mw'^

/SS^I

THE NULLITY

THE ROMAN FAITH,

G. WOODFALL, AKGEL COURT, SKINNER STKEBT, LONDOIT.

THE NULLITY

THE ROMAN FAITH

A PRACTICAL REFUTATION

DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY,
in A VIEW OP
THE EVIDENCE AND HISTORY OF CERTAIN LEADING
TENETS OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.

BY THE REV. JOHN GARBETT, M.A.

'* Utile est libros plures a pluribus fieri, diverse stylo, aon diversa fide, etiara de
qusestionibus iisdem ; ut ad plurimos, ad alios sic, ad alios autem sic, res ipsa perveniat."
AUGUSTIN DE TrIN.
" By comparing thp body of their belief and the ground of their authority, he will
come to see, that their pillars are too weak to hold up any building, be it never so light ;
and their building too heavy to be held up by any pillars, be they never so strong."
Lord Faulklano.

LONDON :
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
M.DCCC. XXVII.

TO THE
RIGHT REVEREND THOMAS BURGESS,
D.D. F.R.S. F.A.S.
PRESIDENT OF THB ROYAL SOCIETY OF LITERATURE,
CHANCELLOR OF THE MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER,
AND
Hortr ^isi^op of Saliefiurp,
THE FOLLOWING PAGES
ARE,
WITH SINCERE SENTIMENTS OF VENERATION,
AND PERSONAL RESPECT,
INSCRIBED BY
THE AUTHOR.
CoLMOKE Terrace, Birmingham,
June 20, 1827.

CONTENTS.

Page
Dialogue I. Of Infallibility  1
Dialogue II. Of Transubstantiation  50
Dialogue III. Of Communion in one Kind  144
Dialogue IV. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass  159
Dialogue V. Of the Sacrament of Penance  200
Dialogue VI. Of Indulgences  253
Dialogue VII. Of Purgatory  283
Dialogue VIII. Of Invocation of Saints and Angels... 312
Dialogue IX. Of Adoration of Images, &c  350
Dialogue X. Of the Accusations of Idolatry, Schism,
and Heresy  360

INTRODUCTION.

" If we mistake not the signs of the times," says
a learned prelate, " the period is not far distant,
when the whole controversy between the English and
Roman Churches will be revived, and all the points
in dispute again brought under review."* The
propriety of this remark acquires confirmation daily ;
and it is obvious, that few considerations are more
urgently to be pressed upon Protestants than the
importance of obtaining a correct acquaintance with
the real tenets of their enduring and ever-watchful
foe ; the want of which, did it not present itself al
most in every society and upon every occasion, would
be sufficiently evinced in the attention paid to, and
the influence produced by, the disingenuous and
superficial pages of her modern advocates.
However extensive in its ramifications, the entire
controversy with Rome is ultimately reducible to
two inquiries : — I. Of the Infallibility, — II. Of the
Unity, and other Notes, of the Christian Church.
* Bishop of Lincoln's Ecc. Hist. p. 297-

X INTRODUCTION.
These points, though indissolubly united in re,
have not, perhaps, in discussion any inseparable con
nection with each other ; and are to be examined,
not as Papal advocates require, by abstract propo
sitions, either applicable to no existing society or to
others equally with their own, nor by vague recri
minations upon communities, which make not to
themselves an exclusive appropriation of Catholic
attributes ; but by a distinct statement of the Ro
man pretensions, brought to the test of evidence
and fact.
When the following pages were commenced, it
was with the contemplation of proceeding to both
these heads of discussion. But the mode adopted
of handling the first inquiry was found sufficient to
occupy a volume, of no larger size than the writer
could, in his own opinion, venture to obtrude upon
the public. This remark is necessary to explain the
silence preserved upon one or two prominent doc
trines, especially the Pope's supremacy, which, whilst
it possesses an unquestionable connection with the
first topic, is the very key-stone of the second.
Whoever is acquainted with the treatises popu
larly circulated by Ptomanists, has observed, that it
is not so much their custom to dwell upon the evi
dence in favour of their tenets, as to silence the voice
of inquiry by assumptions of Infallibihty and Pre-

INTRODUCTION. XI
scription, such as these : " The Church of Rome
CANNOT err ; therefore, she has not erred" ; and,
" No date can he assigned to the rise of her doc
trines; no account can he given of their preva
lence among Churches hostile to Jier ; therefore,
they are of primitive origin." These assumptions
embrace the whole strength of the cavise, and are
found most successful in the business of conversion.
The simple reply would be, to shew, that the Church
of Rome may err, because she has erred ; and that
neither the novelty nor the success of her tenets is
so inexplicable as her votaries are led to imagine.
From a difficulty of meeting with any single work
of moderate compass, in which both pretences are
extinguished, the following treatise was compiled.
Should the matured student cast his eye upon it,
it will probably present little novelty of argument,
and slender addition of authority ; for what fortress
have our great champions left unoccupied-? Still,
however imperfectly executed, no apology is requi
site for a publication of this kind. As long as our
Roman disputants fill the world with tracts and
volumes, containing little, save argument and evi
dence a thousand times refuted and repelled, so
long the obligation is renewed to all who love and
cherish the reformed religion, of resuming those
weapons, the success of which, in former ages, was

XU INTRODUCTION.
so decisive. The ponderous tomes of our fathers
are ill-suited to the taste of a generally, but not
deeply, reading age : and an attention is sometimes
paid to the lightest of modern publications, which
the most profound of former productions scarcely
receive *.
Of those members of our Church (for to the
members of the Church the defence of Protestantism
seems to be now confined, our Dissenters either
standing aloof, or giving the right hand of fellow
ship to Rome) who have come forward in defence
of the reformed religion, and in vindication of that
holy band who confirmed it by their blood, the la-
* " It is not enough that we have had defenders, and that
their books are yet in the world. Old writings are. laid by,
though much stronger than any new ones ; but new ones are
sooner taken up and read. The Papists have, of late, been
very plentiful, and yet very sparing in their writings ; plen
tiful of such as run among the simple injudicious people in
secret, so that the country swarms with them; but sparing of
such as may provoke any learned man to a confutation : that
so they may, in time, disuse us from those studies, and disable
the ministry therein, and catch us when we are secure through
a seeming peace, and fall upon us when we have lost our
strength. And I am much afraid, that the generality of our
people, perhaps of the best, are already so disused from these
studies, as to be much unacquainted with the nature of po
pery, and much more to seek for a preservative against it, and
a thorough confutation of it." Baxter's Safe Religion, Pref.

INTRODUCTION. xiii
hours have been principally confined to the out
works of the citadel, for against these the assault
has chiefly been directed : our opponents, with the
characteristic wisdom of their Church, shrinking
from the foundation as far as possible, and instruct
ing us, by their sensitive forbearance, where our
strength and their weakness may be found.
It was not merely from a conviction that Ro
manism is the permanent enemy whose assiduity,
as it never slumbers, it is alike the part of duty
and of wisdom always to guard against ; but from
the perusal of Dr. Milner's " End of Controversy",
commended by Romanists as the ablest modern de
fence of their Church ; — that the writer of the fol
lowing sheets was induced to take up his pen.
The extraordinary assertions contained in that most
uncandid and unchristian volume, provoked the
publication of a tract*, which, as it should seem
* "A Letter to the Right Rev. J. Milner, D.D.", &c.
(Rivington and Hatchard.) The last epistle written by the
bishop Was addressed to myself in reference to this, and is
said, in the " Catholic MisceUany", to " contain a volume of
instruction ". A few days after its lirst appearance, the writer
of it departed to "that bourn" where human applause and
human censure are of equal value. The imputation contained
in it upon the late Sir J. C. Hippesley has already occasioned
some discussion ; and I shall no further disturb the eulogy of
its admirers, than to express a sincere and melancholy regret.

XIV INTRODUCTION.
from his last letter, addressed to the author, would
have led to a more distinct examination of the me
rits of the bishop's popular work. The approba
tion conferred upon that tract, by some to whose
judgment the writer owed no common deference,
was, probably, the immediate cause of troubling the
world with the present work.
Well aware that apology for defects, of which
that the moral paralysis of his religion should, to the last, have
benumbed the better feelings of a man, in whom there was
unquestionably much to venerate; and rendered him insensible
to that reproach which the following exquisite passage of Au-
gustin, placed at the opening of the " End of Controversy",
conveys against the whole tenor, temper, and execution, of the
volume which it ushers into the world.
" Let those treat you harshly, who are not acquainted with
the difficulty of attaining to truth, and of avoiding error. Let
those treat you harshly, who know not how hard it is to get
rid of old prejudices. Let those treat you harshly, who have
not learned how very hard it is to purify the internal eye, and
render it capable of contemplating the sun of the soul, even
truth. But as to us, we are far from this disposition towards
persons who are separated from us ; not by errors of their own
inventing, but by being entangled in those of others. We are
so far from this disposition, that we pray to God, that, in re
futing the false opinions of those whom you follow, not from
malice but imprudence. He would bestow upon us that spirit
of peace, which feels none other sentiment than charity, none
other interest than that of Jesus Christ, none other wish but
for your salvation."

INTRODUCTION. XV
the exposure, at least, is voluntary, can scarcely be
admissible, the writer has only to urge, in plea
of candid consideration, that his Treatise comes
forward with slight pretence, and was written
under the pressure of constant interruptions, and
in a destitution of those advantages which near
access to the treasures of a theological library might
have added to his own limited stores.
Be it however what it may, he lays it with sin
cere affection before the altar of the venerable pa
rent and guardian of his country's faith. It is a
contribution, however humble, towards promoting
the hest interests of this kingdom, for its object is
to support and vindicate the Church of England.

THE NULLITY

OP

THE ROMAN FAITH.

DIALOGUE I.
OF INFALLIBILITY.

ORTHODOX. PHILODOX.
ORTHODOX.
" Holy Mother Church acknowledges her
own authority in the administration of the Sacra
ments ", is the remarkable language with which
the Council of Trent, the last and supreme assem
bly of the Roman faith, forbidding the use of the
sacramental cup to the laity, perpetuates the viola
tion of the most solemn ordinance of Jesus Christ.
The principle here avowed, superseding, in its ex
ercise, the written word of God, and the tradition
of twelve centuries, subjects the one and the other
to a paramount authority. A more unquahfied
assumption of divine jurisdiction ; a more flagrant
B

dialogue I.

contempt of the two-fold basis upon which the
Church, thus expressing herself, professes to be
founded, can scarcely be imagined. And as we
see that the immediate operation of this self-ac
knowledged prerogative not only annuls an insti
tution of God himself, but virtually abolishes the
most sacred rite of Christian worship, we are
prepared to expect, that such an omnipotent su
premacy over the written and unwritten word (if
any there be) has not slumbered in other instances,
but been allowed to influence, tacitly or avowedly,
the respective doctrines and practices of the com
munity by which it is boldly appropriated. A
slight acquaintance with ecclesiastical records wiU
suffice to shew, that it has been, indeed, permitted
to take an extensive range over the field of theo
logy ; to affect other fundamentals of faith ; and to
bear upon the main topics at issue between the
great contending divisions of the Christian world.
PHILODOX.
But it is surely inconclusive to object against
the operation of a privilege inherent in the Cathohc
Church. This " self-acknowledged authority "
flows from her infallibihty in all points of faith, as
the unerring judge of doctrine and discipline ; a
claim which, of necessity, includes a .supremacy

OF INFALLIBILITY. 3
over every branch of the fold of Christ ; and an
irresponsible dominion both in teaching and in
practice. ORTHODOX,
Very true. So that if the claim itself be ill
founded, the dominion assumed by the Church of
Rome over other provinces than her own, is either
a usurpation, or, at best, an arrangement of eccle
siastical order ; to dechne or continue, as expedi
ency obtains or ceases. PHILODOX.
But if well founded, all that vast expanse of
Christendom which has for so many ages been se
vered from her in the Greek, Oriental, and African
Patriarchates ; in the Waldensian, Moravian, and
other Churches ; together with the congregations
of that wide defection from her pale which the Re.
formation produced, are respectively and collective
ly involved in the guilt of schism ; and deservedly
obnoxious to the heavy sentence of anathema and
excommunication which she regularly denounces
against them. ORTHODOX.
I do not object to the consequence. — The pre
tence of infallibility is then of allowed necessity to
the existence of the Church of Rome in her pre-
B 2

DIALOGUE I.

sent form, and to that empire which, three cen
turies ago, she exercised over nearly the whole of
the Western Churches ; which she yet enjoys over
a large portion of the fairest part of the universe ;
and which she claims, jure divino, over the entire
Christian world ; warning those who have seceded
from her walls, that prescription cannot annul a
sacred title ; and that she views them as renegades
and rebels, amenable to her jurisdiction, whenever
she may be prepared to exercise it. It is neces
sary, above all, to the maintenance of such tenets
and customs as are alien to the law of God, or un
sanctioned either by that or by primitive tradition.
It is apparent, therefore, that the first point at
issue between the Churches is this of Infallibility,
and it virtually involves every other. For if the
Roman Church hath a clear, incontrovertible pro
mise from God of inerrancy in matters of faith, all
discussion about specific doctrines is at an end.
She teaches conclusively, when she denounces re
jection of her authority as rebellion against Christ,
and secession from her bosom as schism from the
universal Church. That such an attribute as in-
falUbility should be permanently conferred on any
succession of men ; that it should have been for
ages deposited in hands morally the most unfit,
polluted by every crime that can defile human na-

OF INFALLIBILITY. 5
ture, or argue the absence of holy agency and
principle, may appear strange, paradoxical, inex-
phcable. Nevertheless, if, by testimony palpable
as that which satisfies the pious enquirer in receiv
ing the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, the
Church of Rome can estabhsh to herself a promise
of this kind ; or if, in defect of full evidence,
it be bona fide true that she never has erred in
fundamental tenets, the dispute seems to be closed.
She is scarcely more called upon to explain seem
ing obhquities, than religion itself is required to
discharge every doubt which finite reason may sug
gest. It is not obvious, that the revolted sects
have any other course to pursue, than to sue for
grace and reconciliation.
But again, the admission of this privilege in
volves so many difficulties ; it seems so contrary
to direct passages of the sacred volume ; it so
completely repels that reasonable enquiry, that
" searching of the scriptures ", that " proving all
things ", &c. constantly commanded by the holy
writers ; and it appears to be contradicted by such
a mass of unquestionable fact, that the evidence
for it ought to be as clear as that by which eter
nal life is covenanted to repentant man.
In discussing this topic, the first step will be to
look for the person or society in whom infallibility

6 DIALOGUE I.
is vested. We have a right to expect that, they
who, by unerring guidance, are preserved from the
discords which perplex less favoured communities,
should be unanimous on this grand point; that
they should, una voce, direct us to the individual
or party on which the divine charter has conferred
this endowment. Here, I repeat, we have a right
to expect universal concord among them ; because,
if they disagree in directing us, they cast, at the
outset, a stumbling-block in the way. Infallibility
fails in the vital point ; it is inefficient to conduct us
to itself, which is the main defect alleged against
holy scripture, and for the remedy of which a
living guide is constituted. This is the primary
article of their creed; for, as the Apostle pro
claims that faith is produced " by hearing the word
of God", so Romanists teach, that the woi'd of
God itself derives its certainty from the certainty
of this ; therefore nothing less than unanimity
hereupon can satisfy. If they wrangle about it,
their opponents will not cease to decry the reality,
or, at least, the utility, of such a guide ; since
those who are destitute of it, can dispute about
nothing greater than the fundamentals of faith ;
and this is so a fundamental that schism is involved
either in the denial or in the misapphcation of it.
We shall need an infallible director to lead us to

OF INFALLIBILITY. 7
the unerring oracle ; and so on, along that conca
tenation of successions which has been accounted
fatal to atheistical reveries, and is not peculiarly
indulgent to this Roman hypothesis. Now here we
might consistently pause, and call upon them to
settle the point authoritatively; which, under in
fallible direction, they can surely do ; and to pre
sent us with a proposition definitive and distinct,
before they call upon us to yield our eternal in
terests to the arbitration of a sovereign judge of
faith and conscience. It would be vain mockery
to tell a man that he is the assured heir of a va
luable estate, which somewhere exists in the com
pass of the globe, but uncertain in whether of its
great divisions. PHILODOX.
You are aware that their disputes on this topic
are now buried, and that all of them agree, that the
Church collective is infallible ; and that the Pope's
decrees are so, at least, when the several Churches
have consented to receive them.
ORTHODOX.
That all are agreed, because disputes are hushed,
is no more true than that all controversies among
Protestants are settled, because a general still
ness at this time prevails. — You have given the re-

o DIALOGUE I.
ply of their modern advocates, and it is the only
one which the case admits. But upon their own
principles it is entitled to no attention, being a
mere private opinion, unsanctioned by any decision
of the Church. It is moreover a reply which can
satisfy none but those who have already yielded
their reason to the bridle of this authority. They
are agreed, it seems, to let the controversy, which
so long raged among them, slumber at present.
But this has more the appearance of a hollow
truce, to enable them to turn their arms against the
common foe, than the settlement of a vital princi
ple of faith. Whenever the question has been put.
Is the Pope infallible ? or. Is a General Council
so? no accordant answer has been obtained. Far
more difference of opinion was found to reign on
this key-stone of their religion, than has pervaded
any other Church. No greater harmony even now
obtains among them than the promulgation of this
ill concocted tenet conveys : — All Romanists are
agreed, that a Pope and General Council are infal
lible ; and that the Pope is infallible when aU
Churches have consented to receive his decrees.
Point out a doctrine of theology teeming with
greater absurdities! It is a mere cloak cast over
the weakness of failure and contention. To say
that inerrancy derives its essence from error, that

OF INFALLIBILITY.

infaUibility is a compound of fallibles, seems a mass
of contradiction ; for, as to the first part of the
tenet. Either Pope and Council are fallible sepa
rately, and if so, then conjointly — as a thousand
cyphers cannot make a unit : or, they are infallible
separately, and then the like conjointly. And who
is to decide between them, when they denounce,
excommunicate, and anathematize each other ;
which has repeatedly been the case ? With respect
to the second part ; Does the inerrancy of a papal
decree depend upon the concurrence of a string of
Churches, each of which, confessedly, may err on
other points, and therefore on this ?
Separate these discordant parties, and they agree
with us. Those who maintain that a Council is ne
cessary to infalhbility, do hereby admit, that there
is no living unerring judge of faith; and that all
the promises supposed to convey infallibihty to St.
Peter were personal to him, and devolved not upon
his successors. They who deny this, and cleave to the
alone inerrancy of the Pope, do likewise accord with
us, that all the texts quoted to prove infallibility in
Councils, or the Church collective, are erroneously
urged, and prove nothing to the purpose ; so that
no one need take further trouble than to read the
books on both sides ; to place Bellarmin and Ba-
ronius against De Marca, Launoy, or Dupin ; and

10 DIALOGUE I.
he will find that they ably prove where infallibility
is NOT to be found, and powerfully refute each
other as to where it is to be found.
PHILODOX.
But can an objection be made to the Roman
Faith because this point has not been strictly de
fined? " With respect to our national constitu
tion", says Dr. Milner, " some lawyers hold, that
a royal proclamation, in such and such circum
stances, has the force of a law ; others, that a vote
of the House of Lords or Commons, or both
houses together, has the same strength ; but all
subjects acknowledge, that an act of King, Lords,
and Commons, is binding upon them, and this is
sufficient for all practical purposes."
ORTHODOX.
The cases are not parallel. The one is funda
mental to faith ; the other unimportant even to
civil polity. That the whole legislation is vested
in king and parliament has been definitively settled
by the Revolution ; but it is the want of such set
tlement among Romanists that is the point com
plained of. When any dispute between Pope and
Church springs up, they are precisely in the state
of this nation before the Revolution. They are

OF INFALLIBILITY. 11
perfectly ignorant to whom duty is owing ; whether
to either, both, or neither : as king and parliament
separately demanded obedience on peril of treason,
so have Pope and Council each required subjection
on pain of eternal perdition. Let them shew us
any definite settlement universally acquiesced in
by orthodox Romanists, and we will not dispute
about trivial differences, as to the force of bulls and
decrees " in such and such circumstances" ; but until
then, the whole objection comes with a force which
no tenet of their Church enables them to repel.
We will suppose ourselves, however, extricated
from this labyrinth ; we will presume that the
oracle, hitherto dumb, has at length announced
his lineage, qualifications, and residence ; for unless
this be supposed, all enquiry is perfectly useless.
PHILODOX.
It is then the doctrine of the Church of Rome
that there is a permanent existing judge of all
controversies ; that he is infallible in matters of
faith ; that to his testimony the scripture is indebt
ed for its authority ; that he is the sole interpreter
of the written word, and of Catholic tradition.
ORTHODOX.
And all the rest of the world denies that there

12 DIALOGUE I.
is, or, since the death of St. John, has at any
time been an infallible ruler or judge of contro
versy, distinct from holy writ.
PHILODOX.
Romanists derive their first proof from the ana
logous case of the Jews ; and thus they argue : —
Infallibihty was granted to the Hebrew dispensa
tion, which was temporary in duration and prepa
ratory in kind ; and which far less required it, as
being long honoured with means of immediate
access to the Deity, and afterwards blessed with a
series of inspired teachers raised up, from time to
time, among them. How much more shall such a
guide be granted to the last and perfect dispen
sation ? How much more is it needed by the gos
pel, which is destitute of many external advantages
which the Jewish theocracy possessed ?
ORTHODOX.
The existence of such privilege, if such there
was, under the Hebrew revelation, affords no ana
logy for the hke under the Christian, wherein
the service is more spiritual, the light more clear,
the sacred intentions more unfolded, and the grace
vouchsafed more abundant. The gospel too is,
admittedly, destitute of many visible advantages

OF INFALLIBILITY. 13
which the elder religion enjoyed ; so of this among
the rest. We have here, however, but bare opposi
tion of argument ; and the present is a question not
to be settled by abstract reasoning, but by testi
mony. PHILODOX.
The following ordinance of the law of Moses
is considered to be decisive for the existence of such
a privilege among the Jews. — " If there arise a
matter too hard for thee in judgment, between
blood and blood, between plea and plea, between
stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy
within thy gates ; then shalt thou arise, and get
thee up into the place which the Lord thy God
shall choose ; and thou shalt come unto the
priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall
be in those days, and enquire ; and they shall shew
thee the sentence of judgment : and thou shalt do
according to the sentence which they of that place
which the Lord shall choose, shall shew thee ; and
thou shalt observe to do according to all that they
inform thee : according to the sentence of the law
which they shall teach thee, and according to the
judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do :
thou shalt not dechne from the sentence which
they shall shew thee, to the right hand nor to the
left. And the man that will do presumptuously.

14

DIALOGUE I.

and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth
to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto
the judge, even that man shall die ; and thou shalt
put away the evil from Israel."* You will, per
haps, object that there was great difference of opi
nion among the Jews as to the persons on whom
this authority was conferred ; some of their rabbin
applying it to the civil magistrates ; others to the
Sanhedrim ; and others, as Josephus, to both these
collectively,- together with a prophet, when there
was one. But this forms no real objection ; be
cause, were it even a mere civil grant, it must have
been directed to some individual or society.
ORTHODOX.
If it was a mere civil enactment, the contro
versy, as to the persons, would not appear unna
tural, considering the revolutions and vicissitudes
which the Jewish nation underwent ; but if it con
veyed an ecclesiastical infallibility, it could not
have been a subject of dispute, since the succession
of the priesthood never failed.
In considering the terms of the grant, I cannot
admire the acuteness or discretion which de
rives a claim of doctrinal infallibihty from it to the
Hebrew Church. The epithets, " matters of con-
* Deuteronomy, xvii. 8 — 12.

OF INFALLIBILITY. 15
troversy " respecting " blood and blood, stroke and
stroke, plea and plea," explain it to be a law, di
recting, in all difficult litigations, an appeal to a su
preme court; and conferring upon that court, not
an infallible, but an uncontrollable authority, with
the power of the sword. The litigant who per
tinaciously disobeyed the supreme tribunal, was
to be put to death. It affords, therefore, as co
gent a charter for destroying obstinate heretics, as
for estabhshing infallibihty ; and so in fact it is ap
plied ; yea, even in this country, where the popular
Romish version of the scriptures explains it to that
purpose. And what are the results from such an as
sumption, but similar to those which attend a
like claim on the part of Rome ? If the ar
gument be good, then Jerusalem was pure when
drunk with the blood of the prophets ; the tiara
was unpolluted when it rested on the brow of a
Sadducee ; the Church unanimous when torn by he
resy and schism ; nay, it was an infallible sentence
which condemned, as a blasphemer, the Incarnate
Saviour of mankind ; and the Jews, in rejecting
the testimony which God bare to his Son, obeyed a
tribunal in whom His revealed word had placed in
errancy of decision.

16 DIALOGUE I.
PHILODOX.
" The law had then run its destined course, and
the divine assistance failed the priests in the very
act of rejecting the Messiah who was before them."
ORTHODOX.
What is this but encumbering one difficulty
by a greater, and transferring to God the guilt
of that awful deed ? The law had not " run
its destined course " until after the death of
Christ. It was so far from being repealed, that
whatever real privileges its rulers possessed, Christ
had enjoined submission to but a few days before.
To say that God had promised to them infallibility
of decision, and that this was unwittingly with
drawn in the most solemn action of its exercise ;
what more can be said to justify their horrid sen
tence, and vindicate those who acquiesced in its
justice ? This is, therefore, a barely-concealed ac
quiescence in the opinion of Hosius, and others of
their communion, who daringly avow that the con
demnation of our Lord was "just and true". But
in fact the Jews have not discovered for themselves
so specious a justification as the Romish comment
on their law affords.
The argument for human infallibility veils every

OF INFALLIBILITY. 17
enormity, and vindicates every corruption : as in
the case before us, it canonizes the traditions by
which the Jews had " made the commands of God
of none effect" ; and washes away the guilt of that
righteous blood, by the shedding of which the mea
sure of their enormities was consummated. — Not
only, therefore, is analogy found wanting ; but far
more explicit evidence will be required to establish
the existence of infallibility in the Christian Church.
PHILODOX.
The following is the first passage of the New
Testament quoted to prove unerring guidance
in the Church : — " If thy brother shall trespass
against thee, go and tell him his fault between
thee and him alone : if he shall hear thee, thou hast
gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee,
take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth
of two or three witnesses every word may be es
tabhshed. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye
shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and
whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven."* ORTHODOX.
I perceive not, what this has to do with infal-
* St. Matthew, xviii. 15, 16. 18.

18 DIALOGUE I.
lible authority in matters of faith. Here is an
exhortation, that when private and friendly con
ference has failed to pacify a pertinacious man,
the particular Church to which the party belongs,
shall be called upon to interfere ; and if he de
spises the monition of the Church, then let a man
thus dead to truth and love be accounted as a
heathen ; having cast off that humility which is the
-most prominent feature of sincere faith, and, that
charity, " without which, whosoever liveth is count
ed dead " before God. And this sentence of the
Church, thus conformable to the divine law (and
by parity of reason every other such sentence),
shall be ratified in heaven. What has all this to
do with the question of infalhbility ? Does the
duty of promoting peace in every Church, prove
the doctrinal infallibility of one particular Church ?
Or is every private contention to be carried to the
See of Rome ? A respectful deference to legiti
mate ecclesiastical discipline is here inculcated ; but
if infallibility be taught, it is that of each duly con
stituted congregation of believers.
PHILODOX.
But annexed to the above ordinance, is this pro
mise, " where two or three are gathered together in
my name, there am I in the midst of them."

OF INFALLIBILITY. 19
ORTHODOX,
We have in these words a consoling promise of
Christ's especial presence in the devotions of his
people. Nor do we doubt, that his gracious Spirit
and mediation are infallibly theirs. But, if his
presence conveys inerrancy of judgment, it is con
veyed to every pious family. And if the passage
could be wrested to imply a promise to an eccle
siastical council, it is given on the express condi
tion that they be " gathered together in the name
of Christ", i. e. under his commission ; guided by
his law ; acting according to his will ; and seeking
his glory. Doubtless all councils, and all families,
thus assembled shall not fundamentally err.
PHILODOX.
The commission given by Christ to the Apostles
at his departure is this, " Go, teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost; teaching them to ob
serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you ;
and lo, I am with you alway even to the end of
the world." They argue, that this proves the per
petual right of the Catholic Church to preach and
announce the truths of the gospel, which they
cannot do unless they have an unerring rule to go
by-
c 2

20 DIALOGUE I.
ORTHODOX.
Certainly not ; and they have therefore an un
erring rule in the volume of scripture. The com
mission is general to all the Apostles: who is to
limit it to those who hold communion with the
successors of one alone ? The promise is suspended
on condition that they " teach" only such things as
Christ commanded. If it be a promise of infalhble
teaching, it is so to the whole ministry; which is
certainly more than our opponents will allow.
PHILODOX.
But is not an infallible guidance directly pro
mised in these words ? '' When He, the Spirit of
Truth, is come. He will guide you into all truth ;
for He shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever
He shall hear, that shall He speak ; and He will
shew you things to come." *
ORTHODOX.
These words were addressed to the Apostles.
Our Lord promises so to supply his absence to
each and all of them, when scattered abroad, that
his departure, far from being injurious, should be
expedient for them. The promise, in strict ap-
phcation, belongs to them alone; for to it is an-
* St. John, xvi. 13.

OP INFALLIBILITY. 21
nexed the gift of prophecy, to which even the
Pope himself lays no claim. Still the benefits con
ferred by these words are for the Church in general.
The Spirit brought back to the recollection of the
Apostles every thing necessary for the office of
teachers, and spread before their eyes a prophetic
view of the future state of Christianity. This they
consigned to writing for the perpetual instruction
of believers, until the consummation of all things.
And thus it is true that the same Spirit leads every
sincere Christian infallibly into all truth necessary
to salvation. What has this to do with the supreme
dictation of a particular Church? For, although
we are arguing generally upon the subject, yet we
can never lose sight of this, that Rome alone lays
claim to such attribute, and therefore the abstract
consideration of infallibility must always unavoid
ably have oblique reference to her.
PHILODOX.
St. Paid, writing to Timothy, calls the Church,
," the pillar and ground of the truth ", thus teach
ing that the truth of faith, as to us, rests and is
built upon the indefectible authority of the Catholic
Church. ORTHODOX.
It is no slight objection to the arguments ad-

22 DIALOGUE I.
duced for this infallibility, that they are grounded
upon passages, either irrelevant, metaphorical, or
hypothetical ; instead of resting, like every other
fundamental tenet, upon plain and distinct declar
ation. This is the case with the text before us,
which is accounted the strongest in scripture upon
the point.
I. It is an objection of Chilhngworth, that not
to the Church, but to Timothy, does the metaphor
apply : — " that thou mightest know how to be
have thyself in the Church of God, (being) a pillar
and basis of truth " ; for to that powerful dispu
tant it seems improbable that the Apostle should,
in the same sentence, term the Church a " house ",
and a " pillar and basis " of the same. St. Paul,
moreover, uses the epithet " pillar " to designate
a chief ruler ; so denominating Peter, James, and
John * ; and the promise of our Lord to every
stedfast believer is, " he shall be a pillar in the
temple of God " t. This interpretation is not un
supported by the Fathers, who discovered it to be
a metaphor famihar to the writings of profane
authors. Thus Tertulhan terms St. Paul himself
the "immoveable pillar of discipline "t; and Gre
gory Nazienzen applies the very text before us to
* Gal. ii. f Apoc. iii.
X Ad Pud. c. XVI.

OF INFALLIBILITY. 23
Eusebius of Samosata*. Many other examples
may be adduced to the purpose. This is not,
therefore, a mere Protestant gloss of Chilhngworth.
Erasmus speaks of it as the opinion of some in his
time, and quotes Augustin in its favour.
II. Others have maintained, that the " pillar
and ground of truth " is that fundamental doctrine,
the incarnation of the Son of God, which, in the
next sentence, is made the basis of revelation; the
" great mystery of godliness " unfolded in the gos-,
pel : and that the passage must thus be rendered ;
" That thou mightest know how to behave thyself
in the house of God, which is the Church of the
living God. A pillar and ground of truth, and
confessedly great, is the mystery of godliness ; God
was manifest in the flesh ", &c. Other interpreta
tions may be found among the ancients ; which,
whether valid or otherwise, are a proof that they
drew not from the passage the Roman inference.
The authority of tradition, and the popular
translations fix the meaning as it is generally un
derstood ; and there is no cause for unsetthng it.
Be it then that St. Paul terms the Church, " the
pillar and ground of truth ", it is not the universal,.
but a particular Church that he so designates ;
9,nd that, not the Church of Rome, but the Church
* Ep. XXIX.

24 DIALOGUE I.
of Ephesus, in which Timothy was to behave him
self as a faithful ruler ; remembering that the pre
servation of the truth was the object of her calling.
Here we cannot but notice a sophism and arti
fice which Rome and her advocates scruple not to
wield at pleasure. If reproofs, denunciations, and
warnings, are directed in scripture to any particu
lar Church, she is left to bear her own burden ;
they belong to none but to the offending community,
or to heretics. If, however, commendations, pro
mises, or privileges be addressed to Jerusalem or
Philippi, or Antioch, Rome steps in and secures
them all ; she has an especial grant to seize and
appropriate the whole to her own use.
The terms then in question, understood in the
allowed sense, signify the stability either of the
universal, or of some particular. Church. If of
the universal, then every Christian maintains, as an
article of faith, that the universal Church can never
totally fall, nor cease to sustain the truth. But if
it means the indefectibility of a particular Church,
surely it must be that of the Church to which the
words are addressed. But that Church has long
since fallen ; together with her glorious sisters of
Asia, which were then the " candlesticks in the
hand of the Son of Man ". The faith of Rome,
indeed, in those days was famous throughout the

OF INFALLIBILITY. 25
world ; but not more so than that of Philippi, and
Thessalonica, and Philadelphia ; over whose shat
tered relics civU and spiritual desolation has for
many ages waved its gloomy banner.
Neither is Timothy sent by St. Paul to learn the
truth from any unerring person or community ;
but is commanded so to provide for his Church in
preserving sound doctrine and holy discipline, that
therein the truth may obtain a steady settlement,
fixed on a column immoveable.
True it is, a buttress or pillar sustains an edifice :
but still more truly is itself sustained and upheld
by it. The Church is an instrument in upholding
the faith; but the faith is the very essence and
being of the Church, " The gospel", says St.
Irenaeus, " which the Apostles preached, they after
wards dehvered to us in the scriptures, to be the
foundation and column of our faith."* Therefore,
we are not to judge the truth by the Church, but
the Church by the truth. " We must seek the
Church in the scriptures", as Augustin directs.
This text, however, would lead us to a wide
field of controversy. Briefly then the term " pil
lar" denotes solidity, not indefectibility, Apphed
to a particular Church, it may signify the difficulty
not the impossibility, of removing the truth there-
* Ad Hser. L. iii. c. i.

26 DIALOGUE I.
from ; no more than the addition of a column to
an edifice implies that the one or the other is inex
pugnable. Every defender of the truth is a pil
lar thereof, Athanasius was so ; he fell not ; but
could have faUen, Hosius was for many years a
steady pillar of the Nicene faith ; but he was at
length undermined, and sunk with the rest. Pope
Liberius was long a pillar of the same, but the bit
ing frost of adversity enervated his stabihty, and he
most shamefully fell. When St. Basil calls Muso-
nius, the " pillar and ground of truth", he did not
suppose that the courageous prelate was infallible.
When St. Gregory Nyssa terms all builders of the
Church, '"lights and pillars", he does not mean
that all ministers are indefectible ; that their stea
diness is not to be shaken, nor their flame extin
guished. The Church which the Apostle lauds
with this eulogium to Timothy, fell ; therefore
others may fall also. The commendation implies
not the unvaried practice, but the invariable duty,
of every Christian community. And what can be
more powerful to remind her in the hour of de
fection, of the height whence she has fallen, than
language of which conscience might warn her she
was become most unworthy ? Does not this hypo
thetical phraseology abound in scripture ? " Rulers
are not a terror to good works", says St. Paul.

OF INFALLIBILITY. 27
But is this, de facto, always so ? Were rulers " not
a terror to good works", when at the era in which
this sentence was written, they persecuted the
Church of God? "A divine sentence", says Solo
mon, " is in the lips of the king : his mouth trans-
gresseth not in judgment." What would be said,
if any such passage as this could be suited to the
Bishop of Rome ? And yet, how feeble would be
an argument drawn from language so peremptory ?
Surely the wise man asserts not what always is, but
reminds monarchs what always ought to be, their
practice. "Ye are the salt of the earth", says
Christ to his first ministers, " ye are the light of
the world"; which is what they are bound to be,
not what they constantly are ; for he adds, " the salt
may lose its savour", and " the light within thee"
may be " darkness".
That the Church now is, and always ought to be
upright ; therefore she always shall he, is a sorry
inference. Suppose the Church of Rome really
could, as she constantly labours to prove, that the
eulogies bestowed on the Jewish Church were all
her own ; would it prove more than that she may
fall, as the other did ? Jerusalem was an " habita
tion of righteousness"; yet the prophet Isaiah spake
not heresy, when he declared, " The faitliful city
is become an harlot".

28 DIALOGUE I.
PHILODOX,
Is not the Church the spouse of Christ, and go
verned by her bridegroom? Is not the Eternal
Spirit the soul which actuates her? But if the
Church may err in the faith, then error must be im
puted to Christ, and to the Spirit. Is not Christ,
by the vow which weds him to the Church, bound
to preserve her from error ?
ORTHODOX.
To the Jewish Church Christ was also wedded :
" Thy Redeemer is thy husband". She fell from
her faith, and was divorced. The union of the
Christian Church to her heavenly Spouse would,
therefore, afford no proof that she may not fall like
wise. But we have his gracious promise — not that
she shall not err ; not that she may not fall in
part ; but — that she shall never totally and finally
err unto destruction. The government of Christ
and his Spirit extends not beyond its end. It
neither is, nor can be, perfectly efficacious in this
world. Every divine gift must be suited to the
capacity of the receiver ; nor does the incomplete
ness of the effect argue the imperfection of the
agent, but the incapacity of the subject. The
bride is not less defiled by sin than by heresy. She
is but betrothed here on earth ; prepared by his

OP INFALLIBILITY, 29
Spirit to be presented pure and spotless to her
heavenly bridegroom in a better world. The ar
gument proves too much ; if it were valid, every
true believer would be infallible ; for every true be
liever is governed by Christ, and guided by his
Spirit, PHILODOX,
I am not aware of additional scriptural authori
ty, which can prove more than the passages already
brought forward : but there are considerations of
great importance which appear to estabhsh the ne
cessity of infallible guidance in the Church,
ORTHODOX,
It is not a question of infallible guidance. We
are agreed, that there is an infallible guide in the
scriptures. But it is of the certainty of a living
guide. To believe in the existence of this, is pressed
as a primary article of divine faith ; it can never
therefore be so established by any reasoning, how
ever plausible, as that the disbelief of it should in
volve the guilt of schism. Faith rests on divine
testimony ; it " cometh by hearing ; and hearing
by the word of God," Sacred truth hath its ovra
proper evidence, even that " which cannot he, nor
be deceived ". Unless, therefore, it be clearly es
tablished, by divine testimony, that God hath ap-

30 DIALOGUE I.
pointed an infallible living judge of controversy ;
and that he hath indefeasibly united it to the suc
cession of the Romish See ; if their writers were
to fill volumes with specious disquisition, it is enti
tled to no more attention than the speculations of
so many private theologians or philosophers. It
must be brought to the touchstone of " the law and
the testimony ".
Easy is it, to build up an edifice very goodly
and pleasant to our perverted eye. The Gnostic,
the Manichee, the Moslem, have done it long
ago ; the Unitarian, the fanatic, and the moralist
does it every day ; and the Romanist has too often
built with the hke " untempered mortar ". But
these JBabel fabrics will not endure ; for the basis
is but sand. They are not laid on the sole foun
dation ; they are not sprinkled with the blood of
the Lamb : therefore, at the day which trieth every
work, the destroying angel shall not pass over
them. Would it not have been better that all men
should have been secured from error ; that neither
heresy should obtain, nor sin exist ? So to our
finite reason it appears. Yet we may not doubt, that
all vpill ultimately redound far more to the glory of
Him " of whom and to whom are all things ", than
if such obliquities had never corrupted a universe

OF INFALLIBILITY. 31
of light and beauty. Resignation, patience, and
holy confidence ; mercy, loving-kindness, and self-
denial, are virtues pecidiar to a fallen state ; yet
these are they which " work out a far more ex
ceeding and eternal weight of glory " ; a reward
more excellent than man, unfaUen, should have at
tained. God is glorified, above all, in the stupen-
dousness of His mercy. That mercy hath fallen
sinners for its object. Hence are we told, that
over the mysteries of redemption even angels are
suspended in astonishment of praise. We know
not the depth either of the wisdom or goodness of
God, It is His to give as His allwise pleasure dic
tates ; it is ours to receive and adore ; to be thank
ful and obey ; not presumptuously to arraign
WHAT IS, by empty supposition of what ought
TO BE,
But I forbear, with one suggestion. If we are
to proceed indulging vague imaginations, may we
not ask, whether schisms and divisions, disgraceful
as they are, are more injurious to the Church, than
the prevalence of vice and wickedness in its mem
bers ? Lamentable as are the consequences of
error in faith, is it more hateful than licentiousness
of life, in the presence of Him who is of "purer
eyes than to behold iniquity " without abhorring it ?
Would that the Roman Church had always shewed

32 DIALOGUE I,
as much zeal against heresy of conduct, as she has
towards obliquity of opinion.
I am willing, however, to hear any abstract ar
gument that, directly and properly, bears upon the
question. PHILODOX.
As it is needful to have living judges to expound
the laws of the land, so it is far more requisite to
have living authorized expounders of the law of
God. ORTHODOX.
It is amazing, that a proposition thus simple
should occupy so large a portion of discussion in
the writings of most of the Roman advocates. The
question is absolved by another yet more simple.
Does any Church call in doubt the necessity of liv
ing authorized expounders of the divine law ? or
the duty of the people, to hear, obey, and reverence
them, so long as they adhere to the commission
which human power can give no hcence to pass, of
" teaching to observe all things " whatever Christ
commanded ? When you meet with this argu
ment, substitute the real one : — are all ministers
of Christ to derive their entire authority from a
single bishop ? for that is the sole dispute. What
connexion is there between these propositions ; —
every Church must have authorized expounders of

OF INFALLIBILITY. 33
the word of God ; therefore all must draw their
commission from the See of Rome ? What would
you say to a man who, because you acknowledge,
that every country must have legal magistrates,
should insist that all must derive jurisdiction from
the Emperor of China ; and that, whoever denies
this, thereby becomes a rebel, excluded from the
pale of civil society ? You would be apt to doubt
the sanity of the disputant. Now, if the cases are
not parallel, let it be shewn.
PHILODOX.
Does not the authority of scripture depend on the
authority of the Church ; insomuch that Augustin
remarks, he would not " believe it, if the authority
of the Church did not move him to it " ? What
evidence have we but Church authority for believing
the Bible, more than any other book, to be the word
of God ? ORTHODOX.
This argument has never appeared to me very
weighty ; although some sensible persons attach
much importance to it. But surely there is no
great force in it. For if the scriptures are in
spired, the authority of the Church can add no
thing to them ; if they are not inspired, she can
not make them so. D

34 DIALOGUE I.
PHILODOX.
A distinction must be made here. Although
scripture hath authority, quoad se, in itself!, from
its inspiration ; yet quoad nos, as to us, its autho
rity is from the Church alone.
ORTHODOX.
This distinction has induced the Romish writers
to make many profane remarks upon the subject.
It seems frivolous in itself. To talk of an autho
rity, not " as to us ", is to talk unmeaningly.
Authority is relative to them who owe it subjec
tion ; and the authority of scripture is simply the
virtue which it hath, as the law of God, to enforce
obedience. Therefore to say that the law of the
Ruler of the Universe hath no authority to bind man
but what it derives from man, is to render the ordi
nances of God subservient to the pleasure of his
creatures. Those scriptures which all acknow
ledge, no matter by what testimony known, have
inherent authority to bind the obedience of aU who
hear them. The claim of a Church to jurisdiction
must depend upon the testimony of scripture ;
which implies previous knowledge of scripture it
self. The Church, in bearing evidence to the di
vine word, acquires no dominion over you thereby ;
any more than a courtier who leads you to the king,

OF INFALLIBILITY. 35
derives a portion of the royal authority. The
Church of Rome can have no higher claim than that
which her testimony affords to the genuineness of
the sacred volume. But in considering the evidence
of Scripture, there is first the internal evidence.

PHILODOX.
" Bishop Porteus ", says Dr. Milner, " argues
from the characters of divine wisdom in it ; but he
is the only one who attempts to find Scripture by
this." ORTHODOX.
The remark made by Dr. Porteus is Archbishop
Seeker's, and the comment of Bishop Milner is
the sneer of an infidel. The Almighty, it seems,
hath no witness for Himself but that which the
Church of Rome condescends to afford. Those
who have most devoutly studied, and most pro
foundly inquired into the evidence of holy writ, have
come to a far different conclusion ; and pronounced,
that, wonderful as the external evidence is, the
internal is even yet more decisive. Unquestion
ably, to the mass of believers it is so. Thousands
of the best and purest Christians, of whom the world
knows nothing, receive it by that testimony which
it bears to itself God sends us to view the stamp
D 2

36 DIALOGUE I.
of divinity thereon. Hath He set His seal to it,
and is the impress indiscernible ? Was it said, even
of a small part of revelation, " it is a light to the
feet, and a lamp to the path", and does it shed no
rays to betray its own existence ? Is it " a light
shining in a dark place ", and yet making no disco
very of itself? Is this " law of the Lord perfect,
converting the soul, making wise the simple, re
joicing the heart, and enlightening the eyes " ; and
is it recommended by no palpable features of power
or wisdom, illumination or life ? Is it " quick and
powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword ", and
yet is it neither perceived, nor discerned, nor felt ?
The wonders of creative wisdom declare the Crea
tor's glory ; and the " firmament sheweth His
handy work." Doth His word, the deliberation of
His will and mercy, bear no record to the eternal
Author ? Hath He left us such manifestation of
His providence and majesty, in the proud fabric of
universal nature ; such vestige of His feet in every
insect that lurks among the grass, and every herb
that drinks the dew ; so that all creation raises a
hallelujah to its Maker; and hath the word of
His Son, by whom all these things were made ; hath
the full exhibition of his grace and love in the re
demption of a ruined world, no voice but that which

OF INFALLIBILITY. 37
human utterance lends it ? More pious is the
echo of our great philosopher, " Nee vox homi-
nem sonat ": — " it is the voice of God, and not of
man." *
If we turn to external evidence, the testimony
of the Church is not the sole or leading one to
satisfy a sceptical mind, that the scriptures are the
word of God. It neither was, nor could be, an
argument of main influence against the first oppo
sers of Christianity ; and it seems to be scarcely so
accounted by recent defenders of the truth. The
fulfilment of Prophecy is a standing miracle : it is
infallible : it is a " more sure word ", as St. Peter
strikingly terms it, than the most unexceptionable
of mortal testimony ; it is more intelhgible to all ;
more efficacious in the conversion of unbelievers ;
for they want not to be told, that Christians confess
the Holy Bible to be the word of God : they know
this already, by the agreement of all the Churches
in the universe. But they require evidence, that
these scriptures really are what they profess to be ;
to which the mere allegation of behevers is not an
adequate reply.
We will keep, however, to the evidence of tes
timony. Christians know the genuineness of the
holy records, chiefly by their universal reception
* Bacon.

38 DIALOGUE I.
among all sects and in all ages. If this were wanted,
the mere fiat of a solitary Church would avail no
thing. The testimony of Rome, then, is but a small
part of the Church's testimony ; which is that of in
numerable congi-egations, scattered through eras
and places; not of a single sect speaking for the
rest. She is but one among a cloud of witnesses :
her seal is not required to confirm the whole ; were
her entire evidence expunged to-morrow, the faith
would not be a whit affected by it.
The Universal Church in her congregations has
been, and yet is, the depository of these lively ora
cles. But this testimony is not what Romanists desire.
For, to disentangle ourselves from that ambiguity
which they so industriously spread through aU their
pages, on what authority do they wish us to depend
for the authenticity of Scripture ?
PHILODOX.
That of the Catholic Church.
ORTHODOX.
What mean you by the Cathohc Church ?
PHILODOX.
The Church in communion with the See of
Rome.

OF INFALLIBILITY. 39
ORTHODOX.
Why is the testimony of this Church of more
value than that of the Churches in communion
with the See of Constantinople, or of Antioch ? of
the African or Eastern Churches ? among whom
the greater part of the Scriptures were first written
and circulated ; and to whom the most illustrious
of the Fathers belonged. When the Patriarch of the
former See transmitted to us the Alexandrian Ma
nuscript of the New Testament, was it of necessity
to send to Rome to have the stamp of inerrancy
impressed thereon ? PHILODOX.
This kind of discussion is confined to the learn
ed. How are the common people to be satisfied?
ORTHODOX.
Do not shift the question. I have before said,
that the testimony of the Cathohc Church is inex
pugnable. But Rome claims an infallible fiat on
the subject. Without her authority, all researches
of learning are valueless ; none other evidence than
her own is to be heeded.
Not, however, to occupy too much time on the
subject ; when they speak of the testimony of the
primitive Church of Rome, we allow to it all the

40

DIALOGUE I.

weight that an unimpeachable witness can require.
Nay, we will carry this down for fifteen centuries,
until the Council of Trent confirmed a new canon
for the world. Since that time there is not a Church
in Christendom whose evidence to the purity of
scripture is so lightly to be accounted of as the
Church of Rome ; in this, as in almost every thing
else, faithless to her trust.
PHILODOX.
You speak thus from dishke to the Apocrypha.
ORTHODOX.
By no means. The apocryphal books are of
great importance to the elucidation of the canon
ical; they contain a fund of piety and wisdom,
and much valuable historical record, mingled with
no small portion of error. But in altering the
canon, the present Church of Rome not only sets
herself in opposition to the old Church, but to aU
Christian Churches : to the Church of the Apostles,
the Prophets, and of Christ himself; and herein,
with that infatuation which so often blinds con
spirators to their ruin, has struck a blow at the
root of her infalhbihty. Heretics, in different ages,
have tried certainly to bend the sacred volume to
their corruptions : as the Unitarians, in our own

OF INFALLIBILITY. 41
days, have laboured to make it speak a language
which is as consistent with its meaning as the pages
of the Koran : but the perversion is so glaring,
that none can be deceived, except those who are
prepared to be so. And in early times, the Ebio-
nites rejected a great part of the scriptures. These
jarring innovators have, one and all, incurred the
condemnation with which St. John seals up the
incorruptness of the holy record of redemption.
But if we adventure to proportion iniquity, it is
apparently a greater sin to add to the word of God
than to detract from it. There was a time, when,
to many Churches, parts of the scripture alone were
known ; nor is it to be doubted, that those parts
were available to salvation. But to add whole
books to the rule of truth, absolutely tends to in
troduce all uncertainty into faith ; destroys the ve
racity of the testimony upon which she professes
to set so high a value ; and affords a specimen of
the dependence to be placed upon it, if it had stood
alone. This is another fruit of infallibility : by
which the word, as well as the sacraments, of God,
are debased to the jurisdiction of man. She falsi
fies the one, and amputates the other. But if all
this were not so ; if scripture rested exclusively on
the witness of the Roman Church, and that re
mained unsulhed, how does she hence derive a do-

42 DIALOGUE I.
minion over the faith of the world ? How does it
constitute her the unerring judge of the meaning
of scripture? Suppose an atheist to be convinced
by the testimony which the Natural Theology of
Paley affords to the divine existence ; or a Deist
converted to Christianity by the volumes of Lard-
ner. Does this constitute Dr. Paley the inerring
expounder of natural religion to the one ; or Dr.
Lardner, of Christian doctrine to the other? Did
ever mortal (except one whose senses had been
steeped in the fumes of infallibility) argue that a
valid testimony confers dominion and lordship over
him who receives it? If the Church of Rome alone
bear evidence to the truth, let it be received with
respect and gratitude. But if, swelling upon this,
she proceeds to throw a yoke over all the world,
her bonds must be broken asunder, and her cords
cast off; but the testimony of her lucid days is not,
therefore, to be rejected. PHILODOX.
I could not cease to honour a man whose incon
trovertible evidence in a court of justice settled
me in possession of a fine estate.
ORTHODOX.
But what if, vaunting upon this, he seizes your

OF INFALLIBILITY. 43
house, mangles your estate at his will, debars you
from the enjoyment of it, worries your tenants,
carries off your title-deeds, and substitutes a mass
of impositions in their stead ; you would surely
repel the tyranny of the man, and protect your
self from these dangerous paroxysms of pride and
phrensy, although his original testimony is not
affected by his subsequent misconduct.
PHILODOX.
But how is the doubting and inquiring Christian
to be satisfied without a certain, infalhble guide ?
ORTHODOX.
He is not to be satisfied without it. There is
an infallible guide in scripture. The Christian
whom doubts disturb, and who is anxious to be sa
tisfied of "the hope that is in him", ought, in the
first instance, to be grateful, most grateful, to his
Church, as the parent of his faith, who hath che
rished this holy record for his salvation. But if
he proceeds to further examination, it must be
through proper evidence. Only let him take espe
cial heed that his eye be single to the " one thing
needful", his heart open to receive instruction ; his
prayer fervent to the Source of hght ; and his hfe
conformable to those precepts, the truth and rea-

44 DIALOGUE I.
sonableness of which his moral faculty attests ; re
membering that " if any man will do His will, he
shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God."
PHILODOX.
They will say this is not sufficient. He must
have a living infallible guide in the Church to direct
him. ORTHODOX.
But surely, if a man doubts of the word of God,
he doubts of the Church also. How is a suspected
witness to be vindicated by one still more an object
of suspicion? To allege, that the above mode is
insufficient, savours of arrogance or scepticism. It
is sufficient, if not to dissipate every speculative
doubt, at least to secure salvation. It is sufficient,
for God hath appointed none other; and to im
peach the sufficiency of this, is at once to arraign
His mercy and His promises. PHILODOX.
Why then is it ineffectual ?
ORTHODOX.
Why are all those other dispensations, by which
" His long-suffering leadeth to repentance", inef
fectual? In what consists the deficiency? in the

OF INFALLIBILITY. 45
wisdom and goodness of God ; or in the perverse-
ness of man ? " The temple of the Lord, the
temple of the Lord, are we": this is the Roman
panacea for all ills. " We alone have an all-suf
ficient unfailing remedy for error ; all the rest is
falsehood ; all guides but ours are delusive, and no
guides". Why then is not their remedy effective?
Why does it not preserve the world from schism ?
Why does it not infallibly save all who profess it ?
Why does it not. Within its own pale, produce the
genuine fruit of true religion, — holy practice ?
Why does not this proud pretence heal the infi
delity and vice with which Romish countries
abound ? PHILODOX.
Because it is not faithfully received.
ORTHODOX.
Any other Church may make the same reply,
and it is for Romanists to shew why a faithful re
ception of the written word of God is ineffective to
salvation, and a faitloful reception of the unwritten
effective ? — The Church of England may boldly af
firm, and challenge the world to the denial, that a
vicious member of her communion acts in daring
defiance of every principle, rite, and ordinance, of
his rehgion. But, unhappily (and I speak it " more

46 DIALOGUE I.
in sorrow than in anger"), Rome has found gentler
means of smoothing the sinner's bed of death than
the testimony of conscience to the divine mercy, in
uprightness and holiness of life.
PHILODOX.
As we shall probably come to no conclusion,
either on scripture evidence or abstract reasoning,
the proper question is, whether the Church which
claims infallibility actually has erred ?
ORTHODOX.
Doubtless it is. But this question their advo
cates are reluctant to discuss ; and therein betray
the weakness of their cause. What other Church
shrinks, thus sensitively, from the review of her
peculiar tenets ? Not the Anghcan ; she chal
lenges her opponents to examine into each and all
of her doctrines ; and rest the dispute on scrip
ture and primitive antiquity? What Church but
Rome repels inquiry, by wrapping a cloak of iner
rancy around her? What would be said even of
Christianity itself, were its defenders to check the
intrusion of unhallowed feet ; and meet them with
an assertion, that its divinity precludes discussion
of any of its doctrines ? How then is it to be al-
loM^ed, in favour of a sect, which fails to present

OF INFALLIBILITY. 47
a single evidence in behalf of this lofty assumption ?
Who but a devoted disciple of their creed can be sa
tisfied with an answer such as this ? " The Church
of Rome never has erred, because she cannot err. "
Surely, whether more accurate or not, it is, at least,
more rational, to affirm, " The Church of Rome may
err, for she has foully erred." The Mussulman re
pels all inquiry by the assertion, that Mahomet is
the last prophet of God, sent to consummate reve
lation ; and I know not how this is to be answered,
but by examination of his pretensions and his doc
trines. When Simon Magus claimed to himself the
office of the promised Paraclete, it was by inquiry
that his claims were nullified. And I see not why,
in the abstract, the pretensions of any false Messiah,
impostor, or fanatic, are not as valid as those of the
Church of Rome. For any man may " take this
honour unto himself", and appropriate all the at
tributes which arrogance or disordered imagination
can assume ; it is only by bringing them to the test,
that we may divest him of his borrowed plumes.
Proceeding, therefore, to the examination of the
main tenets of the Papal Church, there will be little
difficulty in shewing, how slight are her claims to
infallibility; how few her pretensions to the love
and reverence of her followers. Bear also in mind,
that if, of the arguments or evidence presented to

48 DIALOGUE I.
you, some appear not equally or fully satisfactory ;
yet if but one solitary proof be established, that
she has erred in doctrine, — that one is sufficient
for the refutation of all the laboured volumes of her
advocates ; and for the destruction of her dominion
over the Church : — so feeble, so tottering, is the
basis of the Roman rock. PHILODOX.
I beg to decline all arguments drawn from parti
cular doctors. The Church of Rome requires to
be judged by her authorized creeds and doctrines
alone. ORTHODOX.
Be it so: we will estimate her by none other
rule ; though few with less grace than Roman
ists can claim such a mode of discussion at our
hands. Their unwearied reprobation of the Church
of England is grounded on no better testimony
than the inconsistencies of private divines. Their
blows at her pass through the sides of individual
members. Bishop Hoadly wrote this; and Dr.
Clarke said that; Bishop Clayton was an Arian;
therefore his brethren are Unitarians. Hey and
Paley quahfied the Articles ; therefore, the oracle of
Gibbon is true ; and all the clergy sign them " with
a sigh or a smile ", Clamouring invariably against

OF INFALLIBILITY. 49
this style of controversy, they invariably adopt it ;
so invartahly that I know not a single advocate
among them who has hesitated to pursue it ; —
perpetually calling for honourable warfare, and
systematically trampling it beneath their feet. We
will not be induced to tread in a course which we
despise ; the cause requires it not ; they who would
view Rome in her deformity, need but view her in
her natural self But when we see the papal
champions, in their reprobation of the Enghsh
Church, uniformly shrink from examining her by
her authorized doctrines ; her articles, hturgy, and
homilies, by which she ought to be tried, " them
selves being judges " ; let us triumph in the palpable
and obvious inference ; — she stands inexpugnable
by every assault which is not also levelled against
the unerring records of divine truth, and the dicta
of Catholic tradition, through the best and purest
ages.

DIALOGUE II.
OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

PHILODOX.
Transubstantiation is popularly esteemed the
chief point at issue between the Churches of Eng
land and Rome. ORTHODOX.
Because so many other tenets and practices are
involved in it ; because it was made the test of
faith to our martyred reformers and divines. Bos-
suet rightly remarks, that on this point the dif
ference between Romanists and Protestants is even
greater than it appears to be. But if what Arch
deacon Daubeny justly terms the " newfangled
doctrine" of Bishop Baines and others of the
present Roman school be correct, the difference is
so slight as to be perfectly imperceptible. Happy
would it have been if these illuminati had appeared
in councils and convocations, to shew the divines
on both sides that they were bewildered when they
understood transubstantiation to be the main point
at issue between the contending communions ; to
open the eyes of Romanists to the guilt of burning

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 51
men innocent of heresy in this respect ; and to
awaken Protestant prelates and confessors to the
sin and absurdity of pertinaciously sacrificing their
lives for no cause at all ; and to awaken popes,
synods, scholiasts and theologists, heretics and or
thodox, to the conviction, that they were all totally
in the dark as to the real case ; for that there was
nothing in fact to be disputed about — they might
all cheerfully shake hands. Equally strange is it
that this elucidation should have been reserved for
an age — remarkable, certainly, for general know
ledge — but not peculiarly eminent in enlightening
the dark recesses of theology,
PHILODOX.
The Council of Trent teaches, that " by the
consecrating of the bread and wine, there is made
a conversion of the whole substance of the bread
into the substance of the body of Christ ; and a
conversion of the whole substance of the wine into
the substance of His blood ; which conversion,
the Catholic Church doth, fitly and properly, call
transubstantiation. And if any shall say, that, in
the sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of
bread and wine do remain ; and shall deny this
wonderful and singular conversion of the whole
substance of the bread into the body, and of the
E 2

52

dialogue IL

whole substance of the wine into the blood of
Christ, the appearance of the bread and wine only
remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church
doth, very fitly, call transubstantiation ; let him be
anathema." ORTHODOX.
The Holy Spirit hath assured us, that " as the
bird by wandering, and as the swallow by flying, so
the curse causeless shall not come." Heedless,
therefore, of the execrations of a Church whose
" mouth is full of cursing", we both deny the doc
trine, and abominate its results.
PHILODOX.
Most Protestant writers argue against transub
stantiation on the score of its abstract impossibility.
Now if there be any thing in this argument, it is
in vain to appeal to testimony in its favour.
ORTHODOX.
The dispute may cheerfully be rested, where
some highly respectable names would leave it ;
on the mere ground of evidence *. Nevertheless,
in the estimation of our greatest and most pious
* Vide Mr. Faber's excellent treatise, " The Difficulties of
Romanism ", C. iv.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 53
Protestant divines, this dogma brings with it con
sequences so importantly affecting the first princi
ples of Christian faith, that I should shrink from
my own convictions, were I to leave the abstract
argument untouched. Transubstantiation implies,
that our senses, legitimately employed on a proper
subject, may be, and glaringly are, deceived ; so
deceived as to annihilate all dependence upon them.
I abhor the presumptuous application of finite fa
culties to decide upon the fitness and probability of
infinite mysteries. But we must not forget, that
scripture (and the same would hold good of tradi
tion) was given for our learning ; for our salva
tion : and that we have none other medium of at
taining to this learning, than by the use of our
eyes or ears ; which transubstantiation affirms to
be no faculty at all when directed to divine sub
jects. But how is the Church herself to commu
nicate her dicta by other media ? Can any opera
tion of sense be more simple than the apprehen
sion of the common viands of life ? If what you
see and feel, smeU and taste, to be bread and wine,
are not merely no bread and wine, but absolutely
nothing palpable, how are you to be certain that
the terms, " This is My Body ", express what the
cast of the types seems to imply ? Why are you
to believe the solitary sense of sight or hearing.

54 DIALOGUE II.
with disbelief of all other faculties, sensitive and
intellectual ? Or why, in the silent process of
consecration, when nothing is heard, or seen, or
felt, or tasted, are you to disbelieve both taste, and
touch, and sight ? If you know not that it be
bread and wine after consecration, how are you to
know that it is so before ? How are you to know
that proper viands are brought ? Or, above all,
how are you to know that any sacrament is conse
crated, in a private operation depending upon the
will and mind of another man ?
PHILODOX.
Does not the objection proceed too far ? Is it
not presuming to limit Omnipotency. " With God
all things are possible." ORTHODOX.
It is no limitation of Almighty power, to sup
pose it not employed upon things which fall not
under any power. " Whatsoever ", says our pro
found Bishop Pearson, " implieth a contradiction,
is impossible ; and, therefore, is not within the
object of the power of God, because impossibility
is the contradiction of aU power." Thus to
say, that " God cannot lie " ; cannot make things
not to be, which are, or have been ; is no limita-

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 55
tion of divine power, because all these imply not
omnipotency, but infirmity. We are not, however,
compelled to enter upon this topic. The question
simply is, whether the senses, legitimately employ
ed, acting by a sufficient medium, may be trusted ?
And if not, I perceive not why our discussion
should be protracted. PHILODOX.
To decide upon the substance of the Eucharist,
cannot be said to be the legitimate object of sense.
It is a thing, not of sight, but of faith. And in
our spiritual course, " we walk by faith, not by
sight." ORTHODOX.
The inward and spiritual grace, signified in the
Eucharist, is doubtless the object of faith alone.
But the outward and visible sign is the object
of sense. And for no other end than this was it
appointed ; but that, by sensible certainty of the
outward emblems, faith might feed on the cer
tainty of the inward benefit. Religion is, indeed,
a thing of faith, and faith the gift of God ; yet
so a gift as to be conveyed through the medium
of sense. " Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing
by the word of God," Now the ear is as truly
employed on a divine subject in hearing the word,^

56 DIALOGUE II.
as the eye and lips in contemplating and receiving
the Eucharist. But if the word give an uncer
tain sound, and the hearing may not be confided
in, is not a wide and effectual door opened to all
sorts of phrenetic imagination ? Faith, instead of
being that infalhble assurance which renders it to
the believer the " substance of things hoped for ;
and the evidence of things not seen", becomes a spi
ritual delirium. Our assurance in things divine
rests upon the moral inerrancy of sense. We can
live by none other medium in the affairs of this
hfe. We can prepare by none other, for the bless
edness of that which is to come. Grace is not
given to bereave man of his faculties ; but to dis
perse the foggy damp of original corruption ; to
asperge the film of sin ; to preserve him from
those obliquities which, unassisted, he could not
but fall into, PHILODOX.
It is answered, that the argument from sense
" will not stand the test of Christian theology.
The Jews, trusting to their senses, took Christ to
be a carpenter's son. Hence they refused to be
lieve that he was the Son of God. Thus Abraham,
Jacob, and Joshua, thought they saw men, when,
really they saw angels."

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 57
ORTHODOX.
The Jews were not deceived in apprehending
of Christ as man. Nor would they have been to
blame in accounting him the son of Joseph, had
not his wonderful works and the voice of pro
phecy attested the veracity of his own declara
tions. He called upon them, not to disbelieve their
faculties, but to beheve them ; not to distrust
their senses, but to trust them ; and to draw the
inference which these afforded. Their guilt con
sisted in refusing to believe the testimony of God,
addressed to their eyes and ears. What can Ro
manists think of, when they virtually deny that
Christ gave sufficient ocular demonstration that
he was the Son of God ?
As to the appearance of angels to the Patriarchs ;
it is not contended that a single sense, acting
through an undue medium, may not be mistaken ;
as when a stick at the bottom of a river, appears
crooked ; but the other senses would rectify the
mistake. The eye may mistake an angel for a
man, or even a shadow for a substance ; although
the conduct of Abraham, and Jacob, and Joshua,
proves that they knew their visitors to be more
than man. When the disciples saw Christ after
his resurrection, they distrusted their sight, and
thought him a disembodied spirit. Does he en-

58 DIALOGUE II.
courage this distrust ? By no means. He tells
them that their senses are adequate to decide upon
the reahty of human bodies ; that though one
sense may be mistaken, there are others auxiliary
to it. " Handle me and see ; for a spirit hath not
flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Now if tran
substantiation be certain, the criterion of our Lord
is uncertain ; and a blow is levelled at the very
root of the gospel. PHILODOX,
In what way ? ORTHODOX.
It strikes at the identity of the man Jesus with
the Son of God, which St. John grounds upon the
evidence of the senses, that they had " seen, heard,
looked upon, and handled, of the word of life ".
It strikes at the certainty of what St. Luke calls
" infalhble proofs " of the resurrection, which were
none other than what the senses afforded. It
strikes at the ascension ; which took place pub
licly for none other end, than that the sorrow
ing Church might have sensitive foundation for her
trust in Him who " is exalted to be a Prince and a
Saviour". What too means St. Luke, when he
urges the authenticity of his Gospel, from the con
sideration, that it was derived from those who had
been " eye-witnesses " of the word ? Is not the

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 59
entire guilt of disbelief imputed to the Jews on
this account ; that they rejected the testimony of
their senses ? " If I had not done among them
the works which none other man did, they had not
had sin ; but now they have no cloak for their sin."
Suppose a modern Jew to take up the Roman
hypothesis, what answer would they provide for
him ? PHILODOX.
We are to recollect, it is not the natural body
of our Lord, such as he had before his resurrec
tion, that is in the Eucharist ; but his body subse
quently spiritualized and glorified.
ORTHODOX.
Here seems to be a distinction without a differ
ence ; an attempt to " darken wisdom by words
without knowledge." It is not easy to under
stand how a spiritualized body can have flesh and
blood as the body of Christ after the resurrec
tion certainly had ; and the Council of Trent al-:
lows that his Eucharistic body hath. Flesh and
spirit are constantly opposed in scripture. " A spi
rit hath not flesh and bones ", says our Lord. A
body, be it ever so highly spirituahzed, must retain
the essential properties of a body, or cease to exist
at all. The heresy of the Docetes, which harass-

60 DIALOGUE II.
ed the primitive Church, was more consistent than
this. They maintained that the body of our Lord was
a phantom, and framed their creed accordingly.
II. Suppose this difficulty removed ; and that
we could form the notion of our Lord's body ex
isting as a spirit ; yet no created spirit can be, at
the same instant, in many places ; though their ve
locity makes lightning tardy. The angel Gabriel
was not in heaven when he appeared to Daniel ;
but was " caused to fly swiftly " to come unto him.
When the same celestial herald presented himself
to the blessed Virgin, he " was sent from God unto
a city of Gallilee ". In their guardianship of men,
these holy spirits " are sent forth to minister for
them who shall be heirs of salvation ". The Fathers
argue for the divinity of the Holy Spirit, from his
ubiquity as peculiar to God alone ; communicable
to no created spirit or being, such as are the hu
man body and soul of Christ, who " was made in
all points like as we are ", sin excepted ; and unless
humanity be capable of ubiquity, the incarnate na
ture of the Son of God is alike incapable.
But, to reduce this to a point ; can the conse
crating priests do more in the sacrament than our
Lord did ? PHILODOX.
Assuredly not. All rests upon His institution.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 61
" Do THIS, as I have done." The whole priest
hood consists herein. What he sacrificed, they
sacrifice. What he converted, they convert,
ORTHODOX.
Then how vain is the pretence they urge !
Our Lord, when he made the Apostles priests;
when he consecrated the elements ; was in his
natural state ; in that flesh and blood of the sons
of men, which he mercifully assumed for their
salvation ; his body was not then spiritualized.
Therefore into the material compound of huma
nity are the elements converted, or not at all ; be
cause not as the first conversion must have been.
If then our Lord turned the incarnate vessel which
veiled his glory into the shape of bread and wine ;
if he held himself in his hand ; brake his own sa
cred body ; ate it entirely ; gave it entire to each
and aU of the eleven to eat ; poured out his own
blood ; drank himself again ; gave himself wholly
again for the rest to drink ; — then may they do
this also. If not, what is transubstantiation ?
Ask yourself the question ; and " commune with
your own heart" upon it.
The merciful Redeemer of his Church hath, in
no case, left her destitute of a sufficient criterion
of truth and falsehood, for those who, in depend-

62

DIALOGUE II.

ence on his word and grace, apply it. The Ro
man creed proclaims, that He who is in the Eu
charist is the sacred self of Him who died on the
cross, and rose again. Now of the verity of this, he
hath given a test ; " Handle me and see." If there
be " flesh and blood ", it is He that is risen again.
Nay if it be his " body of glory ", there the glory
is. But if there be no manifestation ; neither
sight ; nor sound : nor touch ; then it is not the
glorified offspring of Mary's womb ; it is not He
whom " the heavens have received until the con
summation of all things ". Therefore, when they
hft their idol up on high ; " Lo, here is Christ ;
or there ; Believe them not." Worship it not.
— When they say, " Behold, he is in the secret
places " ; He is come under the veil of the elements ;
in the secrecy of the host ! " Go not forth ! For
as the hghtning shineth from the east unto the
west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be."
PHILODOX.
They affirm, however, that the doctrine always
was explained in this spiritual sense. Indeed,
they do not pretend to the gross actual manduca-
tion of flesh and blood. ORTHODOX.
Then they eat not that very Christ who rose

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 63
from the dead. Then they eat not what their in
fallible Church commands, " flesh and blood."
Neither was the tenet " always explained " spi
ritually. The gross meaning was the intended
meaning of those who first enforced this dogma.
The earhest confession of faith in transubstantia
tion is the following ; which was solemnly, and
with great deliberation, prepared by Pope Nicholas
I. and the Council of Rome, and enforced upon
Berengar : " I profess, with mouth and heart, to
hold that faith of the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper, which the venerable Lord and Pope Ni
cholas, and this Holy Synod hath dehvered, to be
held, &c. namely, that the bread and wine which
are placed on the altar, are, after consecration, not
only the sacrament, but also the true body and
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and are, sensually,
not only in sacrament, but in truth, handled and
broken by the hands of the priests, and bruised
by the teeth of the faithful." * Such is the be-
* " Ore et corde profiteer de sacramentis Dominicee IMen-
sae, earn fidem tenere, quam D. et V. P. Nicolaus et heec S.
Synodus tenendum tradidit, — scil. panem et vinum quae in
altari ponuntur, post consecrationem, non solum sacramentum,
sed etiam verum corpus et sanguinem D. N. J. Christi esse,
et sensualiter, non solum sacramento, sed in veritate, manibus
sacerdotum tractari, frangi, et fidelium dentibus atteri." Gra-
tian. de Cons. Dist. 2. c. 42., quoted in Hopkins' " Bertram."

64

DIALOGUE II.

lief of those who first sanctioned the doctrine ; such
the earliest and decisive fiat of Rome on the subject.
Such also is the popular belief; and, however shock
ing, the only intelligible one. If the reflective mind
of any of their advocates shrinks from this, it shrinks
from what their supreme tribunal, dogmatically,
and ex cathedra, defined. PHILODOX.
But is there not this flaw in the whole of your
objections, — that you are reasoning from nature to
rebut that which is above, or anomalous to nature ?
Transubstantiation is a miracle. What know we of
miracles ? ORTHODOX.
Surely, thus much we know. That, so far from
being contrary or inevident to sense, their end and
utility consist in their being addressed to sense ;
and depend on the infalhbility of sensitive per
ceptions. They are exhibited to convince the in
tellect of something which, without supernatural
evidence, would scarcely be accredited. The early
annals of Transubstantiation may illustrate this.
Why are so many marvels alleged by Paschasius
and the rest to recommend this tenet, but that the
senses might have evidence to satisfy thera in con
tradicting themselves ?

of TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 65
PHILODOX.
Romanists draw a parallel between the Eucha
ristic change and the change of water into wine by
our Lord. ORTHODOX.
But were not the senses here the judge ? The
discolouration of the element declared the conver
sion to the eye ; the excellency of the hquor to the
palate ; and it was by this sensual evidence that
our Lord " manifested forth his glory, and his dis
ciples believed on him." It is needless to shew how,
in every respect, the cases differ.
PHILODOX.
I find their writers make a distinction in mira
cles. Some are evident to sense : others are not
evident to sense : of which latter kind is the Eucha
ristic conversion. ORTHODOX.
Nay, this is of neither kind. They must, there
fore, invent a third ; and prove that there may be
miracles evident to sense ; miracles not evident to
sense ; and miracles contrary to sense. Produce
an example of the latter kind ; and shew where the
Almighty hath miraculously suspended the laws of
nature, to contradict or deceive those faculties, which
are the sole medium He hath vouchsafed us, to dis-

66 DIALOGUE II.
tinguish right from wrong, truth from falsehood,
certainty from delusion ? These faculties are suffi
ciently infalhble to preserve from important error
every upright mind in the affairs of life : how much
more necessary is it for us to be secure of the evi
dence they bring in the business of eternity !
There is not a single miracle in the scriptures,
of the reahty of which there was not sensible de
monstration. St. Paul, speaking of the miraculous
gift of tongues, says, they were given "for a sign,
not to them that believe, but to them that believe
not " ; which remark, whilst it implies that miracles
are intended for unbelievers, and that behevers are
to depend upon something else, asserts also, that
they are, in their nature, evident signs to convince
unbelievers ; and where there is no sign, there is no
miracle : unbelievers were to be convinced of what
they heard, by what they saw.
PHILODOX.
But if there be no miracle, but that of which
there is sensible demonstration, you deny that the
Incarnation is a miracle. ORTHODOX.
The Incarnation had but one immediate sub
ject — the Blessed Virgin ; and surely to her there

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 67
was demonstration. A miracle can be known only
by its sensible effects on its proper object. To other
believers, the reality of the Incarnation was attested
by other miraculous testimony.
PHILODOX.
But what mean we by a miracle ? The com
mon definition of it is, " a violation, or suspension,
or counteraction of the laws of nature."
ORTHODOX.
But you must not lose sight of the etymology
of the word : — " Miracle ; a wonder, a thing
declared to be above the power of nature, by its
astonishing effects." Though every wonder be not
a miracle (as the laws of nature themselves are won
derful, not miraculous), yet every miracle is a won
der. Where there is no wonder, there is no miracle.
Transubstantiation is, in every wise, a thing sui
generis : it is a wonder with nothing wonderful ; a
miracle with nothing miraculous.
PHILODOX.
After all, though senses do not err in their tes-"
timony of their proper objects, yet they may err in
substances, which are not the objects of sense, but
the accidents only ; as colour, figure, &c.
f2

68 DIALOGUE II.
ORTHODOX.
If this were true, it is no reply to the objec
tion. It may serve to bewilder the subject; but
it clears not the difficulty. For it will follow, that
we can judge of no substance in the world by our
senses ; that we live in a universe of delusion ;
and he who swears to the identity of man or beast,
house or land, runs the risk of perjury. There is in
fact an end to all civil and religious converse. — The
faculties which God hath given to discern accidents
were given to discern substances thereby. Either
they are sufficient for this, or they are not. If they
are sufficient, transubstantiation is false. If they
are not sufficient, there is an end of all argument
upon this or any other topic. The h3^othesis an
nihilates evidence. What need of disputation when
we have no faculty competent to decide ?
It is painful to reply to this Pagan mode of
stifling and entangling the most interesting ordi
nance of Christianity; designed to bring home
the faith to popular and simple minds. Is it be
coming, to reduce practical theology to the dark
jargon of scholastic quibbling? Search the scrip
tures ; turn over the volumes of primitive divinity,
and see whether any of this false philosophy is to
be met with on the subject. No, it is of much
later origin; introduced into the schools expressly

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 69
to dress up this unsightly prodigy. St. Paul fore
warned his disciples against suffering the word of
God to be corrupted by such reveries : " Beware
lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the traditions of men, and not after
Christ." He commands his bishops to keep the
" sacred deposit committed to their trust", in the
plain scriptural simplicity of edification, " avoiding
profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of
science falsely so called."
Nothing but the solemnity of religion, even in
its most perverted state, preserves this dogma and
its appendages from ridicule and contempt. Per
haps you may remember the smart repartee of a
physician of the Romish communion, who, when
pressed with the insuperable absurdities of this
apology, frankly exclaimed, that he thought " the
Fathers of Trent ought to have been condemned to
feed on accidents of bread alone all their lives, for
bringing so great an incumbrance on the faith." *
Proceeding, however, from these objections, to
the consideration of evidence, what is the basis that
sustains this ponderous superstructure ?
PHILODOX.
When Christ "multiplied the five loaves and
* Harris, on Transubstantiation, in the Salter's Hall Ser-

70 DIALOGUE II.
two fishes, so as to afford a superabundant meal
to five thousand men, besides women and children
(an evident sign of his future multiplication of his
own person on the altars of the world), he took
occasion to speak of this mystery, by saying, ' I
am the hving bread which came down from hea
ven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live
for ever. And the bread which I will give is my
flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.'
The Jews, being perplexed, by understanding
Christ's words in the plain natural sense, he, so far
from removing it by a different explanation, con
firms it, by expressing that sense in terms more
emphatical. The Jews, therefore, strove among
themselves, saying, ' how can this man give us his
flesh to eat ? ' Jesus said to them, ' 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. For
my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink in
deed.' Not merely the multitude, but some of his
beloved disciples took offence at this mystery of a
real corporal presence ; whom he certainly would
not have permitted to desert him, if he could have
removed the difficulty by barely telling them, that
they were only to receive him by faith, and to take
bread and wine in remembrance of him." *
* Milner's End of Controversy, B. xxxvii.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 71
ORTHODOX.
That the multiplication of the loaves and fishes
was an emblem of his all-sufficiency to feed the
souls of his people with spiritual nourishment, may
be admitted ; and his disciples could so have re
ceived it. That it was an emblem of the " future
multiplication of his body on the altars of the world ",
rests solely upon the certainty of the point con
tested ; and whether true or otherwise, the disciples
could not then, at least, have thus understood it.
That the Jews apprehended him in the strict literal
sense, is true, nor could they well have been of
fended had they not so apprehended. But the me
taphorical sense was the obvious sense, as well from
the known phraseology of their sacred writers, as
because the literal sense was barbarous and unna
tural, "seeming", says St. Augustine, "to com
mand a crime, and therefore to be figuratively un
derstood." To receive the instruction of a teacher,
was, in scriptural idiom, to eat and drink his doc
trine. For instance, when Solomon invites mankind
to receive the truths of divine knowledge, his lan
guage is, " Wisdom hath kiUed her beasts ; she
hath mingled her wine ; she hath furnished her
table, — Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the
wine which I have mingled." He does not here
invite the seekers of wisdom to a carnal repast of

72 DIALOGUE II.
flesh and wine ; but to an intellectual banquet of
spiritual nourishment. It was therefore a gross
example of perverse stupidity when the Jews un
derstood Christ, not figuratively, as using a diction
familiar to their inspired teachers ; but literally, for
which they had no precedent, and against which
nature and decency revolted. That some of liis
disciples also took offence at his words, is true ; but
that these disciples were none other than mere fol
lowers, devoid of sincere faith, is clear from his own
expressions. " There are some of you that believe
not." But that he left them in uncorrected error,
is not the fact. He tells them, that the carnal ap
prehension of his words is not the true one ; and
that if it were, they would have no benefit there
from. " It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh
profiteth nothing": my flesh could benefit you no
thing, were ye to eat it. " The words that I speak
unto you": the doctrine I preach : " they are spirit
and they are life."
The objections to the hteral reception of the text,
are palpable. Christ, we have seen, reprehends this
meaning. He says moreover, " Except ye eat the
flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye
have no life in you." Now if this be true in the
hteral sense, then none can be saved without it.
" Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 73
hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last
day." The eatings and drinking, then, which he
speaks of is peculiar to sincere Christians, giving
them a part in his glorious resurrection ; therefore,
it is not carnal eating and drinking. We do not
wonder that Bishop Milner should carefully omit
these passages, when he pretends to examine our
Lord's discourse.
Finally, if the literal eating and drinking of
Christ is here commanded, the Jews could scarcely
be blamed for not understanding a doctrine so
abruptly and unconnectedly stated. But they were
blamed for not understanding him, and were there
fore capable of doing so. Now, they had inspired
authority for receiving it in the symbolical sense ;
but none, save their own carnality, for accepting it
literaUy. PHILODOX.
Yet in this sense, it appears to have been under
stood by all the Fathers. ORTHODOX.
Certainly not. The greatest of the Fathers re
ceive it in the metaphorical sense, and argue against
the hteral. The following is the gloss of Origen :
" There is also in the New Testament a letter,
which killeth him who does not understand spiri-

74 DIALOGUE II.
tually what is spoken. For if you follow accord
ing to the letter, that same saying. Except ye eat
the flesh of the Son of man, &c., this letter killeth".
And thus says Augustin, whom I have just before
referred to : " To beheve in him, this is to eat
the hving bread. Whoever believeth in him, eateth.
He is invisibly fed, because he is invisibly regene
rated. Where he is renewed, there is he nou
rished." * PHILODOX.
At any rate, the words of consecration appear de
cisive. " This is my body." What but intentional
perversion can turn this language of Christ from its
obvious sense? ORTHODOX.
The literal is not always the obvious sense of a
passage. If a man points to houses or land, and
says, "this is my estate'', then the literal is the ob
vious meaning, and the intellect extends not be
yond the mere terms uttered. But if he should
point to a parchment in his hand, and say, " this
is my estate", then the literal is not the obvious
sense ; the mind immediately apprehends a figure ;
and he who should understand it literally would not
need to furnish much stronger proof of mental aber
ration. Thus when we read, "I am the vine";
» Usher, p. 34.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 75
" That rock was Christ"; "We are members of
His body, of His flesh, and of His bones" ; " This
is the Lord's passover"; " This is my body'', &c.
the obvious sense is not, that Christ is a vine-tree,
or a mass of stone ; that we are hands and legs of
his self-same flesh and bones ; that the lamb was
the passover, or bread his body : a metaphor is im
mediately understood.
Transport yourself, for a moment, to that sacred
chamber of our Lord, where, supper being ended,
fresh loaves of unleavened bread and cups of wine
were placed on the table before them. One of
these pieces of bread he takes in his righteous
hand ; blesses it ; breaks it ; gives it among his dis
ciples, with these words, " This is my body broken
for you." — Imagine yourself an auditor and spec
tator there. Could you have understood, that by
those simple words the Lord ceased to be on the
couch where your eyes beheld him ; that he was
transformed into the bit of bread which he appa
rently held in his hand ; that the viand which you
still saw was no longer bread, but the real body of
him who seemed to be before you ; that your facul
ties were instantly annihilated, and all in your pre
sence delusion ; that each person present was to eat
up his Lord ; and that the same process was after
wards to be pursued with respect to the wine?

76 DIALOGUE II.
Surely nothing but the most unaccountable gross-
ness can enter into such an hypothesis.
" This is my body broken for you." What is
his broken body? What could you suppose him to
mark by the demonstrative this, except the bread
which he held in his hand? It was not then va
nished. Their presumed conversion takes not place
tUl the last syllable of body be uttered. But this
signifies somewhat before extant ; even bread.
PHILODOX.
No ; all affirm, with Bellarmin, that it is impos
sible bread should be substantially the body of Christ.
ORTHODOX.
But can any thing than the most amazing
perversion of sense and language understand it
otherwise? " He took bread.'' What he took, he
blessed ; even bread. What he blessed, he brake ;
even bread. What he brake, he gave ; even bread.
And of that which he took, blessed, brake, and gave.
He said, " This is my body"; even bread.
The argument here might securely rest in an im
pregnable fortress. Bread was the body of Christ.
Substantially, all admit, it could not be ; sacra-
mentaUy, all allow, it could be. — In constituting
the prototype of the Eucharist, the paschal lamb.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 77
Moses said, " This is the Lord's passover". Sub
stantially, the lamb neither was, nor could be, the
passover of the Lord ; sacramentally, it was. Of
the initiatory Hebrew sacrament, circumcision,
the analogy holds good. " This is my covenant",
saith God; not his actual, but sacramental, cove
nant ; adding, " This shall be a token of my co
venant." * PHILODOX.
Yes ; but here the terms are explained to be a
figure; not so in the Eucharist. Where a me
taphor is used, some adjunct language is found to
explain it. ORTHODOX.
Neither invariably, nor commonly. The value
of a metaphor rests in its force of illustration ;
in its power to enhghten and impress the subject.
Hence scripture metaphors are in general so ob
vious, that a child may know a figure to be used ;
although the strict interpretation may not be al
ways apparent. We might imagine, that no lan
guage could be more obviously symbolical than that
of our Lord, which can scarcely be said to be un
explained, even by himself He used not the four
words only which Romanists maintain to have pro-
* Gen. xvii

78 DIALOGUE II.
duced the conversion, "This is my body"; but
" This is my body broken for you". Therefore it
was not his natural body ; whole, unsuffering, as at
the moment he spake. PHILODOX.
But is it not strange, that, subsequently, the
Apostles should give no explanation to save the
Church from so grievous an error ?
ORTHODOX.
If this was the fact, it could scarcely be deemed
strange ; inasmuch as the natural use of the sensi
tive and reasoning faculties is no object of revela
tion, by which it is presupposed. But the Apostles
did give an explanation. St. Paul wrote an epistle
expressly to regulate, among other things, the ad
ministration of this sacrament. He declares, that
he had received the institution from the Lord ; and
what he received, he there delivers. Now what
does he call the consecrated element every time he
speaks of it? Bread. " The bread which we break,
is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? "
But bread cannot be literally the body of Christ.
It is substantially bread ; and sacramentally, the
communion of the body of Christ.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 79
PHILODOX.
But does not St. Paul say, " Whosoever eateth
and drinketh unworthily is guilty of the body and
blood of the Lord"; and "eateth and drinketh
damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's
body" ? Now, if the body and blood be riot actuaUy
there, how can a man profane them? and if the
body be not there, how can it be discerned ?
ORTHODOX.
As well may it be argued that he who injures
the Church, which is also " the body of Christ",
does not injure the body of Christ, because the
body is not actually there. Does not St. Paul
say " that sinners crucify the Son of God afresh"?
and as well may you contradict the Apostle, by al
leging, that " they cannot crucify the Son of God",
because they have him not to crucify. Dr. Milner,
arguing for the veneration of images, brings the
example of St. Stephen of Auxerre, " who, unable
to make the Emperor Copronymus conceive the na
ture of relative honour and dishonour, threw a
piece of money, bearing the Emperor's figure, on
the ground, and treated it with the utmost indigni
ty ; when the latter soon proved, by his treatment
of the Saint, that the indignity regarded himself,
rather than the piece of metal." He who profanes

80 DIALOGUE II.
and insults the monarch's seal, insults not the seal,
but him whose seal it is. He who profanes the sa
crament of the body and blood of Christ, profanes
that body and blood whose sacrament it is. As to
the expression " discerning", if it be taken literally,
they no more " discern" the body than ourselves.
PHILODOX.
Of the transubstantiation of the wine, you have
said nothing. But this is equally an article of faith.
ORTHODOX.
It is equally an article of faith, but not with
like frequency brought forward. For the diffi
culty in this is even greater than in the other, and
still more forcibly exhibits the absurdity of the
literal interpretation.
In the narratives of the Evangelists, we read,
that our Lord commanded, " Drink ye all of it ;
and they all drank of it." Now what they all drank
was wine ; for it was not then consecrated, accord
ing to the Romish hypothesis, which rests the con
secration on the words, " This is my blood". And
after consecration, it continued the same; for he
saith, " I will not drink of this fruit of the vine,
until I drink it new with you in my Father's king
dom."

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 81
PHILODOX.
There is some variation in the form of words
among the different sacred writers.
ORTHODOX.
And this may suffice to shew, that they knew
nothing of any physical change to be effected by
the use of two or three set terms. If we might
suppose the words to be closely observed by one,
more than another, it would be St. Paul ; who
mentions the subject, not incidentally, as the others ;
but expressly discourses upon it^ as " he had re
ceived it from the Lord". Now he says, the words
were, " This cup is the new testament in My blood";
therefore, if there be any transubstantiation, it is of
the cup, not of the wine, into the blood of Christ.
And as he expressly interprets this, when spoken
by our Lord, to signify this cup : by analogy, we
are compelled to conclude that the former this is
this bread. philodox.
It is, I suppose, the force of such objections which
induced Scotus to remark, that, " without the declara
tion of the Church, there is no express place of scrip
ture, which compels us to admit transubstantiation."
And Bellarmin allows, that this is not improbable *.
* De Euch. L. in. c. 23. G

82

DIALOGUE II.

ORTHODOX.
What a prodigy then is it, that such unchristian
shackles should be cast upon men, to rob rea
son of its legitimate powers, language of its most
familiar idioms, and scripture of its analogy ; to in
troduce an idolatrous and superstitious service ; and
pervert the symbols of a Saviour's love into a test
for sending thousands of the best and holiest of his
people to a horrid death, merely to support a mon
strous dogma, grounded upon the dismembered
portions of a metaphor, and upon the declamatory
diction of rhetorical eloquence; fabricated in the
darkest and most wicked era of Christian history,
and enforced by direful and incessant persecution !
PHILODOX.
The Protestant Churches hold the doctrine of a
real presence of Christ in the sacrament, which
seems liable to the same difficulties ; and, in fact,
Roman writers commonly use that phrase.
ORTHODOX.
Certainly they do ; because it is an ambiguous
phrase, and may mean physical conversion, or not.
Transubstantiation, as the Council of Trent says, is
the fit and proper designation of their tenet.
That Christ, by His divinity, is really present in

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 83
every part of the creation, all who confess that di
vinity, una voce, exclaim : that He is peculiarly pre
sent in the devotions of his faithful people, we have
His own gracious assurance ; that He is most espe
cially present, at the celebration of this commemo
rative sacrifice, the language of its institution urges
us to believe. But that His body is locally separated
from this world for ever, until His second advent,
the unerring records of His word declare. It may,
indeed, be said to be mystically present in the Sa
crament; since to the believer are therein secured
all the benefits of His Incarnation, as fully as though
He were personally with him. " The bread which
we break, is it not the communion of the body
of Christ?" PHILODOX.
Their translation renders it " communication."
ORTHODOX.
Be it so. As then xotvmia, " the communica
tion of the Holy Ghost", means the communication
to believers of all his benefits, which flow from
the " love of God", in and by " the grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ"; so the communication of his
body broken, and of his blood poured out, is the
communicating to the same of all those blessings
which that amazing sacrifice of incomprehensible
G 2

84 DIALOGUE II.
mercy hath procured. And the term, here used, does
generally signify in scripture, either communication
of benefits from, or participation with, another.
PHILODOX.
But how is this to be reconciled with the opinion
of your Church, that the Eucharist " is a mere
sign or figure " ? ORTHODOX.
You have so far read the writings of Romanists, it
seems, as to imbibe a portion of their inconsistency
or unfairness. At one moment we are told, that
there is no essential difference between our tenet
and theirs, both believing a real presence : at an
other, we are accused of holding nothing better than
an empty sign or figure. Both of these notions
the Church of England disclaims.
PHILODOX.
Yet Bishop Hoadly, and others of your divines,
have taught the latter. ORTHODOX.
It is wonderful that respectable Romanists should
not blush at this mode of attack. It is like a tot
tering cause, catching a prop from every quarter.
Why else do they pursue a mode / of warfare.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 85
against the justice of which, when turned upon
themselves, they raise such outcries ? What is to us
the opinion of a solitary prelate or divine ? Why
do they systematically shun the investigation of our
creeds and formulas ? except that they have long
since discovered the Church of England unassailable
by any weapons which would not be alike fatal to
the primitive faith. Certainly, she renounces and
abhors the notion, that she can impart her Re
deemer's natural body and blood into the mouth and
stomach of whom she wiU ; but she is also far from
regarding the sacramental elements to be a mere
empty sign. She esteems them to be to the sincere
recipient, the real and very communication of all the
benefits of the Saviour's death and passion. To re
peat that trite simile ; — the title-deed of an estate is
not a vague parchment, nor an empty sign ; but
it is both the actual conveyance to the true owner
of his real estate, and " a pledge to assure him
thereof". PHILODOX.
But it seems an evident contradiction to say,
you receive that in the sacrament which does not
exist in the sacrament. It is like the speech of a
debtor, who should say to his creditor, " I hereby
verily and indeed pay you the money I owe you ;

oo DIALOGUE II.
but I have not verily and indeed wherewith to pay
you."* ORTHODOX.
I presume, if a debtor had got bills of the na
tional bank to the amount of his debt, he would
have no great reason to fear the face of his cre
ditor, though he chanced not to possess the hard
coin of the realm. The Church as truly conveys to
the faithful recipient the benefits of Christ's body
and blood, as he who surrenders a title-deed, or gives
seisin by turf and water, invests a man with posses
sion of an estate. She acts differently from the
Roman Church. She does not say, " I verily give
you the entire sacrament " ; but " I verily and in
deed keep half to myself." She does not give a clip
ped coin ; professing, at the same time, that it is
verily and indeed a sterling guinea.
What the sun is to our natural system, Christ,
the Sun of Righteousness, is to the spiritual system.
We need not the bodily presence of the one to feel
his rays, or be nurtured by his beams ; neither does
the Church, sustained by the grace and goodness
of the eternal Godhead, require, for her nourish
ment and support, the actual presence of liis human
body. * End of Controversy, L. xxxviii.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 87
PHILODOX.
How came the carnal presence to abound in the
writings of the Fathers, which are filled with pas
sages admitting of no other solution ?
ORTHODOX.
The case is not so. The Fathers speak in most
exalted terms of the Eucharist, doubtless. They
give to the sign the name of the thing signified.
They speak of an elemental change, conversion,
&c. But they also declare, that the elements,
nevertheless, remain in their nature : that though
the use was altered, the substance was not : that the
conversion is not physical, but moral ; such as takes
place by the consecration of the baptismal water, of
a temple, of a layman to the priesthood, &c. Vain,
therefore, is it to accumulate passages from the Fa
thers to prove what no one calls in question. Let
them produce a single orthodox writer, in the pri
mitive centuries, who maintained a physical change.
PHILODOX.
Among the Fathers, as St. Augustin was espe
cially denominated the "teacher of grace", so was
St. Chrysostom termed " the teacher of the Sacra
ments." Few are more entitled to authority in the
early ages of Christianity, than this eloquent Father.

88

DIALOGUE II.

I believe Romanists would be content to rest the
dispute upon his single testimony : so incessantly
does he inculcate the real conversion.
ORTHODOX.
They may. safely admit, that if St. Chrysostom
cannot establish the carnal doctrine, it is vain to look
elsewhere ; for no one speaks of the Eucharist
in language more lofty and hyperbolical. Hence,
in the disputation at Oxford, when the Reformers
denied the corporal presence, their opponents con
stantly pressed them with testimonies, strong and
plausible, certainly, from his writings. But when
this eloquent orator descends, from the brilliant
flights which pervade his sermons, homilies, &c.
to bridle his fancy in calm discussion, his language
is far more bounded. And it is in dehberate state
ment of doctrine that we are to judge of a theolo-
gist; not in his declamations, designed to rouse
and influence the affections.
There was one Cesarius, who had fallen into the
Apollinarian heresy ; which differed in words only
from the Eutychian, both admitting but one nature
in Christ : the latter converting the Godhead into
flesh ; the former converting the human nature into
God. To reduce this seceder from his error, St.
Chrysostom wrote an epistle to him, in which he

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 89
argues, that as, although " the bread is thought
worthy to be called the body of the Lord," yet the
nature of bread remaineth ; and as the bread is
not converted into the body of Christ, &c. so nei
ther is the flesh of Christ converted into the God
head. An argument more fatal to the Roman cause,
more truly Protestant, cannot be met with.
PHILODOX.
Does not this epistle to Cesarius lie under some
doubt ? ORTHODOX.
As much doubt as the unfair dealing of their
doctors could superinduce. The epistle, having
been long buried (except as to a few quotations
found in other writings), was brought to hght by
Peter Martyr, in a conference with Bishop Gardiner,
who attempted to escape the consequence, by main
taining that it was the production of some other
than Chrysostom. Feeling, however, that this was
no reply, inasmuch as its authenticity could be
proved by incontrovertible testimony; and even if
not the genuine work of this Patriarch, it was at
least of the same age, and the writing of a zealous
Catholic, arguing against heresy from the admitted
doctrine of the Church ; — this vulpine Prelate boldly
insisted, that although Chrysostom says the nature

90 DIALOGUE II.
of bread is not changed, yet he means that the suh-
stance is changed, and the accidents alone remain ;
and such is the common reply of their divines ; which
renders this Father a very intelhgible and conclusive
reasoner indeed. Truly, Cesarius must be an obsti
nate heretic, not to be convinced by such an argu
ment as the following : — " The bread is worthy to
be called the body of Christ, inasmuch as although
the nature remains, and is not converted into his
real body, yet the nature doth not remain, but the
accidents only, by actual corporal conversion." — His
similitude too is as lucid as his logic : — " As the na
ture of bread is essentially changed into the body
of Christ, so the human nature is not essentially
changed into the divine."
We need not, therefore, wonder that Cardinal
Perron, ashamed of such an explanation as this,
renewed the denial of the epistle, and refused to
acknowledge its authenticity. But unfortunately,
this decision was annulled by a learned member of
their communion, M. Bigot, who found the origi
nal epistle in the Dominican monastery of St.
Mark, at Florence ; and being about to publish an
edition of Palladius, he annexed a copy to that
work, which appeared in 1680. No sooner, how
ever, was it inspected by the doctors of the Sor-
bonne, than they prohibited the publication of the

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 91
book, until the leaves containing the epistle had
been cut out ; which leaves, so cut out, fell into
the hands of Archbishop Wake *. — Learn to esti
mate the worth of testimony by the treatment it re
ceives at Romish hands. Value the sincerity of their
reverence for antiquity, by the abstractions, interpo
lations, and corruptions which the Fathers have sus
tained from them. Dr. James's " Treatise " on
this topic is well worthy of perusal ; and subsequent
discoveries would give extensive amplification to
its pages. PHILODOX.
An evidence more satisfactory than that of in
dividual Fathers would be that of the ancient Litur
gies of the Church. Now though I pretend not
that these formulas, called after St. Clement, St.
James, St. Mark, &c. were tiie genuine produc
tions of those whose names they bear ; yet their
antiquity, far higher than the era assigned to the
rise of transubstantiation, and their customary use
in Churches, renders their doctrine very important
to our question. Of these, the Roman Missal is
accounted the purest, and the model of the rest.
ORTHODOX.
That cannot be the model, which is of the later
* Defence of Exposition, App-

92 DIALOGUE II.
origin. If any liturgy may pretend to be the
" model of the rest ", it is that imputed to St.
Clement ; and which is, most probably, the earliest
liturgy of the Church : its construction and com
position are very primitive ; and the mode of ad
ministering the Eucharist strictly harmonizes with
the account given in the second century by Justin
Martyr. Perhaps every part of this hturgy may
be vindicated by Ante-Nicene evidence.
The Roman Missal is far inferior in antiquity
and worth. It is of comparatively recent date ;
and of less authority than any other of the old
liturgies ; whose place, however, by papal control,
it has usurped in the Latin Churches. That sin
gle supplication, " through the merits of the
saints ", is a decisive mark either of novelty or in
terpolation. The ancient services have nothing of
the kind. PHILODOX.
It is, however, prior to the era assigned by Pro
testants to the origin of transubstantiation.
ORTHODOX.
So you may infer without going further than
the Missal itself The prayer used after conse
cration is irreconcileable with this doctrine. The
priest, for instance, elevates the host, the real body

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 93
of his Lord ; and implores God " to look propi
tiously with a serene countenance upon tliese gifts,
and accept them as He accepted those of Abel, the
sacrifice of Abraham, and the immaculate host of
his high-priest Melchizedek ; and that He would
command these things to be carried, by the hands
of his angel unto his high altar, in the presence
of his divine Majesty." Is it other than a gross
indignity to our ever blessed Lord, for a corrupt
mortal to intercede for him, and pray God to look
as graciously and propitiously upon the sacrifice of
his own well-beloved and eternal Son, as he had
looked upon the offerings of the Patriarchs ?
whereas, through His merits alone were the offer
ings of those holy men at all acceptable,
PHILODOX.
Cardinal Bona gives this explanation of these diffi
cult words ; — " We pray for the propitious counte
nance of God upon our gifts ; lest perchance, on ac
count of our iniquities, they should not be grateful
unto God; though otherwise, on the part of the
thing offered, and on the part of the primary of
ferer, who is Christ, they are always pleasing unto
Him."*
* De Lit. p. 781.

94

DIALOGUE II.

ORTHODOX.
This explanation confirms what the words, under
the present doctrine, convey ; viz. that the sacrifice
of the Messiah is not more the gift of God to man,
than of man to God ; and that the sins of mortals
are capable of rendering the offering of the Son of
God unacceptable to the Father, and of diminish
ing in the divine eye the value of that glorious sa
crifice. Again, is it rational or decent to pray, that
Christ may be presented by an angel in heaven ;
where He ever liveth and reigneth with the Father,
in the unity of the Spirit, one God, blessed for
ever : amen ? According to what we doubt not
was the mind of the compiler of this prayer, the
language is pious and proper ; and the reference
to the sacrifices of the Patriarchs fit and edifying.
But in the lips of a transubstantiating priest, it is
as nonsensical, as it is irreverent, not to say im
pious. PHILODOX.
This objection apart, the general consistency of
so ancient a hturgy, with the doctrine of the cor
poral presence, militates against its recent invention.
ORTHODOX.
The consistency is apparent, not real ; and is not

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 95
to be found in the words used ; which are unheard,
or buried in a strange language. For, in fact, the
terms of the Canon are plain and simple. The
seeming consistency is in the rubrics, which were
framed to support transubstantiation ; and they are
superstitious and offensive in the extreme. The
crossings and bowings ; kissings and kneelings ;
looking up and then down ; now extending the
hands, and now joining them together, &c. with the
elevation, adoration, and all the other appendages ;
do present one of the most palpable appearances
of idolatry, of worshipping the creature instead
of the Creator, that, probably, the universe at this
day exhibits. PHILODOX.
After all, how is the alleged novelty of tran
substantiation reconcileable with its prevalence ?
When and where did it spring up ? Who was
its author ? How came all the Church to receive
it? ORTHODOX.
Let me answer these questions by another. Why
are not such queries as valid in the mouth of a Pagan,
as of a Romanist? Why could not the Jews have
put them to Christ and His Apostles, when de
nouncing their corrupt traditions ? The reply of
our Lord disperses this sophistry into air : " From

96

DIALOGUE II.

the beginning it was not so." Were all your in
quiries unanswerable by us, they weigh not a fea
ther against the invincible fact, that for centuries
after the Christian era the dogma was unknown.
As, however, this mode of questioning is very po
pular with them, we will not leave it unfurnished
with a solution.
The earliest glimpse of transubstantiation ap
peared in the Eutychians of the fifth century, when
it was authoritatively condemned by Pope Gelasius.
Nurtured in the den of heresy, it crawled forth again
in the deep gloom of the ninth age, and shewed its
unsightly features in the Church. Though encoun
tering many hard rebuffs, it graduaUy expanded^
and matured during the increasing darkness of the
following centuries, when, as their own writers re
cord, the spiritual head of the Church seemed to
be either driven away by the corruptions of the
people, or to have fallen asleep at the helm, and
left his ship to the mercy of the waves ; when her
carnal head, (carnal indeed !) was a series of mon
sters, from whose crimes we shrink with disgust ;
when prelates and clergy were immersed in incre
dible and enormous vices ; when, deeply as at the
period of which the prophet speaks, " darkness
covered the earth, and gross darkness the people."
This was an era, duly prepared, by intellectual and

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 97
spiritual gloom, for the reception of any prodigy :
since no power less than that of her Divine Founder
preserved the vessel from a total wreck, tossed as
she was on the billows of Mahometan and Pagan
desolation, and sinking under the pressure of in
ternal corruption. For in the west, the rude swarms
of the northern hive ; and, in the east, the hordes
of Turks and Saracens, devastated the seats of re
ligion and of literature ; and made havoc of all
learning, human and divine : — whilst in the Church
the treacherous tyranny of her rulers and their sa
tellites debased the purity of primitive record ; and
exchanged the piety of early days for a mass of im
posture and fraud, which long rendered history
doubtful, and still obscures the integrity of evidence ;
when decretal epistles and other forgeries usurped
the place of holy writ ; when legendary romance
passed for more than gospel verity ; when miracles
the most absurd and scandalous were fabricated by
knavish monks to give currency to new doctrines
issuing from the same inventive source ; — when pa
triarchs and prelates were occupied in riding on the
necks of princes, of people, and of each other ;
when pontiffs tore pontiffs from their graves ; when
popelings (it is the contemptuous epithet of Platina)
did little else than annul and anathematize the
measures of their predecessors ; and councils were
H

98 DIALOGUE II.
but convened to execrate and persecute councils.
Such was the auspicious hour in which the eternal
foe of Christian truth dragged forth, from the cave
of heresy, this tenet, to ride in triumph through
the Church ; to be the founder of the inquisition ;
the parent of persecution ; and to convert the em
blem and seal of redeeming mercy, into the most
deadly instrument of remorseless cruelty. This was
the period in which transubstantiation obtained its
victory. In such an era, the more monstrous a
thing was, the more eagerly it was followed. — Now
it is through the dark and almost inextricable
avenues of this dreary epoch ; through the mazes
of its forgeries, the labyrinths of its marvels, the
recesses of its crimes, and the camp of its tumults
and seditions, we are required to wade : and for what
purpose ? To prove that day is not night ; that
falsehood cannot be truth ; that the senses may be
trusted in their lawful exercise ; that the testimony
of holy writ, of primitive martyrs, of orthodox Fa
thers, of early traditions, is rather to be believed,
than a dogma which defies the whole ; against
which reason and scripture revolt, and whose very
basis is the nulhty of all testimony.
PHILODOX.
Dark as was the period to which you refer, and

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 99
in which the annals, as well of Baronius, Platina,
and, in fact, all competent writers, unhappily, hold
you out ; yet it must not be forgotten that there
were many great and good men, who stiU bore tes
timony to the truth. ORTHODOX.
Undoubtedly there were. God hath never left
Himself without a witness. And although, the " still
small voice " was scarcely heard, in the surrounding
din, there is still testimony to lend a clue to the in
quiry. The destructive fact, that in the fifth century,
the doctrine of a corporeal change in the elements,
was promulged by the Eutychian heretics ; that it
was then denounced and condemned, would be suf
ficient to shew that the opinion was heretical in
that age. And upoji this simple fact again, the
whole might be allowed to rest. That which was
then heresy, were it universally prevalent for every
century since, can never be transubstantiated into
orthodoxy. The doctrinal sentence of Pope Gela
sius was, " The substance of the nature of bread
and wine does not cease to exist" : and in this sen
tence, the whole Church acquiesced. But a pontiff^
who should now pronounce such sentence, would
H 2

100 DIALOGUE II.
by that very act become a Protestant, and tear up
the foundations of his Church.
For the space of six hundred years, then, it had
been the uniform practice of the Church, to speak
of the Eucharist as the sacrament, type, anti-type,
symbol, figure, similitude, representation, &c. of the
body and blood of Christ : the change produced by
consecration was declared to be sacramental and
moral ; and denied to be physical and substantial.
That which is now faith, was then heresy.
In the seventh century, the Eutychian notion,
which, though condemned, had not been extin
guished, appears to have affected the speculative
cranium of one Anastasius, a monk of Mount Sinai *;
and as the philosophers had been the teachers of
heresy in the primitive days ; .so, in a later period,
the monks and friars assumed the chair ; for pos
sessing solely what learning there was, they filled
* There were three persons in the east, almost contempo
raries, of this name ; two of whom were successively pa
triarchs of Antioch ; and, as Dupin observes, " are often
mistaken for each other." But Dupin also has confounded
one of these vidth the Sinaitic monk, of whom I am speaking.
L'Arroque has shewn the mistake, by proving, that the latter
speaks of what happened subsequent to the death of Eulo-
gius, patriarch of Alexandria, whom Dupin himself states to
have survived the patriarch Anastasius II. some years.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 101
Christendom with the air-drawn froth of their lucu
brations, which the breath of infallibility puffed
into articles of faith. PHILODOX.
Do you mean to say that Anastasius first in
vented transubstantiation ?
ORTHODOX.
No ; but he appears to have been the first who,
in the Church, deviated from the language of his
predecessors, by denying that the elements are the
figure of Christ's body and blood. It was, how
ever, a mere deviation in terms ; because he speaks
of the body of Christ, as being " different bread
from that which is bought in the shambles ", &c.
In the eighth century, Damascenus, the last of
the Greek Fathers, and whose writings have had a
very extraordinary influence upon the faith of that
portion of the Church; a violent advocate for
image-worship, and on that account anathematized
by the Council of Constantinople, reduced the hy
perbolical language of rhetoric, into the form of de
monstration, and maintained a corporal presence.
But his doctrine is that of consubstantiation : the
Lutheran rather than the Romish notion : and from
him Luther borrowed certain of his wefl-known il-

102 DIALOGUE Hi
lustrations, as that " a burning coal is not mere coal,
but coal conjoined with fire", &c.
PHILODOX.
The Second Council of Nice declared transub
stantiation to be then the doctrine of the Church.
ORTHODOX.
The question of a corporal presence was first
conciharly brought forward in the year 754 by
the Council of Constantinople, consisting of 238
bishops. In their decree, which swept images out
of the Church, they advert, in way of illustration,
to the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, which
was accounted to "be the type and image of God";
and they infer that, to avoid idolatry. He would
have no human effigy, but chose bread to be an
effigy of Himself Now this testimony deserves the
more attention, inasmuch as it is not brought into
discussion, but alleged in proof from a tenet admit
ted on all sides. PHILODOX.
This assembly is entitled to no respect. The Ro
manists admit it not to be a general council ; and
all its decrees were annulled by the Second Council
of Nice.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 103
ORTHODOX.
It is much more entitled to respect than that
vile conventicle, which the Roman Church, to her
eternal disgrace, acknowledges. Its proceedings
were much more consistent with scripture and
primitive tradition. But be this as it may. We
have therein the testimony of two hundred and
thirty-eight bishops, headed by the Patriarch of
Constantinople, and legally convened and sanction
ed by the emperor, that the corporal presence was
not the doctrine of the Church. It is true, the
Empress Irene, having mnr dered her own son and
sovereign, usurped the throne, and thrust a layman
into the patriarchal see ; convened a body of pre
lates at Nice, to subvert all the proceedings of
the former council : and this despicable assembly,
whose proceedings were scandalous ; whose idola><
try was gross and blasphemous; whose anathemas
were directly denounced against the word of God ;
and whose decrees are grounded upon such palpa
ble forgeries, and enforced by such arguments,
that scarcely a member of the Roman communion
(though bound to receive all its dicta as the infal
hble utterance of the Holy Spirit) ever ventures
to bring them forward, or utter a word in their
defence : — this assembly, I say, convened for the
express purpose of condemning the former, and de-

104 DIALOGUE II.
stroying all primitive tradition, inveighs against
the prelates of Constantinople upon every topic ;
and having loaded all their sentences and adherents
with a string of execrations, which has no parallel
except in the ravings of Bedlam; amongst the
rest, files out upon the above remark respecting
the Eucharist ; and solemnly swears, with an ana
thema appended, that none of the Fathers ever
caUed the Eucharist a figure or similitude ; which
is so wilful a violation of truth, or such excessive
ignorance, that not a Romanist offers a syllable of
apology for it. Yet this conventicle, which had the
most inordinate digestion for absurdities and false
hoods, of almost any body of men that ever met
together, does not deny the substance of bread and
wine in the Eucharist, but merely, in their bitter
spleen against the Byzantine Council, wrangles at
the use of the term figure or effigy.
PHILODOX.
But, by admitting so early an origin of the cor
poral presence, you contradict many Protestant
writers, who deny that it was introduced before the
time of Paschasius. ORTHODOX.
Herein there is no contradiction. What is at pre-

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 105
sent called transubstantiation, had no earlier origin
than the time of Paschasius ; but the new fashion
of quarrelling ^vith the old and sanctioned language
of the Fathers, promulged by the high authority of
Damascenus in the east, and by the reception of
the Nicene Council in the west, united to the ve
neration paid to both, on account of their strong
sanction to image worship, paved the way for the
revival and ultimate reception of the heretical opi
nion of Eutyches ; which had now more advantages
than before, in the decreased piety and increasing
darkness of a superstitious age.
It was impossible that the new notions should
not occasion some controversy. In the year 818,
Paschasius, a monk of Corby in France, pubhshed
his memorable book ; and it is admitted by Bel
larmin, that " he was the first who wrote seriously
on the subject". So that, it seems, the world for
eight centuries knew not what they believed, until
a French friar rose up to tell them.
PHILODOX.
But Radbert constantly speaks as a man who
knew that he was merely explaining a doctrine uni
versally received. ORTHODOX.
This may be refuted from the book itself He

106 DIALOGUE II.
writes not like one dogmatically stating what all
Catholics received ; but as conscious that he was
hammering out something strange. Having stated
the old doctrine, that the bread and wine was a.
figure, &c. he adds, " I shall tell you something
more wonderful"; and he fulfils his promise; for
forth issues transubstantiation : and to prove the
truth of it in the usual mode of the times, he fills
a chapter with marvels and miracles ; affirming
" that our Lord was often seen in the shape of a
lamb, in the hands of the priest"; and that, upon
one occasion, " an angel shewed Christ to a priest,
in the form of a child upon the altar ; and, having
nursed and kissed him, swallowed him up": with
much more of the same profane legends. This is he
that first wrote "seriously" upon the subject, says
BeUarmin. "The first", says Sermond, "whoso
explained the genuine sense as to open the way for
others." PHILODOX.
It seems, however, that this doctrine was acknow
ledged to be the orthodox faith.
ORTHODOX.
This likewise may be refuted by Paschasius
himself He speaks as one promulging a novelty,
" Some reproved me ; some doubted ; many are

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 107
of another opinion ; many are blind, and cannot
see", &c. These are not the words of a man,
announcing the universal creed of the Catholic
Church. He submitted his book to the judgment
of a friend, one Frudegard ; he tells him that he
had been censured for teaching a wrong doctrine.
He begs of him to tell him what " might be more
intelligibly believed, or what was charitably to be
reprehended in him". When attacked, he never
shelters himself under the universal antiquity of
his faith, but defends himself by such arguments
as he could find ; some sorry enough indeed ; and
others not easily reconcileable with his opinions.
No sooner had the Paschasian hypothesis appear
ed, than it was directly contradicted, and that by
some of the highest characters of the age, in station
and attainments. Rabanus, Archbishop of Mayence,
tutor to the Emperor Charlemagne, and acknow
ledged to be one of the greatest and most learned
prelates of the era, and termed by Cardinal Baro
nius, the "prince of theologians" of his time, directly
disapproved of the doctrine. Heribald, Bishop of
Auxerre, and Amalarius, who was sent on an em
bassy to Rome by the emperor, were of the like
opinion. In fact, so far from the work being re
ceived as the Catholic exposition, it occasioned so

108 DIALOGUE II.
violent a controversy and opposition, that the Em
peror Charles the Bald, employed two of the
greatest divines and scholars of his court, Bertram
and John Scot, to write against it. The work of the
former still survives, and is the most valuable trea
tise on the subject that has been handed down. And
it is pecuharly interesting to us of the Church of
England, as being the best exposition of the views
of our Reformers. This book first, opened the eyes
of Bishop Ridley, and, through him, of Archbishop
Cranmer ; and it appears to have truly deserved the
high eulogium pronounced by the former of these
martyrs, at his mock examination before his death.
" I have, to confirm my opinion, what Bertram
wrote ; a man orthodox and learned ; and who
for now seven hundred years, down even to the
present age, hath ever been esteemed Cathohc ;
whose treatise, read and pondered ; weighing the
age, erudition, and holiness of the writer, his alle
gations of the ancients, and his manifold and solid
arguments ; I must certainly wonder, if any one
fearing God could venture, with a safe conscience,
to contradict him in the Eucharist. He first gave
me a check, and first withdrew me from the popular
error of the Roman Church to the more diligent
study of scripture, and the ancient ecclesiastical

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 109
writers ; and this I speak before God, who knoweth
that in this I say 1 lie not."*
PHILODOX.
The authority of Bertram's book has been dis
puted by some, and its meaning doubted by others.
ORTHODOX.
It has grievously perplexed the Romish writers
to find the reformed doctrine of the Eucharist, as
held at this day by the Anghcan Church, advocated
and explained in the ninth century as the only Ca
tholic doctrine, by one whose estimation for learning
and piety is evinced by his being twice publicly
called upon to handle the two profoundest contro
versies of his time. Predestination and the Eucha
rist ; and whose orthodoxy is proclaimed, not only
in his having been, as Bishop Ridley remarks, " al
ways accounted Catholic ", but especially chosen to
defend the Roman Church against the Greek. So
decidedly adverse is his book to the corporal pre
sence, that the Reformers had little else to do than
repeat his sentiments, and amplify his reasoning.
True it is, modern Romanists have attempted to
brand him with heresy ; for, as Turrian says, "to
quote Bertram, what is it but to say, that the heresy
* Protestatio Ridleii.

110 DIALOGUE ir.
of Calvin is not new?" However, others more dis
creet and cautious have avoided this. Father Ma-
billon blames them for " branding an author with
heresy, whom their ancestors always esteemed Ca
tholic." Of his orthodoxy, in fact, the above proof
is sufficient, viz. that when Pope Nicholas I. wrote
to the bishops of France, desiring them to take up
the Ptoman cause against the Greeks, they pitched
upon Bertram, as the most fit and competent divine
to be found ; and he acquitted himself of the duty.
PHILODOX.
Has not the genuineness of the present copies of
this famous treatise been called in question ?
ORTHODOX.
When it was first printed at Colen in 1532, the
appearance of a theologian, seven hundred years
old, of such admitted eminence, so expressly contra
dicting a doctrine which had long been made the
all-in-all of their creed, threw their doctors into con
sternation. Some thought the most expeditious way
was to denounce the author for a heretic. Others,
aware that this summary mode would not answer,
attempted to bend and strain him to a Roman
sense ; but wearied in the struggle with so refrac
tory and stubborn a subject, he was at length thrown

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. Ill
aside in despair, and affirmed to be so interpolated
and corrupted by heretics, as to be perfectly useless
and unintelhgible. This comfortable sentence, which
had so categorically dismissed an untoward witness,
was, however, ere long, annulled by the practical
refutation of the erudite and candid Mabillon, who,
having found a MS. copy of Bertram, eight hundred
years old, in the monastery of Lobes, published it;
and it then appeared, that the former copy, so far
from being corrupted, differed by the omission of a
single word alone, from the Lobes MS.; which
word Dr. Hopkins has, very properly, admitted into
his English translation. No sooner had this un
lucky discovery been divulged, than a fresh trial was
made to bend him to an orthodox meaning ; and
those who wish to see with what success this might
be attempted, would do well to read the treatise
and the attempt ; it is effected by no wresting more
hardy than that of simply changing visibly into
INVISIBLY, and a few other trifling alterations of
the same sort, neither difficult nor rare to Papal
patriots. The English translator has ably drawn an argu
ment from the treatment which this book sustained,
against the boasted unity of Romanists, and the
value of that infaUibihty which is to deliver the
Church from the dangerous and uncertain interpre-

112 DIALOGUE IL
tation of private spirits. Here is an author, pro
fessedly explaining the most profound and important
doctrine of faith. Yet can their writers, in no wise,
agree whether he be orthodox or heterodox ; Ca
tholic or heretical. The Council of Trent thrusts
him into the index of prohibited books. Notwith
standing this, their divines wrangle about him, as
though such Council had never existed, or such
index never been published. " He is a heretic ", ex
claims Bellarmin. " He was always accounted a
Catholic", retorts Mabillon. " He was heterodox",
affirms Father Cellot. " He was orthodox", rephes
Labbe. " His tract is spurious and condemned",
affirms Archbishop De Marca. " It is genuine and
allowed", says Dean Boileau ; and so on.
PHILODOX.
There is a difficulty, no doubt, in these conflict
ing opinions respecting Bertram.
ORTHODOX.
The confusion in which they are involved proves
that the difficulty is inextricable : and the more
they strive to deliver themselves, the deeper they
sink. The single solution is obvious. Transub
stantiation was not the doctrine of the Church in
the days of Bertram.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 113
PHILODOX.
You named John Scotus.
ORTHODOX.
Contemporary with Bertram, and a man of great
learning and judgment ; employed by the em
peror to write on the subject. His book is lost.
But, as Dupin allows, he went further than Ber
tram ; for, in his treatise, " he asserted that the
sacraments of the altar were not the real body and
blood of Christ, but only a remembrance of both."
To accumulate evidence on this point, would be
to abstract the volumes of Bishop Cosins, Claude,
L'Arroque, and others, who have expressly writ
ten on the subject. A few names can only be ad
verted to. The Emperor Charlemagne, a saint,
and the greatest benefactor of Rome, uses language
adverse to this doctrine, in a letter to Alcuin. Pru-
dens, another saint and martyr of the Church, who
is termed " the light of the French, and the orna
ment of bishops ", held, as Archbishop Hincmar af
firms, the opinion of Scotus ; Florus, a deacon of the
same Church, " wrote upon the mass, and speaks
of it like Bertram", says Dupin. To these we may
add the names of Hatto, Bishop of Basle, Theo-
dulph. Bishop of Orleans, and others ; together with
the council of Galilean prelates at Cressy. But we

114 DIALOGUE II.
will not allude to any particularly, except Heribold,
who held the same tenet. Y'et he was Prince Chap
lain to Charles the Bald ; an office which gave him
the supreme administration of ecclesiastical affairs
in the empire, and a rank above all dignitaries and
prelates. PHILODOX.
What course did the popes pursue in this con
troversy occasioned by Paschasius ?
ORTHODOX.
Their conduct admits of no solution favourable
to the Roman hypothesis. Upon this vital point,
thus orthodoxly expounded by Paschasius, and he-
retically contradicted by some of the most learned,
dignified, and eminent prelates, the pontiffs, Ni
cholas I. and his successor Adrian II. maintained
a profound silence. Nay, Nicholas allowed Heri
bold to fill the highest ecclesiastical office in the
empire. He permitted Bertram to be chosen to
defend the Roman Church against the Greek. Yet
Nicholas was not an ignorant prelate, neither idle,
nor immersed in vice, like many of his predecessors
and successors : but a person of great ecclesiastical
learning and activity. Would such a man have al
lowed notorious heretics to hold the highest stations,
and to be * invited to advocate the cause of the

OP TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 115
Church, which their dangerous opinions more in
jured than any hostile foe could do?
The same holds good of his successor Adrian II.
whom Dupin describes as " zealous for the welfare
of the Cathohc Church ". " He diligently looked ",
says Platina, " into every thing that could concern
the honour of God." Yet, here was heresy, rear
ing its front in the highest stations of the Church ;
and he noticed it not. Nay, though he had a vio
lent quarrel with the French emperor and clergy ;
though the former bitterly rebuked him for not
adhering to the customs of the Church, yet the
angry pontiff, in his letters, retorts not the accusa
tion, nor gives the slightest hint of heterodoxy pre
vailing in their very bosom. The inference is ob
vious. Either the corporal presence was not then
the received faith ; or these two popes were here
tical. Such was the state of the question, at the close
of the ninth century. Tt appears that, previous to
Paschasius, an opinion savouring of consubstantia
tion had been promulged in the Greek, and pro
bably admitted into the Latin Church. But such
an opinion as the one now called transubstantia
tion, the annihilation of the bread and wine, and
the sole presence of the natural body and blood of
Christ, was unknown in the Church until Pascha-
I 2

116 DIALOGUE II.
sius arose, and delivered this notion, which was
immediately denied by many, and questioned by
more, as himself relates ; which was opposed and
denounced by some of the most exalted and digni
fied characters of the age ; and openly defended by
none that I am aware of Here then you may
safely take a stand ; and call upon them to shew,
that what is now called transubstantiation (for the
name was yet unknown) was the faith of any prior
Church, or Catholic writer, much less of the whole
universe. As the next century dawned, religious dark
ness became " deeper and deeper still." The car
nal doctrine, more suited to this grossly ignorant
and superstitious age ; more favourable to the now
determined object of humbling all things beneath
the yoke of an aspiring and sensual priesthood,
made rapid progress ; and the voice of opposition
became fainter daily. Yet there is evidence that
its progress was not entirely uninterrupted : as, for
instance, Ratherius, Bishop of Verona, preached
the spiritual tenet, uncensured, as it were, at the
very gates of Rome. PHILODOX.
I should derive more satisfaction to see some
evidence, that transubstantiation was not the doc-

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 117
trine of our own Church ; considering that Arch
bishop Lanfranc was its most zealous advocate.
ORTHODOX.
In the tenth century, it was introduced into Eng
land under Archbishop Odo, with the customary
recommendation, a string of pretended miracles ;
as Wilham of Malmsbury testifies. But still the
old tenet continued to be the Anglican doctrine,
until after the Conquest ; when Lanfranc, the cham
pion of the carnal presence, and the rigid opponent
of Berenger, obtained the primacy. The evidence
of this is more decisive, with respect to our own
Church, than, perhaps, any other, from the well-
known Saxon homily of Elfric, which was ordered
to be read to the people before every Easter, in
order to prepare them for the sacrament. This
homily is not only the same in doctrine with Ber
tram; but, as Archbishop Usher observes, "in
many places directly translated from him". It is a
pleasing reflection to consider, that the Divine Good
ness led our holy Reformers to the same source,
whence, in earlier and better days, the ancient
Church of England had drawn instruction for her
flock : thus her faith remained what it was before,
merely filtered from the Romish dregs.
In such an age as the tenth century, the old doc-

118 DIALOGUE II.
trine had nothing to sustain it, but truth, and spi-
rituahty, and reason; the poorest supports it could
have found. The new tenet, devoid of these, pos
sessed every other. It suited the ignorance of the
multitude ; and it harmonized with the ambition
and lofty pretensions of the clergy. It being, there
fore, impossible that doctrines, so opposite in their
consequences, could both be tolerated, matters came
at length to a decision.
The Bishop of Angers, and his archdeacon, Be
renger, publicly taught their people the ancient
tenet ; and reprobated the Paschasian novelty.
The prelate appears to have been soon intimidated
by the clamors of the popular party ; but the arch
deacon was not so easily silenced. Berenger is de
scribed, even by his adversaries, as no common man,
but of exemplary piety and learning. The contro
versy is tedious and obscure. It seems, however,
that Nicholas II. having convened a council at
Rome, that gross retractation was prepared which
I have before repeated ; and Berenger, terrified by
the noise and violence of the pope and s)mod, signed
it. But they, I suppose, overdid the business : and
the recantation is too strong for any of their modern
champions to digest. Yet, be they ashamed of it, or
otherwise, this is the primitive confession ; this the
recorded and solemn declaration of what transub-

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 119
stantiation reahy is. The inventors of the doctrine
were, at least, honest and straightforward ; they
meant to establish a carnal tenet, and a carnal tenet
they enforced. The subsequent exposition of a spi
ritual and glorified body ; of accidents without sub
stances, &c., was a dress prepared by the schools ;
spun from a cobweb woof, to give a decent clothing
to this uncouth offspring of human absurdity and
presumption. This confession Berenger retracted, and preached
as before. Nor was it until a lapse of four-and-
twenty years, that the famous Pope Hildebrand
was most reluctantly enforced to take up the dis
pute. He ordered Berenger to sign a fresh retracta
tion, so loosely worded, that Bertram himself might
have set his hand to it. And though herein he may
be said to have censured Berenger ; he yet far more
decidedly condemned the former pope and his coun
cil, by removing from the shoulders of the heresiarch
a confession of faith solemnly prepared by infallible
authority. It rested not here ; for the advocates of
the carnal tenet, grievously dissatisfied with so am
biguous a confession, never ceased to importune the
pontiff until he had compelled Berenger to sign
another, much stronger than the last, but import
antly different from that of Nicholas. The arch
deacon, however, again retracted ; and not only so.

120 DIALOGUE II.
but wrote afresh against the corporal doctrine. Yet,
notwithstanding this open defiance of papal power;
notwithstanding the incessant clamors and entrea
ties of Lanfranc and the rest, the pope persisted in
refusing to take any ftirther notice of the affair, and
Berenger died in peace.
Now unless this far-famed pontiff was satisfied
that the opinion of this controvertist was the ortho
dox one, his conduct is inexplicable. But happily,
he has not left us to conjecture. He affirms, that
the Holy Virgin assured him, that Berenger held
nothing " except what authentic scripture held."
No marvel then, that, in the words of Mosheim,
" he left the violent adversaries of his persecuted
friend to murmur, scribble, bawl, and refute ; whilst
he himself observed a profound silence ; and per
sisted in his resolution to put the unhappy man to
no further trouble." We need not wonder also
that the Council of Brescia should pass a decree
against this pope, as a "favourer of the Berengarian
heresy." PHILODOX.
Dupin treats that censure as groundless ; and
says, " that council was displeased with his lenity."
ORTHODOX.
But was not Hildebrand the last of men to shew

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 121
lenity to an incorrigible heretic ; who continued to
despise an authority which it was the labour of his
whole hfe to exalt to the loftiest summit ? But be
that as it may ; we have in him the solemn de
claration of a pope and canonized saint, that the
Virgin Mary has decided that Berenger's doctrine
was true and scriptural. PHILODOX.
Yet when Berenger promulged his opinion, " the
whole Church rose up against him." *
ORTHODOX.
There is proof to the contrary. His adversaries
declare, that his doctrine had infected all France,
Italy, Germany, England, &c. ; though they might
more truly have said, the old faith was not yet ex
pelled from those countries. Many were terrified
to recant ; numbers were driven from their homes ;
and the arm of tyranny raised in all quarters, to
enforce this Eutychian heresy in the Church.
There yet wanted a proper term to express the
dogma. At length, Stephen, Bishop of Autun, ham
mered out the word " transubstantiation", which
offended the famous master of the sentences, Lom
bard ; who was unwilling that the Church should
* End of Controversy, L. xxxvii.

122 DIALOGUE II.
define of what kind the sacramental conversion
was. However, the newly-found epithet marvel
lously pleased the pope, the ambitious and arbitrary
Innocent III., to whom this kingdom owes such
weighty obligations, for placing it under an inter
dict ; labouring to render it a province of France ;
actually subjecting it in vassalage to his see ; an-
nulhng Magna Charta, and tramphng under foot all
the liberty it possessed. This arrogant pontiff sum
moned an assembly in his palace ; thither he brought
a string of resolutions ready prepared; of which
transubstantiation was one ; the right of persecuting
heretics, and deposing heretical princes, another;
and the excommunicating of the barons who had
procured British liberty, a third. Upon all these,
the said assembly set the stamp of infallibility, and
having broken up, this is now the sixth general
Lateran council of the Catholic Church, whose de
crees are as binding upon the belief and conscience
of Romanists as holy writ.
Thus in 1215, transubstantiation became an ar
ticle of faith. And " no sooner was this beU rung
out", than all its accompanying banditti poured in
upon the Church. To believe transubstantiation
now became the test of Catholicism. A crusade was
proclaimed against the heterodox : the fiends of
desolation were let loose upon the Waldenses, and

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 123
all other heretics ; and because these temporary
civil arms were inefficient to crush the opposing
plague, and to penetrate the secret haunts of
disaffection, a permanent instrument was esta
bhshed in the deadly tribunal of the Inquisition.
An entire revolution took place in the divinity of
the schools. The doctors set their wits to work,
to fabricate a system of philosophy to suit the new
divinity ; which not less repelled the primitive lo
gic, than the primitive faith. Then followed the
elevation of the host, the adoration, the procession,
the feast of Corpus Christi, and all the accumulat
ed appendages of this idolatrous and superstitious
service. Such were the swelling banners of the
triumph now obtained over the voice of scripture
and tradition ; over the dictates of reason and com
mon sense. PHILODOX.
But, supposing this to have been the case in the
Western Church, how does it explain its prevalence
in the Greek, Eastern, Nestorian and other
Churches, which holding the most bitter aversion
to the Latins, nevertheless universally received this
faith ; nor was it questioned by any before the Re
formation, except " by a handful of Vaudois pea
sants." There is but one way of accounting for
this, viz. says Bishop Milner, " that mentioned by

124 DIALOGUE II.
Dr. Bailey, which is to suppose that, on some one
night, all the Christians of the world went to sleep
sound Protestants, and awoke the next morning
rank Papists."* ORTHODOX.
This, I presume, is a jocose mode of settling a
question, when arguments fail. We give them
facts, and they reply by a sleepy hypothesis. St.
Jerome, however, parallels it in a case of the reality
of which I presume they doubt not. So rapidly,
yet so imperceptibly, did Arianism overrun the
universal Church, that he says, " all the world
was astonished to see itself Arian." To be sure,
the few orthodox might thus argue against the he
resy ; — " From the beginning it was not so ; we
have scripture and primitive tradition on our side ;
we can prove by both, that your doctrine is a no
velty." But what would it avail against a de
monstration so all-sufficient as this : — " If Trinita-
rianism be true, then we must suppose, that on
some one night all the Christians of the world
went to bed sound Trinitarians, and rose rank
Arians " ?
This plausible story is soon dismissed. Dr.
Milner confines his dissentients to " a handful of
Vaudois peasants." Now, without travelling be-
* End of Controversy, L. xi.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 125
yond the west, we have seen that numbers of no
light name opposed transubstantiation at the first ;
and it is acknowledged, that the adherents of Be
renger filled Germany, Italy, England, &:c. But
had the opposition been confined to a " handful of
Vaudois peasants ", it follows not that the truth
might not remain with them as it did in elder
times, with the " seven thousand that had not
bowed the knee to Baal ", in the general apostasy
of the Jewish Church: and at a period somewhat
later, when Israel, become corrupt as Sodom and
Gomorrah, was only preserved from its fate by
" a very small remnant ", left unto it " as the
gleaning of grapes when the vintage is done."
Christ designates his true followers as a " little
flock " ; and their own writers allow, that a time
shall be when apostasy shall well nigh extinguish
the name of Christianity.
But of these " Vaudois peasants ", it is unhap
pily too true that they have for many ages been a
" handful ". But who made them so ? Who re
duced them to this humble state ? Rome and her
bloody Church ; which with transubstantiation ac
quired the summit of her usurpation ; and, with its
attendant persecutors, the height of her enormities.
They were not a " handful " when the Papal ban
ditti were let loose upon them. Did it need coun-

126 DIALOGUE II.
cils and armies, crusades and inquisitions to dis
perse a " handful of men " ? Six hundred years
has the Vaudois bush been burning in the fires of
tyranny and barbarity, and yet remains unconsum-
ed, PHILODOX.
But were not these Waldenses a disorderly li
centious rabble, " obscene Manichees ", without
ministry or discipline ?
ORTHODOX.
" Obscenity " is an ill-chosen term to express
Manicheeism *. Romanists have laboured hard to
confound them with the Manichees : but the charge
is sufficiently refuted even by the testimony of their
most remorseless enemies i",
* Vide an able abstract of Manicheeism in a recent num
ber of the Quarterly Review.
t It is pitiable to see the vile falsehoods raised against the
Waldenses, received, without examination ; as in Mr. Gifford's
Hist, of France, V. I. p. 412. Such neglect of truth and en
quiry in historians is unpardonable. Mr. Gilly, for his vo
lume, deserves the thanks of every feeling heart; and our
gratitude is due to Mr. Sims, for his publication of Peyran's
valuable Letters. It is cheering, and of pleasing omen, to
see attention directed to this " long-neglected vine " which
for ages endured the bitter blasts of Anti-Christ. A good
history of this people is yet a desideratum. Mr. Jones's is
by no means satisfactory.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 127
That they were a " disorderly rabble " is a simi
lar calumny. They kept up primitive discipline,
as far as the horrid persecutions of Rome would
permit. They retained episcopal succession ; and
this becoming almost extinct, was handed through
their surviving bishop, Stephen, to the Bohemian
and Moravian Churches ; a branch of which last
took shelter in this country a century ago ; and
after a minute examination by that profound eccle
siastical scholar. Archbishop Potter, was here ac
knowledged as an ancient episcopal Church. And
here they have still kept the " noiseless tenor of
their way " ; asking protection only ; disturbing
not the powers that be ; proselyting not in the
Church that shelters them ; but unostentatiously
seeking disciples for Christ, where self-inflation has
not popular applause to feed on. Their praise is
on the frozen shores of Greenland.
The supposed prevalence of transubstantiation in
the Greek and Eastern Churches, is so involved in
their , political state, and in the history of Romish
machination and despotism, that it is scarcely pos
sible to glance at it in so narrow a compass as our
time allows.
You will remember, that the novel mode of de
viating from the authorized language of tradition
originated in the Greek Church ; and thence de-

128 DIALOGUE II.
scended to the Latin. Damascenus was the last
and most esteemed of the Greek Fathers ; and it is
probable that his notion of consubstantiation may
have given a tinge to their whole divinity. But
that they held transubstantiation, though asserted
even by Protestant writers, never has been proved.
So far are the evidences, as many as I have seen,
from establishing the fact, that they appear to prove
the contrary. Has the Greek Church gone further
than the tenet of Damascenus ? This has not been
shewn. Certain it is, they did not admit the only
term expressive of transubstantiation into their
creeds, although they have a word precisely syno
nymous, f/.srov<ria)(ng. The inseparable appendages
of the doctrine they have always rejected, as wor
shipping the elements, processions, &c.
The first evidence to be considered will be the
Liturgy now used by them, and bearing the name of
St. Chrysostom. After the words of consecrating
have been uttered, the priest supplicates thus : " We
entreat, and pray, and beseech, send down Thy Holy
Spirit upon us, and upon these gifts." The deacon
here brings the " holy bread ", saying, " Bless, Sir,
this holy bread." The priest then says, " Make
this bread the precious body of thy Christ." In like
manner the cup, to which he adds over both, the
words, " changing by Thy Holy Spirit."

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 129
Now, not only the same objections lie here, as
against the Roman Missal ; proving, from the prayer,
that the original compiler knew nothing of the cor
poral presence ; " but ", as Dr. Covel argues, " there
is a vast and irreconcileable difference between the
Greeks and Latins ", in the essential form and mat
ter. The Latin Church believes that the conversion
is made by the mystical words, " This is my body."
But the Greek Church denies it ; for, after using
those terms, she prays, that God would " make this
bread the precious body of Christ"; implying that
no transubstantiation had yet taken place ; neither
expecting any carnal change to be produced by the
latter words ; for Romanists justly esteem it an ab
surdity, that bread should be substantially the body
of Christ — the species of the one being irreconcile-
ably opposite to that of the other. Neither do the
Greeks even pray, that the bread may be made the
body of Christ absolutely; but that it may be made
so to those who receive it. That the change im
plied is moral, not physical, may be concluded from
analogy of the expressions used in their other ser
vices. Thus, they supplicate that the baptismal
water may be made the " fountain of incorruption,
the expiation of sins ", &c. ; that the holy oil may be
made the " armour of righteousness, the anointing
of incorruption ", &c. ; that the holy salt may be
K

130 DIALOGUE II.
made, "the sacrifice of joy"; and much more of
the same kind. The language is equally strong
with that used in the Eucharist: the change im
plored is moral ; nay, divine and supernatural ; but
not substantial : they still repeatedly call it bread
after consecration, as when the deacon saith to the
priest, " Divide this holy bread"; and the custom
of pouring hot water into the consecrated wine,
seems inconsistent with the behef that it is the
natural blood of Christ ; which, surely, they would
not thus profane.
To this we may add, their constant disuse of the
term transubstantiation, which, I believe, can be
found in none of their divines earlier than Gabriel
Severus, a man of suspicious fidelity, and living as it
were yesterday. Whoever is even slightly acquainted
with the Greek Fathers and authors, has found that
they use many expressions implying a moral effect
produced in the Eucharistical elements by consecra
tion, as f^sraQaXXetv, (juira-7ron7<r6a,i, "to change",
f^5Toc(rToi')(jiwv(T6a,h "to be trans-elemented", (i. e.
says Augustin, " the element, by the word, is made
the sacrament,") f^sra(r^rifjt,ci,Ti^e(r0oci, "to be trans
formed"; and other such terras, signifying a moral
change. But the term (^srovffi^cng, which alone
accurately expresses the Roman tenet, is absent
not merely from the creeds and authorities of the

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 131
Greeks ; but even from their writers, until a very
modern period.
To bring the Greek and Eastern Churches to this
belief, certainly no means have been left untried.
At that Lateran Council of Innocent IIL, which
first announced this article of faith, every artifice
was used to shew their assent. Constantinople
and Jerusalem, in consequence of the crusade, were
then in the hands of the Latin Church ; Henry,
Emperor of Germany, occupying the former, and
the titular crusading monarch the latter : the legi
timate emperor and the lawful patriarchs being
driven out, and two nominees of the Pope possessing
the patriarchal thrones. These intruders, with two
pretended representatives of the sees of Alexan
dria and Antioch, attended the Lateran Assembly :
so that, beneath the wing of the Pope and his pa
geants, the fiats of this Council strut forth under
the universal authority of the five patriarchs of the
Christian world ; four of whom, assuredly, knew
nothing of the business. And although it is pre
tended that the decrees were written in both lan
guages, yet we know that the only term which
would respond to the Latin copy, was never used
by the Greeks to express the Eucharistic change
for centuries afterwards. The planners of this
Council, therefore, overacted the farce ; and should
K 2

132 DIALOGUE II.
rather have kept these fictitious patriarchs off the
stage, than brought them forward to display thus
grossly the forgery and pretence.
The attempts made so incessantly to bring the
Greek Church into conformity with the Latin, ap
pear to have had no important effect earlier than
the fifteenth century, when the rapid progress of
the Turks, and the impending ruin of Constanti
nople, compelled the emperor to take measures to
secure the friendship of Rome. The Council of
Florence was then sitting, and hither he and the
patriarch came, with other prelates and ecclesiastics.
Here, as upon all other occasions, the belief in the
corporal presence was made a part of the terms of
reconciliation. Yet even then, the Greeks went no
farther than that three or four of them admitted
that the elements were rsKsiovffdoii, consecrated by
the words of Christ; which the Latins have not
blushed to render transubstantiated. It is well
known, that the proceedings at this Council, were
annulled by the Greek and whole Eastern Church,
who excommunicated all the parties concerned.
The Russians imprisoned their primate for his part
in the business ; and Bessarion, by whose art the
reconciliation had mainly been effected, was obliged
to fly for safety to Rome, where he was rewarded
with a Cardinal's hat.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 133
Perhaps, it is scarcely necessary to proceed later
than this. Whether the Greek Church has been
since converted to the Roman dogma, is of no
great importance. With the triumph of the Turks,
and the fall of Constantinople, she has been pre
pared by poverty, ignorance, and oppression, for
simony, bribery, and every corruption.
From the sad moment that the patriarchs be
came the mere nominees of their Moslem masters,
and were put in as the wishes of those who could
bribe highest inclined, every advantage was afforded
that Rome could wish for. The better sort of
Greek youths were regularly sent to Italy for in
struction. The patriarchs and prelates were tam
pered with by every allurement of interest and every
inducement of terror. Yet, when the Reformers
sent the Augsburgh confession to the patriarch Je
remias, although his reply is, on this topic, very
confused, and evidently written under the restraints
of fear, his decision is in no wise admissible on the
transubstantiating hypothesis : for, maintaining a
real presence, he expresses himself unable to define
of what kind the change is : but, says, " it is utts^
T^oyov Kou ivvoiav, beyond what may be said or
thought"; whereas transubstantiation consists in a
positive definition of the mode. He says, that the
element is still bread ; " the bread is made the

134

DIALOGUE IL

body". — And whereas the Latins, of necessity,
maintain that the Eucharist is " the very flesh and
blood which suffered on the cross, and which is
now glorified in heaven"; so far is Jeremias from
allowing it, that he defines it to be blasphemy.
" Not that either, then, was the flesh of the Lord,
which he bore about him, given to the apostles to
eat, and his blood to drink ; or now, in celebrating
the divine mystery, does the body of the Lord de
scend from heaven ; for that is blasphemy." If he
does not herein denounce transubstantiation, what is
the meaning of his words ? — In the following cen
tury, flourished Cyril Lucaris, the most eminent of
aU the patriarchs that Constantinople hath seen in
her days of captivity. His views were altogether
so alien to the Roman tenets, that they ceased not
to cabal and conspire against him, until they had
accomphshed his deposition and subsequent murder ;
effected by unbounded bribing with the Turks : and
part of the sum expended in this holy proceeding
was ten thousand dollars, bequeathed by a devout
female to purposes of piety. From that period, the
Greek prelates have been generally, either the tools
of Rome, or hired to her interest, or, with the fate
of CyrU constantly before their eyes, unwilhng to
resist her.
These machinations have not been confined to

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 135
later ages, nor to what may be strictly termed
the Greek community ; but have, in fact, extended
through every portion of the Eastern Church ; and
through the whole period of her declining state.
When the crusades overran those parts of Chris
tendom, the lawful bishops were expelled ; Latins
placed in their seats ; and every thing conformed
to the Italian doctrines. Palestine, Syria, &c. were
filled with their monks and schools. Emissaries in
all ages have been sent in and out among them.
There is not a part where Rome had not her
prelates, priests, and missionaries; whose instruc
tions were not so much to convert Infidels, as to
bring schismatics and heretics to the Roman faith.
Every thing which wealth and learning could ef
fect, upon a poor, ignorant, and corrupted peo
ple, was employed. And when this was ineffec
tual, terror and persecution were raised against
them. Thus, at Jerusalem, so late as the sixteenth
century, the patriarch Nectarius fled from his city
to escape the violence of the Romanists. Sophro-
nius preserved himself in his see by bribery alone.
Theophanes, his successor, was obhged to implore
the protection of the Grand Seignior against the
Papists : and Dositheus, (of whose conformity
with their notions they loudly vaunt,) hved in perr
¦ petual alarm from these restless and mahgnant

136 DIALOGUE IL
bigots. " I will here", says Dr, Covel, "positively
affirm, the present state of the Eastern, especially
the Greek, Church, to be this : the Turk and other
governors let them all alone, in the free profession
and practice of their religion ; but wealthy Rome
and her pestilent emissaries will not ; being, in this
point, far more inhuman and barbarous than the
Mahometans themselves."*
Let us, however, argue upon their own grounds.
Romanists exult in nothing more than the extraor
dinary prosperity of their missions : it is made an ex
press proof of their exclusive claim to Cathohcity ;
and Dr. Milner fills a chapter with the details of
it. He boasts of their successes in conversion ; of
the innumerable communities of Catholics all the
world over ; that their " rehgion, with its several
estabhshments, is completely protected, and un
boundedly propagated." He particularly names
their regularly organized congregations through
out every part of the Eastern Church : espe-
ciaUy in Russia, Turkey, Egypt, Ethiopia, &c. that
" there are numerovis Catholic priests and bishops,
with numerous flocks, throughout the greater part
of Asia", with much more to the same purpose t.
Now, if such are their wonderful successes in fiU-
ing every part of the globe with their tenets, it is
* On the Greek Church, p. 156. f L. xxvi.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 137
perfectly futile to inquire into the doctrines of those
Churches among whom they have been so amaz
ingly prosperous. Therefore, if transubstantiation
was found among all these, it would not weigh a
feather in the scale. We must look to them before
Rome extended thus widely her triumphs. And
sufficient proof there is, that, in their better days,
they received no such doctrine.
If we pass the boundary of the Greek Church,
strictly so called, we know the Romish dogma has
not been held by the others. In the fourteenth cen
tury, the testimony to the disbelief of the Armenians
in this tenet is irrefragable. It is an unquestioned
fact of history; avowed by the inquisitor-general,
Carmes, bishop of Majorca, who enumerates this
as one of their heresies ; and it is fully argued upon
in the letters addressed to this Church by John
XXII. and Benedict XII., whose language avows
that the Armenians " do not hold transubstantia
tion, but believe the sacrament to be a representa
tion or figure of the body and blood of Christ";
and the latter pontiff says, he had accurate know
ledge of it, by very diligent inquiry, and perusal
of their books. So that here is indubitable autho
rity, that, at so late a period, this great Church was
unacquainted with the dogma. — But I am trans
gressing the hmits of your patience : and will, there-

138 DIALOGUE II.
fore, only briefly advert to the remainder. The Ma
labar Christians, in giving the elements, say, " Re
ceive and eat all ye of this bread." The Abys-
sinians use the words " This bread is my body " ;
and after consecration the priest prays, " Comme
morating Thy death and resurrection, we offer Thee
THIS bread and cup", &c. "Send Thy Holy Spirit
on THIS bread and cup, which are the body and
blood of Jesus Christ our Lord." — And in fact, with
respect to the Nestorian churches in general, one
observation may suffice. It was impossible that,
holding the faith of but one nature in Christ, they
could believe transubstantiation. If they have de
viated, as some say, from their characteristic tenet,
that proves nothing as to the ancient doctrine.
Indeed, much as the Greek Church may have
been corrupted, I must remark, that although
some Protestant writers admit her present belief in
transubstantiation, and although the truth or false
hood of this is of no consequence to the discussion,
yet I have never been able to find any positive and
distinct proof of it. It is not every one that is
competent to put such a query as would ehcit
the fact in this case. True it is, when the ques
tion has been asked, whether they believe the ele
ments to be the body and blood of Christ, they reply
in the affirmative. And if this be enough to prove

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 139
the fact, I see not why the whole Protestant Church
is not transubstantialist also. But when it has been
properly asked, — Whether it be an article of their
faith, that the elements are converted into the very
substantial body of Christ, which is now in heaven;
whether this be numerically the same natural body
which he bore on earth, and carried into heaven ;
whether the entire substance of bread and wine
vanishes, so that the accidents alone remain ? &c. —
as far as I find, those among them who are able to
understand this, invariably deny it*- Thus Sir George
Wheler, having inquired of the Bishop of Salona
what the bread and wine were after consecration,
he replied, " the body and blood of Christ." Yet
when asked as to a carnal change, he demanded,
" Whether they thought them so much beasts as to
beheve such an absurdity ?"t
PHILODOX.
But, as far as the Russian Church is concern-
* The excellent Claude proposed a string of queries for Dr.
Covel to obtain a reply from the Greeks on the point: " but",
says the doctor, " M. Claude supposed by his queries, that the
Greeks and Easterlings were learned and well versed in this
controversy, whereas I never met with one amongst them who
ever pretended fuUy to understand, much less ever offered
clearly to answer, any of them."
t Travels, Vol. ii. 198.

140 DIALOGUE IL
ed. Dr. King declares they believe transubstantia
tion * . ORTHODOX.
True ; and the proof he gives is a refutation of
his words, " make this bread the precious body
of thy Christ." I wonder not at the Church of
Rome converting the countries of the East, buried
in ignorance and darkness, nor yet at the increas
ing influence of their religion among us, when even
learned men will not condescend to satisfy them
selves what an important doctrine really is.
However, if we look to the authorized creeds
and formularies of the Churches, no such tenet is
to be found. The declarations collected in the se
venteenth century to swell out the famous " Per-
petuite de la Foi", convinced none but those who
found it easier to take things upon trust, than to
inquire diligently into the foundation. They are
very opposite to the regular authorized documents
of the Greek Church ; and are evidently mere la
boured Latin divinity, covered under the mystery
of Greek types. — How powerfully is man's facility
to receive any thing in the affairs of eternity, con
trasted with his wariness and caution in temporal
concerns ! " The children of this world are, in
their generation, wiser than the children of light."
* Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church in Russia.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 141
But even if the Greeks believed in transubstan
tiation, it is a very different thing from the Latin
faith. It is not followed by those results which
render the latter so much an object of abhor
rence. " If ", says Bishop Burnet, " the doctrine of
the corporeal presence had rested only in a specu
lation ; though we should have judged those who
held it to be very bad philosophers, and no good
critics, yet we could have endured it." * — There are
no idolatrous services attending it ; no worshipping
of elements, no processions, private masses, purga
tory, indulgences, abstraction of the cup, and all
the other appendages which have rendered tran
substantiation so thorough and deserved an object
of aversion to all who regard the purity of Chris
tian truth. If the Greek opinion be erroneous, it
is mere error ; but if the Roman, it is the grossest
idolatry, as some of their own writers allow ; wor
shipping a bit of bread for the eternal God ; and
exposing the blessed gospel to the bitter sarcasm of
infidels. Pagans, Jews, and Mahometans ; for thou
sands have hereby been deterred from the faith, and
embraced the conclusion of Averroes, " Of all sects,
the Christians are the most foolish, who eat that
wliich they worship."
* Exposition of Art. xxviii, which contains an excellent re
view of the evidence on this subject.

142 DIALOGUE II.
PHILODOX.
Yet, it is aUowed that these practices are inse
parable from the belief of transubstantiation.
ORTHODOX.
If this be the case, we may draw thence an irre
fragable proof of its falsehood. Shew a sohtary in
stance of such practices for the first thousand years.
Were the Fathers blind to these consequences ? Did
not those holy men, filled with charity and devo
tion, find out what reverence was due to their di
vine Master ? They counted not their lives dear
unto themselves ; their blood was the seed, and
their works, subordinate to scripture, the preserva
tive, of the faith. Did they believe the elements
to be their beloved Lord, when their custom was,
to burn what remained uneaten ; to make plas
ters of it ; to bury it with the dead ; to mix the
wine with ink; and to permit people to take it
home ; and endless other such practices, which re
fute the modern notion more powerfuUy than words
can do ?
Finally, other Churches have not made this tenet
the test of Catholicism, and let loose a tide of de
vastating tyranny over Christendom, to enforce it.
If therefore all, equally with them, held the doc
trine, yet idle would it be to draw a parallel be-

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 143
tween them : for far as the east is from the west ;
far as is patient endurance of conflicting opinions
from ferocious and systematic persecution ; far as is
speculative error from practical idolatry ; so far do
they stand severed from the Church of Rome.

DIALOGUE III.
OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND.

ORTHODOX.
We will now proceed to those tenets which result
from the preceding. And, first, of communion
under one species ; which rests mainly upon the
authority of the Council of Constance, confirmed,
with the customary anathema, by the Council of
Trent. This was an immediate and obvious con
sequence of transubstantiation. It seems needless
to dwell long upon it ; inasmuch as the simple dis
pute is. Which are we to obey ; Christ or Rome ?
PHILODOX.
" It is true, our blessed Saviour instituted the
holy sacrament under two kinds ; but it must be
observed, that he then made it a sacrifice, as well as
a sacrament, and that he ordained priests, viz. his
apostles (for none else were present) to consecrate
this sacrament, and offer this sacrifice.
Now it was requisite, for the completion of the sa
crifice, that the priests should consummate it in both
kinds. Hence it is seen, that the command of

OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 145
Christ, ' drink ye all of this', regards the apostles
as priests ; not the laity, as communicants."*
ORTHODOX.
We will leave the consideration of so much as
relates to the sacrifice in this statement, until our
next discussion. — If there be any thing in the above
pretence, it proves too much. By the same argu
ment, they may as well take away the bread as the
cup. — When Christ instituted the sacrament, " none
but the apostles were present." They were pre
sent too, not as priests, but as communicants. Christ
was the sole priest in that action. To whom he
said, " Take, eat"; he said also, " Drink ye all of
this " ; to whom the one part of the command is ad
dressed, the other is addressed also. The reason
for receiving is, " This is my body broken for you ;
this is my blood shed for you." They who inherit
the benefits, are to fulfil the precept. If his body
was broken, and his blood poured out for the laity,
then to the laity the command of commemorating
these blessings applies. How came the people to
have any concern in it at all, unless they derive it
from the first institution ? Romanists say, that
" when Christ promised this sacrament to the faith
ful, he promised in express terms both his body
* End of Controversy, L. xxxix. L

146 DIALOGUE IIL
and his blood : ' 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.' "
PHILODOX.
But " this does not imply, that they must there
fore receive under both kinds."
ORTHODOX.
Whether it implies it or not, you may decide.
If, as they argue, those words are a precept for the
sacrament, it is peremptorily commanded, in lan
guage as explicit as " Thou shalt do no murder";
and eternal life suspended upon obedience,
PHILODOX.
But " the Council of Trent teaches. He who
said, ' Except ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of
Man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you';
said also, ' If any raan shall eat of this bread, he
shall hve for ever.' And He who said, ' Whoso
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life
eternal ', also said, ' The bread which I will give is
my flesh, for the life of the world.' "
ORTHODOX.
Certainly, this infallible exposition only makes
our Lord say and unsay; command with one breath.

OF communion in one kind. 147
and annul with another. Would any sober com
mentator limit the plenary enactments of a law by
the abstract ; or not understand, that the shorter
sentences are mere repetitions of the former ? Is
not this opposition of one text to nullify another,
the fruitful source of all heresies ? Thus the Unit
arians : "He who said, ' I and my Father are one',
said also, ' My Father is greater than I ' ; therefore
the Son is not coequal with the Father." Or to come
even nearer : Is not the Trentine comment on the
one sacrament the antitype of the Socinian on the
other ? The evangelist, indeed, records the com
mand of Christ : " Go, baptize all nations in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"; but we
also read, that " the apostles baptized raerely in the
name of the Lord " : therefore the Trinitarian form
is not necessary. PHILODOX.
But the administering of the sacrament by the
apostles is spoken of under the phrase, " Breaking
of bread"; which implies that it was administered
under one kind. ORTHODOX.
Romanists do not presume to say, that the
apostles consecrated in one kind ; but if the mere
term, " Breaking of bread", proves that they com
municated in one kind, it proves that they also con-
L 2

148 dialogue in.
secrated in one kind. Confess, therefore, that this is
that common figure of speech where a part is put
for the whole ; for no one, who is not most disinge
nuous or grossly ignorant, will pretend to say, that
administration under one kind was known in the
apostolic age. PHILODOX.
Nay, most of their writers, with Dr. Milner,
charge you with " unfairly suppressing" an im
portant proof for communion under one kind ; when
St. Paul says, " Whoever shall eat this bread, OR
drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be
guilty of the body and blood of the Lord"; where
Protestants have " corrupted it by putting the con
junctive AND for the disjunctive OR."
ORTHODOX.
If this be a Protestant corruption, Protestants
have greater antiquity than Romanists would wish
to allow. AND is the reading of many MSS. and
of the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions. If it
be a " corruption", it is shared by no mean authori
ties ; by St. Athanasius, St. Clemens of Alexandria,
St. Cyril, &c. who all read AND. Neither is OR
always " disjunctive." It is ofttimes conjunctive,
and ofttimes explanatory, as in Eph. v. " Fornica
tion, and all uncleanness, OR covetousness." In.

OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 149
Rom. iii. " What profit hath the Jew, OR Avhat
advantage is there of circumcision ?" Is it disjunc
tive in these and the like texts ? In fact, those par
ticles are often convertible. Thus the promise to
Abraham, in the Septuagint, " I will give to thee,
««', AND to thy seed"*, is rendered by St. Paul,
" To Abraham, OR to his seed, were the promises
made." And the verse in St. Luke xx. " By what
authority doest thou these things, OR who gave
thee this authority?" is, in the parallel places of
St. Matthew and St. Mark, " By what authority
doest thou these things, AND who gave thee this
authority ? "
Little is needed to explain St. Paul's language.
He says, " As oft as ye eat this bread,' AND drink
this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death until he
come." This is the passage where a disjunctive
would have been inserted, if the Romish custom be
admissible : and in the following, " Let a man exa
mine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, AND
drink of that cup." — We feel no objection, however,
to admit the OR as disjunctive in the passage you
quote ; because he who profanes either element is
guilty of the body and blood of the Lord ; as he
" who offendeth in one point is guilty of all" the
law. But it is not possible to avoid something hke
* Gen. xvii.

150 DIALOGUE III.
pity, when we see learned men reduced by Church
shackles to seek such petty aid.
PHILODOX.
The practice of receiving in one kind, they vin
dicate by the doctrine of concomitancy ; holding,
that " the precious body and blood of Christ, being
equally and entirely present under one species, is
equally and entirely given to the faithful, which
ever they receive." ORTHODOX.
This was a notion, fabricated by Aquinas, of
which the Church before knew nothing. Suppose
it to be true, did not Christ know this ? If it be
true for the people, why is it not alike true for the
priest? He transubstantiates twice, and receives
Christ twice ; which is certainly more than was
ever commanded.
But it is altogether untrue. Whatever Romanists
hold as to the real presence, they attempt not to
deny that the Eucharist is a representation of the
sacrifice on the cross, and the sacrament of it. But
it is a sacrament of Christ's body, not whole and
entire, but broken, i. e. dead ; separated from the
blood, " which is the life". That blood, there
fore, which is severed from the body, is not con-

OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 151
joined to the body by any figment of concomi
tancy. PHILODOX.
They esteem the Eucharist, I repeat, to be a
" sacrifice as well as a sacrament."
ORTHODOX.
At any rate, it is a sacrament as well as a sacri
fice : else, says Archbishop Laud, " it hath no in
stitution from Christ." But to celebrate the sacra
ment, is to " shew forth the Lord's death till he
come " ; which is only shewed forth by " eating this
bread AND drinking this cup."
PHILODOX.
Dr. Milner says, " the whole series of ecclesias
tical history proves, that the Catholic Church, from
the time of the apostles, regarded the receiving un
der both kinds as a mere matter of discipline." *
ORTHODOX.
It is amazing, that any man, who had regard for
decency, should utter such assertions, refuted by the
confessions of the best learned of his own commu
nion. The Council of Constance ventured not to defy
truth so boldly, as their modern advocates ; nor to
* End of Controversv, L. xxxix.

152 DIALOGUE III.
depend so much upon the implicit credulity of their
subjects, as to matters of fact : therefore this as
sembly frankly says, " Notwithstanding Christ in
stituted the sacrament vmder both kinds, and the
primitive Church so received it", yet, now it shall
be a law for all to receive in bread alone ; and who
ever opposes this, shall be driven out as heretics. —
This was daring, but it was honest. They had not
the effrontery to affirm, that the Church " always
accounted it a mere matter of discipline." To which
assertion, without accumulating authorities, the con
fession of the learned Cardinal Bona may serve for
a reply : " At all times and in all places, from the
beginning of the Church to the twelfth century, the
faithful communicated under the species of bread
and wine." * But what need of more than the candid
declaration of the Council of Constance ; and the
straightforward principle of Trent, " Holy Mother
Church acknowledges her own authority " ?
PHILODOX.
Bishop Milner adds, that Dr. Porteus, Comber,
Chemnitius,&c. accuse the former Council of decree
ing that, " notwithstanding (for so they express it)
our Saviour ministered in both kinds, one only
shall, in future, be administered to the laity ; as if
* De Reb. Lit. p. 862.

OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 153
the Council opposed its authority to that of Christ ;
whereas it barely defines, that some circumstances
of the institution, viz. that it took place after sup
per, &c. are not obligatory on all Christians."*
ORTHODOX.
The verity of this may appear by the words of
the Council, which are these: "Although Christ in
stituted after supper, and under both species of
bread and wine administered to his disciples, this
venerable sacrament; yet, notwithstanding
THIS, it ought not to be consecrated after supper,
nor received except fasting. And likewise, although,
in the primitive Church, the sacrament was received
under both species by the faithful, yet this custom,
that it shall be received by the laity under the spe
cies of bread alone, is to be held for a law, which it
is not lawful to reject. And to say that this is un
lawful, is erroneous. And those who pertinaciously
assert it, are to be driven out as heretics." t The
" NOTWITHSTANDING " refers to both the points
stated in the preamble ; as much to receiving " un
der both species" as to consecrating after supper.
And whoever says that this law, repealing the law
of Christ, is not lawful, is in an "error. And if he
persists in saying so, he is to be " driven out" of the
* L. XXXIX. + Sess. xiii.

154

DIALOGUE III.

Church as a heretic. Pray, did this Council " op
pose its authority to that of Christ", or did it not?
A Christian is cut off from the body of Christ, for
adhering to what his Lord commanded ; for believ
ing, that a law which annuls the law of Christ is
not lawful. He is a Catholic, if he prefers the or
dinance of raan to that of God. But, he is a con
victed heretic, if he obeys the ordinance of his Re
deemer. What ! though he plead that the Lord
hath said, " drink ye all of this ; do this ; ye are
ray disciples, if ye do what I command you," &c. ;
liis reception will be the same with his who pleaded
of old for God and reason against usurped autho
rity : " Dost thou teach us ? and they cast him out
of the synagogue," PHILODOX.
It is argued, that Protestants allow, " in case of
necessity, the use of wine may be dispensed with."
But if the cup be an essential part of the sacrament,
you can never plead necessity ; you may as well
baptize without water. ORTHODOX.
The Council of Trent declares, " bread and wine
to be not merely essential, but integral, parts of
this sacrament." That is no sacrament, which is

OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 155
defective in the essential and integral parts of the
institution. The receiving of the cup is an essen
tial and integral part. Water is so' essential to
baptism, that where there is no water, there is no
baptism. Yet Rome accounts that, in some cases,
as martyrdom, there is no need of baptism by water.
Our Church holds the sacraments to be " gene-
raUy necessary" to salvation ; so necessary, that
" where they may be had", no one can disregard
them without hazard of salvation. But what can
be more unreasonable than to justify neglect of
duty, where obvious and practicable, from omission
of duty where impracticable ? To necessity, there
is no law. Where Christ denies the means of
obedience, he will not impute the guilt of disobe
dience. It is not the pencd of divine mercy, but
of conscious guilt, that represents God to the
sinner's mind as a hard and austere master, " reap
ing where he hath not sown, and gathering where
he hath not strawed." PHILODOX.
But was it not from respect for the sacrament
that the abstraction of the cup took place, to pre
serve it from the danger of irreverence, as the mul
titude of communicants increased ?

156 DIALOGUE III.
ORTHODOX.
How came it that this irreverence was never thus
remedied for twelve centuries, until transubstan
tiation came up ? Are the abuses of men to annul
the ordinances of God; and the faithful to be de
prived of spiritual food, because the unfaithful
trample it under foot ? Could any abuses be more
gross than those in the Church at Corinth ? Yet
St. Paul did not attempt to deprive them of their
portion of the holy table. Has the number of com
municants ever equalled that in the primitive days ;
when at each assembhng of Christians it was admi
nistered, and by all received ? Moreover, could not
our Lord provide against profanation, as well as the
Fathers of Constance and Trent ? What right
has man, under any pretence, to set aside the in
stitution of Christ; and to defraud his neighbour
of that spiritual nourishment which the Redeemer
hath furnished to sustain the souls of his people, in
their weary pilgrimage through a vale of danger
and temptation ? It were a waste of words to dwell
longer upon this. Discussion may obscure, but can
not elucidate, that which is hght as day to all who
have " their senses exercised to discern both good
and evil." You have admitted, that if the Roman
Church is proved to err in any one point of faith,

OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 157
her pretence to infallible direction falls to the
ground. PHILODOX.
The consequence seems unavoidable ; because if
she can err in a single matter of faith, the basis of
assured dependence is destroyed.
ORTHODOX.
On this point then, to use the forcible language
of Bishop Jewel, her heresy may be " seen, felt,
handled with the hands and fingers." If she had
never erred in any thing else, in this she hath erred ;
foully and essentially erred. If no other violation
of God's law was proved against her, yet in this
she is convicted by her own hps. Here she stands
alone in solitary defiance of the ordinance of her
Lord, and of Catholic Tradition. It becomes a
solemn duty with every one who entrusts his sal
vation to what Christ hath done and appointed ;
and whose eyes are open to behold the truth ; to
quit a Church living in barefaced violation of
the divine decree. For it is not simply, that
she herself intermits obedience, which would be bad
enough ; but that all who " assert" and maintain
the duty of obeying, and the unlawfulness of dis
obeying, what Christ hath commanded, are here
tics, " driven out" from her fold. It is not a topic

158

DIALOGUE III.

on which God is silent, and Rome hath spoken.
But He hath decreed, and she hath forbidden.
What He hath ordained, she hath denounced.
" Whether then it be right to hearken unto her
more than unto God, judge ye."

DIALOGUE IV.
OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

PHILODOX.
The Council of Trent asserts, that " in the mass
a true and proper sacrifice is offered unto God":
which is " one and the same sacrifice as that of
fered upon the cross : and that the same Christ, who
then offered, now also offers, himself, by the ministry
of his priests." They likewise pronounce, that it is
" a sacrifice for the sins, penalties, satisfactions, and
other necessities, both of the hving and the dead" ;
and they anathematize those who say, that it ought
not " so to be offered ; that it is only a sacrifice of
prayer and thanksgiving ; and that it profits the
communicant alone."
orthodox.
This is the most important of the many results
of transubstantiation. This is the doctrine which
our mild and tolerant Church denounces with
greater severity than any of the Romish errors.
For whereas she dismisses others of their tenets and
practices as " fond things and vain conceits ", she

160 DIALOGUE IV.
declares the sacrifices of the mass to be "blas
phemous fables and dangerous deceits."
PHILODOX.
But by this denunciation she surely proceeds too
far : for, upon Roman principles, if there be no
sacrifice, there are no priests ; and if no priests, no
Church. For their priests are consecrated to offer
up sacrifice. ORTHODOX.
We have nothing to do with these consequences.
They must themselves look to the results of their
own principles. If they will needs seek their Or
ders, not from the new covenant, but from the old ;
if their priests disdain the apostolical priesthood of
ministering God's word and sacraments ; and, in
room of offering these spiritual sacrifices, will needs
go back to Jerusalem to be fresh installed into the
obsolete priesthood of the Jews ; and prefer those
carnal ordinances, which were but " weak and beg
garly elements", to those which "the coming in of
a better hope " constituted ; this is no fault of ours.
It is an old adage, that they who will needs be
grasping at more than they have a right to, must
not murmur to lose what duly belongs to them.
" If ye have not been faithful in that which is an
other man's, who will give you that which is your

OP THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 161
own?" And if, in their unhallowed compound of
God and Mammon, they have established princi
ples which justly deprive them of the authority
rightfully belonging to them, theirs is but a com
mon case ; and their example may tend to illustrate
a difficult text. PHILODOX.
But in what sense does your Church go so far as
to brand it with the epithet of " blasphemous fa
bles and dangerous deceits " ?
ORTHODOX.
A fable it is, because grounded on no valid au
thority, but contrary thereto. Blasphemous it is,
because derogating from that one alone sacrifice,
which is all-sufficient for the sins of the whole world;
and from the omnipotent wisdom and mercy of
God who appointed it : and because it places the
eternal sacrifice of the Son of God at the will and
pleasure of any frail and sinful mortal who chooses
to buy and sell it. A deceit it is, because it deludes
men with false views of the way of salvation :
and dangerous, as leading them to carelessness of
life, by looking for constant expiations, even after
death. M

162 DIALOGUE IV,
PHILODOX.
In all ages of the world, a notion of vicarious
sacrifice has prevailed. Among the heathen, sa
crifices were offered. God commanded them to his
chosen people. " It would then have been sur
prising, if the new law had been without one."
ORTHODOX.
Who says it is without a sacrifice ? Was it not
confirmed and established by that perfect and me
ritorious sacrifice, of which all the rest were but
shadows ? By whom has the intent of sacrifice
been illustrated and enforced, if not by Protestant
writers ? There is, in our own days, for instance,
one name, certainly not unknown to those of the
papal communion ; the ornament of the Sister
Church, in which, happily for her prosperity, he
holds so eminent a station ; who has not with more
learning and decision advocated the use and mean
ing of sacrifice, than with diligence and zeal re
pelled the progress of Romish usurpations.
But were the sacrifices of Jews and Pagans real
or figurative only ? PHILODOX.
Real bloody sacrifices they were. But, of course.

OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE M.\SS. 163
not the actual sacrifice of Christ, but figurative
and typical of it. ORTHODOX.
Then why are these sacrifices brought forward,
save to waste words and confuse the subject ? If
bloody, they essentially vary from those of the Ro
man Church, which are expressly denominated un
bloody ; and the parallel differs in the distinction of
life and death. If figurative, the Anglican Church
maintains the like in the Eucharist, and the Roman
denies it. PHILODOX.
But you have no real sacrifice. Whereas, the
prophet Malachi foretold of the Christian Church,
" In every place there shall be sacrifice, and a pure
oblation." ORTHODOX.
We are not contending with them about the word
" sacrifice": any devotional service is a sacrifice to
God. The breaking of bread and wine is as really
an external sacrifice, as the killing and consuming
of a beast*. Therefore, their translation, though
* This is the definition of Aquinas : " Sacrificia proprie di-
cuntur quando circa res Deo oblatas aliquid fit ; sicut quod ani-
malia occidebantur et comburebantur j quod panis frangitur et
comeditur, et benedicitur ; et hoc ipsum nomen sonat. Nam
M 2

164 DIALOGUE IV.
incorrect, may pass ; and we may understand the
prophet to declare that the Christian Church shall
offer a "sacrifice and pure oblation", differing from
the carnal offerings of the Jews ; and he cannot
find a better interpreter than St. Paul, who calls
the devotion of our mind and body to the divine
will a " living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God " :
and designates the doing good to others as those
" sacrifices " with which He " is well pleased."
sacrificium dicitur, ex hoc quod homo facit aliquid sacrum.
Oblatio autem directe dicitur, cum Deo aliquid offertur, etiam
si nihil circa ipsum fiat; sicut dicuntur offerri denarii vel
panes in altari circa quos nihil fit. Unde omne sacrificium
est oblatio, sed non convertitur. Primitise autem oblationes
sunt; quia Deo offerebantur, ut legitur Deut. xxvi. . non autem
sunt sacrificia, quia nihil sacrum circa eas fiebat. Decimae
autem proprie loquendo non sunt sacrificia, neque oblationes ;
quia non immediate Deo, sed ministris divini cultus, exhi-
bentur," 22*^. q. 8.5. a. iii. — The accuracy of the above admits
scarcely of dispute. I the rather quote it to justify myself in
alluding to what appears an erroneous practice of some of my
reverend Brethren; who, deeming the term "oblations", in the
prayer " for the state of Christ's Church ", to refer to the sa
cramental gifts formerly made to the clergy, omit it altogether,
as well as the scriptural sentences relating to the same. The
latter seems proper ; the former improper. The monies now
collected, are both " alms " for our poor brethren, " and obla
tions " to God. But the epithet seems peculiarly to desigr
nate the bread and wine which are offered unto God bi/ the
priest ; at least, so the Rubric commands.

OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 165
PHILODOX.
Is such the exposition of the Fathers ? Does not
Irenaeus apply the words to the sacrifice of the
mass ? ORTHODOX.
He could not apply it to that of which he knew
nothing. Irenaeus says distinctly, in speaking of
this " pure sacrifice", " Sacrifices do not sanctify the
man, but the man the sacrifice." Could this Father
mean to say, that the sacrifice of the Son of God
did not sanctify the priest, but the priest the sacri
fice ? Hear also the exposition of TertuUian : " the
prophet Malachi, by a pure sacrifice, meant the
preaching of the gospel ; the offering of a contrite
heart; and prayer proceeding from a pure con
science." * PHILODOX.
Protestant writers derive their main objections
to the sacrifice of the mass, from the epistle to
the Hebrews. But so far is St. Paul from contra
dicting it, that Romanists draw a main support
from this epistle ; as where he quotes Psalm ex.
" Thou art a priest for ever after the order
of Melchisedec." In what did this order consist ?
How did his sacrifice differ from that of the pa
triarchs and Jews ? " In offering a sacrifice of bread
* See on this topic, PfaflSus in Fragmenta Ireneei.

166 DIALOGUE IV.
and wine, instead of slaughtered animals ; prefigur
ing the sacrifice which Christ would institute in the
same elements." This is the interpretation of the
Fathers *. ORTHODOX.
Had the Roman Church deeply studied this
epistle, with intent to fabricate a system which
should expressly contradict the argument of it,
both in letter and spirit, it would be difficult to
say, how they could have done this more effectually
than by the sacrifice of the mass.
The Jewish priests were ordained to offer some
animal to God ; shedding the blood to make re
conciliation for the errors of the people. St. Paul
affirms these sacrifices all terminated in the one
sacrifice of Christ on the cross ; who, thereby an
nulling the order of Aaron, brought into its room
the order of Melchisedec. Of this order, he ex
pressly declares there was but one priest ; neither,
indeed, could be ; since the priests of the Mel-
chisedecan order must be " without beginning of
days, and end of life, abiding eternally" ; which cha
racters compete to Christ alone : — and as one priest,
so could there be only one sacrifice. He argues,
that, under the law were many priests in succession,
death compelling it so to be, by removing them
* End of Controversy, L. xi..

OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 167
one after another: and many daily sacrifices, be
cause each was incomplete, imperfect, and of no in
herent virtue to atone for sin. And in this, he
places the distinction between the old and the
new dispensation. The gospel needed not many
priests nor many sacrifices ; one priest being con
stituted, not obnoxious to the sentence of mortal
ity, " after the power of an endless life, abiding
for ever ", and so " of the order of Melchisedec."
He offered up " once for all ", one all-sufficient
sacrifice. And as if foreseeing the future corruption
of the truth, the apostle states all this again and
again, repeating epithets upon epithets to enforce
it. Christ " was once offered" ; " once for all";
he entered in once into the holy place ; as " the
worshippers were once purged, there remaineth no
more sacrifice for sin " to be offered ; " we are
sanctified by the offering of the body of Christ
once for all " ; " by one offering he hath per
fected for ever them that are sanctified" ; and " hav
ing offered one sacrifice for sins, he sat down for
ever at the right hand of God " ; therefore not to
be brought back daily to be offered again and
again in a thousand places.
Can language be more explicit ? Can human
comment give force to the divine assertion ? Has
ever Protestant more pointedly and directly re-

168 DIALOGUE IV.
pelled the falsehood of the Roman doctrine ? The
order of Melchisedec, the gospel priesthood, hath
but one alone priest ; but one alone sacrifice ; of
fered up at one time only. — Here, again, it is not
simply that Rome hath spoken where scripture is
silent ; but she hath declared one thing, and Christ
another. It is not, therefore, as she would have
you believe, that you are to receive her testimony
to supply the deficiency, or elucidate the obscurity,
of holy writ ; but you must admit her paramount
authority to annul or refute the word of God.
Hence, her deep-rooted abhorrence to the circula
tion of the scriptures in any translation, or with
any comment. — Whilst the Anghcan Church claims
a due respect, as an authorized expounder of the
sacred oracles, the Roman Church assumes an in
fallible right of superseding them ; not merely as
defective, but, in point of fact, altogether useless ;
and, she might boldly add, " erroneous." For,
most assuredly, if she be right, the inspired theologist
of the Hebrews is wrong. No interpretation can
ever reconcile him with the Roman creed. St.
Paul affirms, " The new law can have but one
priest." Rome ; " The new law hath many priests."
St. Paul ; " There is no succession in the new priest
hood." Rome ; " There is a perpetual succession."
St. Paul ; " The sacrifice was but once offered, and

OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 169
once for all." Rome ; " The sacrifice is offered
many times, even daily." St. Paul ; " Those who
are sanctified, are sanctified by the one offering
once offered." Rome ; " Those who are sanctified,
are not sanctified but by constant repetition of the
one sacrifice." It is unnecessary to proceed with
the parallel. Enough has been said to evince the
utter irrecoricileableness of the two tenets.
Few words, therefore, are requisite to shew the
end and purpose of the apostle in introducing the
case of Melchisedec. He makes the resemblance
between his priesthood and that of Christ to con
sist in this : — ^that both began and terminated in
one priest ; that we hear of Melchisedec once and
no more ; that he was, like Christ, king of righ
teousness, and king of peace ; that his generation
is not declared, " having neither father nor mother,
beginning of days, nor end of life " ; that his priest
hood was " unchangeable ", ocTcc^cc^ccrov, passing
not from one to another ; having no succession :
herein differing as well from the priesthood of
Aaron, as from that assumed by Rome. The por
trait keeps its eye upon Christ only.
That Melchisedec " brought forth bread and
wine", when Abraham returned from battle, we
read ; that he " made a sacrifice thereof", we read
not. The bread and wine were produced to re-

170 DIALOGUE IV.
fresh the patriarch and his wearied forces ; as Jo
sephus, St. Jerome, &c. understand it. — But be it
that Melchisedec did offer a sacrifice : what was
it that he offered ? " Bread and wine." This
then it seems is the identity of the Melchisedecan
and Roman priesthood : he offered real and sub
stantial bread luxd wine ; and they do not offer
them. He did not offer the body of Christ ; and
they DO offer it. To resist a parallel so obvious,
is certainly a proof of very extraordinary obtuseness
of intellect, or of pertinacious adherence to heresy.
Nay, we are even so incorrigibly blind or perverse,
as to fancy, that the sacrifice of Melchisedec may
be rather identified with our Eucharistic sacrifice
than with theirs. He offered bread and wine ; so
do we ; and so do not the Romanists. He offered
not the real body of Christ, but a representation ;
neither do we offer the Lord's body, but a comme
moration thereof: the Romanists offer not a repre
sentation, but the real body.
PHILODOX.
They speak of it as a sacrifice of bread and
wine ; because, under the appearances of these,
Christ is offered. ORTHODOX.
Their writers on this topic are unintelligible, or

OF THE S.\CRIFICE OF THE MASS. 171
inconsistent; for either it is a sacrifice of bread
and wine, or it is not. If it is a sacrifice of bread
and wine, it is not the sacrifice of the body and
blood of Christ : it is not an " unchangeable ", but
an -ever changing sacrifice ; since every single
mass consists of fresh bread and fresh wine. It is
not a real or propitiatory sacrifice ; bread and
wine having no efficacy to expiate for transgression.
It "is not possible " that these viands, any more
than the " blood of bulls and of goats, can take
away sin." Memorial sacrifices the one and the
other might be ; but expiatory sacrifices neither of
them were, nor could be. — If it is not a sacrifice
of bread and wine, it is not that which Melchise
dec offered.
If Christ is offered, under the " appearances of
bread and wine ", he is really and truly offered ;
and therefore St. Paul must be refuted before we
can receive this faith. — But, perhaps, it will be
more satisfactory to know in what they make a
sacrifice to consist. PHILODOX.
Their writers state, that to constitute a sacrifice,
it is required, that there be some sensible thing to
be offered ; and that sensible thing to be immo
lated.

172 DIALOGUE IV.
ORTHODOX.
And to this, the sacrifice of the raass answers
not in a single point. I. The thing to be offered
must be " res sensibilis ", as Bellarmin remarks, —
something evident to the senses. In this sacrifice
there is nothing evident to the senses. The bread
and wine are not present ; but the accidents only.
The body and blood of Christ, which are the things
offered, are said to be present, but inevident to
sense. It seems then, that as in a sacrifice there
must be something visibly present, this is fully ac
complished in the mass, where either there is not
any thing visibly present, or the thing present is
different from the thing sacrificed.
II. To a proper sacrifice, the death of the victim,
by the very act of sacrificing, " per occisionem in
ipso actu sacrificandi " *, is essential. In the mass,
the supposed sacrifice is Christ. But " he dieth no
more ; death hath no more dominion over him " ;
his body cannot be destroyed nor killed. There
fore there is no real sacrifice.
PHILODOX.
But the immolation is said to be " mystical ", and
performed by consecrating the elements ; and the
sacrifice is not bloody, but unbloody.
' Bellarmin de Miss.

OF THE SACRIFICE OP THE MASS. 173
ORTHODOX.
A " mystical " immolation is not a " real " im
molation, but figurative only ; and therefore their
sacrifice is not a real, but a figurative sacrifice.
Vain then is the distinction of bloody and un
bloody. " Where a covenant is, there must be, of ne
cessity, the death of the confirmer, ^ov ^tadi^ivov".
If to a sacrifice immolation be necessary, where
there is only a figurative imm^olation, as in the con
secration of the bread and wine, there can only be
a figurative sacrifice. St. Paul insists, that Christ
CANNOT be offered many times. And wherefore ?
Because then " he must often have suffered " :
which cannot be. He points out a gross moral in
congruity even in the notion of such a thing, by a
very solemn comparison : " as it is appointed unto
men once to die, but after death the judgment " ;
as sinners undergo but at one time one death, the
punishment of sin, and one judgment at one great
day for all offences ; " so Christ was once offered to
bear the sins of many."
From the real sacrifice of Christ, expiation is in
separable ; therefore they pretend that their sacri
fice is expiatory for the sins of living and dead.
But to expiate for sin, there must be actual
shedding of blood ; — " it is the blood ", saith
God, " that maketh an atonement for the soul";
and, " without shedding of blood is no remis-

174 dialogue IV.
sion."* Either then the blood of Christ is shed, or
no expiatory sacrifice offered. " Where ", saith St.
Paul, " remission of sins and iniquities is, there is no
more offering for sin ". The merit of the sacrifice
on the cross depends solely on the compact be
tween the Father and the Son. By the same was
it ordained, before the foundations of the world
were laid, that this Lamb should be offered, to take
away the sins of the world, upon the cross. In
this everlasting priesthood, the same was victim
and sacrificer. The only priest who is qualified to
offer real sacrifice for sin is such an one as " is holy,
harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made
higher than the heavens," When they will pro
duce a sacrificer thus qualified to make atonement,
we will allow more weight to their arguments for
the reality of the sacrifice. PHILODOX.
They place the immolation or act of sacrifice in
three things : I. "By sacerdotal consecration of
the Eucharist, a profane thing becomes sacred;
for earthly bread becomes the body of Christ." II.
It is " offered to God when, by force of consecra
tion, it is placed upon the altar ; for to put the
victim on the altar is to offer it to God." III. It
is consummated, or destroyed, when the priest re-
* Lev. xvii. Heb. ix.

OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 175
ceives in both kinds. Thus they shew, that the
mass is a real sacrifice ; in which a thing profane
becomes sacred, is offered to God upon the altar,
and truly and really destroyed *.
ORTHODOX.
I. Can Christian ears bear to receive, that the
body of Christ is a " sacred thing made from a pro-
lane one ", by consecration ? If they can, tran
substantiation may then be said to have relation to a
miracle, but to a sacrifice it has none whatever.
Neither is this essential part of a sacrifice fulfilled,
unless the selfsame sacred thing be offered and
immolated. II. The offering a thing upon the
altar is not the act of sacrificing, but preliminary
to it. And the gospel knows of no altar upon
which Christ might be offered, except the cross.
III. Where do we ever read that a sacrifice is
immolated by eating it ? Where did God appoint
that his blessed Son should be sacrificed by eating
Him ? Who can suppose that eating is the same
as sacrificing ? If it be, the sacrificial part belongs
to the communicants as well as to the priests :
since, as we are told, Christ is " taken entire un
der either species." PHILODOX.
Dr. Milner teaches, that " the victim is immo-
* Bellarmin de Miss.

176

DIALOGUE IV.

lated in the mass, by the symbolical disunion or
separate consecration of the body and the blood."

ORTHODOX.

If the body and blood be only symbolically dis
united, then it is only a symbolical, not a real and
proper, sacrifice. " Surely the very stones will
speak ", sooner than we shall receive these self-con
tradicting tenets. When we argue with them about
withholding the cup from the laity, they stoutly
maintain, that Christ is whole and entire in each spe
cies by inseparable concomitancy. If this be so, the
words of the priest are empty and unmeaning ; a
true separation is obstructed by this inseparable ad
herence of the body and blood; and, necessarily,
the very act of sacrificing is obstructed, and no sa
crifice at all takes place. Bellarmin abandons
this notion, perceiving how perfectly untenable it is.
Upon this absurd and most unchristian basis,
Rome is content to rest her priesthood.
PHILODOX.
But, upon your own ground, that you offer up
a commemorative sacrifice, proper priests are re
quired; and to this purpose your clergy are or
dained. ORTHODOX.
If by " priests " you mean " sacrificers ", we re-

OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 177
ject the office, as Jewish and Pagan. Our priests
are what the etymology of the term implies ; what
the primitive commission designates, and our
Prelates in the laying on of hands convey ; — Elders
of the Church of Christ. To commemorate the
one great sacrifice, to offer up spiritual services, to
bind and loose according to the divine law, requires
not sacrificial priests, but ministers of the word and
sacraments. To do what Christ did is impossible ;
to carry on what he perfected, would have been
useless. To attempt the one or the other is un
authorized usurpation ; profane intrusion into the
office of Him, who " trod the winepress of his
Father's wrath alone ; and of the people there was
none with him."
It was not for a light purpose, that the Roman
builders upreared this baseless fabric. This is their
practical religion. This is that sacrifice of the
raass, which atones for the sins of the living and
the dead ; which may be bought for money, and
applied by any priest. It is propitiatory ; there
fore it pacifies God. It is expiatory ; therefore it
blots out sin. It is the substitute for satisfactions,
penances, and so on. It confers grace by the mere
act ; not dependent upon the frame of mind of the
penitent ; for the dead, at least, to whom its virtue
extends, can put no moral obstruction in the way.
N

178 DIALOGUE IV.
It is efficacious for those who are named at every
mass ; for those who attend ; for whomever the of
ferer pleases. Christ once offered himself voluntarily
on the cross. But here his will is fettered ; he hath
chained himself to the good pleasure of each and all
the priests in the world ; and his expiation and pro
pitiation rest upon their intention and disposition.
PHILODOX.
In objecting to the doctrine which teaches that
the sacrifice confers grace by the mere act of cele
bration, you seem to make the merit of Christ's
sacrifice depend on the wiU of the communicant.
ORTHODOX.
They tell you, that this sacrifice is an apphcation
of Christ's sacrifice on the cross ; but if applicatory,
it is dependent on the state of mind of the person
to whom apphed. If they deny this, they plead
guilty to the accusations so loudly raised against
them, of confounding all distinctions between piety
and impiety. Be an offering intrinsically ever so
acceptable, it is not accepted unless it be presented
by an acceptable offerer. God " had respect to
Abel and to his offering " ; to Abel first, and then
to his offering. The small and insignificant mites
of the widow were accepted, when the ostentatious

OP THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 179
gifts of the Pharisees were despised. The sacrifice
of Christ was accepted, from the infinite merit of
the offerer. Had it been offered merely from the
disposition of the human agents, it had certainly
availed nothing to our salvation. To expiate sin,
the offerer, the offering, and the motive, must be
adequate to the purpose. Had not all these con
curred in the glorious sacrifice of the cross, it had
been of httle worth ; for these quahties abstracted,
the death of Christ must have been a horrid action
in the sight of the Almighty : as their own Scrip
tures, speaking of him who robs the poor to make
an offering, declares him to be as hateful to God, as
" one that killeth a son before his father's eyes."*
PHILODOX.
Christ is the immediate, the Priest only the me
diate, offerer ; and the sacrifice is accepted for the
sake of the immediate offerer. But, indeed, if you
deny acceptance to an offering, where the offerer is
not free from guilt, you deny acceptance to every
service which a vicious minister pays on the part of
his congregation. ORTHODOX.
The inconclusiveness of this inference is apparent.
Every service offered to the Father, by or for sinful
* Ecclus. XXXIV.
N 2

180 DIALOGUE IV.
man, is only acceptable to him as far as it is offered
through the mediation of his Son. But this mass-
sacrifice is not offered through Christ, but directly
to the Father. Other services pretend neither to be
meritorious nor expiatory ; but derive their fitness
from the disposition of him in or for whom they are
offered; and all their worth from the abundant
merit of the great Intercessor.
When they argue that our Lord immediately
offers himself by the priest, they deny what at other
times they urge. For, to escape contradicting St.
Paul, they allege, that Christ did not offer himself
immediately. Clear also is it, that if he offers him
self through the priest, he offers himself not imme
diately. But if he offer himself mediately, then is
not he the immediate offerer, but the priest : and
in fact, this whole sacrifice depends upon the will
and intention of the priest, so entirely, that as no
one can read the human heart, no one can know
whether the sacrifice be really offered or not. The
priest, therefore, being the immediate offerer, the
worth of the offering depends upon him.
PHILODOX.
But surely, if the king authorize his ambassador
to bestow a present, the worth of it is derived not
from the ambassador, but from the monarch.

OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 181
ORTHODOX.
What an ambassador does in the name of the
king, the king himself may do. But Christ can
no more sacrifice himself ; therefore, not by deputy.
Did any one ever hear of a king needing the aid of
his ambassador, to introduce him into his own court?
Christ is at once the offering and the king. Does
the immaculate and eternal High Priest Want the
assistance of a mortal to introduce him into the pre
sence of his everlasting Father ?
But the question of the worth of this supposed
sacrifice will be understood by a more applicable
comparison. If the king, in his absence, gives to
his viceroy power of conferring honours, free par
dons, &c. upon whomever he will ; every person so
honored, and every culprit so pardoned, refers th6
merit and the debt of gratitude, not remotely to his
sovereign, but directly to him upon whose fiat it is
suspended ; and from whom it immediately flows.
Hence the tendency of this sacrifice of the mass is to
withdraw the devotee from the Saviour, the remote
bestower of the benefit, to the priest, upon whose
will it depends ; to detach him from the all-sufficient,
but distant sacrifice upon the cross, to this present
sacrifice, this atonement of the actual sins which
press upon his mind, this infallible application of
the former offering.

182 DIALOGUE IV.
PHILODOX,
They treat it as a calumny to say, that they ac
count this sacrifice to be efficacious, without regard
to the character or disposition of the person for
whose benefit it is bestowed. ORTHODOX.
The calumny is their own. Their Church has
taught again and again, that the mere performance
of the work confers grace. It is readily admitted,
that certain of their divines do require great purity
of mind for the reception of this sacrament ; that
many of their books of preparation are admirably
adapted to edify and comfort ; and many of their
devotional treatises contain beautiful and humble
addresses to the Saviour ; although, I must add, I
have scarcely met with one, in which my mind has
not been shocked with the irreverent amalgamation
of the Creator and the creature, the Redeemer and
the redeemed. The devotional books, published by
their private divines, also, are far less objectionable,
and more instructive than their authorized ones ; for
unseemly in the extreme are the greater part of those
works, which bear the seal of Infallibility upon them.
We are, too, discussing the doctrine of the
Church ; not resorting to the feehngs and conduct
of private teachers. Now the sacrifice of the raass

OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 183
is, and raust be, as they expound it in the words of
Dr. Milner, " the most sacred and essential part of
their services"; the "most sublime and excellent
act of religion which man can offer to his Creator."
Be the offerer who he may, therefore, the most wel
come of all sacred duties is performed to God. A
man procures a mass to be said ; and, by so doing,
be he ever so vile, he performs a service " the most
sptable to his Creator." And be it, that whilst
he lives, his immorality may put some obstacle to
the effect of this, (which it is not clear how it can
possibly do,) yet when he is dead, and his legacy
procures constant masses to be said for his soul, his
immorality can no longer cast a stumbhng-block in
the way ; he is beyond the power of sinning more.
There is daily offered up for him, and through him,
the " most acceptable offering" that the Creator can
receive : an offering in itself of all-sufficient merit,
expiatory and propitiatory for the sins and offences
of the person for whom it is offered ; for the remov
ing of all penalties, satisfactions, &c. as the Coun
cil of Trent teaches ; and very consistently. For it
cannot be that an infinite satisfaction should not be
infinitely satisfactory, where there is no disqualifi
cation in the way.
Is it possible that such a doctrine should be
other than a fruitful source of impiety and vice ?

184 DIALOGUE IV.
derogating from the infinite and alone sacrifice of
the cross ; turning man from the Creator to the
creature ; from the Intercessor in heaven to the in
tercessor on earth ; from practical holiness of life,
from " working out his own salvation with fear and
trembling", to a dependence on the work of others :
leading him to live in the lust of his inclinations
here, with the hope, and, in fact, the positive as
surance of an all-sufficient sacrifice being daily ap
plied for him after death, provided he hath where
with to purchase it. PHILODOX.
But the general mercies of God are of little va
lue to us unless specifically applied. The particular
sacrifice of the mass is an application of the sacri
fice of the cross, as you have, indeed, remarked.
ORTHODOX.
But if so, it is not one and the same sacrifice
with that of the cross. A sacrifice is one thing, and
the application of it another. The application of
the sacrifice of the cross is not by attempting a re
newal of it, but by faith in it. " God", says St.
Paul, " hath set forth his Son to be a propitia
tion", not through daily iteration of the same, but
" through faith in his blood."

OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 185
The baneful issues of this tenet are innumer
able. But as I wish not to occupy you so much
with the practical results of their doctrines, as with
the untenableness of them, we will only advert to
one or two that are inherent in the thing. The
most prominent of all are Private Masses. Were
these things heard of for ages? Would not the
primitive believers have excommunicated any one
who had practised such preposterous absurdities ?
They allowed but one altar in a church ; and one
Eucharist at the same time ; nor does there appear
an example of the contrary earlier than the age of
Gregory I. Where were the many altars in the
same edifice ; and the many masses going on at the
same time ; bearing more resemblance to the incant
ations of wizards, than to the edifying symbols of
Christian love ? That contradiction in terms, soli
tary communion, was unknown till this sacramental
trafficking came up. The words of their missal
revolt against this practice. The epithet "^mass"
bears on its front a refutation of the use to which
it is prostituted ; their best writers agreeing, that
from the " raissa catechumenorum", (the dismissal
from Church of all who did not receive,) the popular
name, mass, missa (used, in the corruption of the
Latin language, for " missio, demissio ; as remissa,
pro remissio,") was derived to the Eucharist; at

186 DIALOGUE IV.
which now aU remain to gaze*. In fact, every an
cient terra significative of the holy sacrament, re
monstrates against the vain pageant which Rome has
made of it. It is most commonly called "synaxis",
the gathering together ; because a main object of
religious convention was to receive the symbols of
their general Lord. It is especially a "feast"; a
" banquet." But is that a " feast" at which the
keeper of the house regales alone, and the guests
stand vacant lookers on? It is a "communion",
a participation ; but no one participates, no one
communicates. The priest does ah, and for all.
He expiates for all; receives for all; eats and drinks
for all. And this is Christian communion. The
service itself proclaims that the people offer, pray,
receive, &c. which is manifestly untrue. Yet stiU
"Mother Church" stalks on, in her old incorrigible,
perverse way ; notwithstanding the commands of
holy writ ; the censure of primitive tradition ; the
opposition of Fathers and councils ; the remon
strances of the missal and canon itself.
* Roman writers are not precisely agreed in the distinction
between solitary and private masses. I use the terms indis
criminately to signify the mere receiving of the priest : they
diiFer in shades of absurdity only, and are alike alien to scrip
ture and tradition.

OF THE SACRIFICE OF TIIE MASS. 187
PHILODOX.
They maintain, that private masses were always
lawful and practised ; quoting the apostles, who
"brake bread from house to house", and their suc
cessors, who celebrated in houses, prisons, &c.
ORTHODOX.
If by " private masses " were meant the celebrat
ing the communion in private houses to the sick, in
prison to the captives, &c., this is not the thing re
prehended ; for all Churches practise it. But the
private masses we denounce are the common masses,
when the priest alone receives ; which, though done
in the face of the congregation, are as truly private,
as the mental prayer of a preacher before he com
mences his sermon, is as really a private prayer as
that which he offers in his closet.
PHILODOX.
I used the term to signify the sohtary receiving
of the priest. ORTHODOX.
Then the assertion is contradicted by all evidence ;
and the examples quoted by them are sufficient to
shew, how utterly impossible it is to produce even
a shadow of testimony in its favour. Their divines
would do better to cleave to " Holy Mother Church

188 DIALOGUE IV,
acknowledges her own authority in the administra
tion of the sacraments."
I. The apostles practised not private masses ; for
of the institution of Christ, participation is an in
tegral point ; and their theologists are compelled to
allow, that to make up this sacrament, three things
are necessary ; consecration, oblation, communion.
Thus the commentator on the mass, Biel, remarks,
" To this end the body and blood of Christ is con
secrated, that the faithful may use them by eating."
The solitary receiving by the priest is not of the
institution of Christ. " Take ye : eat ye. Drink
ye all of this," Such is the commandment ; and
the sacrament rests herein.
II. " The apostles brake bread from house to
house"; therefore it is lawful for the priest to receive
alone. The premises and conclusion hang together
as coherently as truth and falsehood. In the dawn of
the gospel, the only churches were private houses ;
as " the Church in the house of Nymphas", of Phi
lemon, &c. Mark the sacred narrative of what
happened on the first Christian Pentecost ; and
what support private masses derive from this
"breaking bread from house to house." The three
thousand converts " continued in the apostles' doc
trine and fellowship, in breaking of bread, and in
prayers": and " they, breaking bread from house

OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 189
to house, did eat their meat with gladness, and sin
gleness of heart." Had we quoted these texts
against private masses, they had- been, methinks,
somewhat more to the purpose.
PHILODOX.
But there is added an authority from Tertulhan*,
" if you cannot assemble in the daytime, you have
the night : celebrate it in the night privately, even
if three alone be present." ORTHODOX.
So then, because Tertulhan directs Christians, in
time of persecution, when they cannot have a full
congregation, to celebrate in a small assembly, even
though not more than three be present ; therefore
it is lawful, in times of prosperity, when all the
congregation are convened, for the priest to cele
brate alone. I should have supposed the inference
from Tertulhan to have been of this kind : " If,
even in times of persecution, it is not lawful for the
priest to celebrate without three communicants, at
the least ; how much less is it allowable when no
such necessity obstructs,"
To produce examples reprehending this practice
would be endless. Remember the language of one
* De Fuga in Persec. c. 14.

190 DIALOGUE IV.
of the most eminent apostles of Rome, St. Francis ;
who, writing to the priests of his own order, tes
tifies his view of the subject, and what was in his
time the practice of the Church of Rome herself
" I admonish and exhort you in the Lord, that, in
whatever places the brethren tarry, one mass alone
in a day be celebrated, according to the form of
the holy Roman Church. But if in any place there
be many priests, by the love of charity, let each
priest be content with hearing the celebration of
another." Can words be more decisive than the
solemn language of this saint, exhorting and entreat
ing them in the Lord, and by the love of charity,
to adhere to the form of the Romish Church, not
to have more than one mass, and one priest offi
ciating in one day in the same place ? Either St.
Francis, " in the name of the Lord ", grossly belies
the Church ; or she now practises what she then
accounted unlawful. PHILODOX.
I believe their ablest writers admit that private
masses crept in through the lukewarmness and in-
devotion of the people. ORTHODOX.
True ; and the words of Cardinal Bona are very

OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 191
instructive on this point (p. 176) : " The tenor of
the mass itself, and the practice of the ancient
Church evince, that from the beginning the sacri
fice was chiefly so instituted, that it should be
publicly and solemnly celebrated, the clergy and the
people standing by, offering and comraunicating.
For all the prayers, and the very words of the canon,
are in the plural number, and as in the name of
many. Hence the priest invites the people to pray,
saying, ' Let us pray'; and saluting the same,
says ' The Lord be with you.' Then the faithful,
being admonished to lift up their hearts to God,
respond, ' We lift thera up unto the Lord.' Hence
also in the canon, he always prays in the name of
the people collected together, as when he says, ' We
supplicants pray and implore ', &c. ' We offer this
oblation of thy whole family, to thy glorious ma
jesty, that AS MANY OF US as, by participation of this
altar, shall take the. sacred body and blood of thy
Son ', &c. and much more of the same kind : whence
it is clear, that the mass is nothing else than the
action of the priest, and of the whole assembly :
and that many persons stood round it, is indi
cated by these words, — ' and of all who stand
around, whose faith and devotion are known to
thee ' ; which words cannot be wrested otherwise.
To the coraraunion of the bystanders those words

192 DIALOGUE IV.
refer, in which the priest implores God that the
body and blood of the Lord may be for eternal life
to all who receive. And after communion, he says,
* What we have taken with our mouth, may we
receive in a pure mind : thou hast satisfied thy family
with sacred gifts.' And almost all the prayers
which are recited after the communion, are of the
same tenor ; because indeed those alone were pre
sent at the mass, who could offer, and participate
of the sacrament. Hence St. Cyprian and Pope
Leo make mention of the people communicat
ing ; and the tenth canon of the apostles, and the
second of the Council of Antioch under Julius I.,
decree, that all the faithful who come to church
shall communicate, and those who refuse shall be
ejected from the church and excommunicated. ' Be
it known', says Micrologus, ' that communicants
alone were accustomed to be present at the divine
mysteries ' : hence, before the oblation, the catechu
mens and penitents who had not yet prepared them
selves to coraraunicate, were commanded, according
to the canon, to depart. The very consecration of
the sacraments also implies this ; in which the priest
prays not only for his own oblation and communion,
but also for that of the others ; and especially in
the prayer after communion, he seems to pray for
the communicants alone. It cannot properly be

OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 193
called a communion except many partake of the
same sacrifice.' This was the custom of the first
believers, which St. Jerome testifies to have prevailed
at Rome in his time." — Can words more fuUy exhibit
the gross contempt of Catholic tradition manifested
by his own church, than this enforced statement of
the learned cardinal.
But it seems the custom arose " from the luke
warmness and indevotion of the people " ; — an ad
mirable foundation for the universal practice of the
Church ! — How came it to be so general ? so sanc
tioned ? From the crown of the head even to the
foot, were all converts to the impiety of the people ?
did the clergy, regular and secular; monks and friars;
bishops, priests, and deacons ; primates, cardinals,
and popes; all chime in with the indevotion of the
people ; and shape a religion to suit the tempera
ment of a profane community; authorizing it by their
practice ; and establishing it in their churches, ca
thedrals, colleges, monasteries, and every depart
ment of religion ? was the whole faith conforraed to
suit an irreligious and superstitious laity ?
PHILODOX.
The evU was so general, it could, perhaps, be
scarcely repressed.

194 DIALOGUE IV.

ORTHODOX.

Did they make the attempt? Did they "reprove,
rebuke, and exhort " ? Is it the duty of ministers
and prelates, popes and councils, to accord with
the infidehty of the people, — when they choose not
to follow sound doctrine ? This is a strange way of
refuting error and restoring truth. Besides, how
came the Church so readily to comply with the
corruptions of the populace ? This was not her usual
practice. She was wont to curse, anathematize,
excommunicate ; and make the universe ring with
the injuries done to the faith. Her custom was,
to dragoon heretics into the right way ; by dint of
fire and sword ; interdict and inquisition ; bell, book,
and candle. Her unwonted gentleness, and ready
conformity to the wishes of the people in this case,
seem to argue that she rather promoted than dis
couraged the innovation ; and that her eye was
fixed upon some benefit to accrue to herself, which
might more than remedy the injury resulting there
from. PHILODOX.
But they consider the Eucharist to be a sacrifice ;
and if the people wiU not attend, still it is the duty
of the priest to offer it.

OF THE SACRIFICE OP THE MASS. 195
ORTHODOX.
I must really be excused going over the ground
again, having already proved, even upon their own
interpretation of the word sacrifice, how vain is this
pretence. But granting that it were a sacrifice, still
it may not be offered otherwise than Christ instituted.
And of his institution, participation is an integral
part ; else no communion of the body of Christ ;
and where no communion, neither Christian sacri
fice nor sacrament. Whilst they accuse the inde
votion of the people, they but attempt to shift their
own guilt upon the shoulders of the innocent. Com
munion is not only discouraged, but virtually forbid.
It cannot consist with what they have made of this
ordinance. PHILODOX.
Has not every Church the power of altering the
rites and circumstances of the sacraments ?
ORTHODOX.
Doubtless, in non-essentials ; to see " all things
done decently and in order, as time and place may
require ", and conformably with the divine laws.
But to alter, in essential parts, the institution of
Christ, not any Church hath power. Yet this
hath Rome claimed and exercised. Take the holy
evangelists into your closet. Look at the Eucha-
o 2

196 DIALOGUE IV.
rist as it issued from the Redeemer's hands ; a rite
how simple, expressive, instructive, lovely! Compare
it with the gaudy shew of Rome ; converted into a
source and fountain of idolatry, superstition, and
fraud; of " blasphemous fables and dangerous de
ceits." In what particle hath it not been garbled,
corrupted, falsified ?
I will not weary your patience longer in this dis
cussion, than to direct your attention to the forcible
appeal addressed by our learned, eloquent, and
pious Bishop Jewell, to the Romanists of his day.
" O that St, Paul were now alive and saw the
behaviour and order of the priest at their mass ?
Think ye that he would take and account it for the
Lord's supper? When he had espied but one
fault in the holy communion amongst the Corin
thians, straightway he rebuked them, and called
them back to Christ's institution. ' This', saith
he, ' I received of the Lord, and the same I gave
over unto you '. But if he saw the disorder that
we have seen, would he not pull us back to the in
stitution of Christ, as he did them ? Would he
not say unto us, Did I ever teach you to minister
the holy communion in a strange language ? Did
I ever teach you to receive the communion privately
to yourselves alone, and so to disdain and despise
your brethren ? Did I ever teach you to minis-

OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 197
ter the coraraunion in one kind ? Did I ever teach
you to offer up the Son of God unto his Father ?
Did I ever teach you any other propitiatory sacri
fice for sin than that Christ once offered upon the
cross ? Did I ever teach you to rainister the Lord's
supper, wherein the people should nothing else but
look on and behold your doings, without any kind
of knowledge or comfort ? Did I ever teach you
to hft the sacrament over your head ? Did I ever
teach the people to fall down thereunto, and to
worship they know not what ? Be these the
things that I delivered you ? Be these the things
that I received of the Lord ? This would St. Paul
say unto us, where he now alive. Thus would he
reprove us, and call us to the standard and original
of the first appointing of this holy sacrament.
 O that our adversaries, and all that stand
in defence of the mass this day, would content
themselves to be judged by this rule ! That in all
the controversies that he between us and them,
they would remit the judgment unto God's word !
so should we soon agree and join together; so
should we deliver nothing unto the people but that
we have received at God's hand. And if there be
any that have had, or yet have, any good opinion
of the mass, I beseech you for God's sake, even
as ye tender your own salvation, suffer not your-

198

DIALOGUE IV.

selves wilfully to be led away ; run not blindly to
your own confusion. Think with yourself ; it Avas
not for nought that so many of your brethren
rather suffered themselves to die and to abide all
manner of extremity and cruelty, than they would
be partakers of that thing you reckon to be so holy.
Let their death, let their ashes, let their blood that
was so abundantly shed before your eyes, some
what prevail with you and move you. Be not
ruled by your wilful affections. Ye have a good
mind and zeal towards God. Have it according
unto the knowledge of God. The Jews had a
zeal of God ; and yet they crucified the Son of
God. Search the scriptures : there shall ye find
everlasting life. There shall ye learn to judge
yourself, and your own doings, that ye be not judg
ed of the Lord. If ever it happen you to be pre
sent again at the mass, think but thus with your
self ; What make I here ? What profit have I of
my doings ? I hear nothing ; I understand no
thing ; I am taught nothing ; I receive nothing.
Christ bade me take ; I take nothing. Christ
bade me eat ; I eat nothing. Christ bade me
drink ; I drink nothing. Is this the institution of
Christ ? Is this the Lord's supper ? Is tliis the
right use of the holy mysteries ? Is this it that
Paul delivered unto me ? Is this it that Paul re-

OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 199
ceived of the Lord ? — Let us but say thus unto
ourselves, and no doubt God of his mercy will
open our hearts ; we shall see our errors, and con
tent ourselves to be ordered by the wisdom of God ;
to do that God will have us to do ; to believe that
God will have us to believe ; to worship that God
wfll have us to worship. So shall we have com
fort of the holy mysteries ; so shall we receive the
benefits of Christ's death ; so shall we be partakers
of Christ's body and blood ; so shaU Christ truly
dwell in us, and we in Him ; so shall all error be
taken from us ; so shall we join all together in
God's truth ; so shall we all be able, with one
heart and one spirit, to know and to glorify the
only, the true, and the living God, and his only be
gotten Son Jesus Christ ; to whom both, with the
Holy Ghost, be all honour and glory for ever and
ever. Amen."

DIALOGUE V.
OF THE SACRAMENT OF PEiSTANCE.

ORTHODOX.
The further we proceed in our discussions, the
clearer shall we perceive that the discordancy on
the great question of justification involves almost
every tenet at issue ; and that " the doctrine of
MERIT and the doctrine of duty, lie at the very
root of the differences between the Church of Rome
and the Church of England." * This becomes more
apparent in considering the pretended sacrament of
penance ; the basis of which is laid in the power of
man to satisfy the justice of God. It is, moreover,
one of the most intricate topics of theology, arising
as well from the nature of the questions included
in it, as from the confused mode of viewing the
parts unconnectedly. We raust not trust to the
stateraents of their writers ; for as the practical
consequences of this tenet produced the Reform
ation, more than usual caution and concealment has
been employed about it.
* Faber's Difficulties of Romanism, p. 172.

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 201
PHILODOX.
Among the decrees of the Council of Trent, it
is defined, that penance is a sacrament instituted
by Christ, when he breathed on his apostles, and
said, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost ; whose sins ye
remit, they are remitted ; and whose sins ye retain,
they are retained." By virtue of which commission,
they affirm that a priest, living "in the guUt of mor
tal sin, may, by virtue of the Holy Spirit given in
ordination, exercise this office of remitting and re
taining sins." This sacrament was ordained for the
remission of sins committed after baptism ; as " a
remedy of life ", and to apply to the sinner the be
nefit of Christ's death. The matter of it consists
in contrition, confession, and satisfaction ; and the
form, in which the force chiefly lies, in these words,
" I absolve thee"; for the prayers added, " do not
belong to the essence of the form, nor are necessary
to the administration of the sacrament itself"
ORTHODOX,
Why is auricular confession of the matter oi this
sacrament ? PHILODOX.
Because, as the Council states, our Lord, in the
institution of this sacrament, " instituted an entire
confession of sins ; which confession is, by divine

202 DIALOGUE V.
command, necessary to all who sin after baptism ;
for our Lord, when he was going to ascend, left
the priests his vicars, as presidents and judges,
before whom all mortal sins shall be brought,
in order that, by the power of the keys for remit
ting or retaining sins, they might pronounce sen
tence." They declare the confessor's chair to be a
" tribunal, before which the lapsed are to be set as
criminals, that, by the sentence of the priest, they
may be delivered from their sins." And this con
fession must not be general, but minute. It is,
therefore, ordered, that "penitents must recount
all mortal sins, even the most secret, of which, after
diligent meditation, they are conscious, and all the
particular circumstances which alter the nature of
the sin." And this, because " the priest could not
pass sentence without knowing the case, nor inflict
equitable punishment, if penitents declare their sins
generaUy, and not specificaUy or particularly.'' To
this, as to every other sacrament, the intention of
the priest to do what the Church intends to be
done, is requisite. The Council denounces anathe
ma to aU who deny to the priests this power of
loosing and retaining sins : anathema to those who
deny that absolution is a judicial act, and affirm it
to be raerely ministerial i anathema to those who
deny auricular confession to be, by divine command.

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 203
necessary to salvation, or that it is, by divine com
mand, necessary to reveal every mortal sin, which
can, with dUigent premeditation, be called to mind,
with the circumstances, &c. : anathema to him who
says, that sins are remitted to the penitent, if the
priest absolves, not in earnest, but feignedly. The
Church also warns penitents " not so to flatter them
selves concerning their own faith, as to think they
are absolved truly, and before God, when the priest
has not a mind to act seriously, and absolve truly."*
ORTHODOX.
To all which, that Trent assemblage had the
amazing effrontery to add, that " this sacramental
confession had been used by Holy Church from
the beginning, and always commended by the most
holy and ancient Fathers"; than which (their own
writers being judges), a more direct contempt of
truth was scarcely ever uttered by any man or body
of men. Time would fail to enter largely into this
pretended sacrament. If the Councd of Trent, by
the mere exposition, hath not sufficiently exposed
it to the rejection of every one who presumes to
think for himself, it seems almost useless to allege
testimony. Those who can infer that when our
* Sess. 14.

204 DIALOGUE V.
Lord said the above quoted words, he made a sa
crament, of which contrition, confession, and satis
faction are the matter ; absolution the form ; and
the priest intending to do what the Church intends,
the person ; and restoration to faith the benefit ;
and all to be beheved and obeyed, under risk of sal
vation : whoever can infer this, I say, from our
Lord's words, it really seems hard to say, what he
may not infer.
For as to the matter. All are agreed that every
sacrament must have a visible element, an outward
symbol, for its matter. But here is no element.
" Contrition" is invisible : how can it then be of the
matter of a sacrament. " Confession" is no ele
ment; it is not visible ; and so far from conveying
grace, it is a supphcation for grace. " Satisfac
tion" is the end and purport of the sacrament :
alms, fasting, and other "satisfactions", are vi
sible, it is true ; they are visible works of piety
done after the sacrament is conferred, and there
fore not of the matter of it. The schoolmen, who
first exalted penance to its sacramental dignity,
were much perplexed to discover a visible sign for
it; which they, at length, found out in the laying on
of hands in absolution. The Council of Trent,
however, rejected this, by making absolution the
form. So here is a sacrament without a visible

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 205
sign. This therefore must be a sacrament Romani
generis, not of the institution of Christ.

PHILODOX.

Wherefore then does scripture enjoin the practice
of it ? Did not St. John pre-announce the gospel,
" Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand ?" And our Lord repeated it, " Do penance,
and believe the gospel." ORTHODOX.
That it is an ordinance of Christ proves not that
it is a sacrament of Christ. But few perversions of
scripture are more gross than that which renders
the word f^sravoia,, (simply signifying an inward
change of mind, such as took place in the hearts of
Jews and Gentiles when they received the truth ;
and such as takes place in sinners, when " turned
from darkness to hght, and from the power of Satan
unto God",) by a term so opposite as penance,
which conveys the notion of outward visible satis
faction. What meaning is conveyed by " Do pe
nance, and believe the gospel" ; i.e. shew your faith
first, and beheve afterwards : — or, " Esau found no
place for penance, though he sought it carefully
with tears"? What he sought vrith tears was a

206 DIALOGUE V.
change in his father's mind to revoke the blessing
given to Jacob. PHILODOX.
By translating the Greek, " Do penance", they
follow strictly the Latin Vulgate, " agite pceniten
tiam" ; sanctioned as authentic by the Council of
Trent. However, in the passage respecting Esau,
they render it, " he found no place for repentance ",
as your authorized version has it.
ORTHODOX.
And herein they shew the impropriety of their
general rendering ; for the original term is evi
dently used in the same sense in all the passages. —
They have authorized the Vulgate, it is true ; pro
nouncing an imperfect and often erroneous transla
tion to be authentic, to the derogation of the in
spired original. — Not that, by the aukward expres
sion " agite pcenitentiam", does the Vulgate pro
perly convey the Romish, " Do penance." " Agere
pcenitentiam", says Lactantius, " is nothing else
than to profess and affirm that they will sin no
more." * The persons addressed by St. John and
our Lord, were the unconverted Jews. How then
could they enjoin them to do penance before bap-
* De Vero Cultu, 1. 6. c. 13.

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 207
tism ; when, according to the Papal theology, pe
nance before baptism can make no satisfaction?
Suppose an unbaptized heathen to follow this pre
sumed instruction, the priest would be apt to tell
him, that he misunderstood the direction given. By
their own tenets, then, the rendering is proved un
warrantable. And although it may aid their religion,
by pointing out their false version to those who ven
ture not to connect two ideas when the Church for
bids, yet is it a wresting of the word of God ; and
leading the people from the inward change com
manded, to an external meritorious satisfaction,
alien to the whole tenor of the sacred volume,
PHILODOX.
Although as a sacrament it was not yet insti
tuted, penance was commanded as a duty from
the first. And as a sacrament, the full power was
conferred upon his priests by the Lord after his
resm'rection. ORTHODOX,
Although not a sacrament at first, yet if it was
a duty, it would still be the same in other respects.
And if penance cannot be performed without auri
cular confession, how could it be then enjoined ? Did
St, John, think you, administer this confession to
all who came to his baptism ? If he did, why then

208 DIALOGUE V,
do not they exact the same ? If he did not, what
honest purpose can such perverted construction
promote ? PHILODOX,
If in the words, " Whose sins ye remit, they are
remitted", &c, our Lord did not confer on the priest
hood, a judicial power of enjoining penitential sa
tisfactions, and all the other appendages of binding
and loosing, the words seem to have no meaning,
ORTHODOX,
The words may confer a judicial power, and yet
not institute a sacrament ; of which, indeed, there
is not a shadow of appearance. — They confer upon
the ministry a power of absolution, of remitting and
retaining sins. So saith the Church of Rome ; and
so saith the Church of England ; but with this es
sential difference; — the former makes it a judicial,
the latter a ministerial act; the one constitutes
priests vicars of Christ, lords over the consciences of
men, with eternal hfe or death suspended on their
nod ; the other, dispensers and rainisters of Christ's
word and sacraraents ; helpers of the people in the
faith, not despots over the minds of their bre
thren. The one constitutes " presidents and judges"
over God's heritage ; the other, " elders and over
seers" of the Church of Christ. The one confers

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 209
on man that incommunicable property of God, " I
am He that blotteth out iniquity"; the other shrinks
within that limit, " Who can forgive sins but God
only?" PHILODOX.
This is an argument of the unbelieving Jews, who
thought that it was blasphemy for men to remit
sins. Romanists say, that Protestants borrow the
objection from the enemies of Christ.
ORTHODOX.
The objection of the Jews was not against a mi
nisterial power of forgiving sins, for this their own
priesthood possessed ; but against an absolute ju
dicial power, which the scriptures had confined to
God alone. Whether they argued erroneously, let
the Fathers decide. The above text is quoted by
Ireneeus, Tertulhan, Hilary, Jerome, Chrysostom,
Cyril, Theophylact, Bede, &c. &c. insisting that the
Jews argued rightly ; that no one can judicially re
mit sins but God alone ; and that therefore they
ought to have acted upon their principles, and con
fessed the divinity of Jesus. " But ", remarks the
great Usher, " the world is come unto a good pass,
when we must be accounted heretics now-a-days,
and consorted with miscreant Jews, for holding the
self-same thing that the Fathers of the ancient

210

DIALOGUE V.

Church dehvered as a most certain truth, whenso
ever they had any occasion to treat of this part of
the history of the gospel." * But to traduce and
annul the foundations of the primitive faith, and
expose it to the assaults of its bitterest foes, is a
trifle with Rome, when balanced against the interests
of her unhallowed dogmas.
Judicial absolution of sins ; the constitution of a
" tribunal ", before which all men are to be sisted,
under peril of their soul's salvation ; to confess
every secret of the heart, and to hang upon the
breath of a guilty mortal, as the " president and
judge" of his everlasting state ; this we renounce
and abhor, as that profane assumption of divine
prerogative, that high point of arrogancy and proud
usurpation, which as ill beseem the servants com
missioned by the meek and lowly Jesus, as they too
faithfully characterize the vicegerents of that " man
of sin, who sitteth in the temple of God, shewing
himself to be God." PHILODOX.
What then is the privilege conferred of remitting
and retaining sins ? Is " priestly absolution" mere
words without meaning ?
* Ans. to Jesuit, p. 79.

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 211
ORTHODOX.
Such authority as the ministers and dispensers
of God's word and sacraments, and overseers of the
flock of Christ, may duly claim, is the inalienable
right of the priesthood. Public absolution in the
congregation is exercised by the Anglican Church ;
and in a form which clearly elucidates her views upon
the point, viz. that God "hath given power and com
mandment to his ministers to declare and pronounce
to his people, being penitent, the absolution and
remission of their sins." Private absolution to the
sick she denies not, if the patient earnestly desires
it ; thereby retaining a source of comfort to a de
sponding penitent, but disowning the necessity of
it to salvation. This absolution is, by the restriction,
seldom used. And although the terms of it be in
dicative, yet is the form not judicial, but declaratory
or deprecatory, which is evident from the prayer
immediately following ; where, having absolved the
penitent, the priest supplicates as for one who still
" desireth pardon and forgiveness " ; and implores
the Almighty " to consider his contrition, and accept
his tears"; not to "impute unto him his former
sins", &c. This Private absolution, therefore, is to
be expounded by the Public one, in which it is af
firmed, that God hath commissioned his ministers
p2

212

DIALOGUE V.

to "declare and pronounce" to penitents, his abso
lution, &c. PHILODOX.
If the prayer after the absolution, in your visita
tion of the sick, proves that it is not judicial, then
the prayer after the Romish absolution may prove
the same. ORTHODOX.
Certainly not ; because both Churches have ex
pounded their intention. The Anglican Church af
firms, that her ministers have no other power than
"to declare and pronounce" absolution to penitents.
The Roman claims a judicial right to absolve, and for
bids you to interpret her absolution by the prayers ;
insisting that these " do not belong to the form of
(that which gives force to) the sacrament of penance,
neither are necessary to the administration of it, but
are laudably added according to the custom of the
Church" ; a custom commencing in ages which would
have abhorred this pretended sacrament, and all its
appendages. Sins are described in scripture as debts to God.
No one hath means to discharge the debt due to the
Creator, save that Intercessor who paid an all-suf
ficient ransom by the inestimable price of his own
blood. He hath mercifully commissioned a certain
order of men, not to interfere as umpires, to appor-

OF THE SACRAMENT OP PENANCE. 213
tion the recompense to be paid by man to God,
themselves being his debtors also ; but to announce
divine forgiveness to the penitent, and rigid justice
to the impenitent. PHILODOX.
But a mere declaratory power seems ill-expressed
by terms so peremptory as, " Whosesoever sins ye
remit, they are remitted ; and whosesoever sins ye
retain, they are retained." The Church of Eng
land, therefore, appears to act with impropriety in
using these words in her ordination service. Yolir
Dissenters also agree with the Romanists in this
objection. ORTHODOX.
That such is the strict meaning of the commis
sion of our Lord, is not more evident from the case
itself than from the analogous diction of scrip
ture, in which this indicative language is repeatedly
used, when a bare ministerial commission is con
ferred. When Elijah was commanded to anoint
Ehsha to be his successor, the language is, " Him
that escapeth the sword of Jehu shall Ehsha slay."
But the commission given to Elisha was not a literal
military commission, like that to Jehu and Hazael,
but a grant of the prophetical office of Elijah. He
was to declare to those who survived the destroying

214 DIALOGUE V.
sword of these two potentates, that they should
also perish, if they repented not. The consecration
of Isaiah to the same ministry is thus expressed ;
" Make the heart of this people fat, and make their
ears heavy, and shut their eyes ", &c. Isaiah did
not execute this office by actually fattening the
heart, making heavy the ears, and shutting the eyes
of the people ; but by indicating their obstinate
blindness to the ways of God, and his vengeance
upon them for the rejection of the truth. The com
mission to Jeremiah is the most lofty in the sacred
volume, and has been applied literally, and not inex
pressively, by many of the popes, to their usurpa
tion over the bodies and souls of men : " Behold,
I have put my words in thy mouth. See, I have
this day set thee over the nations, and over the
kingdoms, to root out, to pull down, and to destroy,
and to throw down ; to build and to plant." But
did this affiicted prophet do any more than " by
the words in his mouth ", declare and announce the
ruin of the Jewish and heathen states ? — There is
a sentence of Hosea, which connects the letter of
such language with the spirit ; " I have hewed them
by the prophets ; I have slain them by the words
of my mouth." The rainisters of God morally hew
and slay the wicked by that " sword of the Spirit,
which is the word of God."

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 215
I know not that the objection of our Dissenters
to this use of the terms in the Anglican ordination
is deserving of much notice, as we are not discuss
ing their opinions. But if it should seem otherwise
to you, let me send you to the exposition of their
best commentator, the pious and discreet Matthew
Henry, who, whilst he very properly applies the
commission of remitting and retaining sins primarily
to the apostles, yet candidly allows, that therein
an authority of the same kind is bestowed universal
ly upon the sacred office; and that the passage must
be understood as " a general charter to the Church
and her ministers " ; which fully vindicates our ap
plication of it. PHILODOX.
But taking the commission to be declaratory of
God's mercy and justice, how do you suppose the
words " remitting and retaining sins " to be ex
plained ? ORTHODOX.
By analogy of scripture language, and by that
authority which the first ministers of the Gospel
exercised ; — I. Sins are remitted and retained by
preaching the terms of salvation and perdition, as
kingdoms were destroyed and planted by the pro
phet proclaiming the conditions on which their
existence or ruin depended. II. The lawful pastors

216 DIALOGUE V.
of the Church do bind or loose the flock of Christ,
by pubhc declaration of general absolution to the
penitent, and of unrepealed condemnation to the
hardened sinner : by private deprecation of the
wrath of God ; for the prayers of the " elders of
the Church", saith St. James, " shall save the sick,
and if he have any sins, they shall be forgiven him":
by administration of the sacraments and means of
grace ; of " baptism for the remission of sins ",
and of the Eucharist, the seal of the sacrifice of the
death of Christ, for the redemption of the world :
by preaching the word of salvation, " declaring that
eternal life which was manifest " in the incarnate
Son of God ; for " as the wicked ", saith Solomon, " is
holden with the cords of his sins, and dieth without
instruction ", so by the " instruction of life " are
the bands of transgression loosed. Therefore St.
Paul chiefly places the " ministry of reconciliation "
in this ; that those who are called thereto as am
bassadors of Christ, do " beseech men to be recon
ciled unto God". Other means there are; but
these may suffice to shew the scriptural explication
of " binding and loosing ". The apostles received
this ministry with especial powers and privileges
annexed, which it would be profane for their suc
cessors to claim. But the commission itself is gene
ral in kind, and changeth not its object. Every

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 217
minister of Christ, who, by preaching according to
the instructions which the inspired oracles bequeath
ed ; by using such prayer as Christ enjoined ; by
adrainistration of those sacraments which he hath
instituted ; and by other means of grace and disci
pline conformable to his will ; — every minister, I say,
who thus " converts a sinner from the error of his
ways ", doth as truly remit and retain sins as St. Peter
or St. Paul himself. With privileges imraeasurably
inferior, and with pretensions in no respect to be
compared, for the exercise, — the commission as di
rectly belongs to every successor of the apostles
in his ordinary office, as to them; equally pro
ceeds from the same divine Head, and participates
in the same infallible promise, " Lo, I am with you
alway, even to the end of the world."
PHILODOX.
You confine your remarks to loosing or remitting
sins. ORTHODOX.
Binding and retaining is therein included. The
terras are correlative. He who thus looses may
thus bind. Sin is a chain by which we all are " tied
and bound". The sole medium of release is through
the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, and in the way

218 DIALOGUE V.
He hath constituted. Whoever embraces the means,
is loosed ; whoever rejects them, remains bound.
PHILODOX.
But how does this explain St. Paul's conduct to
the incestuous Corinthian, whom he says " he de
livered to Satan ", and afterwards released ?
ORTHODOX.
I have said, the apostles had extraordinary powers
to which no minister can now pretend. Language is
appropriate in their hps, which would be unseemly
in the mouth of spiritual rulers at present. Pos
sessed of the gift of " discerning spirits ", they were
preserved from error in their decisions. Yet, in
the case of that Corinthian, St. Paul did no more
than every governor of the Church may do. He
excommunicated a person guilty of incest ; and
afterwards, upon his sincere repentance, relaxed
the censure. The Church which hath not the
power of expelling such criminals as this, hath no
power at all. Those censures which she hath au
thority to inflict, she hath authority to relax ; and
such relaxation was the sole indulgence known to
the primitive Christians : a power hke this the
Church of England assumes. But not as the claims

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 219
and exercise of Rome, so are hers. The arms of a
pure Church are not carnal, but spiritual ; the true
weapons of the Prince of Peace, and of that " royal
law of liberty ", which produceth willing captives
by voluntary bonds ; " bringing every thought in
subjection to the obedience of Christ."
PHILODOX.
Power is surely impotent, without means to en
force it. ORTHODOX.
Spiritual and moral means there are ; coercive
power and corporal restraint belong not to the
Church of Christ. These are the instruments of
earthly potentates, disowned by Him, whose " king
dom is not of this world." PHILODOX.
Where then is your due authority ?
ORTHODOX.
In our office and ever-blessed Master. His stew
ards we are ; not the " judges and presidents " over
the eternal state of our brethren. We claim that
just authority and respect due to those who bear
the commission of the Lord of all.

220 DIALOGUE V.
PHILODOX.
We have digressed from our proper inquiry.
Let us then return to the examination of the sacra
ment before us. To discharge that absolution which
the Roman Church claims. Auricular Confession is
insisted upon as necessary. In fact, this is com
manded by St. James, " Confess your sins one to
another." ORTHODOX.
Does St. James mean, " Confess your sins pri
vately to the priest ; unfold every secret of your
heart to him, on peril of eternal salvation" ? Strange !
that he should have expressed himself in so myste
rious a way.
The advantage and duty of public confession of
sins is not in discussion, neither of private confes
sion to a minister, under peculiar circumstances ;
which the Anglican Church recommends. But it
is the Roman mode of controversy to assemble to
gether a string of passages, proving what no one
disputes, with intent to throw dust into people's
eyes, and blind thera to the real question. Thus,
in the case before us ; public confession of sins is
conimanded by scripture ; particular confession to
the priest is recoraraended by all, as serviceable in
certain cases. Therefore, infers Rome, it is certain,

OP THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 221
by divine command, that auricular confession is part
of a sacrament, and that every person is bound to
stand before the tribunal of the priest, and, upon
peril of his soul, to discover every secret of his heart,
and every part and portion of his conduct ; to an
swer every question which may be proposed, good
or bad, profligate or prudent ; to place his or her
life, character, virtue, modesty, peace of mind, at
the mercy of a man, who may be living in morta.! sin :
— nor must he shrink herefrom, for upon the decision
of this " president and judge ", his eternal state
depends. Where is there a shadow of authority for
this vile thing ; this
¦  " Monster of so frightful mien.
As to be hated needs but to be seen? "
PHILODOX.
You refer especially to the abuses of confession.
But you know councUs and popes have passed se
vere censures upon a priest who betrays his trust
herein. ORTHODOX.
True ; and these reiterated sentences evince how
scandalous the abuses have been. But what re
paration can be given to the injured person ? What
restoration to a mind in whom the seeds of impurity
have thus been implanted ? By this precept, every

222 DIALOGUE v.
house and family, husband and wife, parent and
child, every human tie and feeling, are subjected to
the mercy of the priest. A door is opened on all
sides to temptation and wickedness. The conse
quences, in a political point of view, are notorious ;
nor are those of a domestic kind left to conjecture.
Writers of all parties have raised the voice against
it. So notorious have been its demoralizing effects,
that, unwilling as popes and councils are to disclose
the infamy of their ministers, they have been com
pelled to it ; decrees and bulls have from time to
time been passed against these infamous results.
" At this time ", says Erasmus, " we see that there
are very many who gratify their curiosity by this
kind of confessions ; others, who under this cloak
commit shameless acts not to be naraed ; the con
duct of some is polluted as by a contagion, especially
from the narration of divers kinds of lusts, to be
ignorant of which is a great part of innocence ;
others again, by this instrument, fortify their ty
ranny over the people, whose fathers they ought to
be ; and to many, coiifession is nothing else than a
net for gain, with which every part of Christianity
is infected. " * PHILODOX.
But priests cannot safely absolve without a know-
* Ad Leum. 216.

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 223
ledge of the sinner's real state, which can only be
acquired by particular confession.
ORTHODOX.
That such confession is not necessary to absolu
tion, we prove by their own practice. Baptism, they
say, absolves from all sins, without confession. Nay,
in confession, the priest absolves from all sins which
the penitent may have forgotten. " Cannot a cre
ditor ", demands Erasmus, " forgive a debt, unless
the debtor enumerates the several items of the sum
indebted ? " A forward hypocrite may detail with
particularity his offences ; and a sincere, but modest
penitent may rest in generahties.
PHILODOX.
But it is often necessary, where a man has in
jured his neighbour, to enjoin restitution upon him,
which otherwise he might neglect.
ORTHODOX.
The Anglican Church commands her ministers
to enforce this duty ; that, if any have wronged
other, they " make amends to the uttermost of
their power "; for this is one of the greatest, al
though, I blush to say it, one of the most neglected
of Christian duties, even among sorae who profess to

224 DIALOGUE V.
be guided by the principles of the Gospel : although
if a man be sincere in his penitence, this will be
one of his first and clearest obhgations ; and it is
of vital importance, that he be warned, that his
repentance is false or vain, if it be not evinced by
such proof. In doubtful cases of conscience, the
layman certainly will do well to resort to his spi
ritual guide ; and most persons who have a sense
of rehgion have, I presume, a confidential minister
to whom they can open their mind. But all this
is far different from what Rome enforces. This
answers not her aim. PHILODOX.
They assert, that auricular confession never could
have " been introduced, had it not been received
from the beginning, as a divine ordinance for the
remission of sin. It has been practised from the
earliest ages of Christianity." ORTHODOX.
So says the late " Declaration of the Catholic
Bishops"; and they moreover affirm, that " the sacra
ment of penance is an institution of Christ, no less
than the sacrament of baptism. The belief of both
rests on the same foundation." Viewing this " De
claration " as the solemn statement of men of cha-

OP THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, 225
racter and rectitude, I cannot but consider that
they never would have ventured upon such an as
sertion as the above, had not reverence for truth
been previously absorbed in the paramount interests
of a Church, whose existence is incompatible there
with ; and had they not been likewise satisfied of
the credulity of an age, alike eminent for diffused
learning, and for shght acquaintance with theolo
gical record. The sacrament of baptism hath a
command as clear as words can convey : for sacra
mental confession, there is not a sentence of holy
writ, nor a single orthodox evidence during a thou
sand years *.
The history of auricular confession is briefly this.
In the rigid disciphne of the primitive Church, pub
lic offenders were reformed by public penance, of
which, confession in the face of the congregation
was so indispensable a part, that they were not
* The publication of Mr. Townsend's "Review", since these
pages were written, has induced the erasure of some addi
tional remarks on the above Declaration. This gentleman,
whether occupied in the elucidation and arrangement of holy
writ, or in its collateral object, the exposure of Romish error
and misrepresentation, displays, in his several writings, the
features of one who has not less the general interests of the
Universal Church at heart, than, which is, perhaps, even
more rare, a true Protestant feeling, with a fearless and un
daunted candour in avowing it. Q

226 DIALOGUE V.
readmitted to holy ordinances without it. Others
who had secretly offended, and were therefore
conscious of moral unfitness for the Lord's table,
not uncommonly disclosed their offences to their
rainister ; a sense of piety overcoming shame ; well
knowing also that this voluntary proof of contrition
would procure them more favour, than the discovery
of their sin would create disgrace. Every case thus
disclosed to the priest, was by him referred to the
people ; pubhc confession then followed, and due
prayer was made for the penitent. The earliest
mention of such private confession as this, is, as far
as I know, to be found in Origen, who commends
it, but accompanies his commendation with a cau
tionary advice ; that the penitent should be careful
to choose for his confessor a pious and discreet per
son. In that strict age of discipline, then, this con
fession was voluntary, not universally practised,
and never enjoined. It arose from a pious fear of
receiving the sacraments, before the offender was
pronounced worthy by the minister of God ; and
so far is the principle from being censured, that
our Church recomraends it. This secret con
fession, you perceive, was public also; inasmuch
as it was published to the congregation, and sa
tisfaction made to the Church by the customary
penance.

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 227
When, however, that charity, which in the first
Christians had absorbed every narrow feeling, began
to cool ; when heresies, and schisms, and worldly-
raindedness spread their baneful influence over the
vineyard of God, this public confession, which had
been a powerful restraint on vice, became a handle
for malice to misconstrue and scandalize. There
fore, the Greek Church first, and the Latin after
wards, laid it aside, commanding both confession
and penance to be private. Nor do we blame them
for this arrangement. The face of Christianity had
sadly degenerated from its pristine beauty. The
love which had knit Christians together was re
laxed ; and each was too ready to carp at the ex
posure of the faults of others. — But the immediate
occasion of the change among the Greeks appears
to have originated with the austere Novatians,
whose overweening purity was disgusted by the re-
admission to communion of those who after bap
tism had fallen into mortal sin. They rent the
Church with invectives against the penitential dis
ciphne, exclaiming, that " to shew favour to sin
ners, was teaching the innocent to sin." The Greek
Church, therefore, took away the public confession,
but retained the private ; not, however, leaving it
to the discretion of any or every priest, but ap
pointing a penitentiary or confessor in each church.
q2

228 DIALOGUE V.
This continued for some time, until, one of those
scandalous circumstances, which appear to be inhe
rent in the system, occurring at Constantinople,
the Patriarch, Nectarius, abolished the necessity of
private confession, as that of public had been ex
tinguished before, and left it entirely to the con
science of individuals. The change was sanctioned
by the prelates, and confirmed by his successor, St.
Chrysostom. This was the estimate of confession
in the Greek Church. Public she took away by
appointing confessors, and Private by annulling
them ; " leaving every raan to settle his own con
science for the holy mysteries ", as Socrates remarks ;
who lived at the time, but disapproved of the pro
ceeding. PHILODOX.
But the Greek Church did not abolish penance
altogether. ORTHODOX.
That orderly and public discipline which every
Church enjoins against notorious offenders, she
still retained. But clear is it that the Greeks knew
nothing of confession as sacramental, nor even as
necessary by divine law ; otherwise Nectarius would
not have annihilated it, nor the prelates sanctioned,
nor St. Chrysostom perpetuated, the annihilation.
They accounted confession to be a point of disci-

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 229
pline, not of the matter of a sacrament ; they
therefore altered and abolished it at pleasure : nor
do we hear of any who enforced it, except the Arian
and other heretics.
A similar substitution of private for public con
fession took place, though at a later period, in the
Latin Church ; and Pope Leo the Great assigns
a similar reason for the change. He commends
" that fear of God which fears not human shame";
yet abrogates a general practice which caused scan
dal, and exposed a man to the malice of his foes ;
directing the penitent to confess in private to God
and to the priest. Thus, then, it appears, that by
the early Christians public confession was enjoined.
When the world and the Church began to be con
founded together, the rules of primitive piety be
came a stumbling-block of offence. Private confes
sion, of later and voluntary origin, and abolished
in the East, as compulsory, from experience of its
evil, became general through the Western Church ;
and, as her corruptions and ambition attained their
summit, was made, at length, a point of necessity.
The peremptory obligation of it was first decreed
by the fourth Lateran Council, so late as the year
1215, which required the faithful of both sexes to
confess all their sins at least once a year to their
curate. But that it was part of a sacrament, no

230 DIALOGUE V.
Council defined before that of Trent. Here then
be it repeated, that for a thousand years it was
never taught, that auricular confession is either sa
cramental, or of necessity to salvation.
Since, however, our Roman bishops have cast
down the gauntlet, and fearlessly maintained that
this auricular confession, " hath been practised from
the earliest ages of Christianity", we will not sum
mon a host of Fathers, who, indeed, pour in upon
us ; but we will call witnesses yet more irrefragable,
even their own most eminent and devoted writers,
to accept the challenge.
Theodore, the celebrated Archbishop of Canter
bury, himself a Greek, born at Tarsus, the birth
place of St. Paul, will be sufficient testimony for
his native Church and his own opinion. He saith,
" The Greeks and the East confess to God alone :
and it is lawful to confess to God alone." Peter
Lombard, the oracle of the Roman Church for ages,
teUs us, " The learned held different sentiments
about it [[confession^, for the doctors have delivered
different, nay, almost contradictory opinions upon
the subject." Gratian, the authorized expounder
of their canon law, says of confession, " I leave to
the reader's judgrhent to adhere to which side he
pleases, for wise and learned men have favoured
both." " That without confession" remarks Se-

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 231
meca, " there is no forgiveness to adults, is false.
It was ordained by tradition, rather than authority
of scripture ; therefore, it is not binding on the
Greeks, who have no such tradition." " There is
no clear authority", adds Panormitan, " that God
or Christ ordained confession to a priest." " All
the canonists say", acknowledges Maldonat, " that
confession was brought in only by the law of the
Church." Finally, says Erasmus, " We do not
read anywhere that private confession was an
ciently commanded. . . It is apparent, that in
Jerome's time, secret confession was not yet in
stituted." * So much for the veracious " Declara
tion" of our " Catholic bishops."
PHILODOX.
The other part of the matter of this sacrament is
Satisfaction. Now the Roman doctrine of merit,
upon which the competency of man to render sa
tisfaction for sin depends, is too often raisunder-
stood. The schoolraen distinguished works into
those that have merit de congruo, of congruity,
which are such as are done before baptism, and
have an inherent fitness to be rewarded by the free
grace of God ; and those that have merit de con-
digno, of condignity, such good works as being
* Usher.

232 DIALOGUE V.
done after grace received, have in them merit to
make satisfaction for sin, through the efficacy of the
death of Christ. Now of works of congruity, the
Church knows nothing, because they proceed not
from a holy principle ; but of the latter kind, of
works proceeding from divine grace, she main
tains an inherent worth and merit to satisfy the
wrath of God. ORTHODOX.
Doubtless she does : the denial of it would jus
tify the Reformation, and uproot her system. For
simple as this doctrine may appear, the operative
divinity of Rome is built upon it. Masses, abso
lutions, indulgences, penances, mortifications, fast
ings, pilgrimages, in short, almost all their practices
hang thereon. Take this pillar away, and the
fabric falls. Hence with what overwhelming force
does the great primitive and Protestant doctrine of
justification by faith influence the whole controversy
between the Churches.
Could we suppose a possibility of any works pos
sessing merit, it would be of such as arise from the
voluntary motion of the doer. But the Council of
Florence declares that works to be satisfactory must
be such as the priest chooses to order the penitent
to perform. These are accounted not only neces
sary to salvation, but a satisfaction for sin, made

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, 233
unto God. True it is, the Church enjoins that
these works be chiefly prayer, fasting, alms, &c. ;
nevertheless, all is left to the will of the priest.
Hence those endless works, observances of supersti
tion, which form so great a portion of their satis
factions : which, so far from being the good
works that are acceptable unto God, by faith, are
rather offensive in His sight : and which evidently
shew, that satisfaction to the priest and the
Church supersedes satisfaction to God.
Certainly he libels the Church of Rome, who af
firms that she allows merit to any works but those
that are done by a justified person ; but she ana
thematizes all who say that the " good works
of a justified man are so the gifts of God, as not
to be also the good merits of the justified person
himself; or that a justified man himself does not
truly merit by his good works increase of grace,
eternal life ", &c., the inconsistency of which tenet is
lost in its arrogance and pride ; it is most offensive
and shocking to every humble mind.
There is no dispute with them of the necessity
of good works, rightly so called, viz, of that entire
obedience which the law of God enjoins. Neces
sary they are : — I. Because it is commanded, that
" they who have believed in God should be careful
to maintain good works", and this precept is enough

234 DIALOGUE V.
for every faithful Christian. II. Because they
are the path to heaven, God having " before
ordained that we should walk in thera." III. Be
cause they are the sole evidence of a lively faith,
which " without works is dead." IV. Because the
practice of them increases the innate principle of
grace ; as putting out talents to usury enhances the
stock. V, Because habits of holiness render those
who shall be saved " meet for the inheritance of
the saints in hght." VI. Because God is glorified
when his people " bear much fruit." VII. Because
good actions are the necessary result of good princi
ples ; and assimilate us to th^ image of Him " who
went about doing good, leaving us an example to
follow his steps." — Divers other obligations are there
for the cultivation of practical religion ; but these
may suffice as well to enforce its necessity, as to dis
play how wide is the distance between the duty and
the merit of holiness. And never has the Protest
ant doctrine been more forcibly and candidly ex
pressed than in the well known words of our own
Hooker : " We acknowledge a dutiful necessity
of doing well ; but the meritorious dignity of doing
well we utterly renounce." PHILODOX.
But both scripture and the Fathers speak often

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 235
of the worth or merit of the righteous ; as our Lord
says of the saints at Sardis ; " they shall walk with
me in white ; for they are worthy." We read also
of fruits " worthy of repentance." What is worth
but merit ? ORTHODOX.
The " worth " imputed to the saints is a moral
suitableness for heaven, wrought in the heart by
the Divine Spirit ; not a meritorious desert : — and
" fruits worthy of repentance", are works worthy
of those who have entered upon a new life, and re
ceived a holy principle ; as to " walk worthy of the
vocation wherewith we are called", is to walk suit
ably to the intent of the gospel. And our " chief
worthiness", to use the words of Bishop Bull, " is
a deep sense of our own unworthiness." AU scrip
ture proceeds upon the great truth, that " not by
works of righteousness which we have done, but of
His mercy He saved us."
PHILODOX.
But the merit ascribed by the Church of Rome
to works proceeds entirely from the grace of God.
ORTHODOX.
This removes not the objection. Eternal life is
always spoken of as an inheritance purchased by the

236 DIALOGUE V.
merit of Christ alone : and if Christians owe all
to God, they can merit nothing of Him. They can
not satisfy by m_erely giving back that which is His
own. All are his servants ; bound to obey his will,
to the utmost, with all the faculties of soul and
body : their whole time and labour are talents of
his right. And, after the utmost application of mind
and strength to obedience, they are still " unpro
fitable servants ; they have done no more than is
their duty to do." " What hast thou that thou
didst not receive?" And what merit is there in
paying to God that which is his own ? The best
work even of the best of mortals is imperfect in it
self, and counterbalanced by other grievous sins :
" even the just man falleth seven times a day ", as
Dr. Milner quotes on another occasion. The prayer
of the purest soul to its last gasp must be, " For
give us our debts." Nay, if good works were perfect,
they are inadequate to deserve even the least of
God's providential mercies ; much less to merit a
part of eternal glory. There is not the slightest
proportion between the feebleness of the desert, and
the exceeding greatness of the reward.
PHILODOX.
But the raerit of works is considered by thera
rather in the light of an adequacy to satisfy the

OP THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 237
wrath of God, than strictly to merit heaven ; which
will be better understood by a distinct statement of
their doctrine. Both sides allow that, morally
speaking, remission of sins is unattainable except
by just and strict satisfaction. And both agree,
that Christ, by his obedience to the death on the
cross, so fully satisfied the Divine justice, that all
penitents obtain in justification a remission of the
guUt of sin. So far the two Churches accord ; but
here they separate. Rome insists, that although,
by this remission, the eternal punishment is removed
to those who die in a state of grace, yet a tempo
rary punishment remains for the sins by them com-
raitted after baptism. And this punishment must
either be satisfied for in this world, or endured in
purgatory. Satisfaction may be made in the pre
sent life by such works of penance as the priest en
joins, &c. ; and if this be not entirely discharged, it
must be made up in purgatory, whence the sinner
shall not be released tiU he has paid the very last
mite. Satisfactions are to be made for him, too,
not only by his own deeds and sufferings, but by
masses, and by applying to him the meritorious
works of others, and so on.
ORTHODOX.
On this point, the differences between the

238 DIALOGUE V.
Churches are altogether irreconcileable. We main
tain, that Christ offered that all-sufficient sacrifice,
by which both the guilt and entire punishment of
all sins are done away to the truly penitent ; and
that there is no penalty of vindictive justice to be
satisfied for by them. We argue this, not more from
the positive declarations of scripture, than from the
equity of the case ; from the perfection of the Re
deemer's ransom ; and from the nature of the Di
vine justice. Remission of sins is, in every respect,
a gratuitous boon of Divine mercy, as must be
allowed by all who do not wilfuUy close their
eyes to the word of God ; but that sin is not gra
tuitously remitted, for which the sinner must make
entire satisfaction ; that debtor is not freely dis
charged, who is kept in prison till he has paid the
last mite. Forgiveness of sins is plenary, not par
tial. Purgatory penalties are asserted to be equal to
those of hell in suffering, and to differ from them in
duration alone. If this be so, the gracious message
of the gospel is a delusion. So far from being a
remission of sins to the penitent, it is only a modi
fied punishment ; which contradicts the word and
tenor of the Christian dispensation. Nor can the
repentant sinner lay to his mind that peace with a
reconciled God which St. Paul declares to be the
immediate result of justification, if there still hangs

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 239
over him a heavy portion of Divine vengeance, un
repealed ; and for which he must make strict satis
faction before he can enter " into the joy of his
Lord." Again, everywhere is the satisfaction of Christ
declared to be complete, and the price paid by him
abundantly sufficient to satisfy for both the guilt
and penalty of sin ; and to be as fully applied for
the benefit of the penitent, by faith, as though him
self had paid it. But to say that Christ made
entire satisfaction for all who faithfully receive him,
and yet that they are to pay a portion for them
selves, is derogatory to the covenant of the Re
deemer, and dishonourable to the equity and good
ness of God ; because it supposes him to demand a
second satisfaction from those for whom plenary
satisfaction had already been made. Justice can
never exact penalty but with the contemplation of
guilt in the culprit. If Christ took away the guilt,
he took away that which alone could be the object
of punishment, and removed of course the necessity
of satisfaction by the person forgiven.
In fact, to make meritorious satisfaction a part
of the sacrament of penance, is apparently incon
sistent. What is this penance, in every branch of it,
but a humble acknowledgment of sin ? The matter
is " contrition, confession, and satisfaction." Now,

240 DIALOGUE v.
that in the same sacrament man should feel con
trite under a load of guilt, confess himself obnoxious
to eternal justice, and, in so doing, make satisfac
tion thereto, is surely a contradiction in terms.
PHILODOX.
But although we cannot fuhy satisfy the divine
justice of God, are we to make no attempts to ap
pease His wrath ? ORTHODOX.
Strictly speaking, those terms should not be con
founded. Although we are unable to form an ade
quate conception of satisfaction to the divine justice,
yet moral intuition seems to convey to us the no
tion that it is a real satisfaction done to the violated
attribute of the eternal Legislator. But when
Scripture holds forth God as angry with his dis
obedient people, the language is evidently figura
tive ; and by a similar figure, repentance and obe
dience may be said to appease his wrath. But
satisfaction Christ alone did or could make. Through
his mediation the penitent may be said to appease
his offended Parent ; but to merit or satisfy, Christ
hath neither companion nor attendant : " of the
people there is none with him." An undutiful child
may appease an injured father by falling down be
fore him ; but, by that act of prostration, he can, in

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 241
no wise, be said either to satisfy his justice, or merit
his love. — Here, however, the parallel, though ob
vious, must remain very incomplete.
That we are to do all in our power to please God,
would be to repeat what I have said before.
PHILODOX.
But is not this doctrine of satisfaction by the merit
of works constant in the writings of the Fathers ?
ORTHODOX.
If it were really so, much as we may venerate their
piety and labours, we could not hear them contra
dicting the infalhble word of God. Of the primitive
Fathers, no attempt is made to prove that they held
any thing of the kind ; but their writings contain
evidence to the contrary. In the works of the later
Fathers, we certainly meet with terms which imply
the power of man to merit with, and to satisfy, God ;
but, taken in the strict literal sense, they are often
as inconsistent with the Romish doctrine as with
ours. We are not, however, hastily to condemn
these venerable men, from what may be a misap
prehension of their language. There is a meaning
in which to " make satisfaction" is true, even in a
theological sense. When we use the expression to
signify nothing more than a temporal punishment

242 DIALOGUE V.
which sometimes follows sin as naturally as effect
follows cause ; or in the sense of special retribution,
sent by God upon certain notorious offenders, &c.
in such cases the epithet is altogether unobjection
able. The phrases, to merit, to deserve, ofttimes
signify in the Fathers neither more nor less than to
acquire, obtain, or follow. Take a few examples
from St. Augustin : " Worshippers of demons merit
certain temporal comforts." Now he surely means
not to say, that demon-worship morally deserves
temporal comfort. Again : " Paul, by his many
persecutions and blasphemies, deserved to be called
a vessel of election"; and "the stiff-necked Israelites
deserved to be delivered by many miracles." The
term here signifies, to obtain; else never did fanatic
argue more madly than this holy Father. The strict
word. Satisfaction, requires the less explanation, be
cause it equally imports, to make compensation or
to suffer punishment.
" It is an easy thing", says a great divine, " for
a wrangling sophist to dispute of merits in the
schools, or for a vain orator to declaim of merits out
of the pulpit ; but when we come to lie upon our
death-beds, and present ourselves at the last hour
before the tribunal of Christ, it is high time both
for you and us to renounce our own merits, and to
cast ourselves naked into the arms of our Saviour.

OP THE SACRAMENT OP PENANCE. 243
That any works of ours, who are, the best of us,
unprofitable servants, (which properly are not ours,
but God's own gifts ; and if they were ours, are a
just debt due unto Him, setting aside God's free
promise and gracious acceptation,) should condignly,
by their own intrinsical value, deserve the joys of
heaven, to which they have no more proportion than
they have to satisfy for the eternal torments of hell ;
this is that which we have renounced, and which we
ought never to admit." * And many Roman divines,
when withdrawn from the din of controversy to the
tranquiUity of private meditation, find their conso
lations in the doctrine thus beautifully impressed by
this profound prelate. Nay, Bellarmin, even with
the pen of disputation in his hand, after labouring
to defend the doctrine of his Church (which, if de
fensible, he, least of all men, had failed), sits down,
at last, in the Protestant conclusion : " Because of
the uncertainty of our own righteousness, and the
danger of vain-glory, it is the safest way to place
our entire trust in the alone mercy and benignity of
God alone." t And may that mercy preserve all
who regard their salvation, from forsaking this
" safest way ", to turn aside into the devious and
dreary paths of human confidence.
* Archbishop BramhaU's Ans. to Militiere.
t De Just. 1. V. c. 7- prop. 3.
r2

244 DIALOGUE V.
But we must not forget, that the " worst remains
behind." It is not so much that the believer hath
worth through Christ to merit for his own salva
tion, but that he hath an overflow of obedience, a
superfluity of righteous deeds, to atone for others
as well as for himself This is that presumption,
that detraction from the Saviour's office, that foun
tain of iniquity wherewith their Church is deluged,
PHILODOX.
That topic will more properly come before us in
considering the question of indulgences.
ORTHODOX,
True : but we must briefly touch upon one
practical part of this tenet ; I mean, the use made
in absolution of these satisfactions. So really de
serving and satisfactory are the works which a man
can do for himself, and others do for him, that
they are positively conjoined with the Saviour's
merits, in absolving ; one form of which runs thus :
" The passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits
of the blessed Virgin and all the saints, and what
ever good thou hast done, and whatever ill thou
hast suffered ; be unto thee for remission of sins,
&c." * What can be more unchristian than this
* Ritual, p. 90.

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 245
shameless formula? Here is a compound of the
passion of the Redeemer, the merits of the saints,
and the penances of the sinner, all jumbled to
gether, to make up a full remission of sins ; pro
vided, at last, the absolver be in the humour to ap
ply them. For, to consider the whole, see what
a confusion of false doctrine and absurdity is pre
sented. The sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God
is not sufficient, in Roman theology, to discharge
the penitent, without the supernumerary merits of
the saints ; and these again are inadequate to supply
the defect, without the adjunct of the good works
and sufferings of the patient. But surely, when
all these are compressed together, the absolution is
complete, and the repentant sinner safe. No ! here
steps in the Council of Trent, with a caveat to sus
pend the whole, " Let him not so fiatter himself";
for without the intention of the priest all is void.
Neither the Saviour's passion, nor the saints' me
rits, nor the penitent's works, nor the Church's pe
nance, avail one jot, if it be the design of the "pre
sident and judge", that it shall not avail. I verily
believe that the annals of divinity scarcely contain
such a bewildering labyrinth of nonsense and im
piety : — " a mighty maze, but not without a plan''
Here is a sacrament, necessary, by divine com
mand, to the salvation of all ; the penitent faith-

246 DIALOGUE V.
fully discharges every part of his duty. He receives
solemn absolution; the merits of his Saviour, of
the saints, of his own good works and sufferings,
are all apphed to him. He rests in plenary re
mission, and in a conscience at peace with God;
when suddenly Rome rings a knell in his ears, with
this appalling theme : " Flatter not thyself in the
sincerity of thy faith, and the fulness of thine obe
dience; in the merits of thy Saviour and of the
saints : for all are vain, if the priest, whose heart
thou canst not know, did not seriously and inten
tionally absolve thee." Never, then, is he to feel
assured that the weight of punishment is taken
from his shoulders. For though the priest used the
words of absolution, yet, if he intended not to do
what the Church intends to be done, all is null and
void ; the penitent is as truly bound by his sins as
though he had neither fulfilled the condition nor
received the sacrament. Let him not daringly sup
pose that, having obeyed the divine and human law,
his soul is in a safe state ; for if he doth, Infallibihty
chains him down with a curse for his presumption.
" Anathema " to any one who holds that " sins are
remitted to him who confesses, if the priest has ab
solved, not seriously, but feignedly." Now, if we
had not the decrees of Florence and Trent among
us, never would it be imagined, that any assembly

OF THE SACRAMENT OP PENANCE. 247
of men, calhng themselves Christians, the represen
tatives of the Church, could have promulged a
dogma thus senseless and detestable, teeming with
impiety to God and wretchedness to his people ;
thus alien to the whole tenor of the sacred word
and of Catholic tradition ; rendering the sacra
ments and means of grace vague and uncertain
things, not dependent on the goodness of the Insti-
tutor, the grace of the accompanying Spirit, and the
fitness of the recipients, but upon a human being,
be he ever so vicious and polluted, living, as they
express it, " in mortal sin". Here is the mercy of
him " who will have all men to be saved", checked
by the corrupt humour of a sinful creature ; here
are the gifts and graces of the Redeemer linked to
the chair of a man, who may be poisoned by pre
judice, besotted by bigotry, deceived by misappre
hension, bewildered by ignorance, influenced by
mahgnity or sensuality ; who may be a profligate,
restraining absolution to the temptations of pollu
tion, as hath often been the case ; who may be
an infidel, Jew, or Pagan, despising both the in
stitutes of Christ and the intention of the Church ;
of which thousands have filled the confessorial tri
bunal. Yet, accursed be he who thinks that the
efficacy of the sacraments of God and of remission
of sins, is not dependent upon the will and dispowi-

248 DIALOGUE v.
tion of this man. Anathema to him who saith,
that if this hypocrite, profligate, or infidel, pronounce
absolution not seriously, the repentant sinner is ne
vertheless acquitted before his Maker. After this,
need we be amazed at any thing that Rome hath
said or done ? Are we yet to wonder that, where
her sceptre sways, God is practically deposed from
the heart, and those whom his supposed decree hath
constituted "presidents and judges" of salvation,
should be there enthroned ? Need we be surprised
at the direful effects which her priesthood hath pro
duced in every age, by this tyranny, exercised
over the consciences of the pious, the superstitious,
the fearful, and the ignorant ; over trembling cul
prits looking up to men on whose inward disposi
tion happiness or torment is suspended ? Con
template, for the instant, such a dogma as this,
wielded by a designing hand over the female mind ;
a raind susceptible to every tender impulse, and
peculiarly sensitive to religious impressions ? Do
we want records to detaU the advantages thus af
forded and obtained over, I will not say, their weak
ness, but those very virtues which constitute the
beauty and excellency of the sex, their best, their
purest, and their holiest feelings ? It is no longer
unintelligible, to see a Catherine deMedicis planning
and directing the slaughter of St. Bartholomew ;

OF TIIE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 249
or our own unhappy Mary, of whom history por
trays so many noble features, kindhng the flames of
Smithfield for her martyrs, and wasting, in agoniz
ing fires, the blood of the best of her people.
PHILODOX.
Dr. Milner says, of this doctrine of intention,
" there is no sensible person who does not see the
essential difference between an action that is se
riously performed, and the mimicking or mockery of
it by a comedian or buffoon."
ORTHODOX.
This is saying nothing, or worse than nothing.
I should suppose, if the confessor anticked in his
chair, like a comedian or buffoon, it would be almost
too much for Roman faith to endure. We are sup
posing the sacrament " seriously performed"; that
it is " a serious performance", and nothing better ;
done with that solemnity which hjrpocrites may deem
it necessary to assume. The question is not, whe
ther the outward act be serious, but whether the
performer has a mind to do what the Church in
tends. If he has not this mind, of which no mortal
can be certain but himself; (for " who knoweth the
mind of a man, save the spirit of a man which is in

250 DIALOGUE V.
him ?") let " not the penitent flatter himself that he
is absolved in the sight of God."
Passing by, but never forgetting, the deadly ope
rations of this and such like tenets in pubhc life,
what must be its effect on a mind disturbed by that
appaUing caution of holy writ, " the heart is deceit
ful above all things and desperately wicked ; who
can know it?" and taught, on authority he has
never presumed to question, that the security of his
soul rests on the sincerity of that dark sepulchre,
whose corrupt foldings human eye cannot unravel.
His safety is in that which passes mortal ken, the
bosom of his confessor. God " alone knoweth the
hearts of the children of men ". It is one of the few
prerogatives which Rome hath left to the Almighty,
unparticipated in by her priesthood. — So far from
expecting safety in this Church alone, it is wonder
ful that any one who seriously thinks at all of his
eternal interest, should remain within the pale of a
religion which commands him to place no depend-
ance upon inward faith or outward duty; upon
repentance of mind, or application of the means of
grace ; which denounces anathema against the de-
niers of a doctrine, leading to the inevitable conclu
sion, that it is impossible for any man to be assured,
that there is ever a valid sacrament, or true ordi-

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 251
nance administered ; or that there is any such cha
racter as bishop, priest, or minister, in the universe.
It might be imagined that Rome's conventicles
had caballed together to make experiment how far
human credulity would extend in the reception of
prodigies. By transubstantiation, she denies to her
votaries the use of their sensitive faculties ; by the
doctrine of ministerial intention, she well nigh be
reaves thera of the benefit of their intellectual
powers. For if it can be beheved, that the sacra
raents and ordinances of God, remission of sins, and
compensation to the divine justice, are hmited by
the fiat of a man living in mortal sin, it would be
difficult to say what is the proposition, upon the
credibility of which rational judgment may duly be
employed. The motive of those who confirmed this doctrine
is not left to conjecture. It is stated with fearless
candour. It is, that their priests may be constituted,
" presidents and judges " of the spiritual state of
men, in whose bonds the consciences of all may be
indissolubly tied ; that every age, and sex, and sta
tion, may be sisted before a tribunal, commissioned
to pass sentence of deliverance or condemnation;
and every mind and thought enslaved to the Church.
" Wise in their generation are the children of this
world "; and few more wise than the forgers of these

252 DIALOGUE V.
unholy shackles. Still it may appear, that the vast
aim of this worldly wisdom for once passed beyond
the mark ; and, potent as might be the object, yet
the dangerous results to their religion, from these and
many such decrees, are so apparent, that their esta
blishment can only be explained by resorting to that
all-controlling Power, who, whilst in His inscrutable
purposes, he allows this " deceivableness of iniquity"
to overspread so vast a portion of his Church, yet
never leaves the truth so completely veiled, as that
inquiring men should find no hght to dispel the ob
scurity. He hath forewarned us, that His mysterious
wisdom would permit an anti-christian despotism to
lord it for a while ; but He hath so portrayed the dis
tinctive features of it, that he "who runs may read."
He hath, moreover, declared, that He would send it
" strong delusions to beheve a lie"; and so infatuate
its ambition, that it should unwittingly sow the seeds
of its own dissolution; and, in administering its
poison, should warn the patient of his danger, and
of the consequences of submission to its sway.

DIALOGUE VI.
OF INDULGENCES.

ORTHODOX.
Indulgences were the immediate cause of the
Reformation. The Council of Trent, therefore,
spake very cautiously concerning them, and modern
Roman writers have adopted the same course :
many, indeed, appear to know neither their use nor
benefit. Here again comes in the question of sa
tisfaction ; and some other points before considered.
PHILODOX.
You have allowed that remission of sins cannot
be obtained, except by strict and entire satisfaction.
Now, as before remarked, they maintain, that al
though the essential guilt and eternal punishment
of sin are expiated to a justified man by the blood
of Christ, yet there is a certain temporary punish
ment reserved for him to undergo, or make satis
faction for in this world, or in purgatory, or both.
The Church hath power to mitigate this, whoUy
or in part, by what is called an indulgence, which

254 DIALOGUE VL
prescribes certain satisfactions to be done by works
of penance. ORTHODOX.
Temporal punishment may be and is inflicted in
this life, even upon the justified sinner, either as
just retribution, or natural effect, or fatherly cor
rection, or examples of divine justice. But that
the penitent can, in anywise satisfy God, by patient
submission to or voluntary infliction of punishment,
or do any thing expiatory, we deny.
PHILODOX.
But it is asked, " Because we cannot acquit our
selves of the entire debt, are we not to make some
efforts to pay as far as our means afford ? "
ORTHODOX.
The argument is not good. Men have nothing
but what they receive from God ; Peter cannot pay
Paul, if he hath no means to do so without borrow
ing from Paul. The comfort of the Gospel is, that
it declares sinners, upon faith and repentance,
" reconciled to God, through the death of his Son";
and that God was in Christ reconciling the world
unto himself ? And how ? by " not imputing their
trespasses unto them." The Christian consolation
is, that " being justified by faith, we have peace

OF INDULGENCES. 255
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." But
this peace of mind is not for him who stiU knows
a vast portion of his debt to be undischarged ; a
heavy account lying against him to be paid by his
own imperfect obedience, and the bitter pains of
purgatory. St. Paul places the blessedness of the
sincere believer in this, that " his unrighteousness
is forgiven, and his sin covered, and that the Lord
will not impute his trespasses to him." How is this
true, when a vast portion of the sin remains still
imputed to, and exacted fi-om him ? When we talk
of having done satisfaction to a person, it implies
that we are accepted by, reconciled to, and at friend
ship with, him. Which of these is left undone by
Chi'ist ? The faith, attested by obedience, which
reconciled and made Abraham the " friend of God",
reconciles all who are the spiritual seed of Abraham.
Personal satisfaction reconciles man to man ; vi
carious satisfaction reconciles man to God.
But before we speak of Indulgences, it is ne
cessary to understand, if possible, what they mean.
PHILODOX.
We have their benefit stated in the recent Jubilee
Bull of Pope Leo XII., from which it appears that
they are efficacious ; I. " For remission of canonical

256 DIALOGUE VI.
penance " ; II. For " remission of the temporal
punishment due to the divine justice for past sins '';
IIL To " afford succour to such as have departed
real penitents in the love of God, yet, before they
had duly satisfied, by fruits worthy of penance, for
sins of commission and omission, and are now pu
rifying in the fire of purgatory ; that an entrance
may be opened for them into that country, where
nothing defiled is admitted." These indulgences
are granted, by applying portions of a stock, con
sisting of the merits of Christ, and of the super
fluous merits of the saints, laid up at the pope's
disposal. Thus he tells us, that he grants Indul
gences, " 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, of his Virgin Mother, and of all
the saints, which the Author of salvation has en
trusted to our dispensation." ORTHODOX.
It seems then, that the Church has the power of
making herself umpire between the Creator and
his creatures ; of compromising the debt due from
man to God ; and of letting off the sinner from
paying what he owes to the divine justice.

OF INDULGENCES. 257
PHILODOX.
The deficiency, you see, is made up out of the
stock of merits of Christ and the saints.
ORTHODOX.
If this be so, what does St. Paul mean by ask
ing, " Was Paul crucified for you"? or why is it not
true that " the saints, as well as Christ, suffered for
us"? Are we again to yield the faith to Unitarians,
and admit that the doctrine of the atonement is
not to be established by the strict application of
such phraseology to our Lord alone ; adopting their
unholy language, that good men are saviours as
well as Christ. PHILODOX.
Does not St. Paul say, " I rejoice in my suffer
ings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the
afflictions of Chiist in my flesh, for his body's sake,
which is the Church"? ORTHODOX.
There is a wide difference between suffeiing for
the good of others and satisfying for the sins of
others. By the " afflictions of Christ", are meant
not His personal afflictions, but those which he
suffered in his mystical body, the Church, and of

258 DIALOGUE VI.
which St. Paul, in his flesh, underwent so great a
part. The following is the exposition of St. An-
selm — " I fill up those things which are wanted;
wanted, where ? In my flesh ; for in that flesh
of Christ which the virgin bore, no afflictions are
wanted ; but there yet remains a part of his afflic
tions in my flesh, which I suffer for his universal
body's sake, the Church. For if I ceased to in
struct believers, I should not have to bear these
sufferings from unbelievers. But because I am ever
zealous to benefit the Church, I am always necessi
tated to endure adversity." PHILODOX.
But the Council of Trent teaches, that these
" satisfactions are efflcacious through the blood of
Christ alone." ORTHODOX.
What is this but to say, Christ merited in order
for men to merit ? He satisfied once in one way,
that we might satisfy many times in many ways.
He satisfied perfectly for us, that he might satisfy
imperfectly in us. He satisfied for eternal punish
ments himself: but he satisfied for temporal punish
ments only when men satisfy for themselves, or
others for thera ?

OF INDULGENCES. 259
PHILODOX.
Surely " a sovereign, in shewing mercy to a
capital convict, may either grant him a remission
of all punishment, or leave him subject to some
slighter punishment. May not the Almighty do
the same?"* ORTHODOX.
It is not for us to say what the Almighty may
do. Our inquiry is, what hath he done ? Hath he
not forgiven the guilt and punishment of sin to all
that are in Christ Jesus ; who, " by one offering,
perfected for ever them that are sanctified " ? God is
said freely to pardon the repentant sinner : but the
sovereign does not freely pardon the culprit whom
he punishes, or from whom he demands satisfac
tion. The parallel, moreover, between the court
of heaven and a court on earth, is defective in this
important point ; the earthly sovereign and the in
jured party are different persons; nor can the sove
reign equitably forgive to a culprit what is equitably
due to the injured party. But here, God is at once
the sovereign and the offended party. Who is to
commute between Him and his creature? " If",
saith Eh, " one man sin against another, the judge
shall judge him; but if a man sin against the
* End of Controversy, L, xlii. S 2

260 DIALOGUE VI.
Lord, who shall entreat for him ? " " He is not a
man as I am", exclaims Job, " that I should answer
him, and we should come together in judgment.
Neither is there any umpire between us, that might
lay his hand upon us both."
PHILODOX.
" But many instances occur of God's reraitting
the essential guilt of sin, and eternal punishment due
to it, and yet leaving a temporary punishment to
be endured by the penitent sinner " ; as the sentence
of spiritual death was remitted to our first parents,
but not of temporal death. When Nathan said to
David, " The Lord hath put away thy sin ", he
added, " nevertheless the child born unto thee shall
die " ; and other instances there are of a like kind.
ORTHODOX.
If death be the " temporal punishment " of sin, the
example of our first parents and all their posterity
would prove, that it remains unrepealed either by
God or raan. But " the wages of sin is death."
Death is rather the hire, the lot of sin, than its
punishment. The promise to the believer is, that
" he shall never die." The transit from this life is
not the death of the soul, but its departure, its tem
porary dissolution from the body, and is spoken of

OF INDULGENCES. 261
rather as a mercy, than a punishment*. Neither
are we arguing, that as cause produces effect, so
sin sometimes retains an inherent penalty in this
world, after the sinner may, by the testimony of a
holy life and reformed mind, satisfy himself that the
eternal punishment is pardoned. The reformation
of a libertine does not always restore his broken
constitution to its pristine health ; and many a con
verted sinner has reason to say with the Patriarch,
" Thou writest bitter things against me ; thou
makest rae to possess the iniquities of my youth."
— But what are those consequences of sin which re
main after the eternal penalty is remitted ? Death,
disease, poverty, dishonour, ruined reputation. Now,
if these are the " temporal punishments", and to the
" remission of temporal punishments", indulgences
are effectual, why are they not applied to these
which really and evidently subsist ?
The so often ill-understood example of David
bears little upon the point. He was art adulterer
and a murderer, and as such worthy of death.
Though a king, he was amenable to the express
penalties of the law of Moses. Convicted of his
horrid crimes, both his crown and life were for
feited : and nothing could have set aside the for
feiture, but the special interposition of God ; whose
* Gen. iii. 22.

262 DIALOGUE VI.
saving promises in the house of David were not to
fail through the sins of an individual. Upon his
confession of penitence, he is exempted from the
immediate penalty of his crimes ; and, as Josephus
rightly understands the language of the prophet,
" his life and kingdom are preserved." But the
interpretation which supposes those dreadful acts of
deliberate and long indulged atrocity, to be instant
ly forgiven, the guilt washed away, and the eternal
punishment repealed, by the mere utterance of a
few words of contrition, I can neither see, nor be
lieve, to be conveyed in the words of Nathan. Read
the fifty-first Psalm, written after the interview with
the messenger of God. It is not the grateful and
humble acknowledgement for pardon undeserved,
but it is the effusion of a terrified awe-struck soul ;
still conscious that the sin of " blood-guiltiness"
hung heavy over him, and imploring mercy and for
giveness. The legal penalty was repealed, and,
doubtless, the eternal punishment in the divine
mind which knoweth the heart : but that the tem
poral punishment was forgiven is in no wise ap
parent. David was saved from actual death is
true ; but only to suffer more severely by the accu
mulated miseries that pursued him to his grave,
in the accomphshment of the sentence, " The sword
shall never depart from thy family." If, therefore,

OF INDULGENCES. 263
this proves that a temporal punishment remains,
after the eternal is removed, it proves still further,
that such temporal punishment can be done away
by no satisfaction or indulgence. That God makes
examples upon earth ; that he deters from sin by
sufferings, is allowed on all hands. But sufferings
cannot compensate for sins ; nor can an act of obe
dience satisfy for disobedience. We suffer, in order
to be amended, to be prepared for a better state ; we
are chastened to be fitted for glory, that the " peace
able fruits of righteousness may be yielded in those
who are exercised thereby." PHILODOX.
Indulgences appear to be misunderstood. " An
indulgence never was conceived by any Catholic to
be a leave to commit a sin of any kind. No Catholic
ever believed it to be a pardon for future sins. An
indulgence, according to the doctrine of the Church,
is not and does not include the pardon of any sin
at all, little or great, past, present, or to come.
Hence if the pardon of sin is mentioned in any indul
gence, it means nothing more than the remission of
the temporary punishments annexed to such sin."*
ORTHODOX.
It is unpleasant to be obliged to deny the accuracy
* End of Controversy, L. XLii.'

264 DIALOGUE VI.
of the whole of this statement. You say, " An in
dulgence never was conceived by any Catholic to
be a leave to commit sin of any kind, or to be a
pardon for future sins ; nor does it include the
pardon of any sin little or great, but only the tem
porary punishment." — Now whom are we to believe
in this case ? Our English Romanists, Gother,
Milner, &c., or the Popes and the indulgence it
self? How may we know what an indulgence is, but
by the practice of the Church ? If the king grants a
pardon to a malefactor, if all his officers obey it,
if the judges admit its legality, if no law militates
against it, if no branch of the legislature arraigns
it, are we nevertheless to believe that it is no pardon,
and that it was illegally conferred, because some
private attorney may think proper to expound it so?
Is not the Pope the executive of the Church? Does
not the Pontiff now in the chair tell you that it is
at his pleasure " to unlock the sacred treasury", and
issue indulgences, &c. ? Does not the entire Church
allow them ? Do not all his " venerable brethren,
patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops," re
ceive them, and the whole priesthood dispense them
for the spiritual benefit of the people ?
Suppose one or two divines may say otherwise than
the Church has said ; or may sincerely question the
legitimacy of some indulgences ; their voice is no

OF INDULGENCES. 265
more to be heard than that of a country lawyer,
who should insist that the king has granted a false
pardon ; and that the privy council, judges, and
parliament, know not what a royal pardon really
is. How are we to understand a grant, but by the
terms of the grant ? If the sovereign issues a par
don to a malefactor, granting him plenary remis
sion of all his crimes, is it null because a private
magistrate or constable may say, " Notwithstand
ing this pardon purports to be a full pardon, yet it
is not a fuU pardon ; it exempts you from trans
portation, but it does not exempt you from being
sent to the hulks ; in fact, it is no pardon at all,
unless you do such and such things"?
But " an indulgence is not a leave to commit sin
of any kind." Not in precise terms truly ; but if it
releases the punishment of sin, it is virtually, and
to all practical intents, " a leave to commit sin."
This is clear, because, if it " includes the pardon of
any sin at all, little or great, past, present, or to
come, or repeals the temporary punishment," it does
so far license sin. And their denial, that an in
dulgence does anything of the kind, may, by the
most decisive evidence, be refitted.
Endless are the indulgences granted by councils
and popes, including the "pardon of sins past.

266 DIALOGUE VI.
present, and to come." The first general Lateran
Council granted " remission of sins to whoever
shall go to Jerusalem, and effectually help to op
pose the infidels."* The fourth Lateran Council
granted the same indulgence to those "who set
themselves to destroy heretics." Boniface VIII.
granted, " not only a full and larger, but the most
full pardon of all sins", to all that visit Rome the
first year in each century. Clement VI. decreed,
that they who should, at the jubilee, visit such and
such churches should obtain " a most full remission
of all their sins": and he not only granted "plenary
absolution of all sins to aU who died on the road to
Rome", but also " commanded the angels of Para
dise to carry the soul direct to heaven." Boniface
IX. granted indulgences " a poena et a culpa",
from the punishment and guilt of sin. Do all these
include remission of sins, "past, present, and to
come"? or do they discharge the " temporary"
punishment alone, when the effect is to release
the " guilt", and command the angels to take the
indulged direct to heaven ? — What is the meaning
of that indulgence on the remarkable monuraent of
the Leghs in St. Michael's Church at Macclesfield ;
on which we read, " the pardon for saying of v.
* Can. 11.

OF INDULGENCES. 267
pater nosters, v. aves and a creed, is 26 thousand
yeres and 26 days of pardon"?
If, to violate vows be a sin, and a pardon before
hand be leave to commit sin, then was " leave to
commit sin " granted to all the kings and queens of
France in succession by that indulgence of Clement
VI. in which he says, " We, by apostolical authority,
by the tenor of these presents, indulge for ever to
you and your successors, who for the time being shall
be kings and queens of France, and to every of you
and them, that such confessor as any of you and them
shall think fit to choose, may commute for you and
them such vows as you may perhaps have made, or
which by you or your successors may hereafter be
made (the ultramarine vow, that to St. Peter and
St. Paul, and that of chastity and continency except
ed), and also such oaths by you taken, or by you and
thera hereafter to be taken, as you and they can
not conveniently keep, into other works of piety,
as he may see expedient for the health of your and
their souls, agreeable to God. Be it therefore un
lawful for any man whatever to infringe this grant,
or rashly oppose it. If any man presume to at
tempt it, he shall incur the indignation of Almighty
God, and of the blessed apostbs Peter and Paul." *
— If then to discharge men (particularly monarchs,
* Dachcr, Spicileg. T. in. 724.

268 DIALOGUE VI.
upon whose public obligations national honour
and safety depend), from their vows and oaths,
when it is " not convenient to keep thera", be not
leave to commit sin, what may be called so ? And
if such indulgences be not " for sins past, present,
and to come", by what words may a licence of the
kind be expressed ?
There are also what are called " stationary indul
gences", granted to those who visit the churches at
Rome, &c. ; and these extend to a million of years ;
a tolerable exemption from " temporary punish
ment". Now what can be the meaning of such in
dulgences ? They cannot be mere relaxations of
penance for a man's life ; nor for purgatory, which
ceases with the day of judgment. If a pardon for
a million or for thousands of years, does not convey
entire exemption from the consequences of sin, what
does it convey?
Again, if indulgences do " not include the par
don of any sin, little or great", what is the mean
ing of the language " a poena et a culpa, from the
penalty and the gudt" ? If to absolve a man from
the penalty and guilt of sin, be not to pardon hira,
what is pardon? And, if "remission of the tem
porary punishment due to sin", be not pardon of
sin, what, again, is pardon? A great sin is what
they call a " mortal" sin; and a httle sin, a " venial"

OF INDULGENCES. 269
one. But they have always held that "venial"
sins are hereby pardoned, both as to the fault and
the punishment. PHILODOX.
An indulgence is, as I have said, a remission of
temporary punishment, and of the satisfactions due
to God : for " the Church beheves and teaches, that
her jurisdiction extends to this very satisfaction, so
as to be able to remit it wholly or partially, in cer
tain circumstances, by what is called an indulgence ;
which is not only a relaxation of canonical penance,
but an actual remission by God himself"*
ORTHODOX.
Let us attend carefully to this. An indulgence is
a " remission of temporary punishment, and of the
satisfactions due to God " ; which satisfactions, as
they tell us, are " alms, fasting, and other good
works." But what kind of divinity is that, wherein
alms and good works are accounted " punishments",
to be put in the balance against the agonies of
purgatory ? And what sort of a Church is that,
which grants indulgences to release men from the
penalty of doing good deeds acceptable to God ?
Are we to suppose that He confirms a release from
the satisfaction due to himself, and from practical
holiness : and that He authorizes the Church to ex-
* End of Controversy, L. xlii.

270 DIALOGUE VI.
cuse men from their duties ? Good works, it seems,
are pains and penalties in Roman theology ; but in
that of scripture they are privileges, and delightful
exercises of lively faith. According to this doctrine,
heaven is to be secured by dispensations from prac
tical righteousness.

PHILODOX.

You may not forget, that indulgences are not to
be granted without " just cause : hence, no one
can ever be certain that he has gained the entire
benefit of an indulgence, though he has performed
all the conditions."* ORTHODOX.
Can there ever be "just cause" for dispensing
with works of holiness? And who is to decide
upon what is a "just cause", except he who has the
supreme power to grant the pardon ? Assuredly,
no one. Bellarmin therefore allows, that the Pope
may grant the greatest indulgence for the slightest
cause ; and gives, for an example, the plenary in
dulgences granted to all who stand before St. Peter's
Church on Easter-day, when he blesses the peo
ple t. And if a man may " not be certain that he
has gained the entire benefit of an indulgence", of
* End of Controversy, L. xlii. t De Indulg. i. 12.

OF INDULGENCES. 271
what value is it, save to betray souls, by leading
them to confide in a remission which may be at
last a cheat and an imposture ?
PHILODOX.
St. Paul exercised such power in the case of the
incestuous Corinthian. ORTHODOX.
Upon his repentance, he released him from the
bond of excommunication ; nothing more.
PHILODOX.
Have not indulgences been granted in all ages ?
ORTHODOX.
Ever bear in mind that the Roman religion is not
so much a new religion as a perversion of the old ;
a corruption of original truth, rather than an in
vention ; and a strange selection and compound of
primitive Christian and Pagan tenets and practices.
Papal indulgences are a prostitution of the strict
ness of the early believers. In the first times, severe
penances were imposed upon offenders ; and when
these had been well nigh undergone, and the conduct
of the penitent satisfactory ; or when he seemed at
the point of death, and displayed every feature of

272 DIALOGUE VI.
sincerity; or in any other extreme case, the remainder
of the penance was dispensed with, and absolution
given. This was the sole indulgence known to the
priraitive age. It was a relaxation entirely eccle
siastical : it took not the future state into contera-
plation. It was not considered an actual remission
by God himself, of any part of punishment. Clear
is this from the language of that eminent discipli
narian, St. Cyprian ; who, though he regarded this,
as doubtless it is, an important part of Church go
vernment, yet so far from esteeming it to be a " re
mission by God," he leaves the effect of it with Hira
altogether in doubt. It was a raatter of mere dis
cipline. That indulgences, in any sense or kind,
rested with the Pope alone, or that he was the sole
dispenser of them, or that they were made up of the
merits of Christ and the saints, there is not a shadow
or glance of evidence in early Church history ; but
distinct, positive, abundant proof to the contrary.
It is, in almost every particle, a modern fiction. The
privilege of granting the old relaxations belonged
inherently to each and every bishop, subject only to
canonical control*. These indulgences were pious
* A bishop could not regularly grant a relaxation, save at
the intercession, or with the consent of the people, who might
otherwise be scandalized thereby. This is clear from the ex
ample of Therapius, a bishop, who, having hastily relaxed the

OF INDULGENCES. 273
and edifying, to prevent the penitent " from being
eaten up with over-much sorrow " : of primitive au
thority, and conformable to divine law. Roman
indulgences are vain things, false, deceitful, novel,
and injurious to Christ. Disgraceful are they in
themselves, and most hurtful to the interests of
morality and religion. PHILODOX.
The " Declaration of the Catholic Bishops" says,
these indulgences " have been exercised from the
earliest ages." ORTHODOX.
Another assertion, which, if it be true, all history
is fable, and their best learned writers false. Mark
the language of Cardinal Cajetan, the same who
was employed as Legate of Rome to confer with
Luther : " If we could have certainty of the begin
ning of indulgences, it would help us to search out
the truth ; but no sacred Scripture, no written au
thority of ancient doctors, Greek or Latin, hath
brought this to our knowledge ; but this only, from
three hundred years, is it written of the old Fa-
penance of a lapsed presbyter, was severely censured by his
primate, St. Cyprian, who did not, however, rescind the act,
" being of opinion that the peace of the Church, given by any
bishop, is not to be taken away." Ep. ad Fidum. T

¦274 DIALOGUE VI.
thers, that St. Gregory brought in stationary indul
gences."* "Indulgences", says Prierias, writing
against the same great Reformer, " are not made
known to us by authority of Scripture, but by that
of the Roman Church and Popes ; which is a
GREATER authority." \ This master of the Papal
palace speaks out, and minces not the subject. Let
us further hear the confession of our own country
man, the learned Cardinal-bishop Fisher : " It is not
sufficiently manifest fi'om whom indulgences had
their origin. Of purgatory there is very little or no
mention among the ancient Fathers. So long as
there was no care about purgatory, no one sought
indulgences ; for on that depends all the value of
indulgences. Indulgences, therefore, began after
people had trembled awhile at the torments of pur
gatory." J; Similar is the confession of Durandus,
Antoninus, Alphonsus a Castro, Major, and the
ablest defenders of their Church. Indulgences, such
as those of Rome, were unknown until within these
seven hundred years.
The observations of their own Erasmus are re
markable : — " I wiU not here contend with those
who deny that satisfaction pertains to penance.
« Opusc. T. I. Tr XV. c. 1. t Cont. Luth. Pa. Ind.
X Art. xviii. cont. Luth.

OF INDULGENCES. 275
God alone, they say, remitteth sins, and to whom
ever he remits the guilt, to him he also remits the
penalty ; for by charity and the Holy Spirit is that
culpability dissolved, which being discharged, no
thing remains, save to increase more and more in
love. Hence they infer, that the indulgences of
Popes cannot relax penalties, except such as man
hath or may inflict ; and not even those, save for
weighty causes. As I would not condemn entirely
papal relaxation, so do I judge it more safe to hope
for plenary remission of sins from the love and mercy
of Christ, than from human grants. If charity be
wanted, what doth a bull avail ? If that be com
pletely present, a buU is superflilous ; if imperfect
in any part, they deny that it can be pardoned by
the Pope, which belongs to God alone. Of indul
gences, the sacred writings say nothing ; nor, in
deed, the ancient doctors of the Church. Later
divines always varied in their opinions on this
subject, and spake perplexedly and doubtfully.
But what they assert, let themselves look to : it is
beyond doubt that we have one evangelical indul
gence : — ' her sins, which are many, are forgiven,
because she loved much.' " *
The scandalous use of these indulgences, the
* De Modo Confitendi.
T 2

276 DIALOGUE VI.
constant, regular, uncensured practice of selling
them at pleasure, fills not merely Protestant invec
tive, but the constant deprecation of their own writ
ers, especially about the era of the Reformation.
The Pope sold them wholesale to the best mer
chant ! who again retailed them regularly through
out Europe ! Where was the pretended zeal for
Christian purity when the world rang with the im
morality, vices, and ruin of religion, produced by
indulgences ? The " Centum <jravamina" is not
the angry effusion of Protestant controversialists,
but the deliberative exposition of the princes of the
German empire in public diet. Now, what says this
memorable document? — Their Third Grievance is,
" of the increase of the intolerable burden of indul
gences, when, under show of piety for building
Churches, or an expedition against the Turks, the
Pope sucks the marrow of their estates ; and, to
heighten the imposture, by their hireling criers and
preachers. Christian piety is banished ; while, to
advance their market, they extol -their wares for
granting of wonderful, unheard-of, positive pardons;
not only of sins already committed, but of sins to
be committed by those who are ahve, and of the sins
of the dead  By sale of these wares, together
with being stripped of our money. Christian piety
is extinguished ; whilst any one may promise him-

OF INDULGENCES. 277
self impunity, by paying the tax set upon the sin he
has a mind to commit ; hence fornications, incests,
adulteries, perjuries, murders, thefts, and all manner
of crimes, are at once engendered. What wicked
ness will mortals fear to commit, when they may
promise themselves licence and impunity of sinning
while they live ; and for a little more money, indul
gences may be bought for them after they die"?
The Fifth Grievance is, " that the Pope, Bishops,
and Pillars of the Roman Church, have always some
reserved cases, for which you must make a fresh
bargain, and pay more money, or no dispensation."
The Sixth, " that if any one has wherewith to pay,
he may not only be indulged in a present trans
gression of these constitutions [^about reserved cases^,
but he may be permitted to transgress them in fu
ture ; whence those who are dispensed with, take
occasion to commit perjuries, murders, adulteries,"
&c. This is the manifesto of the German princes ;
this was the practical authorized divinity of the
Church of Rome ; and, never be it forgotten, for
opposition to this, Luther was and is an excommu
nicated heretic from the fold of Christ.
Yet "the Catholic Church rejects with abhorrence
the imputation, that by granting an indulgence, she
grants permission to commit sin, or a pardon for
sins to come " : so says the " Declaration" ; and " no
Cathohc ever imagined any thing of the kind " ;

278 DIALOGUE VI.
adds Dr. Milner. But if the examples I have given
will not suffice, look at their official records ; the
" Tax-book of the Apostohc Chancery ", and of the
" Sacred Penitentiary ", alluded to by the princes
above. In these books, absolutions for the grossest
crimes were as regularly set to sale at specific
prices, as catalogues of volumes are exposed upon
our stalls, or commutations for taxes enumerated
in our regular tax-tables. PHILODOX.
It appears, that these books have " great varia
tions, both as to crimes and prices," and have " been
frequently condemned by the court of Rome. The
Pope's Court of Chancery hath no more to do with
forgiveness of sins, than his Majesty's Court of
Chancery has. If ever there was the least ground
work for these books, the money paid could only
be fees of office, on restoring certain culprits to the
civil privileges which they had forfeited by their
crimes. When proceedings in Doctors' Commons
in a case of incest are suspended, fees of office are
required : but would it not be a vile calumny to say,
that leave to commit incest may there be pur
chased?"* ORTHODOX.
There is in these books no " variation in crimes
* End of Controversy, L. XLl.

OF INDULGENCES. 279
and prices ", except as some editions were, perhaps,
less beastly than others ; and as successive pontiffs
exercised their right of varying fees. They have
NOT " been frequently condemned " by the Church
or " court of Rome ", for they were issued by her
orders and authority. The Council of Trent,
though twenty-seven editions had then appeared,
put them not in their index of prohibitory books.
In 1570, a solitary edition was condemned, not by
the Church, but by the King of Spain. At last,
in 1596, one edition was censured at Rome, not
simply, but as " corrupted by heretics". In 1786
and 1806, they were censured, but only " when cor
rupted by heretics". All the other editions remain
undisputed, either as to authority or the source
whence they issued.
The Tax-books in MS., now in the British Mu
seum, were procured from the papal archives by
Lord Oxford. Subsequently to the Reformation,
they were sold publicly in the streets of Paris.
The testimony of an eminent Romanist, Espencseus,
though weU known, may bear to be repeated. He
says, " The accusations of Protestants might appear
forged, were it not that this infamous book was
then and before publicly exposed for sale ; in which
you may learn more wickedness than in all the
summaries of all vices, and in which licence for

280 DIALOGUE VI.
many sins, but absolution for all, is advertised f O'
buyers. It is wonderful, that at this time, in this
schism, so shameful an index of so many filthy and
horrid crimes is not suppressed. I do not think,
that in Germany, Switzerland, or any other parts
that have revolted from the Ptoman see, a more
scandalous work is exposed. And it is so far from
being suppressed by the favourers of the Roman
Church, that licences and impunities for such and
so great crimes, are in great part renewed and con
firmed by the faculties of legates going about all
parts." He proceeds with a story of abominations
to which these dispensations extended *.
When, then, "his Majesty's Court of Chancery"
issues tables of full absolutions for all sorts of
crimes, with the prices annexed ; when it employs
officers to travel over England to proclaim, recom
mend, and sell them ; when all the money thus
collected goes directly and immediately into his
Majesty's pocket, and this becomes the sole and en
tire motive for issuing them ; then some parallel
may be allowed between the cases. The same re
mark applies to Doctors' Commons.
* See a tract entitled " Taxatio Papalis ", by a learned
and pious friend of the author, (the Rev. J. Mendham, ) who in
this, as well as in his " Account of the Prohibitory and Ex-

OF INDULGENCES. 281
This subject of Indulgences is most important to
be understood, because we ought to know what was
the heresy for which Luther was severed from the
Church ; and to recollect, that the approvers of that
measure do virtually and de facto countenance and
hold these horrible tenets, for opposition to which
that glorious champion of outraged piety and mo
rals was cast from their communion. I have for
borne, therefore, to advert to Protestant evidence.
Let Romanists speak for themselves on this point.
And we will now close the discussion, after your at
tention has been directed to the brief account of
the rise of the Reformation, from the pen of one of
their most illustrious ornaments, Thuanus.
" The sin at that time prevalent in dispensing
sacred duties, Leo X. soon increased by one far more
heavy. For being in other respects voluntarily
prone to all licentiousness, he, at the instigation
of Cardinal Puccio, whom he too much favoured, and
to get from all parts money for his vast expenses,
sent bulls through the kingdoms of the Christian
world, promising expiation of all sins and eternal
life, at a certain price, to be paid by every one in
proportion to the magnitude of the crime ; and for
that object, he constituted through the different
purgatory Indexes", has cast considerable light upon a curious
but very important part of the papal controversy.

282 DIALOGUE VI.
provinces, treasuries and tax-gatherers, with the
addition of preachers, to extol among the people
the importance of so great a benefit ; and by skilful
discourses and publication of books, to enhance be
yond measure the efficacy of the thing. This was
done with excessive licentiousness by the papal
agents in all parts, but especially in Germany ;
where those who had farmed from the Pope the
money to be raised, did daily, without shame, in
brothels and in taverns, prostitute to the vilest uses
the power of delivering the souls of the deceased
from expiating fire. Then rose up Martin Luther,
an Augustinian, Professor of Theology at Witten
berg ; who, having first refuted, and afterwards con
demned, the sermons of the preachers, proceeded,
at length, so far, as to call in question the very
power which, by these buUs, the Pope arrogated to
himself ; and, ultimately, as spirits increase by con
troversy, he descended to the examination of doc
trine, which he affirmed to be corrupted by the
lapse of time."* * Hist. V. I. p. 18.

DIALOGUE VII.
OF PURGATORY.

PHILODOX.
" All which is necessary to be believed on this sub
ject is, the following brief declaration of the Council
of Trent ; " There is a purgatory, and the souls
detained there are helped by the prayers of the
faithful, particularly by the acceptable sacrifice of
the altar." * ORTHODOX.
This is " all that is necessary to be believed."
So say their divines ; because they account it the
best pohcy to rest in generalities. Even as Soci
nians tell us, all that " is required of Christians "
is this brief declaration, that " Jesus is the Christ ",
and it is in no wise necessary to know what the
term Christ imphes. However, the Council of Trent
commands the bishops to " take diligent care that
the sound doctrine concerning purgatory be be
lieved, taught, " &c. ; and this sound doctrine
is thus stated in the Trent catechism. " There
* End of Controversy, L. XLiii.

284 DIALOGUE VII.
is a purgatory fire, in which the souls of the
pious are expiated, being tortured for a definitive
time."* But the decree of the Council of Florence is most
worthy of attention, inasmuch as it is the only full
authentic declaration of the Romish tenet respecting
the future different states of men ; and because it is
part of the confession prepared for the signature
of the Greek Church, at their temporary reconcilia
tion. It runs thus, — " The souls of true penitents,
dying in the love of God, before they have brought
forth fruits worthy of the repentance of their sins,
are purified after death by the pains of purgatory ;
and they are delivered from these pains by the suf
frages of the faithful that are alive ; such as holy
sacrifices, prayers, alms, and other works of piety,
which the faithful do for the other faithful, accord
ing to the orders of the Church. And the souls of
those who have never sinned since baptism, or of
those who, having fallen into sins, have been puri
fied from them in their bodies, or after their de
parture out of them, as we lately said, enter imme
diately into heaven, and purely behold the Trinity;
some more perfectly than others, according to the
difference of their merits. Lastly ; the souls of
those who die in actual mortal sin, or in original
* P. I. Art. 5. s. 3.

01' PURGATORY. 285
sin only, descend immediately into hell, there to be
punished with torments, but not equally." *
Now as heaven and hell are repeatedly the theme
of holy writ, if there be a purgatory, it must alike
form a portion of revealed truth, being of no less
importance than the others,
PHILODOX.
" To begin with the Old Testament. It is related
in the second book of Maccabees, that the pious
Judas sent twelve thousand drachms to Jerusalem
to be offered for his soldiers slain in battle " ; upon
which the inspired writer concludes, " It is, there
fore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the
dead, that they may be loosed from their sins,"
Now, " they claim a right of considering this book
as canonical, because the Catholic Church so con
siders it, from whose traditions, not from that of
the Jews, as Augustin signifies, the canon is
formed. But Protestants venerate it as an authen
tic and holy record ; as such, then, it bears con
clusive testimony of the belief of the Jews before
Christ." ORTHODOX.
The inspiration of this book is certainly denied
by us, in common with the whole Hebrew Church,
* Dupin, C. XV. c. 3. Sgyropulus, S. v. c. 13.

286

DIALOGUE VII.

with Christ and his apostles, the primitive Christians,
the best councils, and the most learned and ortho
dox of the Fathers. If this book be inspired, then
have we scriptural commendation of self-murder ;
the suicide Razis being therein applauded, as one
who " chose to die nobly." The writer, however,
disclaims inspiration, by apologizing for the defects
of his work ; speaking, says a learned prelate, " in
the diffident style of one conscious of the fallibility .
of his own judgment, and distrustful of his own
powers." If we " venerate the book as authentic
and holy record ", it is with considerable qualifica
tions, as containing not a few palpable errors ; and
therefore, as the same respectable writer remarks,
" it should be read with that discretion which, while
it seeks instruction, guards against the intrusion of
false and pernicious opinions." *
PHILODOX.
Protestants do not reject the narrative respecting
Judas altogether. ORTHODOX.
By no means. But the examination of the story,
compared with the Jewish laws, induces the opinion,
that the author, who was a Greek, misunderstood
* Bishop Gray's Key.

OF PURGATORY. 287
the facts. Nor must we forget, that if his narra
tive be correct, and his remarks just, they har
monize not better with the Roman tenet than with
ours. For, according to the history, Judas offered
for those who had died in mortal sin. But they will
not allow that this was a " good and wholesome
thought ", to suppose that such could be " loosed
from their sins " ; since prayer avails only for those
who die in a state of grace. If the historian proves
any thing then, he proves too much. — There seems
little doubt, that Judas did as the law of Moses re
quired : he made a sin-offering, not for the dead, but
for the living ; for the congregation polluted by the
guilt of those sinners. The narrator, better versed
in Greek than Hebrew theology, misunderstood the
circumstance ; no uncommon case with historians.
PHILODOX.
But, proceeding to the New Testament ; what
is that place " called Abraham's bosom, whither
Lazarus was conveyed " ?
ORTHODOX.
Not purgatory ; not a place of suffering ; but a
place of actual enjoyment : for herein differed his
state from that of Dives, " he is comforted, and
thou art tormented." But in the Roman divinity,
the just and unjust, after departure, are both tor-

288 DIALOGUE VII.
mented ; the one temporarily, the other eternally.
The question of an intermediate state, where the
souls of the righteous repose until the last day,
is not in controversy. The Fathers generally held
it ; most Protestant theologists have embraced
it ; and it may appear that the language of holy
writ upon the state of departed souls, and the so
lemnity of the day of judgment, is hardly intel
hgible without it. But the Fathers, and all who
hold an intermediate state (Romanists excepted),
maintain it to be a state of bliss and comfort, un
alloyed, though not complete ; where " the souls
of the righteous, delivered from the burden of the
flesh" are, not in torture, but " in joy and felicity".
This opinion, so far from being reconcileable with
purgatory, does most palpably contradict it. Their
divines, therefore, to establish a dogma, which was
never supposed by any but their own party, must
argue thus ; — angels carried the disembodied soul of
Lazarus to a place of comfort ; therefore the souls
of the righteous go to a place of torment. The
first Christians supposed that the departed spirits of
the just pass immediately to a place of joy and fe
licity ; therefore they believed, that departed spirits
go instantly to be punished in purifying fire.
PHILODOX.
Is it not of such a place as purgatory that our

OF PURGATORY. 289
Lord speaks ; " I tell thee, thou shalt not depart
thence till thou hast paid the very last mite."*
ORTHODOX.
What should we think of holy writ, if the cer
tainty of heaven or hell was to be deduced from
such passages only as are brought forward to
prove purgatory ? viz. a solitary commendation of an
apocryphal writer, and one or two obscure texts
of scripture, which a speculative brain may turn to
any thing ? Take the whole of our Lord's words
together. If they refer to our spiritual state, they
give a precept for something to be done, not after
death, but in the present life, for our salvation.
" Give diligence, whilst thou art in the way", —
not after thy eternal lot is fixed : — which if thou
neglect to do, the officer. Death, " shall cast thee
into prison, whence thou shalt not come forth till
the last mite be paid " ; that is, thou shalt not come
forth at all. I thought Roman purgatory was pre
pared, not for those who do not " give dihgence ",
but for those who " give all diligence to make their
calhng and election sure." Is it not their divinity,
that they who neglect salvation go not to purga
tory, but to eternal punishment ? The parallel text
in St. Matthew refers the words of our Lord to
'¦ St. Luke, xii. U

290 DIALOGUE VII.
those who die devoid of charity : but for such it is
not purgatory that is prepared. — God grant Us
grace so to profit by his merciful warnings, as to
" give diligence " not to depart without that sin
cere repentance, which nothing tends more to dis
courage than vain reliance on a death-bed, and
upon sometliing to be done for us after death.
PHILODOX.
" I might here add, as a further proof of purga
tory, that Christ, concerning blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost, says, it ' shall not be forgiven in this
world, nor in the world to come ' ; which words
clearly imply, that some sins are forgiven in the
world to come."* ORTHODOX.
Is not this an obvious mode of speech ? Absalom
" spake unto his brother Amnon neither good nor
bad ", i. e. he maintained a profound silence to
wards him t : " turn not to the right hand nor to
the left ", i. e. turn not at all. But read the ex
planation in the parallel passage of St. Mark, in
their own translation ; he that blasphemeth against
the Holy Ghost "hath not forgiveness for ever ;
but shall be guilty of an eternal sin."
* End of Controversy', L. xiiiii. t 2 Sam. xiii.

OF PURGATORY. 291
PHILODOX.
St. Paul saith, " The day of the Lord shall be
revealed by fire ; and the fire shall try every man's
work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide
which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a
reward. If any man's work be burned, he shall
suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as
by fire."* ORTHODOX.
This cannot be purgatory fire ; for, it is not
men that are to be purified by this fire, of which
St. Paul speaks, but their " work " ; not that of
the just alone, but of " every man " ; of all who
are to appear at the judgment. But purgatory
is not to " try " those who go there ; they are
tried before, and commended. Again, this burn
ing is to be at the last day, which " shall be
revealed by fire." But purgatory fire ends with
the last day. The whole passage is evidently
figurative ; " He shall be saved, so as by fire ",
i. e. with great difficulty ; a metaphor common in
scripture. " Save them with fear, pulhng them
out of the fire", says St. Jude. " Ye were as
brands plucked from the burning ", is the expres
sion of the prophets. Had the Roman teachers
* 1 Cor. iii.
u2

292 DIALOGUE VIl.
heeded the solemn monition of St. Paul, in this en
tire passage, they, " holding the one foundation",
never " would have builded thereupon " such an
heterogeneous mass of " hay, wood, straw, and
stubble ", as the fabric of their Church presents ; the
merits of which shall be " tried " in the day " when
the Lord shall be revealed from heaven in flaming
fire." Many learned Romanists have blushed to
quote these texts, and admitted that the doctrine
is destitute of scriptural authority.
PHILODOX.
Y'ou have said, the Fathers held an intermediate
state, but not a purgatory. Now, in refutation of
this, it is affirmed, that, among others, " testi
monies of St. Cyprian are numerous, of his belief
of such a place." For instance, in " describing
the difference between some souls which are im
mediately admitted into heaven, and others which
are detained in purgatory, he says, " It is one
thing to be waiting for pardon, another to attain
to glory ; one thing to be sent to prison not to
go from thence till the last farthing is paid, an
other, to receive immediately the reward of faith
and virtue ; one thing to suffer lengthened torments
for sin, and to be chastised and purified a long

OF PURGATORY. ' 293
time in that fire ; another, to have cleansed away
all sin by suffering, viz. by martyrdom." *
ORTHODOX.
The passage referred to deserves consideration,
as well from the authority of the writer, as because
it is the only evidence, at so early a period, which
even seemingly leans to this opinion. I. " Testimo
nies from St. Cyprian'', that there is a purgatory,
are not " numerous ", but testimonies that there
is not any purgatory are so, both from the strain
of his discourses, and from explicit declaration.
He believed that the peculiar lot of martyrs is an
immediate access to the presence of God in heaven ;
and that all other holy persons pass, directly after
death, into a state of sure and certain joy and hap
piness, not of purifying fires and torments. Thus,
he says, " Upon our removal hence, there will be no
place for repentance ; no possibihty of compensat
ing sins by penitential satisfactions."! And, "The
righteous are carried off to a place of refresh
ment, whilst the wicked are hurried to their pro
per punishment." t Again, " We should thankfully
welcome that happy day which is to fix us each in
our proper habitation ; to rescue us from the varied
* End of Controversy, L. xliii. t Ad Demet. s. 16.
i Of the Plague.

294 DIALOGUE VIL
troubles of this world ; to disengage us from its se
veral perplexities and snares ; and to restore us to a
state of Paradise, and to the kingdom of heaven.
Who amongst us, if he had long been a sojourner
in a foreign land, would not desire a return to his
native country? Who, when he had begun to sail
thither would not wish for a prosperous wind to
carry him home with expedition ; the sooner to
embrace his friends and relatives ? We ought now
to account Paradise our proper home ; as we
have already begun to reckon the patriarchs our
fathers; and ought, therefore, eagerly to hasten
to the sight of our own country, to the embraces
of our parents and dearest friends. There, friends,
parents, brethren, children, without number, wait
for us ; and long to congratulate our happy arrival :
they are in secure possession of their own felicity,
and want but the addition of our's to finish and
complete it. How great must we then conceive
will be our common joy, upon the transport of our
meeting together in those blessed abodes." *
II. St. Cyprian then was not a man so grossly
to contradict himself, as his belief of purgatory im
plies. The extract to which you refer can be mis
understood by those alone who are unacquainted
with his writings. The main controversy of that
* Of the Plague.

OF PURGATORY. 295
age was about the treatment of the " lapsed", those
who had fallen from the faith during the perse
cution, and afterwards became penitent. Antonian,
a prelate of Numidia, having heard that Cornehus,
Bishop of Rome, had readmitted to his Church,
after penance, some who had sacrificed to idols,
wrote to Cyprian, expressing his opinion, that this
indulgence would slacken the zeal of Christians
to endure martyrdom, and his doubts of the pro
priety of communicating with Cornelius. It is in
reply to this, that the passage in question occurs.
Cyprian meets the objection of the Numidian
bishop, and dissipates his alarm, by reminding him
that the severe penances which the lapsed had to
undergo before readmission, and the uncertainty of
a ratification by God, rendered their case so ob
viously different from the glorious estate of martyrs,
that there was no danger of zeal being thereby
slackened. " You admit", he argues, " adulterers
to penance for a certain time, and then restore
them to the Church ; yet the number of the conti
nent is not thereby diminished, nor the resolutions
of chastity weakened. It is one thing, at last, to
stand waiting for a pardon, and another to enter
immediately upon glory ; one thing for a man to be
sent to prison, and confined there till he has paid
the uttermost farthing, and another to receive

296 DIALOGUE VII,
forthwith the reward of his faith and constancy;
one thing for him to be cleansed from his sins, to
be purified by fire, and another to have cleansed
away all sin by suffering ; finally, it is one thing to
wait with suspense for the sentence of our Lord in
the day of judgment, and another to be presently
crowned by Him without uncertainty or delay."
It is then apparent, that Dr. Milner has garbled
the passage, as his custom was, and that it has
nothing to do with an intermediate state of expia
tion. Those who go there do not " wait for par
don" ; their pardon is already sealed. The martyrs
had instant access to glory ; the penitents were
still on earth, enduring rigid mortifications, and
austerities, before they obtained even the pardon of
the Church, and were then referred to the ultimate
judgment of God ; of which no part agrees to the
inhabitants of purgatory. True it is, he speaks of
their being " purified by fire ", not in a secret place
after death, but in such a way as might be visible to
deter others from apostasy. The martyrs had been
tried by the fire of persecution ; the lapsed were
to be purified from the stain of revolt by patient
endurance of strict severities. St. Peter speaks
twice of persecution under the same figure : " think
it not strange concerning the fiery trial that is to
try you" : that " the trial of your faith being much

OF PURGATORY. 297
more precious than of gold that perisheth, though
it be tried by fire," &c. " Cyprian rightly", says
his translator, " opposes the martyrs' state of se
curity and perfect bliss in another life, to the uncer
tainties and afflictions of penitents in this." *
PHILODOX.
If the Fathers believed not a purgatory, why did
they pray for the dead ? An " inseparable connec
tion there is between the practice of praying for
the dead and the belief of an intermediate state ;
since it is evidently needless to pray for the saints
in heaven, and useless to pray for the reprobate in
hell." ORTHODOX.
Whether the Fathers held it " needless to pray
for the saints in heaven", or otherwise, this is cer
tain, that they prayed for those whom the Church
of Rome accounts in heaven ; viz. the Blessed Vir
gin, the apostles, patriarchs, martyrs, 8lc. indis
criminately. They believed that the happiness of
the righteous was not consummated till the last
day ; and they considered prayer for the fulness of
* Dr. Marshall's Cyprian, P. ii. p. 36. Some MSS. for
" diu igne", by fire, read "divine": and Bishop Fell con
jectures that the proper reading is " diutine ", referring to
their long continuance in penance. However, the common
reading gives an obvious sense.

298 DIALOGUE VII.
bliss to these, as little more than an amplification
of the petition, " Thy kingdom come" : they be
lieved also that by these prayers, they kept up the
" communion of the saints'', maintaining an inter
course between those on earth and those in heaven.
PHILODOX.
Yet surely this was inconsistent ?
ORTHODOX.
I am not arguing for the consistency, but stating
the fact. It is, however, no more inconsistent, than
to pray souls out of purgatory. Out of purgatory
they will come whether prayed for or not ; as the
saints shall obtain their perfect consummation and
bliss, whether we supphcate it or not. The ob
jection seems to strike at the principle of prayer.
When holy men in scripture are found imploring
God to adhere to his word, to remember his cove
nant, to stand to his promises, and so on, is such
language needless or improper, because it is cer
tain his promises and covenant can never fail?
What is prayer but the food of faith ? Such is the
frailty and weakness of our nature, that we are not
certain of that of which we have no doubt. The
blessings of religion are to the individual objects of
faith and hope. Knowledge is certainty. We are

OF PURGATORY, 299
infallibly certain that salvation is for the faithful.
But that you or I shall be saved is not of infallible
certainty. Beware, therefore, and keep secure from
the din of controversy, that which is the Christian's
spiritual life. In, the well known case of St. Au
gustin, who prayed for his mother, Monica, he de
clares himself assured of her salvation. Prayer for
the dead can be repelled by one answer only : it is
unwarranted in the word of God.
The history of the practice is brief. In the dawn
of Christendom, at the celebration of the Eucharist,
the names were read in each Church of such
members as had departed in the faith of Christ, to
give thanks for their holy departure*. This was
done upon the anniversary of their death : and their
names were enrolled among those of the saints,
apostles, &c. As converts multiplied, and the per
sons became too numerous to be specified, it was
restrained : and those most eminent for sanctity,
bishops, &c. were recited at the altar on the dip-
tychs or rolls of the Church. To this, subsequently,
prayers and oblations were added. But all was for
the benefit of the living, not of the dead ; for those of
inferior holiness, who would most need prayers, were
* The practice is stiU partly retained in the Easter liturgy
of the Moravians.

300 DIALOGUE VII.
not mentioned; but those most eminent for sanctity,
as the Holy Virgin, the apostles, and martyrs, were
expressly named. For testimonies of this, you may
turn to the old liturgies, and see who are there
prayed for. As in that which is called St. James's,
the prayer is, " Lord God of the spirits of all flesh,
remember those of a right faith, whom we have
mentioned, or otherwise ; from righteous Abel down
to this day : cause them to rest in the land of the
hving, in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
in thy kingdom, in the delights of Paradise," &c.
These early prayers contain several propositions ad
verse to Romanism. — Holding that the saints de
parted were yet members of the body of Christ,
and imploring grace for all, through the one sa
crifice which that Eucharist commemorated, they
taught, that neither the holy virgin, nor any other,
is free from sin, or from the want of that justifying
blood shed upon the cross : that all the just depart
into a state of rest and peace ; and that saints may
not be prayed to, inasmuch as one and all were
prayed for. PHILODOX,
Dr. Milner says, that Bishop Porteus is gmlty of
three " egregious falsities " in asserting that " pur
gatory in the present popish sense, was not heard

OF PURGATORY. 301
of for 400 years after Christ, nor received for 1000
years, nor. almost in any other Church than that of
Rome to this day." ORTHODOX.
Had Bishop Milner been as cautious of asserting
" egregious falsities " as Bishop Porteus was, his cha
racter for veracity would have stood higher than
it does. If Dr. Porteus can be refuted, let them
come forward, and produce their evidence. If he
cannot, the " egregious falsities" must rest on those
who spread them.
Purgatory was evidently borrowed from the hea
then mythology ; for whilst of this doctrine the word
of God is totally silent, every part of it may be found
in Homer, Virgil, Plato, &c. who are therefore
brought forward by BeUarmin, as the highest autho
rities he could find. In the second century, a cer
tain convert, brought up in Greek and Jewish fables,
forged the Sibylline verses, where we meet with a
fire, through which all that are to be saved must
pass at the last day. The good Fathers, dehghted
to see a heathen poet proclaiming the mysteries of
redemption, fell, with more piety than discretion,
into the fancies of this imposture. Origen improved
upon it, and carried it on to a denial of eternal tor
ments altogether. Augustin, whose opinion is ge
nerally referred to on this subject, evidently speaks

302 DIALOGUE VII.
as a man ruminating on some speculative notion,
and unable to make up his mind about it. He
hesitates and disputes, denies and affirms, and treats
the whole as a problem which he perceived not
clearly. And, at length, his words are, " it is not
improbable " that there may be a purgatory. There
fore, it was then so far from an article of faith, that
it exceeded not a probability : yet his purgatory is
not that of Rome ; for he supposes it to be a fire
to take place at the last day. The first who dog
matically held such a thing was Gregory the Great,
who grounds it neither on Scripture nor authority;
but infers it because " the end of the world was then
at hand." As the foundation is evidently baseless,
the superstructure cannot be solid. But his pur
gatory is not by fire, but by hot baths. Ask this
Pontiff how he ascertained the fact ? his reply is,
that some apparitions told him. In the next cen
tury our Venerable Bede discovered, that there are
TWO purgatories, through one of which a river flows ;
and this, says Bellarmin, " is a very mild purgatory,
and not improbable." Ask Bede, how he discovered
this ? an apparition told him also. These wander
ing spirits seem to be the common authors of Romish
doctrines. Honest monks, dreaming in their cells,
had forgotten the prohibition which forbids " to seek
to the dead for the hving ", and refers us " to the

OF PURGATORY. 303
law and the testimony." It is not the mode of God's
deahngs with his people, " to send one from the
dead" to preach new doctrines, but he directs us to
" Moses and the prophets ", to find out the " old
ways." PHILODOX.
But were the actual evidence deficient, there are
many reasons, from the nature of things, for the
truth of a purgatory. ORTHODOX.
These cannot establish an article of faith. Christ
hath " not brought life and immortality to light ",
to send us back to the obscurity of natural religion.
However, what are these reasons ?
PHILODOX.
Look at the cases of sudden death. " We are
conscious, that there is not an instant of our life, in
which this may not suddenly terminate, without the
possibility of calling upon God for mercy." *
ORTHODOX.
Is life and death, then, a thing of chance ? Does
the all-seeing eye so slumber as to be surprised ?
Or does God allow his saints to be cut off unex-
* End of Controversy, L. xliii.

304 DIALOGUE VII.
pectedly from this world before He sees them fit for
another ? Does inspiration speak falsely, when it
asks, " Is there not an appointed time to man upon
earth ? Are not his days as the days of an hireling ?"
Are we to distrust that Providence, " in whom we
live, and move, and have our being"; without whose
permission " not a sparrow falls to the ground" ?
The objection is unworthy Christian lips. We may
rest assured, that be it early or late, sudden or pro
tracted, the fruit faUs not from the tree before it be
fuUy ripe in the eternal mind.
PHILODOX.
Reason declares, as well as Scripture, " that no
thing defiled shall enter heaven."
ORTHODOX.
We are all by nature defiled and defiling. The
soul must, then, be purified before it is admitted
into the presence of that awful Being, who is " of
purer eyes than to behold iniquity." But it is not
purgatorial fire in the next world, but divine grace,
and the application of the merits of Christ in this,
that purifies the souls of repentant sinners. They
are " washed and sanctified" by the same power by
which they are " justified " ; even " in the name of the
Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." — " If

OF PURGATORY. 305
we confess our sins. He is faithful and just to forgive
us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unright
eousness." It is a gross derogation from the vera
city of the evangelists and apostles, to suppose that,
whilst they terrify unbelievers with threats of eternal
torment, they hide from believers every thing that
may dishearten and discourage them. The new co
venant is founded upon this : " their sins and iniqui
ties I will remember no more."
PHILODOX.
Yet God does remember them. The most sincere
penitent suffers for his iniquities, and the best of men
are often afflicted. ORTHODOX.
The present is a probationary state, and the only
state of probation. The Almighty hath directly ex
cepted this world from that dispensation where " sin
and sorrow are unknown": and prepared his ser
vants to sustain trouble here, by an assurance of
certain rest after death. All scripture teaches, that
the redemption of Christ is perfect, to whomever
applied. Therefore to bring in an expiatory fire, and,
which is the practical use of this doctrine, a string
of human satisfactions, to purify those whom His
blood hath cleansed, is a great depreciation of the
boundless merits of Him, who " by himself purged

306 DIALOGUE VII.
our sins." Holy writ draws a parallel between the
work of creation and the work of redemption. As
the Father rested not from his work until creation
was complete; so neither did the Son enter into his
glory until the work of redemption was perfected.
PHILODOX.
It is not denied, that our Lord couldhave expiated
the temporal punishment. But has he done so ?
ORTHODOX.
Has he not done so ? Is the contrary opinion ever
implied ? Or is it not implicitly and explicitly con
tradicted by all those scriptures which speak of re
demption as entire in all points ; and of the disso
lution of the faithful as an immediate entrance into
peace ? Take a solemn declaration of their own
canon : " The souls of the righteous are in the hands
of God, and there shall no torment touch them . . .
. . . They are at peace " * ; which, upon the Roman
hypothesis, is most untrue. The place of the just
departed, is a place " where the wicked cease from
troubling, and where the weary are at rest." All
Scripture echoes that voice from heaven : " Blessed
are the dead which die in the Lord, oct a^Ti, ' from
* Wisdom, ii.

OF PURGATORY. 307
even now ' ; yea, saith the Spirit, for they rest from
their labours." Purgatory makes that promise
to the converted sinner deceitful : " If the wicked
will turn from all his sins, and keep all my statutes,
and do that which is lawful and right, all his trans
gressions that he hath committed, they shall not be
mentioned unto him."* — " When I say unto the
wicked, Thou shalt surely die ; if he turn from his
sin, and do that which is lawful and right, none of
his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned
unto him."-\ PHILODOX.
Do you then maintain, " that our just and merci
ful Judge will not make a distinction in guiltiness"?
To say that he will not, "is so monstrous a doctrine
in itself, and so contrary to scripture, which says,
* he will render to every one according to his deeds,'
that it seems to be universally exploded. The evi
dent consequence is, that there are some venial or
pardonable sins", to expiate which there is an inter
mediate state of punishment. ORTHODOX.
We certainly do not deny, that some sins are
pardonable by God ; for we maintain that all sins
* Ezek. xviii. f lb. xxxiii.
x2

308

DIALOGUE VII.

are so. They insist, on the contrary, that God par
dons mortal sins, but not venial ones ; that great
sins are done away through Christ, but that for little
ones a man must satisfy for himself. Therefore,
whether these sins are pardonable hy God, or
pardonable in themselves, is the nucleus of the
dispute. They pretend the latter, and we deny it ;
and wonder, that any one, in the face of scripture,
should affirm it. The nature of sin consists not in
the magnitude of the offence, but in this ; it is " the
transgression of the law." In civil codes, no penal
offence is venial, though the punishment of crimes
be disproportioned by the variety of enactments ;
and all may be pardoned by the sovereign. The
very sin which " brought death into the world and
all our woes", was apparently as small a sin as could
well be conceived ; insomuch that the taunts of in
fidels are invariably levelled against the narrative
which records it. Are not the dreadful effects of
this little sin sufficient to silence so dangerous a
tenet ? PHILODOX.
That sin of Adam consisted in the violation' of a
positive precept. ORTHODOX.
Does not all sin consist in the same, and its guilt
arise from this ? " Where no law is, there is no

OF PURGATORY. 309
transgression." To steal a pin is as positively pro
hibited by the eighth commandment as to rob a
house. And " he that keepeth the whole law, and
yet offendeth in one point, is guilty of all."
, PHILODOX.
You adopt then the "monstrous doctrine ", that all
sins are ahke, and all punishments, of course, equal,
ORTHODOX.
When that topic was urged at the Reformation,
Calvin thus retorted : " How unfairly they calum
niate this doctrine I am aware ; alleging that it is
that Stoical paradox of the equality of sin. But
from their own lips be they convicted. For, I de
mand, of those sins which they confess to be mortal,
do not themselves acknowledge that one is greater
than another. Therefore, it follows not, that all
sins are equal, because all are mortal." * And Bishop
Fisher, writing against Luther, thus concedes to
him : " In this point, that venial sin is venial by the
mercy of God alone, I agree with you." t
PHILODOX.
Dr. Milner exclaims, " O how consohng are the
belief and practice of Catholics in this matter, com-
» Inst. L. III. c. 4. t Ass. Luth. Conf. A. 32,

310 DIALOGUE VII.
pared with those of Protestants! — Their burial
service is a cold disconsolate ceremony ; and as to
any further communication with the deceased, when
the grave closes on their remains, they do not so
much as imagine any." *
ORTHODOX.
What " communion" the saints departed have
with those below, God alone knoweth, and hath not
revealed. Of one thing we are certain, that the
bond which connects the present world with the
world to come, and unites the mystical body of
Christ together, cannot be dissolved by death ; for
over spiritual ties the grave hath no dominion.
But the feeling or the piety which accounts our
burial service a "cold disconsolate ceremony", is en
titled to little honour. If it be " cold and disconso
late" to hear that inspired strain of comfort, where
with St. Paul draws half aside the veil which over
hangs the invisible world, and represents to us the
sting torn from death, and the victory from the grave,
"through our Lord Jesus Christ"; — if it be " cold
and disconsolate " to commit to the last receptacle of
mortality, the body of child or parent, husband,
wife, or friend, '^in sure and certain hope of the
resurrection to eternal life"; — to commend the soul
* End of Controversy, L. xliii.

OF PURGATORY, 311
into the hands of Him " with whom do live the spirits
of those that depart hence in the Lord " ; and to bid
the mourner " sorrow not as men without hope for
them that sleep in Jesus" : — if it be more " cold and
disconsolate" to believe that those we love, delivered
" from the miseries of this sinful world ", are in "joy
and felicity", and "at rest from their labours " ;
than to believe that their anguish is just begun in
purifying fire ; — we must be content to bear the
reproach. It will not be the first sport of malignity
that this most sublime and holy service has had to
encounter. Returning from the silent house ap
pointed for all living, we may " comfort one an
other with these words"; whilst they resort to the
wretched fountain of human satisfaction and human
merit, to rescue their beloved friends from pain and
torture. But there is that within them which re
futes their faith ; or to the righteous the hour of
death would be, not a source of consolation, but of
wretchedness and gloom.

DIALOGUE VIII.
OF invocation OF SAINTS AND ANGELS.

PHILODOX.
" That it is lawful and profitable to invoke angels is
plain, from Jacob's asking and obtaining the angel's
blessing with whom he had mystically wrestled ; and
invoking his own angel to bless Joseph's sons." *
ORTHODOX.
If to ask the blessing of an angel present, infers
that it is lawful and profitable to invoke them ab
sent, it follows, that we may lawfully and profitably
invoke our parents, pastors, &c. from whom we are
wont to implore benediction. We are told, that a
zealous lay-advocate of the Romanists implored the
blessing of a late pious Protestant bishop ; and
whatever his own Church may think of his ortho
doxy herein, who shall censure the feeling which
dictated the act ? Yet I doubt whether this gen
tleman proceeds upon his principles, and invokes the
spirit of the departed prelate.
That the angel whom Jacob invoked to bless his
* End of Controversy, L. xxxiii.

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 313
grandsons, Avas no created angel, but the Lord him
self, the " Angel of the covenant ", is imphed in the
terms of the invocation, which is addressed to a
single personage : " God, before whom my fathers,
Abraham and Isaac, did walk ; the God who fed
me all my life long unto this day ; the angel who
redeemed me from all evil ; bless the lads." — Is it
not evident that the God before whom his fathers
walked, who had fed him during life, was the Angel
who redeemed him from all evil ; even He who has
been through every age the omnipresent Preserver
and Redeemer of his people.
This is the unanimous exposition of the Hebrew
and Catholic Church. " That Angel", say the Rab
bin, " is the Redeemer, who is found in every re
demption that is in the world : — the Shechinah,
who always walks with man, and never departs from
him."* And thus the champion of truth, St. Atha
nasius, announces the orthodox opinion: "Jacob
did not couple one of the created natural angels with
God who created them ; nor, leaving " God who
fed" him, did he ask a blessing from an angel upon
his grandsons ; but by naming him " that redeemed
* Quoted in Dr. J. P. Smith's Testimony to the Messiah,
Vol. I. p. 345. This learned and able author, who carries cau
tion almost to the verge of excess, hesitates not an instant to
adopt the orthodox view of such passages as the above.

314 DIALOGUE VIII.
him from all evil", he shewed that it was not any
one of the created angels, but the Word of God,
whom he coupled with the Father, and prayed to*.
" I have often ivondered", says Allix, " how it
came to pass, that most of the divines of the Church
of Rome, who would seem to have the greatest ve
neration for antiquity, should so much despise it in
this question, wherein the ancient Jewish and Chris
tian Church do agree." t This erudite, but not
always conclusive, writer, must have forborne to
" wonder" when he considered how little Catholic
tradition, opposed to the all-absorbing infalhbility
of the Church, avails with Roman divines.
I am not aware of more than three instances in
the scripture of religious service paid to created
beings : aU occur in the New Testament ; and all
alike are reprehended. The first is, the homage of
Cornehus to St. Peter t; the others, of St. John to
the Apocalyptic Angel § .
PHILODOX.
" But if the mere act was forbidden, then the
three angels who allowed Abraham to bow him-
* Orat. 4. Cont. Arian.
t Diss, at the end of Test, of Jewish Ch.
X Acts, X.
§ Rev. xix. and xxi.

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 315
self to the ground before them, were guilty of a
crime." * ORTHODOX.
Were we to answer, that of these "three angels",
one was that Jehovah before whom the patriarch
pleaded for guilty Sodom, the sacred narrative and
Catholic tradition would vindicate the exposition.
We are not, however, disputing of " the mere act";
but of the intent. External signs of homage may
or may not be religious. Bowing, prostrating,
kneeling, &c. are tokens alike of civil respect, of
moral reverence, or of religious worship. Both the
former were due from Cornelius to St. Peter. If
we could suppose that the humility of the apostle
declined an excess of outward testimony from the
grateful centurion ; yet his language will shew that
the homage paid was religious. " Stand up : I my
self also am a man." To whom was civil or moral
respect due, if not to " man" ? The repulse pro
claims the nature of the action. It was rehgious
service ; not supreme, for Cornelius knew that Pe
ter was only an ambassador of God, but relative ;
the same in kind and degree with that paid by Ro
manists to the saints.
This derives added force from the error of St.
John. He did not, as they pretend, mistake the
* Gen. xviii.

316 DIALOGUE VIII.
angel for Christ ; and so adore him with supreme
worship. He had beheld Christ at the opening of
his vision. The angel in whose presence he stood,
he knew to be one of the " seven angels " ; he had
held a long converse with him, which closed by the
celestial messenger inviting him to the marriage-
supper of the Lamb ; therefore he could not mistake
him for the Lamb. But, in his ecstatic rapture, he
paid him a reverence bordering on religious service.
The angel shrank from it : " See thou do it not :
I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren. Adore
God": as they translate the words. And when the
beloved disciple forgot the monition, and offered
again the like service, he was again rejected with
the same reproof. PHILODOX.
In adverting to the respect paid to the saints,
you must allow that more than ordinary reverence
and honour are due to the blessed virgin.
ORTHODOX.
All reverence and honour which intrench not
upon the incommunicable glory of the Godhead are
her due. But to ascribe to her that glory, is not
to honour but to dishonour this "lowly handmaid"
of the Lord.

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 317
PHILODOX.
Surely she who, by an angel, was declared
" blessed among women ", and saluted " hail, full
of grace ", may impart grace to others. With re
spect to the latter term, they allege that Protestants
have perverted the original, by translating iCE^a^i-
rw^sr/j " thou that art highly favoured."
ORTHODOX.
If the mere terms " blessed among women", and
" all generations shall call me blessed ", entitle her
to religious homage, they seem to entitle Leah
to a portion of the same*. To be pronounced
" blessed among women, of all generations ", is a
very different thing from being worshipped ; the
latter service we abhor, the former is cheerfully
echoed in our Churches.
What they call a corrupt Protestant translation
has no slight authority in antiquity, and is more
conformable to the original than their own. That
'^a.^troa signifies " to bestow gratuitous favour ",
themselves confess by rendering it, in the only verse
where it is found, " he hath gratified us " t, which
hath the same force, though less perspicuous, than
our " made us accepted ". If then the active verb
signifies to confer favour, the passive participle raust
* Gen. XXX. t Eph. i.

318 DIALOGUE VIII.
signify that on which favour is conferred. In their
scriptures * it is asked, " Is not a good word above
a gift ? and both are with xiy^a^irui^ivco, a gracious
man," i. e. one highly favoured in the estimation
of another. " The angel ", says Theophylact, " in
terprets himself, ' thou hast found favour with
God. ' " t
We quarrel not with their rendering, which
follows herein the venerable Syriac version and
the Arabic, as well as the Vulgate. That the
blessed virgin is " full of grace ", we doubt not ;
but that she can therefore " confer grace", we deem
an opinion derogating from the office of her eternal
Son ; for of Him alone may it be said, " of his ful
ness we have received." The Giver of all grace is
the Holy Spirit ; and the fulness of his gifts con
ferred on Mary no more renders her the bestower
of grace than St. John the Baptist, who was " filled
with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb " ;
or than other sincere believers, for whom the apostle
prays, that they may be " filled with all the fulness
of God."
So peculiarly does religious invocation belong to
God alone, that it gives, by divine command, de
nomination to the place of Catholic devotion ; " my
house shall be called of all nations the house of
* Ecclus. xviii. f Suicer.

OP INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 319
prayer". So essential a part of piety it is, as to
be put for the whole of religion ; " Whosoever shall
invoke the name of Jehovah, shall be saved. " * The
heathen are characterized as those who " invoke
not the name " of Jehovah t. In " the day of
trial, salvation is for those who invoke God."1: The
" sanctified " are they " who in every place invoke
the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. " § This was
the simple denomination of Christians at the open
ing of the Gospel. Ananias, speaking to Christ,
describes Saul as the persecutor of them " who in
voke Thy name. "II Believers are enjoined to imi
tate the conversation of those " who invoke the
Lord out of a pure heart. "^ The first martyrs
died not, as Romanists commend Christians to die,
calling upon the holy virgin and the saints ; but
" invoking " the Saviour only ; " Lord Jesus, re
ceive my spirit."**
Prayer consisteth not in the audible utterance of
words, but in presenting to the throne of mercy,
the feelings, trust, and confidence of the humble
and contrite mind. And oft, like pious Hannah,
the " lip moves, but the voice is not heard. "tt
It is that intercession of the Spirit, whose speech
* Joel, ii. Rom. x. t Jer. x. | Ps. 1. xci, &c.
§ 1 Cor. i. II Acts, ix. IT 2 Tim. ii.
** Acts vii. tt 1 Sam. i.

320 DIALOGUE VIIL
is " groanings which cannot be uttered." — Prayer,
therefore, is inaudible to created beings ; and en
joined as due to God only, who alone reads the
heart ; alone can hear and perceive the motive
whence it flows. The sense of this alike repels the
hypocrite, and sustains the pious :
" Safe in His power, whose eye discerns afar
The secret ambush of the specious prayer."
In that comprehensive supplication offered by
Solomon for himself and people, at the consecration
of the Temple, the royal suppliant directs prayer
to be offered to God alone ; and implores forgive
ness for every worshipper, " according to his ways,
whose heart Thou knowest ; for Thou only knowest
the hearts of the children of men " ; which is but
the echo of what Usher calls that " golden sentence
of his father David ; ' O Thou that hearest prayer,
unto Thee shall all flesh come.' "
If we seek precedent for prayer to any other than
God, whether in the patriarchal, Hebrew, or Chris
tian dispensation, all is silent. Example encourages
it not ; for precept forbids it. Though forms of
prayer, pubhc and private, abound in the Old Tes
tament ; though devotions of patriarchs, prophets,
and saints are before us ; no shadow of invocation
to any mortal presents itself; neither to the leader

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 321
of " the glorious army of martyrs ", righteous Abel ;
nor to the "father of the faithful and the friend of
God", holy Abraham ; nor to the prince of the "good
ly fellowship of the prophets", Moses; neither to
Enoch, nor Elijah, translated to the throne of God;
neither to just Noah, nor patient Job ; neither to Da
vid, the man after God's own heart ; nor to Daniel
" greatly beloved " ; neither yet to Gabriel, who
standeth in the presence of God; nor to Michael the
deliverer ; nor to any other angel or archangel, mar
tyr or saint, patriarch or prophet, is devotion used.
Here then, in this greatest daily duty, prescription of
the ancient Church of God rebukes the practice of
the Romanists.
If we enter upon the Christian revelation, which
brought clearer hght to " fulfil the law "; which
came " utterly to abolish idols", and to build upon
the foundations of pure rehgion a spiritual service ;
to annihilate the pagan worship of deceased heroes
and benefactors ; to withdraw the mind from human
dependence, and fix it upon God ; to substitute,
for dead mediators. One ever-living and all-sufficient
in love and power ; — in the records of this dispensa
tion, the former worship of the faithful is confirmed
by mightier sanctions : invocation is directed to
God alone ; the worship of aught besides is depre
cated and condemned, and pointed out as pecuharly Y

322 DIALOGUE VIIL
characteristic of a fearful " falling off from the faith "
which should devastate the Church " in the latter
days." If then prescription of the primitive and Hebrew
Churches for four thousand years ; if the customs
and obligations of the Church of Christ in her holiest
days ; and if the examples of fathers, saints, and
martyrs, of evangelists, apostles, prophets, and
patriarchs, without interruption, be a guide to us ;
if the precepts and directions of holy writ, requir
ing prayer to be addressed to Him only who readeth
the heart, be a sure rule in this great duty ; if in
vocation is so supremely an act of religion, that
every other is thereto subordinate, that believers de
rive their name from the exercise of it, that the
simple designation of God's house is of all nations
the house of prayer ; then is the doctrine of the
Roman Church unscriptural and erroneous, her
worship superstitious and idolatrous, and both equal
ly alien to the word of God, and to Catholic tra
dition of unvarying course for well nigh three-fourths
of the time since the creation of the world.
PHILODOX.
But are not these arguments levelled against
what she neither teaches nor practises? She incul
cates with you that supreme worship is due to God

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 323
only ; and that a relative and inferior worship alone
is due to the saints. In fact, " worship " is a term
of great ambiguity. It may signify the highest
religious devotion, or the lowest civil respect ; as
when you speak of " his worship the mayor", &c.
ORTHODOX.
We can scarcely be said to deny distinctions of
service and homage, since our objections against
Rome, on this point, are grounded upon them.
If, as their argument runs, civil respect and re
ligious service were the same in kind, and differed
in degree only, the dispute might seem to resolve
itself into a fastidious cavil, or mere logomachy.
But they confound things essentially different. If
their apology has any meaning, it is, that the wor
ship paid to Almighty God and to the mayor of a
city is the self-same worship, the difference being
only that the former is supreme, and the latter in
ferior ; the excessive nonsense of which absorbs its
irreverence. Obedience and respect are due to certain of our
fellow mortals, on account of some pre-eminence
they possess, be it of authority or excellency. To
the sovereign, high moral respect is due, and su
preme civil homage ; and the same relatively, and
in inferior degrees, to all who represent him in office
Y 2

324 DIALOGUE VIII.
downwards. A moral and civil reverence is hke-
wise due from children to parents, servants to mas
ters, and in general to persons eminent in charac
ter, morals, and, above all, in holiness ; and this,
abstracting all consideration of jurisdiction or au
thority. A moral reverence is due, in a very high
degree, to the angels of God, both on account
of their spiritual nature, of their office and station,
as the chosen attendants of the triune Godhead, and
the messengers of his will, and of their guardian
ship over us as ministering spirits. High moral re
verence, veneration, and honour, are due to the
virgin mother of Christ, to the apostles, prophets,
martyrs, and to all who have departed this life in
the faith and fear of God. This reverence our
Church discharges in dedicating two annual festivals
to the blessed Virgin, and one to each of the other
apostles, to the angels, and to all the saints collec
tively. Such respect Aquinas happily calls a " moral
debt"; for reason repeats the injunction of St. Paul,
" Render to all their dues ; honour to whom honour
is due." This " moral debt " is paid by acknow
ledgment of their excellencies, by grateful com
memoration of their services, by venerating those
whom God " delighteth to honour " ; but more
especially by imitating their conversation, walking
by the same rule, and minding the same things.

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 325
" in all virtuous and godly living." But religious
service, of all kinds, is due to none other than
God, as the first and last principle of creation, pre
servation, and redemption. Unto Him " to whom
and of whom are all things ", religious homage, su
preme or subaltern, absolute or relative, exclusively
belongs ; insomuch that the worship which we are
bound to pay to the human nature of our Lord is
legitimatized by its conjunction with the everlasting
Godhead. For, it is to the " man Christ Jesus ", in
inseparable union with that eternal Word, who
was " in the form of God ", and " equal with
God ", that " every knee must bow " ; and thus
is it that this worship redounds "to the glory
of God the Father." He, therefore, who pays reli
gious service to saint or angel, pays to the creature
that which is due to the Creator only. The dis
tinction between superior and inferior divine homage
is an unmeaning figment, disowned by holy writ,
and derived from the " philosophy and vain deceit "
which St. Paul condemns as the origin of that
" feigned humility and will-worship", by which this
error recommends itself to raany minds. — " Thou
shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only
shalt thou serve." PHILODOX.
True. But the term here used by our Lord

326 DIALOGUE VIII.
('Kar^svstv) signifies the highest worship ; they as
cribe only ^ov'^sia, which signifies inferior service,
to saints and angels. ORTHODOX.
This notion has often been shewn to be without
foundation : for what our Lord expresses by the higher
term, the Septuagint expresses by the inferior :
" Put away the strange gods, and prepare your
hearts unto the Lord ; and ^ov'Keva-aTs, serve him
only." * If such a thing as inferior divine worship
existed, it would here be intended ; for it is in op
position to the service paid by the Israehtes to the
heathen deities, that Samuel speaks, which certainly
was inferior, as they did not directly apostatize from
the God of Israel. But, take the Roman interpreta
tion, and St. Paul says, " When ye knew not God,
ldovXiV(rce,7s, ye did inferior service to them which by
nature are no gods " ; of course, now ye know God,
ye are to pay it no longer to any who " by nature are
no gods." And again, "ye turned to God from idols,
^ovXivsiv, to pay inferior worship to the living
and true God"; therefore to pay it to any other,
is to return to the state of heathens. If then
there is any thing in the distinction, it rather
strengthens than weakens our objection.
* I Sam. vii.

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 327
Revelation was given to " enhghten the dulness
of our blinded sight", in things pertaining to God.
By this we are taught the service, which, through
the mediatorial sacrifice, shall be accepted of Him.
" Therefore," as Bishop Davenant observes, " all ne
cessary duties and works of religious service, do so
depend upon the will of God revealed in his word,
that those things which have no foundation in his
word, are adverse to the divine will." Even at that
early time of the entrance into Canaan, when so
small a part of scripture was extant, the ordinance
for religious duty was thus peremptory ; " What
thing soever I command you, observe to do it :
thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." *
In things indifferent, much may be left to time and
place, regulated by discretion ; but in the point of
right obedience to God, we have no guide but His
revealed will. Few things can be more clearly laid
down than this ; what is uncommanded is unaccept
able. " Who hath required this at your hands ? " —
" In vain do they worship me, teaching for doc
trines the commandments of men." To invoke God
through the "one Mediator", is commanded: to
that, promises of mercy and acceptance are given :
" If ye shall ask the Father in ray Name, he wUl
' Deut. xii. 32.

328 DIALOGUE VIII.
give it you." — " Hitherto ye have asked nothing in
my name : ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy
may be full." — The sentence of the universal Church
for about five thousand years, may be expressed in
the language of Augustin : " To pray otherwise
than God hath taught, is not ignorance alone, but
sin." PHILODOX.
They fully admit that Christ is the only Media
tor of redemption. But if you argue, " that there
is no other Mediator of intercession ", do you not
conderan the comraand of the Alraighty, when he
directed Job to pray for his friends ; and the custom
of St. Paul, in soliciting the prayers of the Churches ?
Nay, is it not the practice of all Christians to pray
for, and solicit the prayers of each other ? But
those who intercede by prayer are mediators of in
tercession. ORTHODOX.
This is the veil spread over the minds of many.
It is a slender one ; and yet the best that may be
found. You raake again a distinction where scrip
ture distinguishes not. When St. Paul says, " there
is one Mediator ", it is a " Mediator of interces
sion" that he is speaking of; for, having exhorted
us to pray and supplicate for each other, he adds,
" for there is one God, and one Mediator between

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 329
God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave
himself a ransom for all " ; teaching us, that he who
alone ransomed, is the alone Mediator of inter
cession, through whom our supplications are re
ceived. The office of Mediator of redemption ex
pired when He ascended on high, and His all-suf
ficient atonement was accepted of the Father. He
is now no more " Mediator of redemption", other
than as he is the Mediator of intercession. Having
humbled himself to the death upon the cross, " He
is exalted to be a prince and a saviour, who ever
liveth to make intercession for us."
PHILODOX.
The Spirit is also said " to raake intercession
for us"? ORTHODOX.
But it is that eternal Spirit, one with the Father
and the Son, " by whom Christ offered himself",
and in and through whom his mediation is carried
on ; since it is He who helpeth our infirmities, put
teth into our minds good desires, and enableth us
to bring the same to good effect. St. Paul, indeed,
does adopt the term " intercessions ", to signify the
charitable prayers which men offer up for each other;
but he never uses it in the forensic sense, implying
that the advocate hath something meritorious to

330

DIALOGUE VIII.

offer for his chent, of any but Christ ; differing
herein from the Roman custom.
What is proved by the examples of Job and St.
Paul ? They did, as all do, pray for, or sohcit the
prayers of others. You do not suppose that, in con
demning the invocation of saints, we condemn our
own constant practice ?
To entreat the prayers of our living- brethren,
we have a command of God ; to invoke those who
are departed, we have no command, but rather the
contrary. If this was the sole difference, it would
be sufficient to enforce the one and repel the other.
" If we ask any thing according to his will, he
heareth us." Conformity to the divine precept is
the only well-grounded hope that He will hear us. —
Neither do we supplicate our friends as interces
sors, entreating them to present their merits upon
our behalf; but we sohcit them to go with us in
heart, and mind, and prayer, to the common Inter
cessor. We know also that our friends hear our
prayers ; we can go to them, tell them our cares ;
they can sympathize with us. But we know not
that the dead have a lively sense of the sorrows of
those who survive. That the departed spirits
of the just win render every office of charity which
their state admits, we may infer from analogy, per
haps from scripture ; but all beyond is " clouds and

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 331
darkness." That they should have a sympathy with
the miseries of this world of sorrow and perturba
tion, seems scarcely reconcileable with a state of
happiness. St. Augustin asks, " If good Josiah could
after death hear the din of war within the gates of
Jerusalem, and see the desolations of his people,
how was it promised in mercy that he should be
previously gathered to his fathers, that " his eyes
might not see the evil which God would bring"?
How are " merciful men taken away from the evil
to come", if a sense of evil still pursues them?
Why does Isaiah say, that Abraham and Israel were
" ignorant" of the distressed Jews, and " acknow
ledged them not", if they were yet acquainted with
their sorrows ? PHILODOX.
Surely God is able to reveal to departed saints
the prayers which Christians address to them?
ORTHODOX.
Hath he suggested that he will do so ? Hath he
not required us to invoke Himself directly ? Where
too is the coherency of your arguments ? The
apology for invocation of saints is, that prayer
may not go immediately to God, but through the
mediation of the saints ; and that it is a fearfiil thing
to apply directly to the Almighty. But your hypo-

332 DIALOGUE VIII.
thesis refutes this, and infers that prayer does go
directly to Him. It also seems absurd, as may be
seen by an old comparison. Suppose the king was
the only person at court who could read, would
you write to a courtier, entreating him to use his
influence with his majesty for some favour, knowing
that the letter must be carried to the king, who
must first peruse the contents, and explain them to
the courtier, who, having thus understood it, is to
urge the request upon his majesty? Surely it would
be more rational and respectful to apply directly to
the sovereign, especially if you knew that he had
appointed one distinguished personage to receive
the requests of his subjects, with a promise that he
would hear all who came through him. — Lastly, to
solicit the prayers of our friends can scarcely dege
nerate into superstition or idolatry. We do not
adore their goods, their chattels, or their cloaths ;
we do not make processions and pilgrimages to
their houses ; we fall not down before them, with
every outward mark of divine reverence, entreating
them to save us by their merits and intercessions ;
we use not any other of those appendages, which
make the invocation of saints tenfold more objec
tionable in practice than it is in principle.
For we must come into closer contact. If Roman
ists, as their writers would have us beheve, did no

OP INVOCATION OP SAINTS AND ANGELS. 333
more than entreat the saints to pray for them, al
though this would evince a contempt for scripture
and tradition, though it would be unnecessary and
superstitious, yet it could scarcely be accounted
idolatrous ; neither be said to thrust the Redeemer
from his seat. But, unhappily, their arguments are
altogether irrelevant; they vindicate neither the
doctrine nor the practice of their Church, all whose
" observances", rites, and customs are as binding
on their consciences as her creeds and councils.
PHILODOX.
She is not to be judged herein by the devotional
books of her private members, any more than the
Anglican Church is to answer for every sentence in
the meditative works of her divines, however justly
she may venerate their general piety.
ORTHODOX.
We will not resort to the devotions of their pri
vate writers, but examine their breviary, psalters,
liturgies, &c. sanctioned by supreme authority, and
issued for the purposes of public and private wor
ship. Much detail will be needless to prove that
they do something more than merely entreat the
saints to pray for them. Rome addresses the saints
as she addresses the Redeemer. She employs the

334 DIALOGUE VIII.
same terms, ascribes the same privileges, imputes
the same benefits, performs the same actions, to
them as to Christ. Does she pray for salvation
through His merits and intercession ? So she does
through those of St. Nicholas. Does she pray to
ascend into heaven through the blood of Christ ?
So she does through the blood of Thomas a Becket.
Does she beseech Christ for admission to heaven?
She beseeches St. George for the same. Does she
implore Christ for life, and aid, and comfort ? So
she does many of the saints. With respect to the
holy virgin, there is scarcely an attribute peculiar
to the Almighty, scarcely a blessing or grace that
God can give, which is not addressed to her. She
is joined with God himself Blessing is implored
from Mary and her Son. Glory is ascribed to Mary
together with the Holy Trinity. She is prayed to
for protection, deliverance, benefit, &c. ; in short,
it would fill a volume to compress the devotions and
ascriptions with which this lowly handmaid of the
Lord has been honoured, or rather profaned.
There is not an ordinance or sacrament unpol
luted by this Pagan practice. Rome directs her peo
ple to confess their sins equally to God, to the
angels, the virgin, and the saints : to them she com
mends departing souls ; in their name she exorcises,
in their name she excommunicates, in their name

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 335
she absolves. To them she consecrates churches
and altars ; to them she makes vows, which are ex
pressly and repeatedly limited in scripture to God
alone. Nay, even worse, if worse there be, the sa
crifice of the mass itself, the meritorious offering
up of the Son of God to his Father, is regularly
transacted in honour of St. Paul, St. Benedict, St.
Becket, or some other; a blasphemous practice,
spoken of, in terms of deserved indignation, by one
converted from their faith by his own convictions*.
* " ' As error is the mother of blindness', and ' one deep
calleth to another', and as the entire aim of Satan is to draw
men to impiety, and to the destruction of the kingdom of
Christ ; — whereas in the primitive Church, they made offer
ings to none but God, and celebrated the sacrifice of the holy
sacrament to the honour of the divine Majesty alone ; — the
Roman Church has carried error to such an excess as to main
tain, that the sacrifice of the mass, in which they suppose
Christ himself to be really sacrificed ; that this sacrifice, I
say, of the body and blood of Christ reaUy and substantially
present, is oficred (dare I repeat this blasphemy.') in honour
of the saints. And as a priest is preparing to say mass, one
comes and says cooUy, ' Sir, you must say a mass of St. Peter,
a mass of St. Paul, of St. James, or any other saint'; i. e.
you must sacrifice Jesus Christ to day, in honour of St. Peter,
of St. James, or any other. And that you may not imagine I
belie the Romanists, you have only to read on this subject any
of their theologians, or listen to what the priest says every day
at mass when he reads the canon ; and you will hear him say
with a low voice these words, having recited the names of cer-

336 DIALOGUE VIIL
Their devotions to the angels I pass by. These
sacred beings enjoy a very moderate portion of Ro
man confidence. But their invocation of the saints
appears still more gross, when we call to mind that
tain saints, 'Ut illis proficiat ad honorem', he prays God
that this sacrifice may be profitable to their honour. If in the
Old Testament any one had wished to oflbr sacrifices to God,
in honour of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, would he not have been
instantly stoned, to atone by death for the impiety of this
blasphemy } Alas ! in the ancient law beasts alone were
killed in sacrifice. — When Christ taught his apostles, that he
must go to Jerusalem, &c. to be sacrificed upon the cross, to
appease his Father's just wrath against the sins of men, St.
Peter was transported with zeal, and could not bear that he
should go to Jerusalem to be sacrificed, 'Lord spare thyself ;
this shall not happen.' Oh, if he were upon earth, and it
should be said, ' St. Peter, this priest is going to say mass, to
sacrifice the body and blood of Christ to do you honour', would
he not hear this news with horror ? Would he not say with
much more reason, ' Lord, it shall not be so ; it shall not
happen to thee to be sacrificed to do me honour ' ? . . . I be
lieve that if any of the apostles or first Christians were to
rise again, and appear in the Church of Rome, they would
have need to learn almost their catechism, so great is the dif
ference between the articles of faith taught in the primitive
Church and those now taught in the Church of Rome." Des
Ecotais' Memoirs, p. 59, which, though very worthy of perusal,
are superseded by the enchaining interest which binds us down
to the pages of Mr. Blanco White, to whom his readers are
indebted for instruction and delight, and Protestantism for
important benefits.

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 337
it is not merely those holy and blessed saints of God,
the appstles, disciples, martyrs, &c. to whom their
services are addressed, but equally to all and every
one whom Rome pleases to admit into the general
assembly of the blessed in heaven. — Dishonour is
done to that " goodly company" of Christ, " of
whom the world was not worthy", when undue
homage is addressed to them ; but they are fouUy
polluted when into their holy band are enroUed a
race of unhallowed men living and dying in mortal
sin, (if murder, persecution, rebelhon, and sedition,
be mortal sins,) for these are the merits which swell
the calendar and fill the Pantheon of Rome. De
votion is paid alike to St. Paul, the preacher of
obedience, and to Becket, a seditious and ungrate
ful factionist ; to the meek and gentle " disciple
whom Jesus loved", and to the ferocious Dominic,
the fiend of the Inquisition, " drunk with the blood
of the saints."* PHILODOX.
Although it would be vain to deny the evidence
* The late venerable Moderator of the Waldenses, Peyran,
speaking of the canonization of this firebrand, observes, sar
castically, that this was a " recompense d'autant plus magni-
fique qu'on trouve rarement des exemples meme parmi Ies
Payens, qui se sont montres plus reserves en pareille occasion,
et se sont contentes de bien payer leurs bourreaux, sans Ies
honorer de I'apotheose." Nouvelles Lettres, p. 53, in Mr.
Sims's Historical Defence of the Waldenses. Z

338 DIALOGUE VIII.
adduced from the authorized services of the Church,
yet, certain it is, that many members of that Church
do not practise such devotions, and their divines in
sist, that they only sohcit the prayers of the saints.
ORTHODOX.
Nay ; let them adhere to the principle of which
they profess to be so tenacious. If they choose to
alter it, and will argue from private opinions, we
have no objection. We will oppose Aquinas, Bo-
naventura, Bellarmin, Baronius, &c. to Gother,
Bishops Milner and Baines, Dr. Lingard, Mr.
Butler, &c. and a beautiful specimen of " Catholic
unity" they will present.
To the Church they appealed, and the Church
has answered the appeal. She renounces their ex
positions ; she knows thera not ; she binds thera in
the same curse with Protestants. Anathema to those
who do not " receive and embrace most firmly the
apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and other
observances and constitutions of the said Church";
and to those who " teach or think contrary" there
to. She accounts these half-Romanists worse than
heretics, unnatural and foolish children, planting
a dagger in the bosom of their infaUible mother ;
and proclaiming to the world, that for ages she hath
taught her people falsely, and enforced a super
stitious and idolatrous devotion.

OF INVOCATION OP SAINTS AND ANGELS. 339
That many of her professing followers in this
country do shrink from these things, I delight to
think. That they are in actual ignorance of much
that their Church raaintains, and that they hold prin
ciples of tolerance and liberality which involves
thera deeply in her censure, I can vouch from per
sonal observation. Neither is it intended to
charge them, individually, with consequences they
disown. — But let thera not, or rather let not their
teachers and advocates, to whom the real merits of
the case are known, boast of their unity and con
sistency. Let them not attempt to silence remon
strance, and stifle inquiry, either by insidious mis
representations to the world ; by clamours of in
justice against Protestants who raerely draw self-
evident conclusions from infallible premises ; or
by casting over their Church a mystic and delusive
cloak of unerring guidance and indefeasible purity,
at the moment when their vindication and argu
ments proclaim, that for raany centuries she has
misguided her disciples, immersed Christians in the
crime of spiritual adultery, and inherently cor
rupted the first elements of religious service. Let
them cease to deceive the unstable and incautious^
and to calumniate those who have no other object
than to emancipate a perverted people, and to re
store their Church to her pristine purity, by speali-
z 2

340 DIALOGUE VIII.
ing of things as they are ; by inferences so obvious
that no ingenuous mind can deny their candour,
no valid argument oppugn their legitimacy. Read
the defences of their modern controversialists ; com
pare it with the authorized language of their devo
tions ; and what say they less than this, " I dis
own, reject, and abhor, that doctrine which the
Church of Rome hath taught, and that practice
which she hath enforced, for ages"?
PHILODOX.
They will not adopt this confession ; yet Gother,
one of their most eminent and popular writers, does
pronounce a series of anathemas against the tenets
which you presume the Church to authorize ; and
those anathemas are received in the main by Bishops
Challoner and Milner, Mr. Butler, &c. For in
stance ; " Cursed is he that commits idolatry.
Cursed is he that believes the saints to be his re
deemers ; that prays to them as such ; or that gives
God's honour to them, or to any creature whatever.
Amen. Cursed is every goddess-worshipper, that
believes the Virgin Mary to be more than a creature,
that worships her, or puts his trust in her more
than in God ; that believes her above her Son ;
or that she can in any thing command him.
Amen."

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 341
ORTHODOX.
Now if we were to oppose these curses to any
member of their communion who did not agree with
them, we should probably be asked, and very ra-
tionaUy, " What right has he or they to pronounce
curses ? who gave to him or them power to ana
thematize ? " Let them keep to the authorized
anathemas of the Council of Trent, " Cursed is he
that saith saints are not to be invoked. Cursed is
he that falls not down before images. Cursed is
he that does not believe transubstantiation, purga
tory, &c. Cursed is he that does not receive all
the observances and traditions of Rome '' ; and so
on. Let us, however, examine these curses separately ;
though I hke not the handling of execrations : for
when I hear a string of unauthorized condemna
tions and damnatory inferences from the lips of
frail presumptuous mortals, I am apt to adopt the
invocation, " although they curse, yet bless Thou."
It would be more agreeable to leave them to the
consciences of Romanists, who do but follow
herein the practice of a Church, which " hath
clothed herself with cursing as with a garment";
and the perusal of whose decrees and anathemas,
involuntarily calls to mind that characteristic, " her
mouth is full of cursing, deceit, and fraud ; under

342 DIALOGUE VIIL
her tongue is ungodliness and vanity." The exa
mination of these anathemas of Gother will shew
that they amount to nothing, and prove no con
demnation of the doctrine we reprehend. The first
is, " Cursed is he that commits idolatry." — This
to be sure is very satisfactory, when the point in
dispute is. What is idolatry ? Is it idolatry to give
to created beings the honour due to the Creator,
and invoke them for benefits which He alone can
give ? Yea, saith the Church of England. No,
saith the Church of Rome. This, therefore, seems
a very harmless curse. It hits not any one.
" Cursed is he that believes the saints to be his
redeemers ; that prays to them as such, or gives
God's honour to them, or to any other creature." —
We charge them not with making the " saints
their Redeemers." But we charge them with mak
ing the saints their mediators, advocates, and inter
cessors, and with depending upon their merits,
expiations, &c., and they deny not the charge ;
therefore, the anathematizer permits these to pass
scot free. And as for the next clause, we shall not
agree about the terras. We insist, that to pray to
any others than God, to worship thera, to serve
them, to implore spiritual blessings from them, to
rely on their intercession, mediation, &:c., is to give
his honour to creatures. But they deny it.

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 343
Again, " Cursed is every goddess-worshipper,
that believes the Virgin Mary to be more than a
creature." This is loosely worded. Why did he not
say, " Cursed is every one who worships the Virgin
Mary with more than creature-worship " ? The rea
son is obvious. He could not have so said, without
cursing Bonaventura, a saint and cardinal, and those
by whom the Roman liturgies and services were
compiled. What has " goddess-worshipper " to do
with the business ? We call them not " goddess-
worshippers ". We do not charge them with be
lieving the Virgin to be a goddess in the strict use
of the term, viz. uncreate, existing independently,
&c. — " Cursed is he that honours her, or puts his
trust in her more than in God ; that believes her
to be above her Son, or that she can in any thing
command him ". When a man sits down coolly to
curse and anathematize his fellows, we must sup
pose in charity that he is very wary and cautious
in promulgating his execrations, and that those who
adopt thera are soleranly satisfied of their propriety.
It appears then that this is their divinity : he who
" honours or puts his trust " in the Virgin Mary as
much as in God, and " believes her to be equal
to her Son ", is a good Catholic, and not to be
condemned. These curses, which are bruited about, and re-

344 DIALOGUE VIII.
fulrainated every now and then, are a sort of An-
glican-Roraish cannonade ; noisy enough, but very
harmless ; the Papal or Pagan idolater may safely
walk in the face of the discharge ; if he be astounded
with smoke and noise, it is the utmost injury he
will sustain *. PHILODOX.
It is, however, confidently asserted, that the Pri
mitive Church always practised this invocation.
ORTHODOX.
For three centuries after Christ not a glimpse of
it appears. In the fourth, the rhetorical flourishes
of pulpit oratory, in certain eloquent Fathers, paved
the way for the gradual admission of the Romish
tenet. To eidarge upon this would occupy much
time. Bear in mind three arguments equally simple
and unanswerable : I. When the denial of the eter
nal divinity of Christ was introduced, whether by
Arius or earlier heresiarchs, the argument most
popular with the orthodox was that commonly urged
by us against the Unitarians, viz. that religious
* For some decisive evidence and argument on this and its
collateral topics, I refer with the more pleasure to Mr.
Southey's " Vindicise Ecclesise Anglicanae ", as it presents an
opportunity of offering the meed of thanks to the exertions of
the able lay-advocate of our Church, and ornament of our
literature.

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 345
invocation is peculiar to the Deity ; a position of
irrefragable force, only to be evaded by the adop
tion of the hypothesis of the Romanists, who here
again cheerfully give the right hand of fellowship
to the oppugners of the faith, and surrender to con
tempt and scorn every argument by which the early
Christian advocates raaintained the Gospel against
its assailants. But be the validity of the defence
what it may, this inference is clear, that the pri
mitive behevers who contended for the divinity of
Christ, because God only can be the object of reli
gious invocation, believed not that invocation may
be addressed to any other than God. II. Romanists
address invocation to such of the saints alone as
enjoy the beatific vision of the Holy Trinity; for
upon this the utility of the practice is sustained. But
the general primitive belief was, that none of the
saints, not even the Blessed Virgin herself, were ad
mitted to the presence of God before the last day ;
but that they reposed in Hades, and, therefore, as
before observed, instead of praying to them, they
thus far prayed for them. Finally ; the Fathers
constantly rebut the heathen service of demon me
diators, by this almost natural demonstration, that
invocation is due to God only.
The latter remark opens to us the source of this
polluted stream. The Roman worship of saints is

346 DIALOGUE VIII.
precisely the same wdth that demon worship which,
however derided by some of the learned, formed
with Pagans as it does with Papists, the universal
devotion. The Gentiles, theoretically at least, never
lost sight of One Supreme, to whom supreme wor
ship was due. But they had two sorts of inferior
gods, their demons and divos, to whom they ascribed
a relative worship, and whom they specifically dis
tinguished as domestic, tutelary, &c. The demons
were spiritual, like the angels ; the others were the
disembodied souls of departed heroes, patriots,
teachers, and otherwise eminent, like the saints.
These were the mediators to go between the wor
shipper and the Supreme Being, who, by their in
terposition, was to be pacified. These they vene
rated, adored, and invoked, by images, pictures,
and symbols ; to these they dedicated temples and
altars; to these they directed vows, and offered sa
crifices ; to their places and temples they made pil
grimages and processions.
Against the feigned "humility and will-worship"
which dictated this idolatry, St. Paul cautioned the
Christian Church ; but, however powerfully the cau
tion may have operated at first, it gradually became,
as it seems to be now with Rome, entirely a " dead
letter." The eternal enemy of God and man had
imposed upon the Gentile world, by first persuading

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 347
thera that it was a mark of humility not to approach
God immediately, but through spiritual natures,
and those of their own species whom he had honour
ed ; and by afterwards instilling a consequence alike
pernicious, that whatever good they received from
heaven was to be imputed to these benevolent
agents. By a plea so gentle did that old serpent
draw sinful man farther and farther from the aU-
merciful Creator ; for it seems a natural feehng to
be rather grateful to one through whom we obtain
a benefit than to him from whom it really comes ;
as the criminal saved from death hath more grati
tude to the friend by whose diligence his pardon is
procured, than to the sovereign from whom it ac
tually, but remotely, flows. The gracious dispensa
tion of the gospel, when it presented a Mediator in
human form, almighty to redeem, all-merciful to
save, condescended to this humility, which is pei'-
haps a feeling innate in fallen man, conscious of
guilt, and of ahenation from his God.
When the fires of persecution had vainly wasted
their strength against the infant Church, prosperity
presented to the machinations of Satan a fairer har
vest ; and here again he converted the best emotions
of the heart into fuel for his everlasting hostility to
truth and holiness. Near the relics of martyrs,
prayers had from early days been made ; at their

348 DIALOGUE VIII.
sepulchres, places of devotion were erected. The
ancient poison was soon imperceptibly instilled, that
the benefits obtained by prayers were obtained
through some grace or favour by or to the martyr.
As piety coalesced with superstition more and more,
these and such opinions proceeded onward to per
fection, until prayer was, at length, immediately
addressed to the saints themselves ; and this not
earlier than the fourth century. It was, as I observed,
unintentionally patronized by the compellations and
appeals which marked the unrestrained declamations
of St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, and other Fathers of
great eloquence and popularity ; and, finally, so it
was that, step by step, the tempter succeeded in
bringing back the ancient demon worship into the
Christian Church. It was, however, resisted in its
progress by the highest authorities. The Council
of Laodicea, which sat about a. d. 360, and not
before the Council of Nice, as some pretend, con
demned the worship of angels, denouncing it as
apostasy from Christ, and idolatry. Invocation of
saints was unknown, or certainly it would not have
escaped censure ; for if it be idolatry to invocate
angels, it must be still more so to worship saints.
Therefore, although we allow this practice to have
dawned in the fourth century, yet its prevalence in
the Church is much later.

OF INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 349
PHILODOX.
Dupin explains the Laodicean decree to mean,
that " Christians ought not to forsake the Church
to invoke angels, and keep meetings in private."
orthodox.
If Dupin is ever unfair, it is when his religion
necessitates him to be so. The Council distinctly
condemns those who invoke angels, as guilty of se
cret idolatry : " If any one be found employed in
this secret idolatry, let him be anathema ; because
he hath deserted our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, and joined himself to idolatry." * If the decree
was not clear enough of itself, we have the expla
nation of Theodoret, who, in commenting on those
words of St. Paul, " Let no man deceive you in a
voluntary humility and worshipping of angels," has
this remark : " They who patronized the law, even
persuaded the Colossians to worship angels ; and
this passion remained with many in Phrygia and
Pisidia. But a Council being assembled at Laodicea
in Phrygia, forbid by a law prayer to angels."
* Can. XXXV.

DIALOGUE IX.
OF ADORATION OF IMAGES, THE CROSS, ETC.

PHILODOX.
You consider that many of your preceding ob
jections equally apply to the adoration of images,
relics, and of the cross ?
ORTHODOX.
Undoubtedly, and with added force.
PHILODOX.
The second Council of Nice, convened expressly
to settle the controversy on this point, reduced their
faith into the following form : " I confess and agree,
and receive, and salute, and adore the unpolluted
image of our Lord, of his holy mother, &c. In like
manner, I receive and adore the images of the pro
phets, apostles, martyrs, fathers, and hermits ; not,
however, as gods." Anathemas are then denounced
against those who do not adore thera, and against
those who teach not the people to adore thera. The

OF ADORATION OF IMAGES, ETC. 351
Council of Trent confirms this by decreeing, that
" the images of Christ, and of the virgin-mother of
God, and other saints, are to be kept and retained,
especially in Churches, and due honour and venera
tion to be given to thera ; not that we believe there
is any divinity or power in them, for which they
ought to be worshipped, or that any thing is to be
asked of them, or confidence placed in them, as was
anciently done by the heathen." ,
ORTHODOX.
By pausing at these words, I perceive you have
taken the decree as it is found in Dr. Milner and
others. But the Council goes on thus : — " but be
cause the honour which is exhibited to iraages is re
ferred to the prototype, or thing represented by
them ; so that by the image which we kiss, and
before which we kneel or bow, we adore Christ and
reverence his saints, whom the said image repre
sents." — By which it appears, as well as from the
statements of their teachers, that the same divine
worship is paid to the image as to God himself;
and the sole difference is, that the worship is tran
sitive to the former, and terrainative to the latter.
PHILODOX.
Yet surely it is true, that the honour or dishonour

352 DIALOGUE IX.
done to an image or picture, regards rather the
original than the senseless stock or canvas. As he
who breaks the coin or picture of the monarch in
sults not that, but the monarch. Do not the peers
bow to the throne in the house of Lords ? Which re
verence passes to the king. And do not you, in a
court of justice, reverently kiss the volume which
represents the word of God ?
ORTHODOX.
Civil honour may be paid to the picture or throne
of a monarch, because they are civil things them
selves ; but unless you can shew that the images of
Christ and the saints are as sacred as those whom
they represent, the parallel is of no force. It would,
indeed, be an insult to God to profane the elements
of the sacraments, which he hath appointed ; but it
is no dishonour to him to break the images which he
hath forbidden to be made.
Their Church tells us, that " he who adores the
image adores in it the person of him whom it repre
sents " ; and no one disputes it. As to the sovereign
is due absolute civil respect, a relative respect is due
to the throne also. To the written word of God
moral reverence is due ; and an external act of moral
reverence, enjoined by the law of the land, is paid.
Thus he who adores the image of Christ adores in it

OP ADORATION OF IMAGES, ETC. 353
the person of Christ. Of course, the image is adored
with supreme divine worship. That the worship is
transitive, alters not its essence. Essential divine
worship is hereby paid to a stock or stone. This is the
crime of the heathen ; the crime denounced in the
word of God. It is both in degree and kind the same
worship as the Pagan worship of idols ; and the argu
ments of Protestants are but transcripts of those
urged byArnobius, Minucius, Src. against the Gen
tiles. This is particularly the case in the adoration
of the cross. Here a piece of wood is addressed with
the same invocations as Christ himself; and every
blessing, spiritual and temporal, implored from the
senseless stock. " Hail ! O cross ! triumphal sign !
true salvation of the world ! Among wood there is
none such in leaf, and flower, and germ. Christian
medicine, save the whole ; heal the sick," &c. And
again, " Hail ! O cross ! our only hope in glorious
triumph ; increase grace to the pious, and blot out
the crimes of the guilty." This is the language of
their most solemn services *. Did Paganism, in its
* In conformity herewith, the elegant Bourdaloue, in the
opening of one of his sermons, " Sur la Passion ", before the
French court, uses this apostrophe ; " Croix adorable, nous Ies
(nos larmes) repandrons devant vous, et vous leur communique-
rez cette vertu celeste, et ce caractere de saintete que vous
refutes en recevant dans vos bras le saint des saints. Plein de
A A

354 DIALOGUE IX.
darkest gloom, produce idolatry more gross ? Are
we to wonder that the religion of papal countries
is little else than the full operation of this sin in its
most offensive forms ? Is the practical effect of such
a creed forbidden or unsanctioned ? Go to Rome ;
enter as it were into the presence of the infallible
Head of the Church and his Council, in their own
cathedral : visit the proud metropolitan teraple of
the Roraan world. Take, for an example, the adora
tion paid to what was once the statue of heathen
Jove, now the "prototype" of the apostle Peter,
" With what apparent fervour of devotion all ranks
and ages, and sexes, kneel to and kiss the toe of this
brazen image. They rub it against their foreheads,
and press it against their lips, with the most reve
rential piety. I have sat by the hour ", says an in
teresting traveller, " to see the crowds of people who
flock in to perform this ceremony, waiting for their
turn to kiss."* PHILODOX.
You cannot argue against the use from the
abuse of a thing. ORTHODOX.
Unhappily, this is the use, and not the abuse. If
cette confiance, nous avons recours a vous, et nous vous disons
avec toute I'eglise, O Crux, ave ! "
* Matthews' " Diary of an Invalid."

OF ADORATION OF IMAGES, ETC. 355
the unerring dictate of infallibihty proclaims that
to an image the same reverence is due as to Christ
himself, is not this the natural and just devotion of
the people ? Who is to wonder that worship rests
on the senseless stock, and ascends no higher ? Nay,
is it not uniformly encouraged by their guides and
teachers ? Else what raean those juggling miracles
constantly forged to maintain the dignity of these
idols, leading to an entire trust in them, and in the
omnipotence of the priest, under whose control, and
at whose pleasure, these wonderments take place ?
Could terms be found sufficient to express abhor
rence and disgust, if our English prelacy and priest
hood were to confederate in a fraud like that annual
Neapolitan delusion, the liquefaction of the blood
of St. Januarius, in which bishops, dignitaries, and
the whole church authority, are patrons and agents ?
What is the effect of such wretched wickedness,
but to debase a deluded people still deeper in the
gulf of idolatry and superstition ? — All terminates
in the priesthood : for the poor saint is, at once,
the object of veneration and reviling, of contempt
and awe.
Against this idolatry revived in the heart of the
Christian Church, what have we to oppose, if that
tremendous law be disregarded, which pealed in
A A 2

356

DIALOGUE IX.

thunder from the burning summit of the holy
mount : " Thou shalt not make to thyself any
graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that
is in heaven above, nor in the earth beneath, nor
in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not
bow down to them, nor worship them : for I,
Jehovah thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the
sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third
and fourth generation of them that hate me ; and
shewing mercy unto thousands in thera that love
me and keep my commandments ?"
Need we wonder that a rebellious and guilty
Church erased this commandment from her laws,
whilst she re-estabhshed idolatry among the nations
whence the cross had banished it ; and, accumulating
crime on crime, hid from the people the measure
of their enormities.

PHILODOX.

" Many disputants are ignorant enough to sup
pose, that the division of the Decalogue in the
prayer-book was copied from the original copy of
the Pentateuch. But in the Hebrew, for some
thousands of years, there was no mark of separation
between one commandment and another." They
add, " it is a gross calumny to say they suppress

OF ADORATION OF IMAGES, ETC. 357
any part of the Decalogue ; for it all appears in
their Bibles, and all their most approved cate
chisms."* ORTHODOX.
The first part of this is mere evasion, and the
latter is untrue. At the Reformation, the Lu
therans retained the Roman custom of accounting
the first and second commandments to be but one,
and dividing the tenth into two ; thus making
three commandments to the first table, and seven
to the second. The Calvinists, more consistently,
divided them as they stand in our bibles and prayer-
books. We are not, therefore, disputing with
Rome about the arrangement, but about the omis
sion ; although the arrangement in some of their
catechisms t is out of all order, the first clause
of the tenth being thrust into the room of the se
cond commandment ; thus confounding the two
tables, the duty towards man with the duty towards
God. To say that the whole appears in " all their most
approved catechisms " is so untrue, that Romanists
of less daring than Dr. Milner, have fully ad
mitted the contrary, by urging arguments in de
fence of it. In fact, all who know anything of
* End of Controversy, L. xxxiv.
t Butler's, ex. gr.

358 DIALOGUE IX.
the Subject know the omission to be so notorious,
that it would be waste of time to prove it. It is
confessedly omitted in the manuals and short cate
chisms for the people, which are the very places
where it ought to be found. — But " it appears
in all their Bibles." So it may : and is of as much
service there as its appearance in the Hebrew.
What is the use of it in the scriptures, when the
people are not allowed to read the scriptures ?
PHILODOX.
In defence of the omission, it is alleged, that the
second comraandment is only an explanation of the
first. ORTHODOX.
And therefore useless, I suppose. But that it
is useless, their own practice refutes ; for if it be an
" explanation", it is sufficient to convict them of
disobedience to the precept. It is, however, palpably
another comraandment. The first forbids to worship
any God but Jehovah. The second forbids to wor
ship him by any image ; or to fall down before any
image with religious service ; denouncing a dread
ful sentence upon all who are guilty of this practice.
How dare they keep from their people so important
a part of God's eternal law, confirraed by sanc
tions raore awful than any other ; announcing ven-

OF ADORATION OF IMAGES, ETC. 359
geance against transgressors and their offspring,
and boundless mercy to those who so love hira as to
keep his commandraents generally ; and this one
especially, to which these threats and promises are
annexed ? This is that moral law of God which
Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfil ; in open
rebellion to which, Rome exists, and trains her
people. No denunciation of her corruptions can
escape Protestant pen so awful, so iraraediate as
this. The evasion and subterfuge of raisdirected
wisdom appal the pious mind, when contrasted
with the guilt of eluding the force, and enervating
the precept, of the everlasting law of the Ruler of
the universe. Vain distinctions framed in the per
verted imaginations of fallen creatures, serve but
to guide serious meditation to the source of all
our spiritual wretchedness : " God made man per
fect, but he hath found out many inventions."

DIALOGUE X.
OF THE ACCUSATIONS OF IDOLATRY, SCHISM, AND
HERESY.

PHILODOX.
I will not occupy your time, at present, by particu
lar discussion of the remaining tenets in dispute ;
but wiU only touch upon some general epithets,
which I have occasionally heard you utter, and the
verity of which, I presume, you rest not entirely on
the topics before discussed. Your Church dis
tinctly pronounces the Church of Rome " idola
trous " ; declaring the adoration of the Eucharistic
elements, " idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful
Christians." In her homilies, she constantly teaches
her people to view the Roman Church as idolatrous
in many respects. The Reformers, and all your
great theologists, take this as a point perfectly in
disputable ; even those who were least unfavourable
to the old rehgion, as Archbishop Laud, Dr. Heyhn,
Leslie, the other nonjurors, &c. adopt the same
phraseology. Yet your modern divines seem ashamed
of it, and, as Dr. Milner remarks, " no Protestant

OF IDOLATRY, SCHISM, AND HERESY. 361
of learning or character now repeats it." So that
the language of all your illustrious controversialists
seems to be disclaimed ; and the homihes scarcely to
be accounted a criterion of the present opinion of
the Anglican Church. ORTHODOX.
This is meant, I presume, to give force to the
reiterated charge, that we have forsaken our old
belief. You have truly stated the authoritative
decision of our Church, which is not confined to
the homilies. But if it was, their language is de
cisive to the point. She has declared that those
discourses contain " a godly and wholesome doctrine,
and necessary for these times." To suppose that they
bear false evidence to the opinion of the Church,
which promulgates them for the instruction of the
people, is absurd. It follows not, that we are to
approve their entire diction ; but that doctrine,
which is " necessary " at any time, raust be true
at all times. And if there is any part of the ho
milies to which, more than another, the com
mendation refers, it is that which bears upon the
Romish tenets, as being the errors of which a re
futation, by " godly and wholesome doctrine ", was
especially " necessary for those times." It is a
libel on the Church of England to suppose that

362 DIALOGUE X.
she would publish a set of sermons so strongly im
pressing and urging what she accounted doubtful
or unimportant, much less untrue*.
I scarcely recoUect a divine whose name and
opinion are entitled to reverence in our Church,
that has hesitated on the subject. Dr. Milner de
signates Bishop Horsley as " the great ornament
of the episcopal bench", and "the hght and or
nament of the English Church." Now, let us
hear that erainent prelate on the point : " At this
day, in the Church of Rorae, the worship of the
ever-blessed Trinity subsists in preposterous con
junction with the idolatrous worship of canonized
men and inanimate rehcs." Again ; " the idolaters
of antiquity and the papists of modern times
seem much upon a footing." And further ; " the
Church of Rome is at this day a corrupt Church ;
a Church corrupted with idolatry; with idolatry
very much the same in kind and in degree with
the worst that ever prevailed among the Egyptians
or the Canaanites."t
* " Since there are so many of the homilies that charge
the Church of Rome with idolatry, and that from so many
different topics ; no man who thinks that Church is not guilty
of idolatry, can, with a good conscience, subscribe this article,
that the homilies ' contain a godly and wholesome doctrine,
and necessary for these times.' " — Bp. Burnet.
t On the Prophecies of the Messiah.

OF IDOLATRY, SCHISM, AND HERESY. 363

PHILODOX.

But is it not more candid to adopt the conclusion
of Bishop Taylor, who admits that their worship of
the elements, at least, has nothing idolalatrical in it?
ORTHODOX.
This was an hypothesis, not the dehberate opi
nion, of Bishop Taylor. No one has more pointed
ly accused thera of idolatry, nor more fully made
good the accusation than he has done.
PHILODOX.
But, " if he contradicts himself in other works,
are they to renounce the present important con
cession ? " * ORTHODOX.
He contradicts not himself, for he had conceded
nothing. The ' Liberty of Prophesying ', in which
the passage so often quoted occurs, had for its ob
ject, not to explain doctrines, but to repel persecution.
He therefore urges for Romanists, in common with
other erring sects, not his own opinions, but those,
he says, " by which the poor creatures allow them
selves to be deceived." The truth or falsehood of
these tenets he discusses not, but simply shows that
they were not of a kind to call for the interference
* Faith and Doctrine of the Catholic Church proved, &c.

364 DIALOGUE X.
of the state. But when they did, dogmaticahy,
come before him, he pronounces them false and
idolatrous ; and rejects his own hypothesis, as a
learned and truly Protestant prelate remarks,
" with contempt and ridicule."*
PHILODOX.
But why continue an accusation which seems
merely calculated to give offence ?
ORTHODOX.
Y^ ere'\tmerely calculated to give offence, it would
be both wisdom and duty to forbear. But idolatry
is too solemn a thing to be trifled with. If the
charge be valid, what human consideration can
justify those who stifle the voice of God against it ?
Are we, from fear of giving offence, to deny or
withhold a verity of vital importance to the honour
of God, the well-being of religion, and the eternal
interest of thousands ? Was truth ever promoted
by falsification or concealment ? Was Christianity
THUS estabhshed, or thus reformed ? Would the
first believers, had they been contemporary with
Socrates or Plato, have shrunk from the charge of
idolatry against the Pagan system, because they
* Bishop Burgess' " Popery incapable of I'nion," &c.

OF IDOLATRY, SCHISM, AND HERESY. 365
venerated the philosophers who honoured it by their
wisdom, and adorned it by their virtue ? I would
not, for a meed beyond human wealth, give cause
less offence to or wantonly wound the conscience
of any man : I forget not the " burning and shin
ing lights ", whose beams have pierced the Romish
gloom even in her darkest days ; nor will I bend
against them her anathemas, levelled at thousands
of the best and holiest of the saints of Christ, lest I be
found, as Rome hath so often been, " cursing whom
God hath not cursed, and defying whom the
Lord hath not defied." We' are not speaking of
individuals, but judging her, as she demands to be
judged, by her creeds, her formulas, her observ
ances. If any one thus judging, and satisfied of
the truth of the accusation, sinks under that " fear
of man which bringeth a snare ", he bursts the tie
of charity which he owes to his fellow mortals,
even to the transgressing Church herself; and vio
lates the first dictate of an enhghtened conscience,
obedience to the law of God.
Believing the accusation of the Church of Eng
land to be as true as it is decisive, and holding the
Church of Rome to be idolatrous, I should trerable
not to avow it. If mistaken, it is a mistake I hold
in common with the thousands who in the devastated
vales of Piedmont, in the fires of Britain, in the

366

DIALOGUE X.

desolation of the Netherlands, and wherever perse
cution " found them out ", sealed the sincerity of
this belief with their blood. I hold it in common
with Hall, and Usher, and Field, and Morton, and
Barrow, and Taylor, and Chilhngworth, and Bur
net, and Bull, and Leighton, and Stillingfleet, and
TiUotson, and Wake, and Seeker, and Horsley, and
Porteus ; in short, with almost every name, good,
great, and venerable, which the United Church
presents. PHILODOX.
Whilst Rome invariably designates you as
Schismatics, you attempt to retort the charge ; but
surely without reason. Whatever her transgressions,
that of schism can scarcely be made out against
her whose characteristic trait is Unity.
ORTHODOX,
Few accusations can more easily be verified. Rome
is unquestionably the most schismatic of comrau-
nities. Schisra has been her peculiar characteristic.
For, passing by internal contentions, in which no
Church has ever been raore fertile, it has been her
accustomed policy, or sport, to cut off, and cast
from the Christian pale, as far as her intentions
and censures could effect it, all who dissent or
differ from her. Even early as the second and

OF IDOLATRY, SCHISM, AND HERESY. 367
third centuries, before usurpation and corrup
tion had so wretchedly defiled her, this factious
temper marked her rulers ; in the rash anathema
of Pope Victor against the Asiatics, so severely
reproved by St. Irenaeus ; and in the heretical ex
communication by Stephen of those whose opinion
was less erroneous than his own ; a measure se
verely retorted by St. Cyprian and Firraihan, in
language which is now as forcible as when first
adopted. They tell him that his excommunication
availed nothing, except to prove himself a schisma
tic, and cut himself off from the body of Christ ;
inasmuch as he who insolently attempts to sever
true branches from the vine, more deserves the cha
racter of schismatic than he who, indulging a fas
tidious or unruly spirit, merely withdraws from the
communion of his brethren.
It would fill a volume of no ordinary size to ab
stract the schismatical history of this Church. At
the present hour, she stands in the position of the
Donatist heretics of the fifth century ; at war with
every other comraunity of believers, renewing her
fulrainations of anatheraa and threat against the
" rebels and deserters" who bend not the knee be
fore her. And in her endless contests seldora has
it occurred, that she has not been the aggressor.
Notoriously was she so in that great secession by

368 DIALOGUE X.
which she was dismembered at the Reformation.
When Luther humbly and reverently proposed his
theses on a practical scandal which no one ventures
now publicly to defend, he was silenced by excom
munication ; and their advocates vindicate the fact.
When the Reformers entreated that all controversies
might be discussed by the word of God and by Ca
tholic tradition in a free council, they were driven
out from the communion of the Church by execra
tions, answered by the sword, and are still de
nounced as schismatics for their secession, by an
annual series of invective. — But we may allude to
a division even less questionable. In the great
schism which severed the Greek from the Latin
Church, the latter was the offending party. By
her single authority, in defiance of the decree of a
general council, the creed was altered, and the first
remonstrance was met by the customary reply, ex
communication. It was not until wearied out with
endless contentions, overborne by his tyranny, and
weakened by his usurpations, that the other patriarchs
of the Christian Church tore asunder the bond of
union with the Roman pontiff, in those memorable
words : " Thy greahiess we know ; thy covetous
ness we cannot satisfy; thy encroachments we can
no longer endure : live by thyself." *
* Quoted in Field " Of the Church," B. v. c. 39.

OF IDOLATRY, SCHISM, AND HERESY. 369
PHILODOX.
But has not Protestantism invariably led to
schism ? Has it not trampled order under foot ?
In many places annihilated episcopacy, and extin
guished discipline 1 ORTHODOX.
Let those Protestants whom the charge affects
reply to it ; we are free. But the remark has no
thing to do with our discussion. We are examin
ing not the essential unity of the Catholic Church,
but the infallibility of the Church of Rome : not
our errors, but her schism ; which, however, touches
upon your objection. Of the annihilation of episco
pacy and ecclesiastical discipline, who set the ear
liest example ? Who first gave presbyters power
of ordination without the intervention of a bishop ?
The Church of Rome. Who trampled on episco
pacy, by constituting one prelate alone, and de
grading the rest to the office of his deputies ? The
Church of Rome. Who excluded the divine right
of bishops from the unerring decrees of Trent ?
The Church of Rome. Who first proclaimed the
uselessness of episcopal jurisdiction, by introducing
exerapt peculiars, and freeing precincts, &c. from dio
cesan control ? The Church of Rome. Who au
thorized the regulars, monks, and friars, to invade
B B

370 DIALOGUE X.
the rights of bishops and clergy ? The Church of
Rome. Who commenced itinerant preaching by
sending through parishes and dioceses, rambling
unordained missionaries, freed from canonical sub
jection ? The Church of Rome. Ill beseems it
her, of all communities, to rail at the violation of
discipline by those who have merely studied in her
school, and scarcely improved upon her practice.
But it is unnecessary to enlarge on this ; enough has
been said to establish the charge of Schism.
PHILODOX.
The accusation of heresy is, of course, grounded
upon the erroneousness of the doctrines we have
already examined. ORTHODOX.
Not exclusively. There are a few other points
which, although they certainly are not hke those
we have before considered, nor can be said to be
the present " practical " divinity of the Church ; yet
are they even more fatal to the pretence of infal
libility, because the error is far less a subject of
controversy. I. Of OATHS. That God has, in the most so
lemn terms, pronounced the inviolabihty of an oath
it is unnecessary to shew. Yet the Church of
Rome has taught, again and again, that an oath

OF IDOLATRY, SCHISM, AND HERESY. 371
may and ought to be violated when it is " contrary
to the utihty of the Church". Such, for instance,
are the words of the sixteenth canon of the second
Lateran CouncU ; and the often recited case of
the martyr Huss is an infallible practical illustra
tion of this wicked decree. PHILODOX.
The Council of Constance broke no faith with
Huss. And if it had, although it was a general
council, yet it was essentially defective in this re
spect, that there was no Pope at the time.
ORTHODOX.
The council "broke not its faith", admittedly;
but it definitively taught, that " no safe conduct nor
engagement is to be kept with heretics." It is
also true, that there was "no Pope at the time";
but Martin V. afterwards confirmed the decree,
nay, doubly confirraed it; for in a letter subse
quently written to Alexander, general of the Li
thuanians, he issues the following oracle : " If you
have, in any way, promised to undertake the de
fence of these [^heretics^, know, that you could not
give your faith to Jieretics, who are violators of
the holy faith; and you will sin mortally if
you keep itV Therefore, this is the inference of
B B 2

372 DIALOGUE X.
Simanca : " Heretics are justly burned with right
eous flames, according to the most grave deter
mination of the Council of Constance, even though
they have received promise of safety."
But it is needless to quote particular examples.
Popes and councils have universally absolved from
oaths at their will and pleasure. — " I am persuaded",
says Lord Clarendon, " if there was a short col
lection of the bulls and dispensations the Popes
have granted from time to time, for the dissolving
and making of marriages ; the breaking of oaths
and lawful contracts ; absolving of perjuries, and
the like ; they would be found to have introduced
more mischief into the Christian world, and brought
more scandal upon the Christian religion than all
the heretics whom they have condemned from the
time of the apostles." *
Connected with this of oaths, is the conduct of
their Church respecting marriage. Our Lord
hath declared the marriage vow indissoluble, save
in the case of adultery. The Pope has dissolved
this vow at pleasure. — On the other hand, the
" prohibited degrees " are degrees of prohibition by
the divine law. These also the Pope dispenses
w^ith as seemeth him good: thus " putting asun
der those whom God hath joined together", and
* Religion and Policy.

OF IDOLATRY, SCHISM, AND HERESY. 373
joining together those whom God hath put asun
der. II. Another of her heresies is rehgious persecu
tion. This, for many centuries, she uniformly
taught and practised. The second and third La
teran councils decreed it, and the Church acted
upon it. The persecutions of the Waldenses, &c.
were by her commands ; those against the Protest
ants were in conformity to her sentence, and the
result of her unwearied instigation. When the fe
rocious Alva was let loose upon the Netherlands,
it was with her approbation. When the massacre
of St. Bartholomew took place, the Pope and his
court returned praises and laud to Him who " came
not to destroy men's lives, but to save them." And
the Inquisition, whose very charter of incorporation
is persecution, and denial of the rights of conscience,
is exclusively the tribunal of the Church ; founded
by her fiat, and existing at her nod.
III. The gospel hath taught submission to the
higher powers, and pronounced, that they " who
resist shall receive damnation." This she has
annulled, by proclaiming the duty of rebellion.
It is her decree, that subjects are absolved from al
legiance, ipso facto, by the heresy of their sovereign ;
that heretical princes are no longer princes, but
are deposed, and may be murdered. By treason

374 dialogue x.
and rebelhon against her liege emperor, did the
Roman See obtain her " bad eminence." Almost
invariably was the papal power apphed to the worst
purposes ; in deposing and substituting monarchs ;
stirring up wars and tumults ; upholding anarchy
or despotism ; encouraging persecutions and mur
ders ; fomenting conspiracies, plots, and cabals.
In France, when Henry III. and IV. fell by the
hand of regicides, the Church of Rome sang Te
Deum on each occasion. In this country, whilst
John contended for his just prerogative, he was ex-
coramunicated, his subjects excited against him,
an intruder thrust into the primacy, and the king
dom given to a French invader. But when the
unhappy monarch had become the vassal of this
spiritual tyranny, and his people had wrested Mag
na Charta from him, they were excommunicated
in turn, the charter annulled, and the intrusive
primate and invader condemned. In a later period,
our first dissenters were excited by Romish agents.
The discontents against Charles I. were fanned by
the like emissaries : and in Ireland, the rebellion
was upheld by the nuncio, who arrived in that
Rome-ridden island, with bulls, benedictions, ana
themas, and the whole cargo of Church combusti
bles. He was general of the rebels ; ruled them
with sovereign authority ; and when they would

OF IDOLATRY, SCHISM, AND HERESY. 375
have returned to their allegiance, and had solemnly
sworn to do so, he absolved them from their oath,
and excommunicated those who kept it : to which
conduct Clarendon imputes the ruin of his master.
PHILODOX.
Y'ou are aware that Mr. Butler admits, that the
Pope " claimed, by divine gift, a right to exercise
supreme temporal power over all Christian sove
reigns, when a great good to religion required it ;
and that this claim was unfounded ? Both the Gos
pel and tradition declared against it." *
ORTHODOX.
How then can they trust their eternal interests
to a guide, who for ages " claimed by divine gift a
supreme power ", which the word of God did not
sanction; and perverted "the Gospel and tradition"
to estabhsh a tyranny opposed to both ? When
this twofold source of truth was thus stopped up,
were not all who reverenced the one and honoured
the other, bound by every tie, human and divine,
to re-open the fountain of salvation, and to tear
up these unhallowed dams which withheld its salu
tary streams ?
But Mr. Butler states not the principle with
* Book of the Roman Catholic Church, L. ix.

376 DIALOGUE X.
strict precision. The Church of Rorae, however
tyrannical and treacherous, seldom argued inde
pendently. Want of evidence generally compels
her to form her premises out of nothing ; but if she
can persuade us to admit these, the conclusion is
rarely illogical. If we allow her spiritual empire, she
boldly infers that temporal is therein coraprised ;
that the former cannot operate where the latter is
withheld ; that faith prescribes the rule of hfe, inas
much as Christian morahty derives its operative
principle therefrom. So argues Bellarmin, and
her ablest advocates. And who is the disputant
that has yet refuted them ?
PHILODOX.
Still Magna Charta, the basis of our civil and
religious liberties, was obtained in times when
Rome predominated. ORTHODOX.
So they fad not to remind us.^ — Perhaps Magna
Charta was, accidentally, the stepping-stone of free
dom. I say accidentally, for the feudal prelates
and barons who procured it, never contemplated so
wild a vision as civd and religious freedom would
have then appeared. But the impotent caprices of
a dastardly and usurping prince presented an op-

OF IDOLATRY, SCHISM, AND HERESY, 377
portunity of securing their own iraraunities, and re
storing the ancient privileges lost under the Norman
dynasty. And be this Charter what it raay, it was in
opposition to Rome that it was procured. In a gene
ral council were all its abettors and promoters de
nounced and condemned ; and monarchs enforced
by the barons to swear to it, were regularly absolved
by the Pope. Three several times was this the case
with Edward I.
England was in as abject slavery after the con
firmation of Magna Charta as before. The dawn
of our national prosperity opened with the Reform
ation. The restored light of the gospel dis
persed the damp of civil despotism, with the deeper
mists of superstition and error. The security of
our constitution rests upon the Habeas Corpus and
the Bill of Rights ; Protestant acts, purchased
through the fire, and happily ceraented by that
corner stone of freedora, a Protestant dynasty.
It is absurd to talk of the Roraan Church advo
cating or permitting religious liberty. The to
lerance of sects by our estabhshment excites their
severest animadversions. In fact, not more has in
falhble decree than inseparable , consequence an
nounced the guUt of toleration. She who claims
the arrogant title of "mistress of all Churches",
who expressly denounces the members of other

378 DIALOGUE X.
communities as "rebels" and " deserters", amenable
to be " tried, condemned, and punished ", when she
has the power, must be permanently and inherently
persecuting. Her talons may be clipped; her
weapons raay be wrested from her hand ; but that
inalienable right of responsible beings, accountabili
ty of opinion to Almighty God alone, exists not in
safety where Rome predominates in full possession
of her proud assumptions.
But it is time to bring our discussion to a close.
Let us then remember, that what are the present
characteristics of Catholicism, vt'cre heretofore the
features of heresy. Transubstantiation was intro
duced by the Eutychians ; and condemned ; but
now the great doctrine of Roman creed. The sa
cramental cup was first withheld by the Manichees ;
then denounced ; now approved. The first angel-
worshippers were the heretical sect of the Angelics ;
then condemned; now restored. The first worship
of the Virgin was the CoUyridian ; then heresy ;
now the universal practice. Adoration of images was
introduced by the Gnostics ; then anathematized ;
now maintained. The Apocrypha was rejected
by the primitive Church; now canonized. The
first Christians knew but two sacraments alone ;
now seven are adopted. A universal bishop was
heretofore denounced as the " forerunner of Anti-

OF IDOLATRY, SCHISM, AND HERESY. 379
christ"; but is now the link of union to the Cathohc
Church. If, then, to teach and practise what in the pri
raitive Church was heresy, be heretical ; and if to
violate and dispense with the obhgations of mo
rality and the laws of God, be heretical ; if to teach
and practise schism, be schismatical ; if to practise
and teach idolatry, be idolatrous ; then is the
Church of Rome heretical, for heresy she teaches
and practises ; then is she schismatical, for schisra
she practises and teaches ; then is she idolatrous,
for idolatry she practises and teaches. And if the
truth of even a portion of this censure has been es
tablished in our conferences. Infallibility vanishes,
like the " baseless fabric of a vision."
That many Romanists are ignorant of what their
Church really teaches ; that they know no more of
her than what their spiritual guides reveal, and
are less acquainted with many of her tenets than
with the dograas of the Koran ; ray own personal
knowledge of araiable and pious individuals bearing
the outward symbol of Rome, enables me to testify.
But all the gross and dangerous principles adverted
to she has promulged ; and as her glory is that she
can never vary, they stand at this day her recorded
creed ; sealed with the signet of infallibility, and
confirmed by the exclusion from salvation to all

380 DIALOGUE X,
who question or disown their verity. The Anghcan
Church has disowned them ; shrinks from alhance
with the community by which they are sanctioned ;
and protests against her perversions of the faith.
For that light of liberty and life which beams upon
this highly favoured land, which gives lustre to the
palace, and sheds joy and comfort upon the meanest
cottage, we are indebted to the establishment of
Protestantism ; to the labours and afflictions of our
Reformers, guided by the watchful care of Hira,
in whose unfailing promise the vessel of salvation
rides triumphant through the tempests of human
and infernal power, over the billows of a fallen
and rebellious world. The blessings which His un
deserved benignity hath conferred upon us, it is our
duty and our wisdom to preserve, at every peril,
unsullied and incorrupt, as our suffering fathers be
queathed them to us.
God grant, that neither our causeless divisions,
nor our inconsistent conduct, neither our insensibi
lity to, nor our neglect of, the manifold advantages
we possess, may provoke Him to withdraw these mer
cies from us. Every discerning friend of his coun
try's real honour, happiness, and peace, will not cease
to implore that presiding Spirit who hath led the
venerable guardian of the national faith in safety
through many a fiery trial, to sustain her, from age

OF IDOLATRY, SCHISM, AND HERESY. 381
to age, increasing in numbers, in extent, in piety, in
zeal ; keeping before her eyes that early time, when
the faith of Rome was " spoken of through all the
world"; and receiving the caution which her gradual
declension proclaims to every member and commu
nity of Christ, — that there is no charge so important
as the preservation of God's revealed will ; no de
posit which conveys so fearful a responsibility upon
those to whom it is committed ; no object, however
arduous and distant, so glorious in pursuit, as the
reduction of the Universal Church to her pristine
purity, abounding in its genuine fruits, unity, ho
liness, and love.

NOTES.

Page 132. " The Council of Florence was then sit
ting,'''' &c. — This oversight is so obvious as scarcely to need
correction. The Council of Florence was a continuation
of that of Ferrara, which was convened in consequence of
the arrival of the Greeks : the writer had confused in his
mind, the Council of Florence with that of Basil, which
" was then sitting ", in hostility to the Pope.
Distance and absence are said to be sources of the sub
lime. Those who venerate the grave names of General
Councils, will do well to enter into their penetralia, to
ascertain the evidence of that spiritual guidance, by which
they are assumed to be preserved from error. Sarpi, or
even Pallavicini, may suffice for the Council of Trent ;
and Sgyropulus will be a still more efficient guide to ex
plore the conclaves of Ferrara and Florence, " quorum
pars magna fuit."
Page 242. — The original of Augustin runs thus :
" Cultores dsemonum dicuntur mereri temporalia quse-
dam solatia." De Civ. Dei, L. v. — " Qui pro tot perse-
cutionibus et blasphemiis vas electionis meruit nominari."
De Pred. et Grat. — " Dura cervix in illo populo qui ex
omni mundo electus est, qui de servitute decern miractdis
meruit liberari." Ibid.

384 NOTES.
But the Vulgate itself uses the term meruit in the mere
signification to obtain ; as Gen. iv. 13. is thus rendered,
" Major est iniquitas mea, quam ut veniam merear'" ;
and still more obviously in Joshua, xi. 20, " Domini
enim sententia fuerat, ut indurarentur corda eorum, et
pugnarent contra Israel, et caderent, et non mererentur
ullam clementiam, ac perirent " ; which, rendered, " not
to obtain mercy ", is consistent with itself, as well as with
the Hebrew and Septuagint.

THE END.

G. Woodfall, Printer, Angel Court, Skinner Street, London.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 01266 4737

yf?

'^)^^.. :- V >'- ¦:, ,
G%'i'* < ''' . " >i ' '

ifieifefV'-/' -^^ 1.-