that precise ground, it condemns the romish pretence of an
EQUALLY authoritative concurrent Unwritten Tradition.
(1.) Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, _neither
shall ye diminish ought from it_: _that ye may keep the commandments of
the Lord your God_, which I command you. {32c}
(2.) To the law and to the testimony: _if they speak not according to
this word_, it is because there is no light in them. {32d}
(3.) _Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you
than that which we have preached unto you_, let him be accursed. {32e}
(4.) From a child, thou hast known the holy scriptures, _which are
able to make thee wise unto salvation_, _through faith which is in Christ
Jesus_. All scripture is given by inspiration of God: _and is
profitable for doctrine_, for reproof, for correction, _for
instruction in righteousness_; that the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works. {33a}
4. The Romish Clergy are wont to tell us, that their scheme of
concurrent Unwritten Tradition is recognised and enjoined even by
Scripture: because St. Paul speaks of a brother, walking disorderly, and
not after the TRADITION received from himself by the Thessalonians; {33b}
because the same St. Paul exhorts the same Thessalonians to stand fast
and hold the TRADITIONS which they had been taught whether by word or by
his epistle; {33c} and because still the same St. Paul praises the
Corinthians, for remembering him in all things, and for keeping the
TRADITIONS as he delivered to them. {33d}
Respecting this vain plea, which can only mislead the ignorant and the
incautious, we readily answer in manner following.
(1.) St. Paul must not be interpreted, so as to contradict both his Lord
and himself.
(2.) The Romish Clergy cannot prove, that all the Traditions,
mentioned by the Apostle, were unwritten: for some are distinctly
specified as taught by a written epistle; and the simple word
Tradition itself, which merely denotes _any thing handed down or
delivered or communicated_, has no necessary reference to what is
unwritten rather than to what is written.
(3.) It is not known by the Romish Clergy: whether the originally oral
unwritten traditions, mentioned by St. Paul, were not finally committed
to durable writing in documents, composed subsequently to those
epistles in which he mentions them, and afterward added to the sacred
canon; so that, what were once unwritten traditions, became
ultimately a portion of our present written word: for the plain reader
may be usefully taught or reminded, that several portions of the New
Testament were written at a later period than the epistles in which St.
Paul speaks of Traditions.
(4.) Whensoever the Romish Clergy shall prove the unwritten traditions
of their Church to have been received from Christ and his apostles with
as much certainty, as the Thessalonians and Corinthians knew what they
had personally received from the mouth of St. Paul: we will cheerfully
attend to them with all due reverence.
(5.) Both on the principle of our Lord’s own censure of the rabbinical
traditions, and likewise on the principle of plain common sense, we
cannot embrace oral traditions purporting to be God’s unwritten word;
when they are palpably irreconcileable with, and _grossly contradictory
to_, God’s own acknowledged written word.
III. We may now, in the way of historical testimony, go on profitably to
hear the ancient Fathers: those identical old orthodox Fathers to wit;
whom, in respect to the present question, the doctors of the Council of
Trent, as the reader may peradventure recollect, claim as being clearly
and indisputably quite their own.
1. Let us first attend to Irenèus in the second century.
(1.) The disposition of our salvation we know not through any other
persons, than those by whom the Gospel has come to us: which then,
indeed, they themselves orally preached; but which afterward, according
to the will of God, they traditionally handed down to us IN THE WRITTEN
WORD, as the future basis and column of our faith. {34}
(2.) When the Gnostics are confuted from SCRIPTURE, their answer is:
that, By those who are ignorant of UNWRITTEN TRADITION, _truth cannot
be discovered from_ THE WRITTEN WORD; _for truth was __delivered_, not
(merely) through letters, but through the living voice. {35a}
2. Let us next hear Tertullian in the second and third centuries.
As for Hermogenes, let his shop produce THE WRITTEN WORD. If he be
unable to produce THE WRITTEN WORD in substantiation of his tenets; let
him dread that scriptural Woe, which is destined to those who either
add to it or detract from it. {35b}
3. Let us next hear Hippolytus in the third century.
There is one God, whom we know from no other authority, than THE HOLY
SCRIPTURES.—Whatsoever matters, then, THE DIVINE SCRIPTURES declare;
these let us learn: and, whatsoever matters they teach; these let us
recognise:—not according to our own humour or according to our own mind,
neither with any wresting of the things delivered from God; but, even as
he himself wished THROUGH THE HOLY SCRIPTURES to shew us, thus let us
learn. {35c}
4. Let us next hear Cyprian in the third century.
Whence is that pretended TRADITION? Does it descend from the authority
of the Lord and the Gospels: or does it come down from the mandates and
letters of the Apostles? God testifies, that those things are to be
done, which are WRITTEN.—If, then, any such precept can be found, EITHER
IN THE GOSPEL OR IN THE EPISTLES AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES:—let this
divine and holy (written) tradition be observed. {35d}
5. Let us next hear Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century.
Respecting the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not even a tittle
ought to be delivered without the authority of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Neither ought any thing to be propounded, on the basis of mere
credibility, or through the medium of plausible ratiocination. Neither
yet repose the slightest confidence in the bare assertions of me your
Catechist, unless you shall receive from THE HOLY SCRIPTURES foil
demonstration of the matters propounded. For the security of our faith
depends, not upon verbal trickery, but upon demonstration from THE HOLY
SCRIPTURES. {36a}
6. Let us next hear the great Athanasius in the fourth century.
(1.) The holy and divinely inspired SCRIPTURES are sufficient for the
declaration of the truth. {36b}
(2.) Let a person solely learn the matters, which are set forth in THE
SCRIPTURES: for the demonstrations, contained in them, are, in order to
the settling of this point, quite sufficient and complete. {36c}
(3.) If ye are disciples of the Gospels,—walk according to WHAT IS
WRITTEN. But, if you choose to allege any other matters BEYOND WHAT IS
WRITTEN: why do you contend against us, WHO WILL NEVER BE PERSUADED
EITHER TO HEAR OR TO SPEAK A SINGLE SYLLABLE BEYOND GOD’S WRITTEN WORD?
{36d}
(4.) These; namely, the canonical books of Scripture, from which the
apocryphal books are carefully excluded by the accurate Father: These are
the fountains of salvation; so that he, who thirsts, may drink from the
oracles contained in them. In THESE ALONE is the evangelical school of
piety. Let no one add to them: and let no one detract from them. {36e}
(5.) It is the part of mere triflers to propound and to speak THE THINGS
WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN. {36f}
(6.) What THE WRITTEN WORD had never revealed, you will never be able to
discover. {37a}
7. Let us next hear Basil in the fourth century.
(1.) It is a manifest apostasy from the faith, and a clear proof of
arrogance, either to disregard any matter of THE THINGS WHICH ARE
WRITTEN, Or to introduce argumentatively any matter of THE THINGS WHICH
ARE NOT WRITTEN. {37b}
(2.) THE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN believe: THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT
WRITTEN Seek not after. {37c}
8. Let us next hear Jerome in the fourth and fifth centuries.
(1.) As we deny not THE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN: SO THE THINGS WHICH
ARE NOT WRITTEN we reject. We believe, that God was born of a virgin;
BECAUSE WE READ IT: we believe not, that Mary was married after her
parturition; BECAUSE WE READ IT NOT. {37d}
(2.) Learn, then, in THE DIVINE SCRIPTURES, through which ALONE you can
understand the full will of God, that some things are prohibited and that
other things are commanded, that some things are granted and that other
things are persuaded. {37e}
9. Finally, let us hear Augustine in the fourth and fifth centuries.
Demonstrate, from any one of THE CANONICAL APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, the
truth of what Cyprian has written to Jubaianus: and I should then have no
room for contradiction. But now, since what you produce is NOT
CANONICAL; through the liberty, to which the Lord hath called us, I
receive not the decision. {37f}
IV. From the evidence now faithfully laid before him, the prudent
inquirer is invited to judge for himself: whether the romish doctrine, of
the concurrent EQUAL _authority of Unwritten Tradition and the
insufficiency of the Written Word alone_, be warranted either by
Scripture or by the early Fathers.
Meanwhile the following questions may not be altogether unworthy of his
attention.
1. Do, or do not, the doctors of the Council of Trent, agreeably to
their own formal and distinct profession, follow the example of the old
orthodox Fathers, when they decide: that the Written Word of God, _and
the Unwritten Traditions of the Latin Church_, _are to be received by the
faithful with an_ EQUAL affection and pious reverence?
2. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy imitate the Gnostics: who, when they
were confuted from Scripture, were accustomed to reply; that, _by those
who are ignorant of Unwritten Tradition_, _truth cannot be discovered
from the Written Word_.
3. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy copy the example of Cyril of
Jerusalem: who declared, that, respecting the faith, NOT A TITTLE
ought to be delivered without the authority of the Holy Scriptures; and
who exhorted his Catechumens to repose not THE SLIGHTEST CONFIDENCE _in
his assertions_, _unless they should receive from the Holy Scriptures
full demonstration of the matters propounded_?
4. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy teach, with Athanasius: that, _the
Scriptures_ ALONE are sufficient for the declaration of the truth; and
that, in the canonical Scriptures ALONE, _to the exclusion of the
Apocrypha_, is the evangelical school of piety?
5. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy declare, with the same illustrious
Father: that they will never be persuaded either to hear or to speak A
SINGLE SYLLABLE beyond God’s written word?
6. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy pronounce, still with the great
Athanasius: that _it is the part of mere triflers to propound and to
speak the things which are not written_?
7. Do, or do not, the doctors of the Council of Trent, and after them
our present Romish Clergy, take up, and make their own, the ancient pithy
distinction of Jerome: The things which are written we acknowledge;
the things which are not written we reject?
8. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy, make a point, with Tertullian, of
always requiring the production of proof from the Written Word: and do
they, or do they not, allow and maintain, with the same Father; that
he, _who is unable to produce the Written Word in substantiation of his
tenets_, but who for that purpose resorts to Unwritten Tradition, _may
well dread the awful Woe so justly denounced against those who either add
to it or detract from it_?
9. Finally, in their several estimates of Unwritten Tradition and the
Written Word, and in their several modes of conducting those theological
controversies which respect the authoritative rule of faith and practice,
do the Romish Clergy or the Reformed Clergy approximate most closely to
Holy Scripture and to the ancient orthodox Fathers?
CHAPTER V.
MERITORIOUS SATISFACTION.
FROM the perfect equality of Unwritten Tradition and the Written Word of
God, we may next proceed to the doctrine of Meritorious Satisfaction.
I. The Church of Rome lays down her decision, respecting what she calls
Works of Satisfaction, in manner following.
So great is the abundance of divine munificence, _that we are able to
make satisfaction to God the Father through Jesus Christ_, _not only by
punishments __either spontaneously undergone by ourselves for the
avenging of sin or imposed upon us by the will of the priest according to
the measure of our offence_, but also (_what is the greatest argument
of love_) _by temporal flagellations inflicted of God and by us patiently
endured_. {40a}
II. Thus speaks the Roman Church: let us now hear the declarations of
Holy Scripture.
1. When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you,
say: We are unprofitable servants; _we have done that which it was
our duty to do_. {40b}
2. Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one, a Pharisee;
and the other, a Publican. The Pharisee stood, _and prayed thus
with himself_: God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are,
extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this Publican. _I
fast twice in the week_: I give tythes of all that I possess. _And the
Publican_, standing afar off, _would not lift up so much as his eyes
unto heaven_; but smote upon his breast, saying: _God be merciful to
me a sinner_! I tell you: _This man went down to his house justified
rather than the other_: for every one, that exalteth himself, _shall
be abased_; and he, that humbleth himself, shall be exalted. {40c}
3. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? _Of
works_? Nay, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude:
that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law. {40d}
4. If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory,
but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? _Abraham believed
God_: and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now, _to him
that worketh_, is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt.
But, to him that worketh not, _but believeth on him that justifieth
the ungodly_, his faith is counted for righteousness. {40e}
5. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God,
through our Lord Jesus Christ. {41a}
6. They, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, _and going about to
establish their own righteousness_, _have not submitted themselves unto
the righteousness of God_. {41b}
7. We are all as an unclean thing: _and all our righteousnesses are as
filthy rags_. {41c}
III. Let us next attend to the language of the old orthodox Fathers.
1. Clement of Rome, in the first century, speaks as follows.
All, therefore, have been glorified and magnified, not through themselves
or through their own works of righteousness which they have done, but
through the will of God. Wherefore, being called through his will in
Christ Jesus, we are justified, not through ourselves, or through our own
wisdom or intellect or piety, or through the works which we have wrought
in holiness of heart; but through faith, by which the Almighty God has
justified us all from everlasting. {41d}
2. The author of the Epistle to Diognetus, in the first or second
century, speaks exactly to the same purpose.
What else can cover our sins, than the righteousness of Christ? In what
can we lawless and impious wretches be justified, save only in the Son of
God? {41e}
3. Ambrose of Milan, in the fourth century, still holds the same
language.
(1.) By what labours, by what injuries, can we lighten our sins? The
sufferings of this time are, in reference to future glory, altogether
unworthy. Hence, toward man, the form of celestial decrees proceeds, not
according to our merits, but according to the mercy of God. {42a}
(2.) Would that the Lord would not reject, but collect, this my mere
stubble in the harvest, these empty wild oats of my fructification!—It is
fitting, therefore, to believe; both that penance is to be performed, and
that pardon is to be granted: nevertheless, in such manner, that we
should hope for pardon, as from faith, not as from debt. {42b}
4. Augustine, in the fourth and fifth centuries, exactly agrees with his
predecessors.
The sins are thine: the merits are God’s. To thee punishment is due: and
when the reward shall come, he will crown his own gifts, not thy merits.
{42c}
IV. Let the patient enquirer now judge for himself: whether the romish
doctrine, that Punishments, either self-inflicted, _or commanded by a
priest_, or sent in the course of God’s providence, _can make
satisfaction to the Father through Christ in our behalf_, be the doctrine
either of Scripture or of the early Church.
V. But, if no man can make satisfaction for his own sins: still less,
according to the monstrous phantasy of Supererogation, can he make
satisfaction for the sins of others.
Yet this impious absurdity was openly advanced in the papal bull for the
observation of a jubilee is the recent year 1825.
We have resolved, says Pope Leo, BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO US
FROM HEAVEN, fully to unlock that sacred treasure, _composed of the
merits_, sufferings, and virtues, _of Christ our Lord and of his
Virgin-Mother and of all the Saints_, WHICH THE AUTHOR OF HUMAN SALVATION
HAS ENTRUSTED TO OUR DISPENSATION.—To you, therefore, _venerable
brethren_, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, _it
belongs to explain with perspicuity the power of Indulgences_: _what is
their efficacy in the remission_, not only of the canonical penance,
_but also of the temporal punishment due to the divine justice for past
sin_; and what succour is afforded, out of this heavenly treasure,
from the merits of Christ and his Saints, _to such as have departed
real penitents in God’s love_, _yet before they had duly satisfied by
fruits worthy of penance for sins of commission and omission_, _and are
now purifying in the fire of Purgatory_, _that an entrance may be opened
for them into their eternal country where nothing defiled is admitted_.
1. Where is Pope Leo’s PROOF of the validity of his claim to _an
authority given to him from heaven_: _by virtue of which authority he
fully unlocks a sacred treasure_, _composed of the merits of Christ and
the Virgin Mary and all the Saints_, _and entrusted by the blessed author
of our salvation to the wisdom of his doling out_?
Let such PROOF be produced, if the Romish Clergy can produce it, either
from the Bible, or even from the received doctrine of the primitive
Church Catholic.
2. By what evidence does Pope Leo SUBSTANTIATE his assertion: that
_Souls in Purgatory are benefited by the supererogatory merits of the
Virgin Mary and the Saints strangely associated with the all-sufficient
merits of the Redeemer_?
Let the Romish Clergy, if they be able, SUBSTANTIATE this most
extraordinary allegation.
3. Where is Pope Leo’s PROOF of the very position, upon which the whole
of his bull professedly reposes; the position, to wit: that _The Virgin
Mary and the Saints not only have merit enough to make satisfaction for
their own sins_, _but have even merit to spare for the benefit of less
privileged souls in Purgatory_?
From the Bible or from the Doctors of the primitive Church, let his
venerable brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops, bring
forward, if they can accomplish such a feat, the PROOF of this very
remarkable position.
CHAPTER VI.
SAINT-WORSHIP, IMAGE-WORSHIP, RELIC-WORSHIP, CROSS-WORSHIP.
I SHALL next examine the doctrine and practice of Saint-worship,
Image-worship, Relic-worship, and Cross-worship.
I. In exhibiting the tenets of the Romish Church and Clergy on these
several points, I shall successively give: the decision of the council of
Trent; the comments of some of the most approved Latin Doctors; and the
actual practice of the Romanists themselves as the best explanation of
their received tenets.
1. Let us first hear the decision of the Council of Trent.
All Bishops, and others who discharge the duty of teaching, _must
diligently instruct the faithful_, _concerning the intercession and
invocation of the Saints_, the honouring of Relics, _and the legitimate
use of Images_.
For this purpose, they must teach them: that the Saints, _reigning
with Christ_, offer up their prayers to God for men; _and that it is
good and useful_, suppliantly to invoke them, _and to flee to their
prayers and assistance for the purpose of obtaining benefits from God
through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord who is our only Redeemer and
Saviour_.
Furthermore, they must teach them: that those, _who deny that the
Saints in heaven ought to be invoked_, _or who assert either that they do
not pray for men or that the invoking of them to pray for us is idolatry
or that it is contrary to God’s word and adverse __to the honour of Jesus
Christ the only mediator between God and man or that it is foolish by
voice or in mind to supplicate those who reign in heaven_, _think
impiously_.
They must also teach them: _that the holy bodies of the Saints and
Martyrs and others living with Christ are to be venerated by the
faithful_, through which many benefits are afforded from God to men;
so that the affirmers, _that veneration and honour are not due to the
Relics of the Saints_, _or that these and other sacred monuments are
uselessly honoured by the faithful_, _or that it is vain to celebrate the
memories of the Saints for the purpose of obtaining their assistance_,
are wholly to be condemned, _as the Church long since condemned and
still condemns them_.
Likewise, they must teach them: _that the Images of Christ and of the
Virgin Mother of God and of the other Saints are especially to be had and
retained in Churches_, _and that due honour and veneration are to be paid
to them_; not that any divinity or virtue, _on account of which they
ought to be worshipped_, is believed to be inherent in them; _or that
any thing is to be sought from them_; _or that trust is to be placed in
Images_, as was formerly done by the Gentiles, _who placed their hope
in Idols_; but because the honour, which is paid to them, _is
referred to the originals which they represent_; so that, _through the
Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our heads and bow down
prostrate_, _we adore Christ and venerate the Saints whose similitude
they bear_. {45}
2. Let us next, upon the doctrinal and practical system of the
professedly unchangeable Church of Rome, hear the comments of some of the
most approved Latin Doctors both before and after the Council of Trent.
(1.) From Thomas Aquinas, who was not only a mighty Schoolman but also a
canonised Saint of the Roman Church, we may clearly hope to derive the
very best and most accurate instruction as to the real tenets of his
Communion. Now this writer, through the medium of a syllogism
professedly framed upon an authorised Prayer in the Breviary,
establishes the DUTY of worshipping the cross with the self-same
adoration as that which is paid to the Deity.
We offer the supreme adoration of Latria to that Being, _in whom we
place our hope of salvation_. _But we place our hope of salvation in the
cross of Christ_: for the Church sings; Hail, O cross, _our only
hope in this time of passion_, increase righteousness to the pious,
and grant pardon to the guilty. THEREFORE _the cross of Christ is to
be adored with the supreme adoration of Latria_. {46a}
(2.) Much wholesome instruction, in regard to the legitimate use of
Images, may also be derived from the expositorial comment of James
Naclantus Bishop of Clugium.
We must not only confess, _that the faithful in the Church worship
before an Image_; _as some over-squeamish souls might peradventure
express themselves_: but we must furthermore confess, _without the
slightest scruple of conscience_, that THEY ADORE THE VERY IMAGE
ITSELF; for, in sooth, _they venerate it with the identical worship
wherewith they venerate its prototype_. Hence, IF THEY ADORE THE
PROTOTYPE WITH THAT DIVINE WORSHIP WHICH IS RENDERED TO GOD AND WHICH
TECHNICALLY BEARS THE NAME OF LATRIA, THEY ADORE ALSO THE IMAGE WITH THE
SAME LATRIA OR SUPREME DIVINE WORSHIP: and, _if they adore the
prototype with Dulia or Hyperdulia_, _they are bound also to adore the
Image with the self-same species of inferior worship_. {46b}
(3.) In exactly the same expository strain proceeds Gabriel Biel, in his
Lectures upon the Canon of the Mass.
If there shall be Images of Christ, THEY ARE ADORED WITH THE SAME
SPECIES OF ADORATION AS CHRIST HIMSELF, THAT IS, WITH THE SUPREME
ADORATION CALLED LATRIA: if, of the most blessed Virgin; _with the
worship of Hyperdulia_. {47a}
(4.) The commentary of Peter de Medrano will throw yet additional light
on the subject.
We must say: that, to our Lady the Mother of God, _there has been
granted the remarkable privilege of being physically and really present
in some of her statues or images_.—Hence we must piously believe:
that, in some celebrated statues or images of herself, _she is
inherent and present_, personally, physically, and really;—_in
order that_, in them, she may receive, from faithful worshippers,
her due adoration. {47b}
(5.) Yet still further light breaks in upon us from the statements of
Aringhi, penned and published at Rome under the very nose of the
sovereign Pontiff.
This Image, translated from the city of Edessa, _is at once preserved
as a bulwark against mad Image-breakers_, _and is set forth to be taken
up and_ ADORED by the faithful. {47c}
Within these few years, under every Pope successively, _some or other
of our sacred Images_, especially of the more ancient, _have made
themselves illustrious_, and have acquired A PECULIAR WORSHIP AND
VENERATION, by the exhibition of fresh miracles; _as it is notorious to
all_, who dwell in this city. {47d}
3. Let us finally attend to the actual liturgical practice of the
Romanists themselves, as the best explanation of the tenets received and
inculcated by their Clergy: for, clearly, as men are taught to believe
and to act, so will their authorised public prayers be constructed.
(1.) Hail, O cross, our only hope in this time of passion: increase
righteousness to the pious, and grant pardon to the guilty. {48a}
(2.) Holy Mary, succour the miserable, assist the pusillanimous, comfort
the mournful. {48b}
(3.) O singular Virgin, mild among all, make us, being delivered from
our sins, mild and chaste. Grant us purity of life; prepare for us a
safe journey: that, seeing Jesus, we may always jointly rejoice. {48c}
(4.) Mary, mother of grace, mother of mercy, do thou protect us from the
enemy, and receive us in the hour of death. Unloose their bonds to the
guilty: give light to the blind: drive away our evils: demand all good
things. Shew thyself to be a mother. Let him, who for us endured to be
thy son, receive our prayers through thee. {48d}
(5.) O George, illustrious martyr, praise and glory become thee.—We
beseech thee, in our inmost heart, that, with all the faithful, we may be
joined to the citizens of heaven, being washed from our impurities. {48e}
(6.) O martyr Christopher, for the honour of the Saviour, make us in
mind worthy of the honour of the Deity. According to the promise of
Christ, for what thou askest thou obtainest, grant unto thy sorrowful
people the gifts, which in dying thou besoughtest. {48f}
(7.) O ye eleven thousand glorious girls, lilies of virginity, roses of
martyrdom, defend me in life by granting me your assistance: and shew
yourselves in death, by bringing the last comfort. {48g}
(8.) O holy Mary; our sovereign queen, as God the Father, by his
omnipotence, has made thee most powerful; so assist us, at the hour of
death, by defending us against all power that is contrary to thine.
Hail, Mary! O holy Mary, our sovereign queen, as God the Son has
endowed thee with so much knowledge and charity that it enlightens all
heaven; so, in the hour of death, illustrate and strengthen our souls
with the knowledge of the true faith, that they may not be perverted by
error or pernicious ignorance. Hail, Mary! O holy Virgin, our
sovereign queen, as the Holy Ghost has plentifully poured forth into thee
the love of God; so instil into us, at the hour of death, the sweetness
of divine love, that all bitterness at that time may become acceptable
and pleasant to us. Hail, Mary! {49a}
(9.) Hail Mary, lady and mistress of the world, to whom all power has
been given both in heaven and in earth! {49b}
II. After this ample statement of the doctrine and practice of the Roman
Church, it will be useful for us to observe, both negatively what the
Bible does not say, and positively what the Bible does say, on the
subject now before us.
1. In the first place, then, so far as respects the negative part of
the question, the Bible is TOTALLY SILENT, as to the Trent-inculcated
duty, of invoking Saints, venerating Relics, and kissing and uncovering
the head and falling prostrate before Images either in nitches or upon
crucifixes.
It NO WHERE recognises or recommends any such practices and notions: as
those, of invoking dead Saints, to aid us by their prayers, or to grant
us purity of life, or to unloose the bands of the guilty, or to make us
mild and chaste, or to defend us in life, or to assist us in the hour of
death; of celebrating their memories, for the avowed purpose of obtaining
their help and protection; of much benefit being derived, from God to man
by the veneration of Relics; of worshipping Christ and venerating the
Saints, through the medium of worship and veneration paid relatively to
Images; of beseeching the cross, a mere dumb piece of wood even if any of
its remains should now be actually in existence, to increase
righteousness to the pious and to grant pardon to the guilty.
From beginning to end, NOT A SYLLABLE of sanction or approbation, in
regard to any such phantasies can we discover in the Holy Scriptures.
Hence, even to say the very least of the matter, the doctrine, avowedly
taught and liturgically introduced by the Church of Rome, has not the
slightest support or warrant from the Written Word of God. Whatever be
the ground, upon which it rests: at all events, it clearly rests not
upon the Bible.
3. But this is not all. For, in the second place, so far as respects
the positive part of the question, Holy Scripture is full and express
AGAINST any worship or invocation of the creature, however disguised or
modified or palliated by the closely harmonizing distinctions and
definitions of Paganism and Popery: inasmuch as the Pagans, though
slanderously misrepresented by the doctors of the Council of Trent, did
in truth defend their Idol-worship against the primitive Christians, on
the self-same plea and principle of relative adoration, as the said
doctors themselves and their followers the Romish Clergy defend their
Image-worship against us Reformed Catholics. {50}
(1.) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, _or any likeness
of any thing that is in heaven_. _above or that is in the earth beneath
or that is in the water under the earth_. _Thou shalt not bow down
thyself unto them_, nor serve them: for I, the Lord thy God, _am a
jealous God_, _visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me_, _and shewing
mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments_.
{51a}
(2.) Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, _an
abomination unto the Lord_, the work of the hands of the craftsman.
{51b}
(3.) They, that make a graven image, are all of them vanity; _and
their delectable things shall not profit_: _and they are their own
witnesses_; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed. {51c}
(4.) None considereth in his heart, _neither is there knowledge nor
understanding to say_: I have burned part of it in the fire; _yea also
I have baked bread upon the coals thereof_; I have roasted flesh, _and
eaten it_: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination; _shall
I fall down to the stock of a tree_? {51d}
(5.) What profiteth the graven image, _that the maker thereof hath
graven it_: the molten image, and a teacher of lies, _that the maker
of his work trusteth therein to make dumb idols_? _Woe unto him that
saith to the wood_; Awake: to the dumb stone; Arise, _it shall
teach_. Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver; _and there is
no breath at all in the midst of it_. {51e}
(6.) Then said Jesus unto him: Get thee hence, Satan: _for it is
written_; Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, _and him only shalt thou
serve_. {51f}
(7.) Let no man beguile you of your reward, _in a voluntary humility
and worshipping of angels_, _intruding __into those things which he hath
not seen_, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind. {52a}
(8.) When I had heard and seen, _I fell down to worship before the
feet of the angel which shewed me these things_. _Then saith he unto
me_: See thou do it not; _for I am thy fellow-servant and of thy
brethren the prophets and of them which keep the sayings of this book_.
Worship God. {52b}
(9.) When the people saw what Paul had done, _they lifted up their
voices_, saying in the speech of Lycaonia: _The gods are come down to
us in the likeness of men_. And they called Barnabas Jupiter; _and
Paul Mercurius_, because he was the chief speaker. _Then the priest of
Jupiter_, which was before their city, _brought oxen and garlands unto
the gates_, and would have done sacrifice with the people. _When the
apostles Barnabas and Paul heard_, they rent their clothes, _and ran in
among the people_, crying out and saying: Sirs, _why do ye these
things_? We also are men of like passions with you; _and preach unto
you_, that ye should turn away from these vanities unto the living God.
{52c}
III. We may now profitably hear the testimony of the early
ecclesiastical writers.
1. The Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, relative to the martyrdom of
Polycarp, was written about the middle of the second century.
Nicetas was urged by the envious and the wicked to intercede with the
governor, that the remains of Polycarp should not be delivered for
sepulture: lest, leaving him that was crucified, the Christians, it was
suggested, should begin to worship this person. These things they said,
at the instigation of the Jews: because they were ignorant; that neither
can we ever forsake Christ who suffered for the salvation of the saved
throughout the whole world, nor that we can ever worship any other. For
him, being the Son of God, we adore: but the martyrs, as disciples and
imitators of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their special
affection to their own King and Master. {53a}
2. Clement of Alexandria flourished in the second century.
(1.) Images, wrought by mean artizans, are produced from worthless
materials. Therefore they themselves must be worthless and profane.
{53b}
(2.) An image, truly, is mere dead matter, fashioned by the hand of the
artizan. But, with us Christians, there is no sensible representation
formed out of sensible matter. God, the alone true God, is our
intellectual image. {53c}
3. Minucius Felix lived in the third century.
(1.) Why have the Christians no altars, no temples, no known images?
{53d}
(2.) We neither worship crosses, nor wish for them. {53e}
4. Origen lived in the third century.
(1.) Celsus remarks, that we have neither altars nor images nor
temples.—We ought not to dedicate images constructed by the ingenuity of
artizans. {53f}
(2) We deem those the most ignorant: who are not ashamed, to address
lifeless things, to petition the weak for health, to ask life from the
dead, to pray for health from the needy. And, though some may allege,
that these images are not gods but only their symbols and
representations: yet even such persons, fancying that imitations of the
Deity can be made by the hands of some mean artizan, are not a whit less
ignorant and slavish and uninstructed. From this sottish stupidity, the
very lowest and least informed of us Christians are exempt. {53g}
5. The Council of Elvira sat at the beginning of the fourth century.
It hath seemed good to us, that pictures ought not to be admitted into a
church: lest that should be painted upon walls which is worshipped and
adored. {54a}
6. Athanasius flourished in the fourth century.
We are truly worshippers of God: because we invocate no one of the
creatures nor any mere man, but the Son who is by nature from God and
true God. {54b}
7. Augustine lived in the fourth and fifth centuries.
(1.) Let not our point of religion be the worship of dead men. For
though they lived piously; still they are not to be accounted of, as
requiring from us any such honours: but they rather wish us to worship
him, through whose illumination they rejoice that we should be partners
of their merit. They are to be honoured, therefore, on account of
imitation; not to be prayed to on account of religion. {54c}
(2.) I have known that many are adorers of sepulchres and of
pictures:—but the Church herself condemns them, and as bad children
studies to correct them. {54d}
8. Epiphanius flourished in the fourth-century.
Let Mary be held in honour: but let the Father and the Son and the Holy
Ghost be worshipped. As for Mary, let no one worship her. {54e}
IV. Once more, let the honest inquirer freely judge and determine for
himself, whether the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church and
Clergy, relative to Saints and Images and Relics and Crosses, be
supported either by Holy Scripture or by Primitive Antiquity.
CHAPTER VII.
PAPAL SUPREMACY.
THE doctrine of Papal Supremacy shall next be brought to the legitimate
test of Scripture and Historical Evidence.
I. We find the claim of this supremacy authoritatively propounded, in
manner following.
1. The Roman Church is the mother and mistress of all other Churches.
{55a}
2. _I acknowledge the holy catholic and apostolic Roman Church to be the
mother and mistress of all Churches_: _and I promise and swear true
obedience to the Roman Pontiff_, _the successor of the blessed Peter
Prince of the Apostles_, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. {55b}
II. Such, in form, is the claim: but where find we its substantiation in
the Bible?
1. The Roman Church had indisputably been founded in the apostolic age:
for one of St. Paul’s Epistles is addressed to it.
Yet NOT A SINGLE SYLLABLE is said in Scripture, either prophetic or
declarative, respecting the divine appointment, and consequently _the
divine right_, of the Papal Supremacy.
We NO WHERE read in Holy Writ: either that _the Roman Church ought justly
to be obeyed_, as the mother and mistress of all other Churches; or
that the Pope is, at once, _the successor of the blessed Peter Prince
of the Apostles_, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
From whatever quarter the divines of Trent have made these discoveries:
it is quite clear, that the Bible throws no light upon the present
subject.
2. The Romish Clergy, however, assure us: that the primacy or monarchy
of the entire Catholic Church was, in the following express terms,
granted to St. Peter by Christ himself.
Thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church; _and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it_. _And I will give unto thee
the keys of the kingdom of heaven_: and, _whatsoever thou shalt bind on
earth shall be bound in heaven_; and, _whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth_, shall be loosed in heaven. {56}
Now, whether our Lord did or did not grant the monarchy of the Church to
Peter; respecting which monarchy, by the way, neither claim nor trace can
be found in any part of the New Testament: the true question, I
apprehend, touches, not Peter, but the Pope. In other words, it
matters little to the point before us, whether Peter was or was not
divinely appointed the monarch of the Church: unless it can also be
proved, that the Pope is the lawfully and divinely constituted
successor to all Peter’s alleged regalities.
Where, then, is the scriptural demonstration of the Pope’s hereditary
successorship to the asserted special privileges and authority of St.
Peter? In other words, where have we any proof from the Bible: that _The
Roman Pontiff_, as the oath in the Tridentine Profession of Faith
determines, is, at once, _the Successor of the blessed Peter Prince
of the Apostles_, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ?
Truly, the Bible, though we painfully search it through from beginning to
end, SAYS NOT ONE WORD about the matter.
III. But, where the Bible is so provokingly silent, peradventure the
earliest Fathers, in delivering their testimony, may be somewhat more
communicative.
To establish the Pope’s claim of rightful successorship to St. Peter,
we must obviously establish the FACT that _St. Peter was the first
diocesan Bishop of Rome_. For, since, so far as foundership is
concerned, St. Peter founded many Churches: the mere circumstance, even
if the circumstance were ever so well established, of his having
founded the Roman Church, would no more constitute the Roman Bishop
heir to his regalities, than the same circumstance would convey the same
privilege to the Bishop of any other Church similarly founded by St.
Peter. Whence it is quite clear: that, in no method, save that of _The
regular succession of one diocesan Bishop to another diocesan Bishop in
the same episcopal See_, _each Bishop inheriting the duly transmitted
authority of his predecessor_, can any intelligible case be made out for
the Pope’s alleged successorship to Peter in the pretended office of
Christ’s supreme Vicar.
Accordingly, as the Romish Clergy well know and confess, this precise
matter is the very hinge, upon which turns the whole of the present
question.
WAS, OR WAS NOT, THE APOSTLE PETER THE FIRST DIOCESAN BISHOP OF THE ROMAN
CHURCH?
We have here before us a simple question of FACT: and doubtless, like
every other simple question of FACT, it must be determined by historical
testimony.
1. Negatively, then, we may safely say, that the alleged fact of
Peter’s diocesan Roman Episcopate is altogether incapable of
substantiation through the medium of evidence.
Not a single writer of the three first centuries gives the slightest
intimation, that Peter was the first diocesan Bishop of Rome.
But, if the alleged fact cannot be established from the writers of the
three earliest centuries; it is obvious to the meanest capacity, that
it can never be established from the interested fictions of a later
period.
2. We may, however, advance beyond negativeness: though even that
were amply sufficient; for no man can be justly required to admit an
alleged fact, without so much as a shadow of historical substantiation.
Positively, we can say: that, in the writers of the three first ages,
not only is there no testimony to be found for the asserted fact of
Peter’s diocesan Roman Episcopate, but we are absolutely encountered
with direct testimony against it.
(1.) Irenèus of Lyons, who lived from the latter end of the first
century to the latter end of the second, distinctly attests: that _the
Church of Rome was_ JOINTLY founded by the TWO _Apostles Peter and
Paul_; and that, When the TWO Apostles had thus JOINTLY founded it,
they JOINTLY _delivered the Episcopate of their newly founded Society
to Linus_. Accordingly, in strict agreement with this account of the
transaction, Irenèus places Linus the FIRST in his list of the twelve
successive Roman Bishops, who governed that Church, from the time of its
original joint foundation by Peter and Paul, down to the year 175 when he
published his Work against Heresies. {58a}
Now such an account is plainly incompatible with the pretended fact: that
Peter was the first diocesan Bishop of Rome. For the account states:
that Peter and Paul, _having jointly founded the Roman Church,
committed the episcopate of it to Linus_. Whence it dearly follows: that
the first diocesan Bishop of Rome was Linus, not Peter.
(2.) The evidence of Irenèus is directly confirmed by the ancient author
of the Apostolical Constitutions.
He gives us a list of the primitive apostolically ordained Bishops: and,
in the course of it, he unequivocally states, even in so many words, that
Linus was consecrated the FIRST Bishop of the Roman Church; adding
what is not unworthy the attention of the Latin Clergy, that Linus was so
consecrated the FIRST Roman Bishop, not by Peter but by Paul. {58b}
IV. On the grounds now stated, many persons will incline to rest, either
partially or wholly, in the strongly expressed judgment of the learned
Scaliger.
As for the coming of Peter to Rome, HIS ROMAN EPISCOPATE OF TWENTY-FIVE
YEARS, and his final martyrdom at Rome, no man, _whose head can boast
a grain of common sense_, will believe a single syllable. {59a}
CHAPTER VIII.
REMARKABLE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS MADE BY THE ROMISH CLERGY.
So far as respects the evidence upon which stands the alleged
apostolicity of the peculiar doctrines and practices of Romanism, it will
now be useful to hear the various acknowledgments which have been made by
the Latin Clergy themselves.
I. Let us begin with that cherished dogma of the Roman Church, the tenet
of Transubstantiation.
1. On this point, the theologians of Trent assure us: that _The words of
Christ_, as recorded by the Evangelists, SO PLAINLY AND SO DISTINCTLY
propound the doctrine of Transubstantiation, that, _on the part of
wicked and contentious Protestants_, _it is both a burning shame and a
crying sin to interpret them figuratively_. {59b}
2. Yet the great schoolmen, Johannes Scotus, Biel, Occam, Peter ab
Alliaco Cardinal-Archbishop of Cambray, Cardinal Cajetan, and Cardinal
Fisher of Rochester, have all declared: that _The doctrine of
Transubstantiation is_ INCAPABLE OF PROOF from Scripture; that _The
doctrine of the bread and wine remaining substantially unchanged is_ LESS
REPUGNANT to Scripture, _than the doctrine of their transubstantiation
into the body and blood of Christ_; and, consequently, that _The doctrine
of Transubstantiation_ CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED _from the institutive words
of Christ_, _unless to such words the authoritative decision of the Roman
Church be superadded_. {60a}
II. Let us next pass to the dogma of Purgatory.
1. The divines of Trent profess to have received the doctrine of
Purgatory, both from the declaration of SCRIPTURE, and from _the
ancient tradition of_ THE FATHERS. {60b}
2. Yet Bishop Trevern confesses; that JESUS CHRIST _has not revealed to
us the knowledge of Purgatory_: {60c} Cardinal Fisher admits; that,
Among THE ANCIENTS, _there was either no mention or very rare mention
of Purgatory_, that _Purgatory was but lately known and received by the
Catholic Church_, and that _To this day the Greeks believe not in its
existence_. {60d} Father Barns tells us; that _Punishment in Purgatory
is a doctrine seated in human opinion_, that Neither from SCRIPTURE
nor from THE FATHERS nor from THE EARLIER COUNCILS _can it be firmly
deduced_, and that The contrary opinion seems more conformable to them:
{60e} and Petrus Picherellus drily enough remarks; that In SCRIPTURE
there is no fuel to be found, _either to kindle or to maintain the fire
of Purgatory_. {60f}
III. We may next turn our attention to Image-worship and Saint-worship.
1. The doctors of the Council of Trent declare: that _According to the
use of the Catholic and Apostolic Church_ RECEIVED IN THE PRIMEVAL TIMES
OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, _the invocation of dead __Saints_, _the
veneration of Relics_, _and the kissing and falling down before graven or
molten Images_, ought, by the Clergy, _to be diligently inculcated
upon the Laity_. {61a}
2. Yet the learned Jesuit Petavius roundly pronounces it to be a matter
of absolute certainty; that, IN THE FIRST AGES OF THE CHURCH, _Images of
Christ were not substituted in the place of pagan Idols nor proposed to
the veneration of the faithful_: {61b} while Cardinal Perron tells us;
that No traces of the practice of invocating the Saints can be found IN
THE AUTHORS, WHO LIVED NEAREST TO THE TIMES OF THE APOSTLES. {61c}
IV. Let us next advert to the high authority ascribed by the Romish
Clergy to those Councils which are styled Ecumenical or General.
1. These Ecumenical Councils with the Pope at their head are believed by
the Romanists to be, like the Divinity himself infallible and
incapable of error.
2. Yet the learned Albert Pighius scruples not to assert: that _General
Councils are_, not of divine, but of merely human, institution;
that They originate only from a dictate of right reason, _because
doubtful matters may be better debated by many than by few_, _more
especially when the many are prudent and experienced persons_; that _In
the canonical Scriptures there is not a word about General Councils_,
_nor from the institution of the Apostles did the primitive Church of
Christ receive any thing special respecting them_: and that _From
theological grounds it is impossible to demonstrate that the whole Church
ought to be represented by a General Council_. {61d}
V. Pass we next to the evidence upon which all the manifold
peculiarities of Romanism claim to repose.
1. The members of the Council of Trent declare: that, _In settling and
defining the doctrines and practices of their Church_, they follow the
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AND TESTIMONY of the Holy Fathers. {62a}
2. Yet a modern romish doctor, Mr. Husenbeth, has been driven to
confess: that, Although the Latin Clergy OUGHT _to be able to trace
every point of what he calls Catholic Faith up to the Apostles_, they,
in truth, CANNOT trace their peculiarities up to the Apostles THROUGH
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS OF THE THREE FIRST CENTURIES. {62b}
IV. How persons, who make such acknowledgments, can still have adhered
to the communion of the Church of Rome, I pretend not to comprehend, and
therefore cannot explain.
Suffice it to say: that the acknowledgments have been made, and that
the individuals have nevertheless most unaccountably maintained and
defended their unsubstantiated and confessedly unsubstantiable
peculiarities.
CHAPTER IX.
EXTRAORDINARY THEOLOGICAL PRACTICES OF THE ROMISH CLERGY.
REMARKABLE as are the acknowledgments made by the Romish Clergy, their
theological practices will be found not less worthy the attention of the
honest and conscientious inquirer.
I. The general PRINCIPLE, on which these practices are constructed, is
very clearly and distinctly laid down by the Professors of Douay.
_In managing the old catholic writers when in disputation opposed to us
by our adversaries_, say they, we endure very many errors.
Sometimes, we extenuate them: sometimes, we excuse them: _very
frequently_, having devised some plausible comment, _we even roundly
deny them altogether_, affixing to them some convenient sense. {63a}
II. Such is the avowed PRINCIPLE of these ingenious divines, through the
medium of which when reduced to practice, a troublesome old author, whose
claim to catholicity cannot be quite decently denied, by dint of
judicious explaining and managing and correcting and garbling and
interpolating, may be compelled, either apparently to uphold, or at least
not to contradict, the peculiarities advocated by the Romish Clergy.
Let us now, descending to particulars, mark how the PRINCIPLE is reduced
to PRACTICE.
1. The first specimen, which I shall give, is that, afforded by the
Douay Doctors themselves, and afterward very greatly improved upon by the
dexterous Bossuet Bishop of Meaux.
Bertram of Corby, always admitted to be an orthodox catholic divine, had
written, in the ninth century, a book on the Eucharist; which, in its
natural construction, is plainly fatal to the doctrine of
Transubstantiation. {63b}
Whereupon, the Professors of Douay state; that Bertram’s book, when
emendated, may be tolerated: observing with perfect truth, that, since
they had kindly done the good office of emendation for sundry other
ancient catholic writers, no imaginable reason could be assigned, why
Bertram, in all equity, should not deserve and receive _the same diligent
recognition_. {64a}
Numerous copies of the Work, however, escaped the ambiguous benefit of
the Douay emendation. Bossuet, therefore, as in such cases the
Professors wisely direct, finally judged it best to affix to Bertram’s
undeniable phraseology some convenient sense. Hence, in settling the
merits of the eucharistic controversy between Paschase and Bertram, the
Bishop of Meaux compendiously assures us: that these two champions, with
their respective followers, were all alike staunch Transubstantialists,
though they unluckily differed as to the best mode of expressing and
propounding their common favourite doctrine. {64b}
2. Another specimen occurs in the remarkable case of Elfric’s Epistle to
Wulfstane, written about the close of the tenth century.
The original Saxon, luckily preserved in the library of Exeter Cathedral,
contains a passage flat against Transubstantiation.
Nevertheless, this sacrifice is, NOT _the same body of his wherein he
suffered for us_, NOR the same blood which he shed for us: but,
SPIRITUALLY, it is made his body and blood; AS _was that manna which
rained from heaven_, and AS _was that water which did flow out of the
rock_. {64c}
Yet, in the Latin translation of the Epistle contained in the library of
Worcester Cathedral, this passage, the decisive strength of which was
evidently felt and tacitly acknowledged, has been carefully erased.
{64d}
3. The treatment of the writings of Theodoret will afford us yet a third
specimen.
This Father, who lived in the fifth century, had expressed himself so
strongly against the doctrine now denominated Transubstantiation, that
John Clement, perceiving the force of his testimony, and losing his own
temper, tore out and burned the guilty leaf which contained the passage.
{65a}
Now such a summary process might emendate John Clement’s individual
copy of Theodoret: but, unluckily, other copies were abroad in the world.
What, then, was to be done? Why, truly, as the Douay Doctors advise in
such cases, a commodious sense, by dint of excogitating a comment,
must be affixed to the noxious passage.
Theodoret, avowedly opposing the phantasy of Transubstantiation, had
written, concerning the eucharistic bread and wine after consecration,
that they remain in their former SUBSTANCE and shape and appearance.
{65b}
But three modern Romish Doctors, Mr. Berington, Bp. Trevern of
Strasbourg, and Mr. Husenbeth, excogitating a more commodious sense
which never occurred to John Clement, make Theodoret say, in despite both
of greek grammar and clear context, that the consecrated bread and wine
remain in the shape and form of the former SUBSTANCE. {65c}
Now this translation, as every schoolboy who reads the original Greek
will at once perceive, is grammatically impossible. But let that
original be withheld from the gaze of the curious: and ten to one but
the commodious sense will pass muster among the Romish Laity, nay even
among some of the Protestant Laity, without any further difficulty.
4. A fourth specimen is yet again afforded by the liberality of the same
Bp. Trevern of Strasbourg.
Speaking of a moral, not of a literal or substantial, change in the
consecrated elements, as they themselves distinctly assure us in the way
of explaining their own language, the old Fathers often say: that _the
bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ_.
But Bp. Trevern, by deliberately in more than a single instance
interpolating the decisive word SUBSTANCE, while from the eyes of his
readers he carefully withholds the originals, makes them speak, not their
own sentiments, but those of the Church and Clergy of Rome.
Thus, when Cyril of Jerusalem writes; _Whatsoever the Holy Spirit hath
touched_, that thing is sanctified and changed: Bp. Trevern forces him
to say; All that, _which has received the impression of the Holy
Spirit_, is sanctified and changed INTO ANOTHER SUBSTANCE. {66a}
And thus, when the old author of the Treatise on the Sacraments in the
Works of Ambrose writes; They are changed into other: Bp. Trevern
remorselessly compels him to say; They pass into another SUBSTANCE.
{66b}
5. For our fifth specimen we are indebted jointly to Bp. Trevern and Mr.
Berington.
Cyprian speaks of men being _cleansed for sins through the suffering of
long pain_ and of their being long purged in fire. {66c}
These expressions, as the whole context shews and as it was rightly
observed by the honest romish commentator Rigaltius, relate simply to the
allegorical fire of penitential austerities in this world: a fire, in
which, by the early discipline of the Church, it was required, that the
lapsed should for an appointed season be exercised.
But Bp. Trevern and Mr. Berington, wholly suppressing the context and
saying not a single syllable about their respectable fellow-religionist
Rigaltius, gravely adduce the passage as proof positive: that Cyprian,
in the middle of the third century, _held and taught the existence of a
Purgatory after death in the next world_. {67}
6. Our sixth specimen is afforded by Mr. Husenbeth.
The famous text in the Gospel of St. Matthew, which exhibits our Lord as
saying, Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, is
universally explained by the Romish Clergy, as being _a grant from Christ
of a monarchal supremacy in the Catholic Church_, _both to Peter
individually_, _and to Peter’s alleged heirs and successors the Bishops
of Rome_.
Now, most unluckily for this current explanation, the primitive
theologians knew nothing of it: for, while the early Fathers, Justin and
Tertullian and Cyprian and Origen and Athanasius and Jerome and Augustine
and Chrysostom and Hilary, differ as to the true meaning of the text
(some supposing the rock to be Peter personally and exclusively; some, to
be Christ himself; and some, to be Peter’s confession of Christ’s
divinity); NOT ONE of them interprets it, as the Romish Clergy would now
interpret it.
Yet, by way of putting to open shame every opponent of the Pope’s
supremacy by divine right, Mr. Husenbeth deliberately assures his plain
country readers: that, by ALL the holy Fathers and Doctors, by ALL
the Councils, and by the most learned and pious men in the world in
EVERY age down to the Reformation, the text in question has been
UNIFORMLY understood as it is now explained by the Romish Clergy. {68a}
7. The copiousness of Mr. Husenbeth will afford us also yet a seventh
specimen.
With every semblance of even scrupulous fidelity, giving distinct
references to his authorities, this theologian, in a small Work written
for circulation among the unlearned, declares; that Papias,
Ignatius, Irenèus, Dionysius of Corinth, Caius of Rome, _Clement
of Alexandria_, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, _all with one
voice explicitly assert St. Peter to have been the first diocesan Bishop
of Rome_: and he adds, still for the information of the unlearned; that
Mr. White, who had unceremoniously pronounced St. Peter’s Roman
Episcopate to be an idle and ungrounded report, _did but attempt to
impose upon such humble readers as have no means of examining history_,
by such worn out fallacies and vile fabrications. {68b}
Yet I have myself examined all Mr. Husenbeth’s references to his above
alleged witnesses from the three first centuries: and I can positively
state, from the testimony of my own eye-sight, that NOT ONE _of those
witnesses says a single syllable_, _as to St. Peter having been the first
diocesan Bishop of Rome_, or indeed as to his EVER _having been Bishop
of that See_.
8. Our eighth specimen is furnished by the joint industry and rival
intrepidity of Bp. Trevern and Mr. Husenbeth.
For the purpose of persuading the unwary, that _the highest divine
adoration of the consecrated bread and wine had been the practice of the
Church from the earliest ages_, Bp. Trevern adduces a direction or rubric
from the ancient Clementine Liturgy: and, after him, Mr. Husenbeth
eagerly catches up, for the same purpose, the same ancient rubric or
direction. {69a}
Meanwhile the direction itself, in its genuine state says not a
syllable respecting any adoration of the consecrated bread and wine.
Bp. Trevern first interpolates it, to make it serve his purpose: and
then Mr. Husenbeth brings forward, as evidence, the precise words of
the gallican prelates interpolation wedged into an utterly false
construction of the original passage. {69b}
9. Our ninth and last specimen is of a somewhat wholesale nature: whence
it will the more completely exemplify the PRINCIPLE, laid down, for the
better furtherance of truth, by the painful Professors of Douay.
The King of Spain (I avail myself of the diligent researches of our own
excellent Bishop Jeremy Taylor) gave a commission to the Inquisitors, to
purge all catholic authors: but with this special clause; that _they
should keep private among themselves the expurgatory index_, _neither
communicating it to others_, nor giving a copy of it to any one.
It happened, however, by the Divine Providence so ordering it, that,
about thirteen years after, a copy of it was procured and published by
Johannes Pappus and Franciscus Junius. This circumstance compelled the
Inquisitors to acknowledge their expurgatory index: and they have since
printed it themselves.
(1.) Let us now observe some few of the exploits of emendation,
achieved by these honest and laborious correctors of erring Antiquity.
In Chrysostom’s Works printed at Basil, the words, There is no merit,
but what is given us by Christ, are commanded to be expunged. Yet
these very words occur in his first Homily upon the text of St. John, _Ye
are my friends_.
A similar erasure is enjoined of the clause, The Church is built, _not
upon the man_, but upon the faith. Yet this clause occurs in his
Sermonon Pentecost.
The same expurgatory process has been undergone by Chrysostom in many
other places: and Ambrose and Augustine and the rest of the old Fathers
have been subjected to the like necessary emendations.
In short the curtailments of the ancient writers were carried to so
great an extent, that Ludovicus Saurius, the corrector of the press at
Lyons, shewed and complained of them to Junius: lamenting, that he was
forced to cancel and erase many sayings of Ambrose in that edition of his
Works which was printed at Lyons in the year 1559.
(2.) Not content with thus emendating the Fathers, our pains-taking
Inquisitors, in order that their editions might throughout be perfectly
harmonious and consistent, fell doggedly to work upon the very tables or
indexes, which contained any references to the expunged passages: for, of
course, it were unseemly, that a reference should appear, indicating the
occurrence of a place which itself could no where be found in an
improved or expurgated edition.
Thus, out of one of Froben’s indexes, they have directed the erasure of
the following references: The use of images forbidden; _The Eucharist
no sacrifice_, but the commemoration of a sacrifice; Works, _although
they do not justify_, yet are necessary to salvation; _Marriage is
granted to all that will not contain_; Venial sins damn; _The dead
Saints_, after this life, cannot help us.
And thus, out of the index of Augustine’s Works by Claudius Chevallonius
at Paris in the year 1531, they have commanded a still more extraordinary
erasure of a reference: Dele, Solus Deus adorandus; that is, _Blot
out the words_, God alone is to be adored. {71a}
(3.) On such disgraceful practices, Bp. Taylor well remarks: _These
instances may serve_, instead of multitudes which might be brought, _of
their corrupting the witnesses and razing the records of antiquity_,
_that the errors and novelties of the Church of Rome might not be so
easily reproved_. Now, if the Fathers were not against them, _what
need these arts_? Why should they use them thus? _Their own
expurgatory indices me infinite testimony against them_, _both that they
do so_, and that they need it. {71b}
III. It were easy to have multiplied specimens of the same description:
but these, I apprehend, may well suffice.
Respecting such a topic, any observations of my own are quite
superfluous. By some marvellous perversion of the moral sense, Sixtus
Senensis, indeed, has even lauded Pope Pius V, because he had taken
diligent care, that the writings of all catholic authors, and more
especially the writings of the ancient Fathers, should be _expurgated and
emaculated_: but the plain good sense of every upright and honourable man
will deem such praise no very flattering compliment. {71c}
Yet, though I shall not weary the prudent inquirer with any needless
remarks of my own, either on the Douay Principle itself, or on the
reduction of that principle to systematic practice: I may, at parting, be
permitted, in all good will, to offer him a word of not altogether
useless advice.
Whenever a Romish Doctor makes a large or extraordinary or startling
assertion, there clearly can be no harm in A CAUTIOUS SUSPENSION OF
BELIEF, until either the enquirer himself or some competent and
trust-worthy friend shall have had an opportunity of ACTUAL AND PERSONAL
VERIFICATION OF ALLEGED AUTHORITIES.
CHAPTER X.
CONCLUSION.
AT the close of this brief manual, it may perhaps be useful to state the
question as it now presents itself.
I. Upon those who assert, rests the duty and incumbency of proof.
Yet, in regard to what by a single comprehensive word may be styled
Popery, the question stands negatively, in manner following.
The peculiar doctrines and practices, _which the Clergy of the Roman
Church pertinaciously inculcate upon their Laity_, _and to which they
would proselyte the unthinking and uninformed Protestant_, CAN NOT BE
TRACED UP TO CHRIST AND HIS INSPIRED APOSTLES, _either by the evidence of
God’s Written Word_, _or by the subordinate testimony of the successive
ecclesiastical writers of the three first centuries_.
II. But this circumstance, bad enough even in itself, is by no means the
worst part of the matter.
Scripture and the early Fathers, not only, negatively, DO NOT
ESTABLISH the apostolicity of the peculiarities of Popery: _but they
also_, positively, CONTRADICT AND CONDEMN those same peculiarities.
III. Hence, if I mistake not, the sober inquirer, who demands proof
instead of assertion, will at length find himself irresistibly brought
to the following very important conclusion.
IN ADMITTING THE PECULIARITIES OF THE LATIN CHURCH AS ARTICLES OF THE
CHRISTIAN REVELATION, THE ROMANIST BELIEVES, NOT ONLY WITHOUT EVIDENCE,
BUT EVEN AGAINST EVIDENCE.
THE END.
* * * * *
GILBERT & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. John’s Square, London.
* * * * *
FOOTNOTES.
{7} Such, avowedly, has been the language of Dr. Norris, of Stonyhurst;
such also, unless my memory altogether fail me, has been the language of
Dr. Doyle. Roma locuta est: causa finita est. Which, being
interpreted, Is: Rome hath spoken: the cause, therefore, _is
determined_.
These two divines seem, either themselves to have forgotten, or to have
expected their opponents to forget; that the theologians of Trent, not
only define DOCTRINES, but assert FACTS; not only assert FACTS, but
assert them as THE AVOWED BASIS OF DOCTRINES.
The defined DOCTRINES being thus professedly made to rest upon the
asserted FACTS, we should feel ourselves greatly obliged to Dr. Norris,
and Dr. Doyle, if they would distinctly teach us; _What becomes of the
defined_ DOCTRINES, when the asserted FACTS _themselves turn out to be
mere shadowy non-entities_?
Will a house continue to stand, when its foundations are removed? Can
doctrines remain secure, when their professed basis of facts proves to
be nothing better than the fabric of a vision?
{8a} Concil. Trident. sess. xiii. a 3. p. 124.
{8b} Ibid. sess. xiv. c. 5. p. 148.
{8c} Ibid. sess. xiv. c. 7. p. 153.
{8d} Ibid. sess. xxiii. c 1. p. 279.
{8e} Ibid. sess. xxiii. a 3. p. 280.
{8f} Ibid. sess. v. p. 12, 13.
{8g} Here let the reader mark the circumstance, alluded to in a
preceding note.
We have A DOCTRINAL SYSTEM professedly resting upon A BASIS OF
ASSERTED FACTS.
The DOCTRINAL SYSTEM comprehends all the peculiarities of Popery: the
BASIS OF ASSERTED FACTS is _the unanimous teaching of those peculiarities
both by Holy Scripture and by the whole body of the Fathers_.
Now, if, simply as an historical matter of fact, the peculiarities of
Popery be not taught by Holy Scripture, and by the whole body of the
Fathers, will Dr. Norris and Dr. Doyle have the goodness to tell us; how,
on the declared principles of the Council of Trent, we are to estimate
the value of those same peculiarities?
{9} Faith of Cathol. p. 154, 155.
{11a} Concil. Trident. sess. xiii. c. 1, 3, 4, 5. can. 1, 2, 3, 4. p.
122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130. sess. xxii. c. 2. can. 1, 3. p. 239,
240, 244.
{11b} John vi. 51–63.
{12a} Matt. xxvi. 26–29.
{12b} Thus formally interprets Theodoret. See below, § in. 9. (1.)
{13a} 1. Corinth, xi. 23–28.
{14a} Clem. Alex. Pœdag. lib. ii. c. 2. Oper. p. 156.
{14b} Ibid. p. 158.
{15a} Tertull. de anim. Oper. p. 653.
{15b} Tertull. de resurr. carn. § xxviii. Oper. p. 69.
{15c} Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. i. § 9. Oper. p. 155.
{16a} Athan. in illud Evan. Quicunque dixerit. Oper. vol. i. 771, 772.
{16b} Euseb. Demons. Evan. lib. viii. c. 2. p. 236.
{16c} Ibid. p. 236.
{16d} Ambros. Officior. lib. i. c. 48. Oper. col. 33.
{16e} Macar. Ægypt. Homil. xxvii. For the scripturally determined
sense of the word Antitype, see, in the original Greek, Heb. ix. 24.
{17a} Gregor. Nyssen. in Baptism. Christ Oper. vol. ii. p. 801, 802.
{17b} Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Mystag. v. p. 244.
{17c} Ibid. iii. p. 235.
{18a} August. cont. Adimant. c. xii. Oper. vol. v.. pi 69.
{18b} August. cont. Maximin. lib. iii. c. 22. Oper. vol. vi. p. 275.
{18c} August. Enarr. in Psalm. xcviii. Oper. vol. viii. p. 397.
{18d} August de Doctrin. Christian. lib. iii. c. 15, 16.
{19a} Theodoret. Dial. i. Oper. vol. iv. p. 17, 18.
{19b} Ibid. Dial. ii. Oper. vol. iv. p. 84, 85.
{19c} Gelas. de duab. Christ. natur. in Biblioth. Patr. vol. iv. p. 422.
{20a} Vacund. Defens. Concil. Chalced. lib. ix. c. 5. Oper. p. 144.
{20b} Ephrœm. Theopolitan. apud Phot. Bibl. cod. ccxxix. p. 794.
{20c} Bed. Comment. in Psalm. iii.
{20d} Amalar. de Eccles. Offic. in Præfat.
{21a} Amalar. de Eccles. Offic. lib. i. c. 24.
{21b} Walaf. Strab de Reb. Eccles. c. xiv
{21c} Raban. Mogunt. Epist. ad Heribald. de Euchar. c. xxxii.
{22} Bertram. de corp. et sanguin. Domin. p. 203, 205, 213, 214.
{24} Concil. Trident. sess. xxv. p. 505, 506. Profess. Fid. Trident. in
Syllog. Confess. p. 4.
{25} Rev. xiv. 13
{26a} 2 Macc. xii. 43–46.
{26b} 2 Macc. xiv. 37–46; xv. 37, 38.
{26c} 2 Macc. xii. 39–42. Concil. Trident. sess. xiv. c. 1, 5. p. 144,
148, 149. sess. xxv. p. 506.
{26d} Melit. Sardens. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. c. 25. Cyril.
Hieros. Catech. iv. p. 37, 38. Ruffin. Expos. in Symbol. Apost. ad calc.
Cyprian. Oper. p. 26, 27. Hieron. Prolog. Scriptur. Galeat. Oper. vol.
iii. p. 287. Epiphan. de mensur. et ponderib. Oper. p. 300. Athan.
Epist. Festal. xxxix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 44, 45. Athan. Succinct. Script.
Synop. Oper. vol. ii. p. 61–63, 101, 133. Gregor. Magn. Moral. in Job.
lib. xix. c. 13. As if in bitter mockery of the popish proof of the
doctrine of a Purgatory from the second book of Maccabees, Ruffinus tells
us, in the fifth century, that, although the apocryphal books might be
read in churches for edification, they were not to be controversially
adduced as any authority for the settlement of a point of faith and
doctrine. Pope Gregory says the same.
{27a} Cyril. Hieros. Catech. iv. p, 37.
{27b} Polycarp. Epist. ad Philipp. § 2, 7. Athenag. de Resurrect.
Mortuor. Oper. p. 143–219. Iren. adv. hær. lib. v. c. 26. p. 356.
{28a} Clem. Rom. Epist. ad Corinth. ii. § 8. Ignat. Epist. ad Magnes. §
5. Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 270. Hippolyt. e libr. adv. Græc.
Oper. vol. i. p. 220, 221. Cyprian. ad Demetrian. Oper. vol. i. p. 196.
{28b} Tertull. de anim. Oper. p. 689. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Mystag. v.
p. 241. Ambros. Enarr. in Psalm l. Oper. col. 1286. August. de Fid. et
Oper. c. xv. Oper. vol. iv. p. 28, 29. August de Ign. Purgat. serm. iv.
Oper. vol. x. p. 382. August. de octo Dulcit. quæst. Oper. vol. iv. p.
250. August. Enarr. in Psalm ciii. conc. 3. Oper. vol. viii. p. 430.
August. de Civ. Dei. lib. x. c. 25, 26.
{28c} Tertull. de. monogam. § 10. Oper. p. 578.
{29a} Rev. xx. 4–6.
{29b} Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Mystag. v. p. 241.
{30} Concil. Trident. sess. iv. p. 7, 8.
{31a} Matt. xv. 3–6.
{31b} See 1 Kings xix. 18. Job xxxi. 27. Hos. xiii. 2.
{31c} See Orig. cont. Cels. lib. vi. p. 284. Arnob. adv. Gent. lib. vi.
p. 195. Lactant. Divin. Instit. lib. ii. § 2. p. 141.
{32a} Concil. Trident. sess. xxv. p. 507, 508.
{32b} Coloss. ii. 6–8.
{32c} Deut. iv. 2.
{32d} Isaiah viii. 20.
{32e} Galat. i. 8.
{33a} 2 Tim. iii. 15–17.
{33b} 2 Thess. iii. 6.
{33c} Thess. ii. 15.
{33d} Corinth. xi. 2.
{34} Iren. adv. hær. lib. iii. c. l. p. 169.
{35a} Iren. adv. hær. lib. iii. c. 2. p. 169.
{35b} Tertull. adv. Hermog. § 12. Oper. p. 346.
{35c} Hippol. cont. Noet. § ix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 12, 13.
{35d} Cyprian. Epist. lxxiv. Oper. vol. ii. p. 211.
{36a} Cyril. Hieros. Catech. iv. p. 30.
{36b} Athan. Orat. cont. gent. Oper. vol. i. p. 1.
{36c} Athan. ad Serap. Oper. vol. i. p. 359.
{36d} Athan. de incar. Christ. Oper. vol. i. p. 484.
{36e} Athan. Epist. Fest. xxxix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 45.
{36f} Athan. Epist. ad Serap. Oper. vol. ii. p. 29.
{37a} Athan. de S. Trin. dial. ii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 172.
{37b} Basil. de Ver. Fid. Oper. vol. ii. p. 386.
{37c} Basil. Homil. de Trin. xxix.
{37d} Hieron. adv. Helvid. c. ix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 116.
{37e} Hieron. ad Demet. de virgin. Oper. vol. ix. p. 4.
{37f} August. cont. Crescon. lib. ii. c. 32. Oper. vol. vii. p. 160.
{40a} Concil. Trident. sess. xiv. c. 9. p. 158, 159.
{40b} Luke xvi. 10.
{40c} Luke xviii. 10–14.
{40d} Rom. ii. 27, 28.
{40e} Rom. iv. 2–5.
{41a} Rom. v. 1.
{41b} Rom. x. 3.
{41c} Isaiah lxiv. 6.
{41d} Clem. Roman. Epist. ad Corinth, i. § 32.
{41e} Epist. ad Diognet. in Oper. Justin Martyr. p. 386.
{42a} Ambros. Comment. in Psalm. cxviii. (cxix.) serm. xx. ver. 4. Oper.
col. 1595.
{42b} Ambros. de poenit. lib. ii. c. 8. Oper. col. 191.
{42c} August. Enarr. in Psalm. lxx. Oper. vol. viii. p. 277.
{45} Concil. Trident. sess. xxv. p. 507, 508.
{46a} S. Thom. Aquin. part. iii. q. 25. art 4.
{46b} Jacob. Naclant. Ciug. Expos. Epist. ad Roman. cap. i.
{47a} Gabriel. Biel. super Can. Miss. lect. xlix.
{47b} Pet. de Medran. Roset. Theolog. p. 311.
{47c} Aring. Rom. Subt. lib. v. c. 4.
{47d} Ibid. vol. ii. p. 464.
{48a} Breviar. Rom. Hebdom. 4. Quadrag. die sabbat.
{48b} Collect. in Hor. ad usum Sarum. fol. 30.
{48c} Ibid. fol. 33.
{48d} Offic. parv. beat. Mar. p. 127.
{48e} Collect. in Hor. ad. usum Sarum. for. 77.
{48f} Ibid. fol. 77.
{48g} Ibid. fol. 80.
{49a} The Devotion of the sacred heart of Jesus, including the Devotion
to the sacred heart of the blessed Virgin Mary; with an Appendix and the
indult of Pope Pius VII. in favour of it; for the use of the midland
district. Edit. 12. p. 212, 213. Keating and Brown, 1821.
{49b} Ibid. p. 206. See also p. 293.
{50} You pagans allege, says Arnobius, that YOU WORSHIP THE GODS THROUGH
THE MEDIUM OF IMAGES—You tell us, that THEY RECEIVE YOUR PRAYERS THROUGH
THE MEDIUM OF A SORT OF GO-BETWEENS. Arnob. adv. gent. lib. vi. p. 1 95.
We do not fear the images themselves, the Pagans tell us, says
Lactantius; but those beings, after whose similitude they are fashioned,
and by whose names they are consecrated. Lactant. Divin. Instit. lib.
ii. § 2. p. 141.
{51a} Exod. xx. 4–6.
{51b} Deuter. xxvii. 15.
{51c} Isa. xliv. 9. See also Psalm cxxxv. 15–18.
{51d} Isa. xliv. 19.
{51e} Habak. ii. 18, 19.
{51f} Mat. lv. 10.
{52a} Coloss. ii. 18.
{52b} Rev. xxii. 8, 9.
{52c} Acts xiv. 10–15.
{53a} Epist. Eccles. Smyrn. § 17, 18.
{53b} Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. vii. Oper. p. 714.
{53c} Clem. Alex. Admon. ad Gent. Oper. p. 34.
{53d} Minuc. Fel. Octav. p. 91.
{53e} Ibid. p. 284.
{53f} Orig. cont. Cels. lib. viii. p. 389.
{53g} Ibid. lib. vi. p. 284.
{54a} Concil. Elib. can. xxxvi.
{54b} Athan. cont. Arian. Orat. iv. Oper. vol. i. p. 275.
{54c} August. de ver. relig. c. lv. Oper. vol. i. p. 317.
{54d} August de. morib. Eccles. Cathol. lib. i. c. 34.
{54e} Epiphan. cont. hær. lib. iii. tom. ii. hær. 79.
{55a} Concil. Trident. sess. vii. p. 87. sess. xiv. c. 3. p. 162. sess.
xxii. c. 8. p. 243.
{55b} Profess. Fid. Trident. in syllog. Confess. p. 5.
{56} Matt. xvi. 18, 19.
{58a} Iren. adv. hær. lib. iii. c. 3. p. 170, 171.
{58b} Constit. Apost. lib. vii. c. 46.
{59a} Scalig. in. Joan. xviii. 31.
{59b} Concil. Trident. sess. xiii. cap. l. p. 123.
{60a} Johan. Scot. in 4 sent. dist. xi. q. 3. Biel. in Can. Miss. lect.
40. Occam. Centil. lib. iv. q. 6. et in 4 sent. dist. xi. q. 6. Petr.
ab. Alliac. Camerac. in 4 sent. dist. xi. q. 6. art. 1, 2. Cajet. in Th.
p. 3. q. lxxv. art. l. q. xlv. art. 14. Fisher. Roffens. cont. Luther.
de capt. Babyl. c. 1.
{60b} Concil. Trident. sess. xxv. p. 505, 506.
{60c} Trevern’s Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 242.
{60d} Fisher. Roffens. cont. Luther. art. xviii. Oper. p. 496.
{60e} Barn. Catholico-Rom. Pacif. sect. ix. litt. D. ad fin. Paralip.
{60f} Picherell. de Miss. c. ii. p. 150.
{61a} Concil. Trident sess. xxv. p. 507.
{61b} Petav. Dogmat. Theol. lib. xv. c. 13. n. 3.
{61c} See Stillingfleet’s Rational Account of the Grounds of Protest.
Relig. part. iii. chap. 3. § 19. p. 590.
{61d} Albert. Pigh. Hierarch. Eccles. lib. vi. c. 1, 4.
{62a} Concil. Trident. sess. v. p. 12, 13. sess. xxiii. c 3. p. 280.
{62b} Pamph. p. 9, 10. For a full account of this fatal, though very
true, acknowledgment, extorted from Mr. Husenbeth by my repeated demand
of distinct evidence from the writers of the three first centuries, see
my Difficulties of Roman. book i. chap. 7. 2d edit. The futile attempts
of Bp. Trevern and Mr. Berington to bring, from the same early period, a
shadow of testimony to their peculiarities, are, in the same Work,
exposed and exploded. Should any of Mr. Husenbeth’s clerical brethren
refuse to be bound by his confession, let them, if they can, come
forward and trace their doctrines up to the Apostles through the
successive writings of the Fathers of the three first centuries.
{63a} Ind. Expurg. Belg. p. 54. For the original Latin, see Diff. of
Rom. p. 346. 2d edit.
{63b} See above, chap. ii. § III. 18.
{64a} Ind. Expurg. Belg. p. 54.
{64b} Hist. des Variat. livr. iv. § 32.
{64c} Elfric has plainly borrowed both the turn and the sentiment of the
present erased passage from Augustine. See above, chap. ii. § III. 9.
(3.)
{64d} See Soames’s Hist. of the Reform. vol. iii. p. 165, 166: and
Stewart’s Protest. Layman. p. 322, 323, 324.
{65a} Bp. Taylor’s Dissuasive from Popery, chap. i. sect. 1.
{65b} See above, chap. ii. §. III. 10. (2.)
{65c} Berington’s Faith of Cathol. p. 240. Trevern’s Ans. to Diffic. of
Roman. p. 270. Husenbeth’s Reply to Supplem. p. 243.
{66a} Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Myst. v. p. 241. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii.
p. 87.
{66b} Tract. de Sacram. lib. iv. c. 4. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 92.
{66c} Cyprian. Epist. lv. vol. ii. p. 109, 110.
{67} Berington’s Faith of Cathol. p. 355. Trevern’s Discuss. Amic. vol.
ii. p. 243.
{68a} Husenbeth’s Defence of the Creed and Discip. of the Cath. Church.
chap. iii. p. 69.
{68b} Husenbeth’s Defence of Creed. chap. ii. p. 41, 42.
{69a} Trevern’s Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 407. Trevern’s Answ. to Diff.
of Rom. p. 202. Husenbeth’s Reply to Supplem. p. 273.
{69b} See my Diffic. of Roman, p. 526–529. 2d. edit.
{71a} Index Expurg. Madr. 1612. in indice libr. expurg. p. 39.
{71b} Bp. Taylor’s Dissuasive from Popery, chap. i. sect. I.
{71c} Sixtus Senensis, in Epistola dedicatoria ad Pium Quintum, laudat
Pontificem in hæc verba: Expurgari et emaculari curasti, _omnium
catholicorum scriptorum_, ac præcipuè veterum Patrum, scripta. See
Bp. Taylor’s Dissuas. from Poper. ch. i. sect. 1.