I
\
THE
END
OP
IN
A FRIENDLY CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN
A
Religious Society of Protestants^
AND A
Roman Catholic Divine.
Addressed to the Right Rev. Dr. BURGESS, Lord Bishop of St. DAVID'S, in Answer to his Lordship's Protestant's Catechism.
PJRT HI.
ON RECTIFYING MISTAKES CONCERNING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
BY THE REV. J. M.— -D, D.— F. S. A.
Hontwn :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED
By KEATING, BROWN and Co. No. 38, Duke-Street, Grosvenor-Square.
Sold also hy Messrs. TODD, and by BOLLAND, York ; SHARROCK,
Preston; CRAVEN and Co. Manchester; FARREL, Bir-
mingham ; R. COYNE, Parliament-Street, Dublin;
FERGUSON, Cork; and PHELAN, Waterford.
1318.
' It is a shame to charge men with what they are not guilty of, in order to 'make the breach wider, already too wide/— Dr. Montague, Bishop of Norwich. Inwc. of Saints, p. 60.
« Let them not lead people by the nose to believe they can prove their ' supposition, that the Pope is Antichrist, and the Papists idolaters, when < they cannot/— Dr. Herbert Thorndike, Prebendary of Westminster. Just Weights and Measures, p. 11.
' The object of their (the Catholics) adoration of the B. Sacrament is the ' only true and eternal God, hypostatically joined with his Holy Humanity, « which humanity they believe actually present under the veil of the sacra- « mental signs : and if they thought him not present, they are so far from ' worshipping the bread in this case, that themselves profess it to be idolatry ' to do so.'— Dr. Jeremy Taylor, Bishop of Down. Liberty of Prophesying, chap, xx.
•41
CONTENTS.
rttfft \V *fc\fc
PART. III.
LETTER XXXI.— To the Rev. J. M.— D. D.
Pag«
INTRODUCTION. — Effects produced by the fore- going Letters on the minds of Mr. Brown, and others of his Society. — This in part counteracted by the Bishop of London's (Dr. Porteus's) Charges against the Catholic Religion 1
LETTER XXXIL— To James Brown, Esq.
Observations on the Charges in question. — Impossi- bility of the True Church being guilty of them. ~ Just conditions to be required by a Catholic Divine in discussing them.— Calumny and misrepresenta» tion necessary weapons for the assailants of the True Church. — Instances of gross calumny pub- lished by eminent Protestant writers, now liv- ing*— Effects of these calumnies. — No Catholic ever shaken in his faith by them. — They occasion the conversion of many Protestants. — They ren- der their authors dreadfully guilty before God ^ 4
PART III. A
jv CONTENTS.
LETTER XXXIII.— To Do.
Page
Charge of Idolatry.— Protestantism not originally founded on this.— Invocation of the Prayers of Angels and Saints grossly misrepresented by Protestants .—truly stated from the Council of Trent, and Catholic Doctors.— Vindication of the practice.— Evasive attack of the Bishop of Dur- ham -.—Retorted upon his Lordship.— The prac- tice recommended by Luther .'--vindicated by distinguished Protestant Bishops.— Not imposed upon the faithful .—highly consoling and bene- ficial . . 18
.T; .V'M: »T -,!/:;->:
LETTER XXXIV.— To Do.
Religious Memorials. — Doctrine and practice of Catholics, most of all, misrepresented on this head.— Old Protestant versions of Scripture corrupted to favour such misrepresentation. Unbounded calumnies in the Homilies, and other Protestant publications. — True doctrine of the Catholic Church defined by the Council of Trent, and taught in her books of instruction. — Errors of Bishop Porteus, in fact and in reason- ing.—Inconsistency of his own practice. — No ob- ligation on Catholics of possessing pious images, pictures, or relics * - 'A/' 3J
LETTER XXXV.— To the Rev. Rob. Clayton, M. A
Objections refuted— That the Saints cannot hear us.— Extravagant addresses to Saints. — Want of candour in explaining them.— No evidence of
CONTENTS. V
Page the Faith of the Church. — Notorious falsehoods
of the Bishop of London, concerning the ancient doctrine and racticcj . . . ., ', 42
LETTER XXXVL— To James Brown, Esq.
Transubstantiation. — Important remark of Bishop Bossuet concerning it. —Catholics not worshippers of bread and wine. — Acknowledgment of some eminent Protestants — Disingenuity of others, in concealing the main question, and bringing forward another of secondary importance. — The Lutherans and the most respectable Prelates of the Establishment agree with Catholics on the main point ......... ... 49
LETTER XXXVII.— To Do.
The Real Presence. — Variations of the Established Church on this point.* — Inconsistency of her pre- sent doctrine concerning it. — Proofs of the Real Presence from Christ's promise of the Sacrament :
— From his institution of it. — The same proved from the ancient Fathers. — Absurd position, of
Bishop Port'eus, as to the origin of the tenet. — The reality strongly maintained by Luther. — Acknowledged by the most learned English Bishops and Divines.— Its superior excellence and sublimity ........... 56
LETTER XXX VIIL— To the Rev. R. Clayton, M, A.
Objections answered. — Texts of Scripture examined.
— Testimony of the senses weighed. — Alledged Contradictions disproved .,...,•• .71
A 2
VI CONTENTS.
LETTER XXXIX.— To James Brown, Esq.
Page
Communion under one or both kinds a matter of dis- cipline.— Protestants forced to recur to Tradi- tion and Church discipline. — The Blessed Eu- charist a Sacrifice as well as a Sacrament. — As a Sacrifice, both kinds necessary :—as a Sacrament, whole and entire under either kind. — Protestants receive no Sacrament at all. — The Apostles some- times administered the communion under one kind. —The Text, 1 Cor. xi. 27, corrupted in the Eng- lish Protestant Bible.— Testimonies of the Fa- thers for communion in one kind. — Occasion of the ordinances of St. Leo and Pope Gelasius.~- Discipline of the Church different at different times in this mat tor. —Luther allowed of Commu- nion in one kind ; — also the French Calvinists; — also the Church of England 78
LETTER XL.— To Do.
Excellence of Sacrifice. — Appointed by God. — Practiced by all people, except Protestants. — Sacrifice of the New Law, promised of old to the Christian Church. — Instituted by Christ. — The Holy Fathers bear testimony to it, and performed it. — St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews misinter- preted by the Bishops of London, Lincoln, fyc. • — Deception of talking of the Popish Mass. — In- consistency of Established Church in ordaining Priests without having a Sacrifice. — Irreligious invectives of Dr. Hey against the Holy Mass, Without his understanding it ! ...... 88
CONTENTS. Vli
LETTER XLL— To the Rev. R. Clayton, M. A.
Page
Absolution from sin. — Horrid misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine. — Real doctrine of the Church, defined by the Council of Trent. — This pure and holy. — Violent distortion of Christ's words con- cerning the forgiveness of sins by Bishop Porteus. — Opposite doctrine, of Chillingworth :—and of Luther and the Lutherans : — and of the Esta- blished Liturgy^ — Inconsistency of Bishop P. — Refutation of his arguments about confession ; — and of his assertions concerning the ancient doctrine. — Impossibility of imposing this prac- tice on mankind. — Testimony of Chillingworth as to the comfort and benefit of a good con- fession 99
LETTER XLIL— To Do.
Indulgences. — Unsupported false definition of them by the Bishop of London.— His further calum- nies on the subject. — Similar calumnies of other Protestant Prelates and Divines. — The genuine doctrine of Catholics. — No permission to commit sin. — No pardon of any future sin. — No pardon of sin at all. — No exemption from contrition or doing penance. — No transfer of superfluous holi- ness.— Retorsion of the charge on the Protestant tenet of imputed justice.— A mere relaxation of temporal punishment. — No encouragement of vice; but rather of virtue. — Indulgences au- thorized in all Protestant Societies. — Proofs of this in the Church of England.— Among the Anabaptists. — Among the ancient and modern
CONTENTS.
Page
Calvinists.— Scandalous Bulls, Dispensations, and Indulgences of Luther and his Disciples . . .117
,\V:^ .^ *>V\* ^^ '•.
LETTER XLIIL— To Do.
Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead. — Weak objection of Dr. Porteus against a middle state. —Scriptural arguments for it.— Dr. P.'s Appeal to Antiquity defeated.— Testimonies of Lutherans and English Prelates in favour of Prayers for the Dead. — Eminent modern Protestants, who proclaim a Universal Purgatory.— Consolations attending the Catholic belief and practice . .130
LETTER XLIV.— To Do.
Extreme Unction.— Clear proof of this Sacrament from Scripture. — Impiety and inconsistency of the Bishop in slighting this.— His Appeal to An- tiquity refuted • ^4
LETTER XLV.— To Do.
Antichrist : Impious assertions of Protestants con- cerning him.— Their absurd and contradictory systems.— Retorsion of the charge of Apostacy* —Other charges against the Popedom refuted . 149
LETTER XLVI.— To Do.
The Pope's Supremacy truly stated.— His spiritual authority proved from Scripture.— Exercised and acknowledged in the primitive ages.— St. Gre- gory's contest with the Patriarch of C. P. about the title of (Ecumenical.— Concessions of emi- nent Protestants
CONTENTS. ix
LETTER XLVIL—To James Brown, Jim. Esq.
Page
The language of the Liturgy and Reading the Scriptures. — Language a matter of discipline. — Reasons for the Latin Church retaining the Latin Language. — Wise (economy of the Church as to reading the Holy Scriptures. — Inconsis- tencies of the Bible Societies 182
*'.'••» •;>h>I;: ..I Ji;iTl
LETTER XLVIIL— To Do.
Various misrepresentations. — Canonical and Apo- cryphal books of Scripture. — Pretended invention of Jive new Sacraments. — Intention of Ministers of the Sacraments, — Continence of the Clergy — Re- commended by Parliament. — Advantages of fast* ing. — Deposition of Sovereigns by Popes far less frequent than by Protestant Reformers. — The Bishop's egregious falsehoods respecting the pri- mitive Church 195
LETTER XLIX.— To Do.
Religious Persecution. — The Catholic Church claims no right to inflict sanguinary punishments, but disclaims it. — The right of temporal Princes and States in this matter. — Meaning of Can. 3, La- teran iv. truly stated. — Queen Mary persecuted as a Sovereign, not as a Catholic. — James II de- posed for refusing to persecute. — Retorsion of the charge on Protestants the most effectual way of silencing them upon it. — Instances of Perse- cution by Protestants in every Protestant country: in Germany : in Switzerland: at Ge-
CONTENTS.
Page
and in France : in Holland : in Sweden : in Scotland: in England. — Violence and long continuance of it here. — Eminent loyalty of Catholics. — Two circumstances which distinguish- ed the persecution exercised by Catholics from that exercised by Protestants < £06
LETTER L.— To the Friendly Society of New Cottage.
Conclusion. — Recapitulation of points proved in these letters.— The True Rule of Faith :—The True Church of Christ. — Falsity of the charges alledged against her.— An equal moral evidence for the Catholic as for the Christian Religion. — The former, by the confession of its adversaries, the safer side, — No security too great where Eternity is at stake ! 238
ERRATA.
Page 8J, line 8, for corruption read eruption. 1, N
Ibid, 1, Note, (in some copies) for dnuofon read found no.
46» 9> for to practise in read to practise it in.
6J, 18, for it read he.
147, 2, for as to warrant read as to the warrant.
165, 12, Note,/or denounced read renounced.
~t^ ' .W. RaiclyffeSct
I AM BLACKENED! BUT I AM BEAUTIFUL FAIR AS THE MOCXN, BRIGHT . AS
THE SUN, TERRIBLE AS AN ARMY SET TN ARRAY.
Solomons Canticle 1.4 .VI. 9.
THE
END
OF
MELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY.
PART III.
LETTER XXXI.
From JAMES BROWN, Esq. to the Rev. J. M. D.D. F. S. A.
INTRODUCTION.
REVEREND SIR,
JL HE whole of your letters have again been read over in our Society ; and they have produced important though diversified effects on the minds of its several members. For my own part, I am free to own that, as your former letters convinced me of the truth of your Rule of Faith, namely the entire Word of God, and of the right of the true Church to expound it in all questions concerning its meaning; so your subsequent letters have satisfied me that the characters or marks of the true Church, as they are laid down in our common Creeds, are clearly visible in the Roman Catholic Church, and not in the col- lection of Protestant Churches, nor in any one of PART in. B
2 LETTER XXXI,
them. This impression was, at first, so strong upon my mind that I could have answered you nearly in the worcls of King Agrippa to St. Paul: Almost thou persuadest me to become a Catholic, Acts xxvi. 28. The same appear to be the sentiments of several of my friends : but when, on comparing our notes together, we considered the heavy charges, particularly of super- stition and idolatry, brought against your Church by our eminent Divines, and especially by the Bishop of London (Dr. Porteus), and never that we have heard of, refuted or denied, we cannot but tread back the steps we had taken towards you, or rather stand still, where we are, in suspense, till we hear what answer you will make to them : I speak of those contained in the Bishop's well known treatise called A Brief Confuta- tion of the Errors of the Church of Rome. With re- spect to certain other members of our Society, I am sorry to be obliged to say that, on this particular sub- ject, I mean the arguments in favour of your Religion, they do not manifest the candour and good sense, which are natural to them, and which they shew on every other subject. They pronounce, with confidence and vehe- mence, that Dr. Porteus's charges are all true, and that you cannot make any rational answer to them, at the same time, that several of these Gentlemen, to my know- ledge, are very little acquainted with the substance of them. In short, they are apt to load your Religion
INTRODUCTION. 3
and the professors of it, with epithets and imputations too gross and injurious for me to repeat, convinced as I am of their falsehood. I shall not be surprised to hear that some of these imputations have been trans- mitted to you by the persons in question, as I have declined making my letters the vehicle of them ; it is a justice, however, which I owe them to assure you, Rev. Sir, that it is only since they have understood the inference of your arguments to be such as to im- ply an obligation on them of renouncing their own respective religions, and embracing yours, that they have been so unreasonable and violent Till this period they appeared to be nearly as liberal and charitable with respect to your communion as to any other.
I am, Rev. Sir, &c.
JAMES BROWN.
LETTER XXXII.
To JAMES BROWN, Eig.
ON THE CHARGES AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. PEAR SIR,
I SHOULD be guilty of deception were I to disguise the satisfaction I derive from your and your friends near approach to the House of Unify and Peace, as St. Cyprian calls the Catholic Church : for such I must judge your situation to be from the tenor of your last letter, by which it seems to me, that your entire reconciliation with this Church depends on my refuting Bp. Porteus's objections against it : and yet, Dear Sir, if I were to insist on the strict rules of rea- soning, I might take occasion of complaining of you from the very concessions which afford me so much pleasure. In fact, if you admit that the Church of God, is, by his appointment, the interpreter of the en- tire word of God, you ought to pay attention to her doctrine on every point of it, and not to the suggesti- ons of Dr. Porteus or your own fancy in opposition to it. Again ; if you are convinced that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolical Church is the True Church of God, you ouglit to be persuaded that it is utterly
CHARGES AGAINST THE CHURCH. 5
impossible she should inculcate idolatry, superstition, or any other wickedness, and, of course, that those who believe her to be thus guilty are and must be in a fatal error. I have proved from reason, tradition and Holy Scripture, that, as individual Christians can- not of themselves judge with certainty of matters of faith, God has therefore provided them with an un- erring guide, in his Holy Church ; and hence that Catholics, as Tertullian and St. Vincent of Lerins em- phatically pronounce, cannot strictly and consistently, be required by those who are not Catholics, to vindi- cate the particular tenets of their belief, either from Scripture or any other ^authority : it being sufficient for them to shew that they hold the doctrine of the True Church which all Christians are bound to hear. Nevertheless, as it is my duty, after the example of the Apostle, to become all things to all men, 1 Cor. ix. 22, and as we Catholics are conscious of being able to meet our opponents on their own ground, as well as on ours, I am willing, Dear Sir, for your and your friends satisfaction, to enter on a brief discussion of the lead- ing points of controversy which are agitated between the Catholics and the Protestants, particularly those of the Church of England. I must, however, previously stipulate with you for the following conditions, which I trust you will find perfectly reasonable.
1st. I require that Catholics should be permittee} ta
6 LETTER XXXTI.
lay down their own principles of belief and practice, and, of course, to distinguish between their articles of faith in which they must all agree, and mere scholastic opinions, of which every individual may judge for him- self; as, likewise, between the authorized liturgy and discipline of the Church and the unauthorized devotions and practices of particular persons. I insist upon this preliminary, because it is the constant practice of your controversialists to dress up a hideous figure, composed of their own misrepresentations, or else of those un- defined opinions and unauthorized practices, which they call Popery ; and then to amuse their readers or hearers with exposing the deformity of it and pulling it to pieces ; and I have the greater right to insist upon this preliminary, because our Creeds and Professions of Faith, the Acts of our Councils and our approved Ex- positions and Catechisms, containing the Principles of our belief and practice, from which no real Catholic in any part of the world can ever depart, are before the public and upon constant sale among booksellers.
2dly. It being a notorious fact that certain indivi- dual Christians, or bodies of Christians, have departed from the faith and communion of the Church of all nations, under pretence that they had authority for so doing, it is necessary that their alledged authority should be express, and incontrovertible. Thus, for example, if texts of scripture are brought for this pur-
CHARGES AGAINST THE CHURCH. 7
pose, it is evidently necessary that such texts should be clear iu themselves and not contrasted by any other texts seemingly of an opposite meaning. In like man- ner, when any doctrine or practice appears to be un- deniably sanctioned by a Father of the Church, for example, of the third or the fourth century, without an appearance of contradiction from any other Father, or ecclesiastical writer, it is unreasonable to affirm that he or his contemporaries were the authors of it, as Protestant Divines are in the habit of affirming. On the contrary, it is natural to suppose that such Father has taken up this with the other points of his Religion from his predecessors, who received them from the Apostles. This is the sentiment of that bright lumi- nary St. Augustin, who says : c Whatever is found to 'be held by the Universal Church, and not to have had ' its beginning in Bishops and Councils, must be es- c teemed a Tradition from those by whom the Church ' itself was founded.' (l)
You judged right in supposing that I have received some letters, containing virulent and gross invectives against the Catholic Religion, from certain members of your Society. These do not surprise or hurt me, as the writers of them have probably not yet had an opportunity of knowing much more of tfyis Religion
'•} • .••'•' t J •? • - ' ':, * • t ' '•'"» '
I Lib. ii% DC
8 LETTER XXXII.
than what they could collect from fifth of November and other sermons of the same tendency, and from cir- culated pamphlets expressly calculated to inflame the population against it and its professors; but what truly surprises and afflicts me is, that so many other personages in a more elevated rank of life, whose education and studies enable them to form a more just idea of the religious and moral principles of their ancestors, bene- factors and founders, in short of their acknowledged Fathers and Saints, should combine to load these Fa- thers and Saints with calumnies and misrepresenta- tions which they must know to be utterly false. But, a bad cause must be supported by bad means : they are unfortunately implicated in a revolt against the True Church ; and not having the courage and self-denial to acknowledge their error and return to her commu- nion, they endeavour to justify their conduct by inter- posing a black and hideous mask before the fair coun- tenance of this true mother, Christ's spotless Spouse. This is so far true, that when, as it often happens, a Protestant is, by dint of argument, forced out of his errors and prejudices against the true Religion, if he be pressed to embrace it, and wants grace to do it, he is sure to fly back to those very calumnies and misre- presentations which he had before renounced. The fact is, he must fight with these, or yield himself un- armed to his Catholic opponent.
CHARGES AGAIXST THE CHURCH. 9
That you and your friends may not think me, Dear Sir, to have complained without just cause of the pub- lications and sermons of the respectable characters I have alluded to, I must inform you that I have now- lying before me a volume called Good Advice to the Pulpits, consisting of the foulest and most malignant falsehoods against the Catholic Religion and its pro- fessors, which tongue or pen can express, or the most envenomed heart conceive. It was collected from the sermons and treatises of Prelates and Dignitaries, by that able and faithful writer, the Rev. John Gother, soon after the gall of calumnious ink had been mix- ed up with t the blood of slaughtered Catholics ; a score of whom were executed as traitors for a pretended plot to murder their friend and proselyte, Charles II; a plot which was hatched by men who themselves were soon after convicted of a real assassination plot against the King. At that time, the Parliaments were so blinded as repeatedly to vote the reality of the plot in question : hence it is easy to judge with what sort of language the pulpits would resound against the poor devoted Catholics at that period. But without quot- ing from former records, I need only refer to a few of the publications of the present day to justify my complaint. — To begin with some of the numberless slanders contained in the No Popery Tract of the Bishop of London, Dr. Porteus : he charges Ca-
PART in. C
10 LETTER XXXII.
tholics with ' senseless Idolatry to the infinite
* scandal of Religion (1);' with trying * to make the ' ignorant think that indulgences deliver the dead
* from hell (2) ;' and that by means of ' zeal for Holy ' Church, the worst man may be secured from future mi- ' sery (5) :' and the Bishop of St. Asaph, Dr. Halifax, charges Catholics with ' Antichristian Idolatry (4), ' the worship of demons (5), and Idol Mediators (6)/ He, moreover, maintains it to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome that * pardon for every sin, whether
* committed or designed, may be purchased for 6 money (7). The Bishop of Durham, Dr, Shute Bar- ringtail, accuses them of * Idolatry, Blasphemy, ' and Sacrilege (8).' The Bishop of Landaif, Dr. Watson, impeaches the Catholic Priests, Marty ro- logists, and Monks without exception, of the ' hypocrisy of liars (9) ;' and he lays it down, as the moral doctrine of Catholics, that ' humility, tem-
* perance, justice, the love of God and man, are not ' laws for all Christians, but only counsels of perfec- ' tion (10).' He elsewhere says : 'that the Popish Reli-
* gion is the Christian Religion, is a false position (l 1).'
(1) Confutation, p. 39, edit. 1796. (2) Ibid. p. 53. (3) Ibid. p. (4) Warburtqn's Lectures, p. 191. (5) Ibid. p. 355.
55.
(6) Ibid. p. 353. (7) Ibid. p. 347
(8) Charge, p. 11.
(9) Letter II. to Gibbon.
(10) Bishop Watson's Tracts, vol. i.
(11) Ibid. vol. v. Contents.
CHARGES AGAINST THE CHURCH. 11
He has, moreover, adopted and republished the senti- ments of some of his other mitred brethren to the same purpose. One of these asserts that, ' instead of wor-
* shipping God through Christ, they (the Catholics) ' have substituted the doctrine of demons (!)•' 'They ' have contrived numberless ways to make a holy life € needless, and to assure the most abandoned of salva- ' tion, without repentance, provided they will suffi- ' ciently pay the priest for absolution (2).' ' They ' have consecrated murders, &c.' (3). ' The Papists ' stick fast in filthy mire — by the affection they bear ' to other lusts, which their errors are fitted to gra- ctify(4).' ' It is impossible that any sincere person 'should give an implicit assent to many of their ' doctrines : but, whoever can practice upon them, can ' be nothing better than a most shamefully debauched 1 and immoral wretch (5).' Another Prelate, of later promotion, gives a comprehensive idea of Catholics, where he calls them ' Enemies of all law, human and
* divine (6).' If such be the tone of the episcopal bench, it would be vain to expect more moderation from the candidates for it : but I must contract my
(1) Bishop Benson's Tracts, vol. v. p. 272.
(2) Ibid. p. 273.
(3) Ibid. p. 282.
(4) Bishop Fowler, vol. vi. p. 286.
(5) Ibid. p. 387.
(6) Dr. Sparke, Bishop of Ely, Concio. ad Synod. 1807,
12 LETTER XXXJLI.
quotations in order to proceed to more important matter. One of these, who, while he was content with an inferior dignity, acted and preached as the friend of Catholics, since he has arrived at the verge of the high- est, proclaims * Popery to be Idolatry and Antichristi- ' anism ;' maintaining, as does also the Bishop of Dur- ham, that it is ' the parent of Atheism, and of that Anti-
* Christian persecution* (in France) of which it was ex- clusively the victim (l). Another dignitary of the same Cathedral, taking up Dr. Sparke's calumny, seriously declares that the Catholics are Antinomians (2), which is the distinctive character of the Jumpers, and other rank Calvinists. Finally, the celebrated City Preacher, C. De Coetlogon, among similar graces of oratory, pronounces that ' Popery is calculated only for the
* meridian of hell. To say the best of it that can
* be said : Popery is a most horrid compound of Idola-
* try, superstition, and blaphemy (3).' ' The exercise
* of Christian virtues is not at all necessary in 1 its members; nay, there are many heinous crimes, ' which are reckoned virtues among them, such as 'perjury and murder, when committed against here-
(1) Discourses of Dr. Rennel, Dean of Winchester, p. 140, &c.
(2) Charge of Dr. Hook, Archdeacon, &c. p. 5, &c.
(5) Seasonable Caution against the Abominations of the Church of Rome, Fret p. 5.
CHARGES AGAINST THE CHURCH. 13
'tics(l).' — And is such then, Dear Sir, the real character of the great body of Christians through- out the world ? Is such a true picture of our Saxon and English ancestors ? Were such the Clergy from whom these modern preachers and writers derive their liturgy, their ritual, their honours and benefices, and from whom they boast of deriving their Orders and mission also ? But, after all, do these preachers and writers them- selves seriously believe such to be the true character of their Catholic countrymen, and the primitive Re- ligion ? — No, Sir, they do not seriously believe it
(1) Ibid. p. 14.
(2) This may be exemplified by the conduct of Dr. Wake, Archbishop of
Canterbury. Few writers had misrepresented the Catholic Religion more
foully than he had done in his controversial works : even in his commentary
on the Catechism, he accuses it of heresy, schism, and idolatry ; but, having
entered into a correspondence with Dr. Dupin, for the purpose of uniting
their respective Churches, he assures the Catholic divine, in his last letter
to him, as follows : ' In dogmatibus, prout a te candide proponuntur, non
' admodum dissentimus : in regimine ecclesiastico minus : in fundamenta-
' libus, sive doctrinam, sive disciplinam spectemus, vix omnino.' Append.
to Mosheim's Hist, vol. vi. p. 121. - The present writer has been informed,
on good authority, that one of the Bishops, whose calumnies are here
quoted, when he found himself on his death-bed, refused the profered
ministry of the primate, and expressed a great wish to die a Catholic. When
urged to satisfy his conscience, he exclaimed : What then will become of my
lady and my children ! Certain it is that very many Protestants, who had
been the most violent in their language and conduct against the
Catholic Church, as for example, John, Elector of Saxony, Margaret,
Queen of Navarre, Cromwell, Lord Essex, Dudley, Earl of Northum-
berland, King Charles II, the late Lords Montague, Nugent, Dun-
boyne, &c. did actually reconcile themselves to the Catholic Church
in that situation. The writer may add, that another of the calum-
niators here quoted, being desirous of stifling the suspicion of his having
written an anonymous No-Popery publication, when first he took part in
14 LETTER XXXII.
but being unfortunately engaged, as I said before, in an hereditary revolt against the Church, which shines forth conspicuous, with every feature of truth in her countenance, and wanting the rare grace of acknowledging their error, at the expence of tem- poral advantages, they have no other defence for them- selves but clamour and calumny, no resource for shrouding those beauteous features of the Church, but by placing before them the hideous mask of misre- presentation !
Before I close this letter, I cannot help expressing an earnest wish that it were in my power to suggest three most important considerations to all and every one of the theological calumniators in question. I pass over their injustice and cruelty towards us; though this bears some resemblance with the barbarity of Nero towards our predecessors, the first Christians of Rome, who disguised them in the skins of wild beasts, and then hunted them to death with dogs. But Christ has warned us as follows : It is enough for the disciple to be as his master ; if they have called the master of the house Beelzebub : how much more them of his household. In fact, we know that those our above-
that cause, privately addressed himself to the writer in these terms : How can you suspect me of writing against your Religion, uhen you so well know my attachment to it ! In fact, this modern Luther, among other similar concessions, has said thus to the writer: I sucked in a love fur the Catholic Religion with my mother's milk.
CHARGES AGAINST THE CHURCH. 15
mentioned predecessors were charged with worshipping the head of an ass, and of killing and eating chil- dren, &c.
The first observation which I am desirous of making to these controvertists is, that their charges and in- vectives against Catholics never unsettles the faith of a single individual amongst us ; much less do they cause any Catholic to quit our communion. This we are sure of, because, after all the pains and expenses of the Protestant Societies to distribute Dr. Porteus's Confutation of Popery, and other Tracts in the houses and cottages of Catholics, not one of the latter ever comes to us, their Pastors, to be furnished with an answer to the accusations contained in them ; the truth is, they previously know from their catechisms, the falsehood of them. Sometimes, no doubt, a disso- lute youth, from c libertinism of principle and prac- 1 tice,'as one of the above-mentioned Lords loudly pro- claimed of himself, on his death-bed ; and sometimes an ambitious or avaricious Nobleman or Gentleman, to get honour or wealth ; finally, sometimes a profligate Priest, to get a wife, or a living, forsakes our com- munion ; but, I may challenge Dr. Porteus to pro- duce a single proselyte from Popery throughout the Dioceses of Chester and London, who has been gained by his book against it: and I may say the same with
16 LETTER XXXII*
respect to the Bishop of Durham's No Popery Charges throughout the Dioceses of Sarum and Durham.
A second point of still greater importance for the consideration of these distinguished preachers and writers is, that their flagrant misrepresentation of the Catholic Religion, is constantly an occasion of the conversion of several of their own most upright mem- bers to it. Such Christians, when they fall into company with Catholics, or get hold of their books, cannot fail of inquiring whether they are really those monsters of idolatry, irreligion and immorality, which those Divines have represented them to be; when, disco- vering how much they have been deceived in these re- spects, by misrepresentation ; and, in short, viewing now the fair face of the Catholic Church, instead of the hideous mask which had been placed before it, they seldon fail to become enamoured of it, and, in case Religion is their chief concern, to become our very best Catholics.
The most important point, however, of all others for the consideration of these learned theologues, is the following : We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ^ to be examined on our observance of that commandment, among the rest, thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour; supposing then these their clamorous charges against their Catholic
CHARGES AGAINST THB CHURCH. 17
neighbours, of idolatry, blasphemy, perfidy, and thirst of blood, should then appear, as they most certainly will appear, to be calumnies of the worst sort, what will it avail their authors that these have answered the temporary purpose of preventing the emancipation of Catholics, and of rousing the popular hatred and fury against them ! Alas ! what will it avail them !
I am, Dear Sir, yours, Sec.
J,M.
PART
18 LETTER XXXIIL
To JAMES BROWN, Esq.
ON THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. DEAR SIR,
THE first and most heavy charge which Protestants bring against Catholics, is that of Idolatry. They say, that the Catholic Church has been guilty of this crime and apostacy, by sanction- ing the Invocation of Saints, and the worship of images and pictures ; and that on this account they have been obliged to abandon her communion, in obedience to the voice from heaven saying : Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. Rev. xviii. 4. Nevertheless, it is certain, Dear Sir, that Protestantism was not founded on this ground either in Germany or in England : for Luther warmly defended the Catholic doctrine in both the aforesaid particulars, and our English reformers, particularly King Edward's uncle, the Duke of Somerset, only took up this pretext of Idolatry, as the most popular, in order to revolu- tionize the ancient Religion, which they were carry- ing on from motives of avarice and ambition. The
INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 19
same reasons, namely that this charge of Idolatry is best calculated to inflame the ignorant against the Catholic Church, and to furnish a pretext for desert- ing her, have caused Protestant controvertists to keep up the outcry against her ever since, and to vie with each other in the foulness of their misrepresentation of her doctrine in this particular.
To speak first of the Invocation of Saints : Arch- bishop Wake, [who afterwards, as we have seen, ac- knowledged to Dr. Dupin, that there was no funda- mental difference between his doctrine and that of Catholics] in his popular Commentary on the Church Catechism, maintains that 'The Church of Rome has ' other Gods besides the Lord (l).' Another Prelate, whose work has been lately republished by the Bishop of Landaflf, pronounces of Catholics, that, ' Instead
* of worshipping Christ, they have substituted the doc-
* trine of demons (2).' In the same blasphemous terms, Mede, and a hundred other Protestant controvertists, speak of our Communion of Saints. The Bishop of London, among other such calumnies, charges us with ' Bringing back the heathen multitude of deities into ' Christianity ;' that we ' Recommend ourselves to
* some favourite saint, not by a religious life, but by
(1) Sect. 2—3.
(3) Bishop Watson's Theol. Tracts, vol. v. p. 272..
20 LETTER XXXIII.
' flattering addresses and costly presents, and often
* depend much more on his intercession, than on our
* Blessed Saviour's ;' and that, ' being secure of the ' favour of these courtiers of heaven, we pay little re- 1 gard to the King of it(l).' Such is the misrepresen- tation of the doctrine and practice of Catholics on this point, which the first ecclesiastical characters in the nation publish ; because, in fact, their cause has not a leg to stand on, if you take away misrepresentation ! Let us now hear what is the genuine doctrine of the Catholic Church in this article, as solemnly defined by the Pope, and near 300 Prelates of different nations, <at the Council of Trent, in the face of the whole , world : it is simply this, that ' The Saints reigning
* with Christ offer up their prayers to God for men ; ' that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, 1 and to have recourse to their prayers, help, and as-
* sistance, to obtain favours from God, through his Son
* Jesus Christ our Lord, who is alone our Redeemer and
* Saviour (2,).' Hence the Catechism of the Council of Trent, published in virtue of its decree (3), by order of Pope Pius V, teaches, that ' God and the ' Saints are not to be prayed to in the same manner ; ' for we pray to God that he himself would give us good
(1) Brief Confut. pp. 23, 25.
(2) Concil. Trid. Sess, 25. de Invoc.
(3) Sess. 24. de Ref. c. 7.
INVOCATION OF SAINTS. £1
' things, and deliver us from evil things ; but we beg of ' the Saints, because they are pleasing to God, that 6 they would be our advocates, and obtain from God 6 what we stand in need of (1).' Our first English Catechism for the instruction of children, says : ' We * are to honour saints and angels as God's special 4 friends and servants, but not with the honour which ' belongs to God.' Finally, The Papist Misrepresented and Represented, a work of great authority among Catholics, first published by our eminent divine Go- ther, and republished by our venerable Bishop, Challo- ner, pronounces the following anathema against that idolatrous phantom of Catholicity, which Protestant controvertists have held up for the identical Catholic Church : ' Cursed is he that believes the saints in hea- ' ven to be his redeemers, that prays to them as such, ' or that gives God's honour to them, or to any creature
' whatsoever. Amen.' * Cursed is every goddess-
e worshipper, that believes the B. Virgin Mary to be
* any more than a creature ; that worships her, or puts ' his trust in her more than in God, that belreves her
* above her Son, or that she can in any thing command
* him. Amen (2).'
You see, Dear Sir, how widely different the doctrine of Catholics, as defined by our Church, and really
(1) Pars IV. Quis orandus.
(2) Pap. Misrep. Abridg. p. 78.
22 LETTER XXXIII.
held by us, is from the caricature of it, held up by in- terested preachers and controvertists, to scare and inflame an ignorant multitude. So far from making gods and goddesses of the saints, we firmly hold it to be an article of faith, that, as they have no virtue or excellence but what has been gratuitously bestowed upon them by God, for the sake of his Incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, so they can procure no benefit for us, but by means of their prayers to the Giver of all good gifts, through their and our common Saviour, Jesus Christ. In short, they do nothing for us mortals in heaven, but what they did while they were here on earth, and what all good Christians are bound to do for each other, namely, they help us by their prayers. The only difference is, that as the saints ,in heaven are free from every stain of sin and imperfection, and are confirmed in grace and glory, so their prayers are far more efficacious for obtaining what they ask for, than are the prayers of us imperfect and sinful mortals. In short, our Protestant brethren will not deny that St. Paul was in the practice of begging for the prayers of the churches to which he addressed his epistles, Rom. xv. 30, &c. and that the Almighty himself command- ed the friends of Job to obtain his prayers for the pardon of their sins, Job xlii. 8; and moreover, that they themselves are accustomed to pray publicly for one another. Now these concessions, together with
INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 23
the authorized exposition of our doctrine, laid down above, are abundantly sufficient to refute most of the remaining objections of Protestants against it. In vain, for example, does Dr. Porteus quote the text of St. Paul, 1 Tim. ii. 5, There is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus : for we grant that Christ alone is the Mediator of Salvation; but if he argues from thence, that there is no other mediator of intercession, he would condemn the conduct of St. Paul, of Job's friends, and of his own Church. In vain does he take advantage of the ambiguous meaning of the word worship, in Mat. iv. 10; because, if the question be about a divine adoration, we restrain this as strictly to God, as he can do; but if it be about merely honouring the saints, we cannot censure that, without censuring other passages of Scripture( 1 ), and condemning the Bishop himself, who expressly says: 1 The saints in heaven we love and honour (2).' In
(1) The word worship, in this place, is used for supreme divine homage, as appears by the original Greek : whereas in St. Luke xiv. 10, the English translators make use of it for the lowest degree of respect : Thou shalt hate worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. The latter is the proper meaning of the word worship, as appears by the marriage service : With my body I thee worship, and by the designation of the lowest order of magistrates, his Worship Mr. Alderman N. Nevertheless, as the word may be differently interpreted, Catholics abstain from applying it to persons or things inferior to God : making use of the words honour and veneration in their regard ; words which, so applied, even Bishop Porteus approves us. Thus it appears, that the heinous charge of idolatry brought against Catho- lics for their respect towards the saints, is grounded on nothing but the mis* taken meaning of a word ! (?) P. 23.
24 LETTER XXXIII.
vain does he quote Revel, xix. 10, where the angel refused to let St. John prostrate himself, and adore him 5 because, if the mere act itself, independently of the Evangelist's mistaking him for the Deity, was for- bidden, then the three angels, who permitted Abraham to bow himself to the ground before them, were guilty of a crime, Gen. xviii. 2, as was that other angel, be- fore whom Josuah fell on his face and worshipped. Jos. v. 14-
The charge of Idolatry against Catholics, for merely honouring those whom God honours, and for desiring them to pray to God for us, is too extravagant, to be any longer published by Protestants of learning and character ; accordingly, the Bishop of Durham is con- tent with accusing us of Blasphemy, on the latter part of the Charge. What he says is this : ' It is blasphe- 4 my, to ascribe to Angels and Saints, by praying to ( them, the divine attribute of universal presence (l).' To say nothing of his Lordship's new-invented blas- phemy, I should be glad to ask him, how it follows, from my praying to an angel or a saint in any place, that I necessarily believe the angel or saint to be in that place? Was Elisha really in Syria when he saw the ambush prepared there for the King of Israel ? & Kings vi. 9. Again: we know that There is joy
(1) Charge 1810, p. 12.
INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 25
before the angels of God over one sinner that repent eth, Luke xv. 10. Now, is it by visual rays, or undulating sounds, that these blessed spirits in heaven know what passes in the hearts of men upon earth ? How does his Lordship know, that one part of the saint's felicity may not consist in contemplating the wonderful ways of God's providence with all his creatures here on earth ? But, without recurring to this supposition, it is sufficient for dissipating the Bishop's uncharitable phantom of blasphemy, and Calvin's profane jest about the length of the Saint's ears, that God is able to reveal to them the prayers of Christians who address them here on earth. — In case I had the same opportu- nity of conversing with this Prelate, which I once en- joyed, I should not fail to make the following obser- vation to him: My Lord, you publicly maintain, that the act of praying to Saints, ascribes to them the divine attribute of universal presence ; this you call blasphemy : now it appears, by the Articles and In- junctions of your Church, that you believe in the existence and efficacy of l sorceries, enchantments, * and witchcraft, invented by the devil, to pro* ' cure his counsel or help(l),' wherever the con-
(1) Injunctions, A. D. 1559. Bishop Sparrow's Collection, p. 89. Ar- ticles, ibid. p. 180.
PART III. E
Q6 LETTER XXXIII.
juror or witch may chance to be ; do you, therefore, ascribe the divine attribute of universal presence to the devil? You must assert this, or you must with- draw your charge of blasphemy against the Catholics for praying to the Saints.
That it is lawful and profitable to invoke the prayers of the Angels is plain from Jacob's asking and obtaining the Angel's blessing, with whom he had mystically wrestled, Gen. xxxii. 26, and from his invoking his own Angel to bless Joseph's sons, Gen. xlvii. 16- The same is also sufficiently plain, with respect to the Saints, from the Book of Revelations, where the four and twenty Elders in heaven are said to have, Golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the Saints. Rev. v. 8. The Church, however, derived her doctrine on this and other points im- mediately from the Apostles, before any part of the New Testament was written. The tradition was so ancient and universal, that all those Eastern Churches, which broke off from the central Church of Rome, a great many ages before Protestantism was heard of, perfectly agree with us in honouring and invoking the Angels and Saints. I have said that the Patriarch of Protestantism, Martin Luther, <J5d not find any thing idolatrous in the doctrine or practice of the Church with respect to the Saints, So far from this, he exclaims : ' Who can deny that God works great
INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 27
* miracles at the tombs of the Saints ! I therefore, with ' the whole Catholic Church, hold that the Saints are 'to be honoured and invocated by us (l).' In the same spirit he recommends this devotion to dying persons : ' Let no one omit to call upon the B. Virgin 1 and the Angels and Saints, that they may intercede 1 with God for them at that instant (2).' I may add that several of the brightest lights of the Established Church, such as Archbishop Sheldon and the Bishops Blanford (3), Gunning (4), Montague, &c. have alto- gether abandoned the charge of idolatry against Ca- tholics on this head. The last mentioned of them says : ' I own that Christ is not wronged in his media- ' tion. It is no impiety to say, as they (the Catholics) 1 do : Holy Mary pray for me ; Holy Peter pray for ' me (5) ;' whilst the candid Prebendary of West- minster warns his brethren * not to lead people by the 6 nose, to believe they can prove Papists to be idolaters
* when they cannot (6).'
In conclusion, Dear Sir, you will observe that the Council of Trent, barely teaches that it is good and profitable to invoke the prayers of the Saints; hence
(1) In Purg. quoramd. Artie. Tom. i. Cermet. Ep. ad Georg. Spalat.
(2) Luth. Prep, ad Mort.
(3) See Duchess of York's Testimony in Brunswick's 50 Reasons.
(4) Burnet's Hist, of his own Times, Vol. i. p. 437.
(5) Treat, of Invoc. of Saints, p. 118.
(6) Thomdike, Just Weights, p. 10.
E2
28 LETTER XXXIII.
our Divines infer that there is no positive law of the Church, incumbent on all her children to pray to the Saints (l) : nevertheless, what member of the Catholic Church militant will fail to communicate with his brethren of the Church triumphant ! What Catholic, believing in the Communion of Saints, and that * the * Saints reigning with Christ pray for us, and that it is ' good and profitable for us to invoke their prayers/ will forego this advantage ! How sublime and consol- ing ! how animating is the doctrine and practice of true Catholics, compared with the opinions of Protestants ! We hold daily and hourly converse, to our unspeakable comfort and advantage, with the Angelic Choirs, with the venerable Patriarchs arid Prophets of ancient times, with the heroes of Christianity, the Blessed Apostles and Martyrs, and with the bright ornaments of it in later ages, the Bernards, the Xaviers, the Teresas and the Sales's : they are all members of the Catholic Church. Why should not you, partake of this advantage? Your soul, you complain, Dear Sir, is in trouble; you lament that your prayers to God are not heard : continue to pray to him with all the fervour of your soul ; but why not engage his friends and courtiers to add the weight of their prayers to your own ? Perhaps Jiis Divine Majesty may hear the prayers of the Jobs
(1) Petavius, Suarez, Wallenburg, Mura'.on, Nat. Alex.
INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 29
when he will not listen to those of an Eliphaz, a Bildad or a Zophar. Job xlii. You believe, no doubt, that you have an Angel guardian, appointed by God to protect you, conformably to what Christ said of the children presented to him : Their Angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven, Mat. xviii. 10: address yourself to this blessed spirit with gratitude, veneration and confidence. You believe also that, among the Saints of God, there is one of superemi- nent purity and sanctity, pronounced by an Archangel to be, not only gracious, but ' full of grace ;' the chosen instrument of God in the incarnation of his Son, and the intercessor with this her Son, in obtain- ing his first miracle, that of turning water into wine, at a time, when his ' time' for appearing to the world by miracles, was ' not yet come.' John iii. 4. ' It
* is impossible/ as one of the Fathers says, ' to love
* the son, without loving the mother:' beg of her, then, with affection and confidence, to intercede with Jesus, as the poor Canaanites did, to change the tears of your distress into the wine of gladness, by affording you the light and grace you so much want. You cannot refuse to join with me in the Angelic salutation: Hail full of grace, our Lord is with thee (1), nor in the subsequent
(1) Luke i. 28. The Catholic version is here used as more conformable to the Greek as well as the Vulgate than the Protestant, which renders the pas- sage : Hail thou who art highly favoured.
30 LETTER XXXIII.
address of the inspired Elizabeth : Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Luke i. 42 : cast aside, then, I beseech you, Dear Sir, preju- dices, which are not only groundless but also hurtful, and devoutly conclude with me, in the words of the whole Catholic Church, upon earth : Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
I am, &c.
J. M.
31 LETTER XXXIV.
To JAMES BROWN, Esg.
ON RELIGIOUS MEMORIALS. DEAR SIR,
IF the Catholic Church has been so grievously injured by the misrepresentation of her doctrine respecting prayers to the Saints, she has been still more grievously injured by the prevailing calum- nies against the respect which she pays to the memo- rials of Christ and his Saints, namely to crucifixes, relicks, pious pictures and images. This has been misrepresented, from almost the first corruption of Pro- testantism (l), as rank idolatry, and as justifying the
(1) Martin Luther, with all his hatred of the Catholic Church, found no idolatry in her doctrine respecting crosses and images : on the contrary, he warmly defended it against Carlostadius and his associates who had destroyed those in the Churches of Wittenberg. Epist. ad Gasp. Guttal. In the title pages of his volumes, published by Melancthon, Luther is exhibited on his knees before a Crucifix. Queen Elizabeth persisted for many years in re- taining a Crucifix on the altar of her chapel, till some of her Puritan courtiers engaged Patch, the fool, to break it : * no wiser man/ says Dr. Heylin, (Hist, of Reform, p. 124,) ' daring to undertake such a service/ James I. thus re- proached the Scotch Bishops, when they objected to his placing pictures and statues in his chapel at Edinburgh : *. You can endure Lions and Dragons ' (the supporters of the Royal Arms) and Devils, (Q. Elizabeth's Griffins) to ' be figured in your churches, but will not allow the like place to Patriarchs ' and Apostles/ Spotswood's History, p. 530.
32 LETTER XXXIV.
necessity of a Reformation. To countenance such misrepresentation in our own country, in particular, avaricious courtiers and grandees seized on the costly shrines, statues and other ornaments of all the churches and Chapels, and authorized the demolition or defac- ing of all other religious memorials of whatever nature or materials, not only in places of worship, but also in market places and even in private houses. In support of the same pious fraud the Holy Scriptures were cor- rupted in their different versions and editions (1), till religious Protestants, themselves, became disgusted with them (2) and loudly called for a new translation. This was accordingly made, at the beginning of the first James's reign. In short, every passage in the Bible and every argument, which common sense sug- gests against idolatry, was applied to the decent respect which Catholics shew to the memorials of Christianity.
(1) See in the present English Bible, Colos. iii. 5. Covetousness which is ido- latry : this iu the Bibles of 1562, 1577, and 1579 stood thus : Covetousness which is the worshipping of images. In like manner where we read a covetous man, who is an idolater, in the former editions we read : a covetous man which is a worshipper of idols. Instead of, What agreement hath the Temple of God with idols, 2 Cor. vi, 16 : it used to stand : How agreeth the Temple of God with images. Instead of: Little children keep yourselves from idols, 1 John v. 21 : it stood during the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth: Babes keep yourselves from images. There were several other manifest corruptions in this as well as in other points in the ancient Protestant Bibles ; some of which remain in the present version.
(2) See the account of what passed on this subject, at the Conference of Hampton Court in Fuller's and Collier's Church Histories, and in Neal's History of the Puritans.
RELIGIOUS MEMORIALS. 33
The misrepresentation, in question, still continues to be the chosen topic of Protestant Controvertists, for inflaming the minds of the ignorant against their Catholic brethren. Accordingly, there is hardly a lisping infant, who has not been taught -"that the Ro- manists pray to images, nor is there a secluded peasant who has not been made to believe, that the Papists worship wooden Gods. The Book of Homilies repeat- edly affirms that our images of Christ and his Saints are idols ; that we * pray and ask of them what it be- ' longs to God alone to give ;' and that * images have < beene and bee worshipped, and so, idolatry commit-
* ted to them by infinite multitudes to the great offense
* of God's Majestic, and danger of infinite soules ; that ' idolatrie can not possibly be separated from images
* set up in churches, and that God's horrible wrath and ' our most dreadful danger cannot be avoided without ' the destruction and utter abolition of all such images
* and idols out of the Church and Temple of God (1).' Archbishop Seeker teaches that ' The Church of Rome
(1) Against the Perils of Idol. P. iii. — This admonition was quickly car- ried into effect, throughout England. All statues, bas-relievos and crosses were demolished in all the Churches, and all pictures were defaced ; while they continued to hold their places, as they do still, in the Protestant Churches of Germany. At length common sense regained its rights, even in this country. Accordingly we see the cross exalted at the top of its principal church (St. Paul's), which is also ornamented, all round it, with the statues of Saints ; most of the cathedrals and collegiate churches now contain pic- tures, and some of them, as for example, Westminster Abbey, carved images.
PART III. F
34 LETTER XXXIV.
* has other Gods, besides the Lord,' and that * there
* never was greater idolatry among heathens in the ' business of image-worshipping than in the Church of 4 Rome (l).' Bishop Porteus, though he does not charge us with idolatry, by name, yet he intimates the same thing, where he applies to us one of the strongest passages of Scripture against Idol worship : They that make them are like unto them; and so is every one that trusteth in them. O Israel, trust thou in the Lord* Ps. cxiii. (2).
Let us now hear what the Catholic Church herself has solemnly pronounced on the present subject, in her General Council of Trent. She says : ' The images of ' Christ, of the Virgin-Mother of God, and the other ' Saints, are to be kept and retained, particularly in the ' churches, and due honour and veneration is to be paid
* them : not that we believe there is any divinity or power
* in them, for which we respect them, or that any thing 1 is to be asked of them, or that trust is to be placed in 6 them, as the heathens of old trusted in their idols (3).' In conformity with this doctrine of our Church, the following question and answer are seen in our first Ca» techism, for the instruction of Children : * Question : c May we pray to relics or images ? Answer : No ; by c no means, for they have no life or sense to hear or
(1) Comment, on Ch, Catech. sect. 24. (2) P. 31. (3) Sesa. xxv.
RELIGIOUS MEMORIALS. 35
* help us,' Finally, that work of the able Catholic writers Gother and Challoner, which I quoted above, The Papist Misrepresented and Represented, contains the following anathema, in which I am confident every Catholic existing will readily join. ' Cursed is he that ' commits idolatry ; that prays to images or relics, or ' worships them for God. Amen.'
Dr. Porteus is very positive that there is no Scrip* tural warrant for retaining and venerating these ex- terior memorials, and he maintains that no other me- morial ought to be admitted than the Lord's Supper (l). Does he remember the Ark of the Covenant, made by the command of God, together with the punishment of those who profaned it, and the blessings bestowed on those who revered it? And what was the Ark of the Covenant after all ? A chest of Settim wood, contain- ing the Tables of the Law and two golden pots of manna ; the whole being covered over by two carved images of Cherubims ; in short, it was a memorial of God's mercy and bounty to his people. But says the Bishop : ' The Roman Catholics make images of Christ ' and of his Saints after their own fancy : before these ' images and even that of the cross they kneel down
* and prostrate themselves; to these they lift up their ' eyes and in that posture they pray (2).' Supposing
(I) P, 28. («) Confut. p. 9J*
F 2
36 LETTER XXXIV,
all this to be true ; has the Bishop never read that, when the Israelites were smitten at Ai, Joshua fell to the earth upon his face, before the Ark of the Lord, until the even tide, he and the elders of Israel, and Joshua said; Alas, O Lord God, 8$c. Jos. vii. 6. Does not he himself oblige those who frequent the above-mentioned memorial to kneel and prostrate themselves before it, at which time it is to be supposed they lift up their eyes to the Sa- crament and say their prayers? Does not he require of his people that € when the name of JESUS is pronounced * in any lesson, &c. due reverence be made of all with ( lowness of courtesie (l)?' And does he consider as well founded, the outcry of Idolatry against the Esta- blished Church, on this and the preceding point, raised by the Dissenters ? Again, is not his Lordship in the habit of kneeling to his Majesty and of bowing with the other Peers, to an empty chair when it is placed as his throne ? Does he not often reverently kiss the material substance of printed paper and leather, I mean the Bible, because it relates to and represents the sacred word of God ? When the Bishop of London shall have well considered these several matters, me- thinks he will understand the nature of relative honour, by which an inferior respect may be paid to the sign, for the sake of the thing signified, better than he seems to
(1) Injunctions, A. D. 1559, n. 52. Canons 1603, n. 18.
RELIGIOUS MEMORIALS. 37
do at present; and he will neither directly nor indi- rectly charge the Catholics with Idolatry, on account of indifferent ceremonies which take their nature from the intention of those who use them. During the dispute about pious images, which took place in the eighth century, St* Stephen of Auxence, having en- deavoured in vain to make his persecutor, the Emperor Copronimus, conceive the nature of relative honour and dishonour in this matter, threw a piece of money, bearing the Emperor's figure, on the ground, and treated it with the utmost indignity; when the latter soon proved, by his treatment of the Saint, that the affront regarded himself rather than the piece of metal (1).
The Bishop objects, that the Catholics ' make pic-
* tures of God the Father under the likeness of a vene-
* rable old man.' Certain painters indeed have repre- sented him so, as in fact he was pleased to appear so to some of the prophets, Isa. vi. 1. Dan. vii.9; but the Council of Trent says nothing concerning that represen- tation, which, after all, is not so common as that of a triangle among Protestants, to represent the Trinity* Thus much, however, is most certain, that if aily Chris- tian were obstinately to maintain, that the Divine nature resembles the human form, he would be an anthropo-
(1) Fleury, Hist, Ecc. L. xliii. n. 41,
38 LETTER XXXIV.
morphite heretic. The Bishop moreover signifies, what most other Protestan t controvertists express more coarse- ly, that to screen our idolatry we have suppressed the second Commandment of the Decalogue, and to make up the deficiency, we have split the tenth Commandment into two. My answer is, that I apprehend many of these disputants are ignorant enough to believe that the division of the commandments, in their Common Prayer Book, was copied, if not from the identical Tables of Moses, at least from his original text of the Pentateuch ; but the Bishop, as a man of learning, must know that in the original Hebrew and in the. several copies and versions of it, during some thou-» sands of years, there was no mark of separation be- tween one Commandment and another; so that we have no rules to be guided by, in making the distinc- tion, but the sense of the context and the authority of the most approved Fathers (1), both which we fol- low. In the mean time it is a gross calumny that we suppress any part of the Decalogue; for the whole of it appears in all our Bibles, and in all our most ap- proved Catechisms (2). To be brief: the words; Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven thing, -are
(1) St. Augustin, Quaest. in Exod. Clem, Alex. Strom. 1. vi. Hieron, in PS. xxxii.
(2) Catech. Roman ad Paroch. The folio Catech. of Montpellier. Douay Catech. Abridgment of Christian Doctrine,
RELIGIOtJS MEMORIALS. 39
either a prohibition of all images, and, of course, those round the Bishop's own Cathedral, of St. Paul, as like- wise of all existing coins; which I am sure he will not agree to ; or else it is a mere prohibition of images made to receive divine worship, in which we perfectly
agree with him. You will observe, Dear Sir, that I
intend to include Relics, meaning things which have, some way, appertained to and been left by personages of eminent sanctity among religious memorials. In- deed the ancient Fathers generally call them by that name. Surely Dr. Porteus will not say that there is no warrant in Scripture for honouring these, when he recollects that : From the body of St. Paul were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, Acts xix. 12.; and that: When the dead man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood upon his feet. % Kings xiii. 21.
But to make an end of the present discussion : no- thing but the pressing want of a strong pretext for breaking communion with the ancient Church could have put the revolters upon so extravagant an attempt as that of confounding the inferior and relative honour which Catholics pay .to the memorials of Christ and his Saints (an honour which they themselves pay to the Bible-book, to the name of JESUS, and even to the King's throne) with the idolatry of the Israelites
40
LETTEll XXXIV.
to their golden Calf, Emd. xxxii. 4, and of the ancient heathens to their idols which they believed to be inha- bited by their Gods. In a word, the end for which pious pictures and images are made and retained by Catholics, is the same for which pictures and images are made and retained by mankind in general, to put us in mind of the persons and things they represent. They are not primarily intended for the purpose of being venerated ; nevertheless, as they bear a certain relation with holy persons and things, by representing them, they become entitled to a relative or secondary veneration ; in the manner already explained. I must not forget one important use of pious pictures, men- tioned by the holy Fathers, namely, that they help to instruct the ignorant (1). Still, it is a point agreed upon among Catholic Doctors and Divines, that the memorials of religion form no essential part of it (2). Hence if you should become a Catholic, as I pray God you may, I shall never ask you, if you have a pious picture or relic, or so much as a crucifix in your
(1) St. Gregory calls pictures Idiotarum libri. Epist. L. ix. 9.
(2) The learned Petavius says : ' We must lay it down as a principle that ' images are to be reckoned among the adiphora, which do not belong to the * substance of religion, and which the Church may retain or take away as ' she judges best.' L. xv. de Incar. Hence Dr. Hawarden, Of Images, p, 353, teaches, with Delphinus, that, if, in any place, there is danger of real ido- latry or superstition from pictures, they ought to be removed by the Pas- tors; as St. Epiphanius destroyed a certain pious picture and Ezechias destroy- ed the brazen serpent,
RELIGIOUS MEMORIALS. 41
possession : but then, I trust, after the declarations I have made, that you will not account me an Idolater, should you see such things in my oratory or study, or should you observe how tenacious I am of my cruci- fix, in particular. Your faith and devotion may not stand in need of such memorials ; but mine, alas ! do. I am too apt to forget what my Saviour has done and suffered for me; but the sight of his representation often brings this to my memory, and affects my sen- timents. Hence I would rather part with most of the books in my library, than with the figure of my crucified Lord.
I am, &c.
J. M.
TART III.
42 LETTER XXXV.
To the Rev. ROBERT CLAYTON, M. A.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. REV. SIR,
I LEARN by a letter from our worthy friend, Mr. Brown, as well as by your own, that I am to consider you, and not him, as the person charged to make the objections, which are to be made, on the part of the Church of England, against my theological positions and arguments in future. I congratulate the Society of New Cottage on the acquisition of so valuable a member as Mr. Clayton, and I think my- self fortunate in having so clear-headed and candid an opponent to contend with, as his letter shews him to be.
You admit that, according to my explanation, which is no other than that of our Divines, our Catechisms and our Councils in general, we are not guilty of Ido- latry in the honour we pay to Saints and their memo- rials, and that the dispute between your Church and mine upon these points, is a dispute about words ra- ther than about things, as Bishop Bossuet observes, and as several candid Protestants, before you, have
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 43
c.{f •>
confessed. You and Bishop Porteus agree with us, that 'the Saints are to be loved and honoured;' on the other hand, we agree with you, that it would be idolatrous to pay them divine worship, or to pray to their memorials in any shape whatever. Hence, the only question remaining between us is concerning the utility of desiring the prayers of the Saints : for you say it is useless, because you think that they can- not hear us, and that, therefore, the practice is super- stitious: whereas I have vindicated the practice- itself, and have shewn that the utility of it no way depends on the circumstance of the blessed Spirits immediately hearing the addresses made to them.
Still you complain that I have not answered all the Bishop's objections against the doctrine and practices in question. — My reply is, that I have answered the chief of them: and whereas they are, for the most part, of ancient date, and have been again and again solidly refuted by our Divines, I shall send to New Cottage, together with this letter, a work of one of them who, for depth of learning and strength of argu- ment, has not been surpassed since the time of Bellar- min(l). There, Rev. Sir, you will find all that you inquire after, and you will discover, in particular, that
(1) The True Church of Christ, by Edward Hawarden, DD. S. T. P. The author was engaged in successful contests with Dr. Clark, Bishop Bull, Mr. Leslie, and other eminent Protestant Divines. The work has been lately re- published in Dublin by Coyne.
G2
44 LETTER XXXV.
the worship of the Angels, which St. Paul condemns in his Epistle to the Colossians, chap. ii. 18, means, that of the fallen or wicked Angels, whom Christ despoiled, ver. 15, and which was paid to them by Simon the Magician and his followers, as the makers of the world. As to the doctrine of Bellarmin concerning images, it is plain that his Lordship never consulted the author himself, but only his misrepresenter Vitringa ; other- wise, he would have gathered from the whole of this precise theologian's distinctions, that he teaches pre- cisely the contrary to that which he is represented to teach (1).
You next observe that I have said nothing con- cerning the extravagant forms of prayer to the Blessed Virgin and other Saints, which Dr. Porteus has col- lected from Catholic prayer books, and which, you think, prove that we attribute an absolute and un- bounded power to those heavenly citizens. 1 am
aware, Rev. Sir, that his Lordship, as well as another Bishop (2), who is all sweetness of temper, except when Popery is mentioned in his hearing, and indeed a crowd of other Protestant writers, has employed himself in making such collections, but from what
(1) See De Imag. L. ii. c. 24.
(2) The Bishop of Hereford, Dr. Huntingford, who lias squeezed a large quantity of this irrelevant matter into his examination of The Catholic Petition.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 45
Sources, for the greater part I am ignorant. If I were to charge his faith, or the faith of his Church with all the conclusions that could logically be drawn from different forms of prayer to be met with in the books of her most distinguished Prelates and Divines, or from the Scriptures themselves, I fancy the Bishop would strongly protest against that mode of reasoning. If, for example, an anthropomorphite were to address him : You say, My Lord, in yotar Creed, that Christ 'ascended into heaven, and sitteth ' at the right hand of God,' therefore it is plain yete believe with ine, that God has a human shape; or if a Calvinist were to say to him : You pray to God that he ' would not lead you into temptation,' there- fore you acknowledge that it is God who tempts you to commit sin; in either of these cases the Bishop would insist upon explaining the texts here quoted ; he would argue on the nature of figures of speech, especially hi the language of poetry and devotion ; and would maintainy that the belief of his Churcb is not to be collected from these, but from her defined articles. — Make but the same allowance to CathoMcs and all this phantom of verbal idolatry will dissolve into air.
Lastly, you remind me of the Bishop's assertion, that ( neither images nor pictures were allowed in Churches * for the first hundred years.' To this assertion you
46 LETTER XXXV.
add your own opinion, that during that same period no prayers were addressed by Christians to the Saints. — A fit of oblivion must have overtaken Dr. Porteus, when he wrote what you quoted from him, as he cannot be ignorant that it was not till the conversion of Con- stantine, in the fourth century, that the Christians were generally allowed to build churches for their worship, having been obliged, during the ages of persecution, to practise in subterraneous catacombs, or other ob- scure recesses. We learn, however, from Tertullian, that it was usual, in his time, to represent our Saviour, in the character of the good Shepherd, on the chalices used at the assemblies of the Christians (l) : and we are informed by Eusebius, the father of Church-his- tory, and the friend of Constantine, that he himself had seen a miraculous image of our Saviour in brass, which had been erected by the woman, who was cured by touching the hem of his garment, and also different pictures of him, and of St. Peter and St. Paul, which had been preserved since their time (2). The historian Zozomen adds, concerning that statue, that it was mutilated in the reign of Julian the Apostate, and that the Christians, nevertheless, collected the pieces of it, and placed it in their Church (3). St. Gregory of
(1) Lib. de Pudicitia, c. 10.
(2) Hist. 1. vii. c. 18.
(3) Hist. Eccles. 1. v. c. 21.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED* 47
Nyssa, who flourished in the fourth century, preach- ing on the martyrdom of St. Theodore, describes his relics as being present in the Church, and his sufferings as being painted on the walls, together with an image of Christ, as if surveying them (1), It is needless to carry the history of pious figures and paintings down to the end of the sixth century, at which time St. Augustiri and his companions, coming to preach the Gospel to our pagan ancestors, ' carried a silver Cross before c them as a banner, and a painted picture of our Savi- ' our Christ (2).' The above-mentioned Tertullian testifies that, at every movement and in every em- ployment, the primitive Christians used to sign their foreheads with the sign of the Cross (3), and Eusebius and St. Chrysostom fill whole pages of their works with testimonies of the veneration in which the figure of the Cross was anciently held ; the latter of whom expressly says, that the Cross was placed on the altars (4) of the churches. The whole history of the Martyrs, from St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, the disciples of the Apos- tles, whose relics, after their execution, were carried away by the Christians, as ' more valuable than gold ' and precious stones (5),' down to the latest martyr,
(1) Orat. inTheod.
(2) Bede's Eccles. Hist. 1. i. c. <25.
(3) De Coron. Milit. c. 3.
(4) In Orat. Quod Christus sit Dcus.
(5) Euseb. Hist, i iv. c. 15. Acta Sincer. apud Ruinart.
48 LETTER XXXV.
incontegtably proves the veneration which the Church has ever maintained for these sacred objects. With respect to your own opinion, Rev. Sir, as to the earliest date of prayers to the Saints, I may refer you to the writings of St. Irenseus, the disciple of St. Polycarp, who introduces the Blessed Virgin praying for Eve (l), to the Apology of his contemporary St. Justin the Martyr, who says : ' We venerate and worship the c angelic host, and the spirits of the prophets, teaching 1 others as we ourselves have been taught (2),' and to the light of the fourth century, St. Basil, who expressly refers these practices to the Apostles, where he says : c I invoke the Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs to pray ' for me, that God may be merciful to me, and for- 'give me my sins. I honour and reverence their
* images, since these things have been ordained by c tradition from the Apostles, and are practised in all
* our Churches (3).' You will agree with me, that I need not descend lower than the fourth age of the Church.
I am, &c.
J.M.
(1) Contra Haeres. L v. c. 19.
(2) Apol. 2. prope Init.
(3) Epist.205. t.iii, edit. Paris.
LETTER XXXVL
To JAMES BROWN, Esq.
ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION* DEAR SIR,
IT is the remark of the Prince of modern controvertists, Bishop Bossuet, that, whereas in most other subjects of dispute between Catholics and Protestants, the difference is less than it seems to be, in this of the Holy Eucharist or Lord's Supper, it is greater than it appears (1). The cause of this is, that our opponents misrepresent our doctrine concern- ing the veneration of Saints, pious Images, In- dulgences, Purgatory, and other articles, in order to strengthen their arguments against us j whereas their language approaches nearer to our doctrine than their sentiments do on the subject of the Eucharist, because our doctrine is so strictly conformable to the words of Holy Scripture. This is a disingenuous artifice ; but I have to describe two others of a still more fatal ten- dency ; first, with respect to the present welfare of the Catholics, who are the subjects of them, and secondly,
(1) Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, Sect. XVI. PART III. H
50 LETTER XXXVI.
with respect to the future welfare of the Protestants, who deliberately make use of them.
The first of these disingenuous practices consists in misrepresenting Catholics as worshippers of bread and wine in the Sacrament, and therefore as Idolaters, at the same time that our adversaries are perfectly aware that we firmly believe, as an article of faith, that there is no bread nor wine, but Christ alone, true God, as well as man, present in it. Supposing, for a moment, that we are mistaken in this belief, the worst we could be charged with, is an error, in supposing Christ to be where he is not; and nothing but uncharitable ca- lumny, or gross inattention, could accuse us of the heinous crime of Idolatry. To illustrate this argument let me suppose that, being charged with a loyal address to the Sovereign, you presented it, by mistake, to one of his courtiers, or even to an inanimate figure of him, which, for some reason or other, had been dressed up in royal robes, and placed on the throne, would your heart reproach you, or would any sensible person re- proach you with the guilt of treason in this case ? Were the people who thought in their hearts that John the Baptist was the Christ, Luke iii. 15, and who proba- bly worshipped him as such, Idolaters, in consequence of their error ? The falsehood, as well as the unchari- tableness of this calumny is too gross to escape the observation of any informed and reflecting man ; yet
TRANSUBSTANTIATE ON. 51
is it upheld and vociferated to the ignorant crowd, in order to keep alive their prejudices against us, by Bishop Porteus (l), and the Protestant preachers and writers in general, and it is perpetuated by the legislature to defeat our civil claims ! (2). It is not, however, true, that all Protest- ant Divines have laid this heavy charge at the door of Catholics for worshipping Christ in the Sacrament, as all those eminent prelates in the reigns of Charles I and Charles II must be excepted, who generally acquitted us of the charge of idolatry, and more especially the learned Gunning, Bishop of Ely, who reprobated the above signified Declaration, when it was brought into the House of Lords, protesting that his conscience would not permit him to make it (3). The candid Thorndyke, Prebendary of West- minster, argues thus on the present subject : ' Will ' any Papist acknowledge that he honours the elements
* of the Eucharist for God ? Will common sense charge
* him with honouring that in the Sacrament, which he
(1) He charges Catholics with ' senseless idolatry/ and with ( worship- ' ping the creature instead of the Creator.' Confut. P. ii. c. 1.
(2) The Declaration against Popery, by which Catholics were excluded from the Houses of Parliament, was voted by them during that time of na- tional frensy and disgrace, when they equally voted the reality of the pre- tended Popish Plot, which cost the Catholics a torrent of innocent blood, and which was hatched by the unprincipled Shaftesbury, with the help of Dr. Tongue, and the infamous Gates, to prevent the succession of James II tQ the Crown. See Echard's Hist. North's Exam.
(3) Burnet's Hist. Own '! irnes.
52 LETTER XXXVI.
' does not believe to be there !' (1). The celebrated Bishop of Down, Dr. Jeremy Taylor, reasons with equal fairness, where he says : ' The object of their ' (the Catholics') adoration in the Sacrament is the
* only true and eternal God, hypostatically united ' with his holy humanity, which humanity they be- 1 lieve actually present under the veil of the Sacra- ' ment. And if they thought him not present, they c are so far from worshipping the bread, that they
* profess it idolatry to do so. This is demonstration ' that the soul has nothing in it that is idolatrical ; 6 the will has nothing in it, but what is a great enemy ' to idolatry (2).'
The other instance of disingenuity and injustice on the part of Protestant Divines and Statesmen consists in their overlooking the main subject in debate, namely, whet he?* Christ is or is not really and personally pre- sent in the Sacrament ; and in the mean time employ- ing all the force of their declamation and ridicule, and all the severity of the law to a point of inferior, or at least secondary consideration ; namely, to the mode in which he is considered by one particular party as being present. It is well known that Catholics believe, that, when Christ took the bread and gave it to bis Apostles, saying, THIS IS MY BODY, he changed
(1) Just Weights and Measures, c. 19.
(2) Liberty of Prophesying, Sect. 20.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 53
the bread into his body, which change is called Transubstantiation. On the other hand, the Lutherans, after their master, hold that the bread and the real body of Christ are united, and both truly present in the Sacra- ment, as iron and fire are united in a red-hot bar (1). This sort of presence, which would be not less mira- culous and incomprehensible than Transubstantiation, is called Consubstantiation : while the Calvinists and Church-of-England men in general (though many of the brightest luminaries of the latter have approached to the Catholic doctrine) maintain that Christ is barely present in figure, and received only by faith. Now all the alledged absurdities, in a manner, and all the pretended impiety and idolatry, which are attributed to Transubstantiation, equally at- taches to Consubstantiation and to the Real Presence professed by those eminent Divines of the Established Church, Nevertheless, what controversial preacher or writer ever attacks the latter opinions ? What law excludes Lutherans from Parliament, or even from the Throne ? So far from this, a Chapel Royal has been founded and is maintained in the Palace itself for the propagation of their Consubstantiation and the partici- pation of their Real Presence ! In short, you may say
(1) De Capt. Babyl. Osiander, whose sister Cranmer married, taught Impanatioriy or an hypostatical and personal union of the bread with Christ's body, in consequence of which a person might truly say : This bread is Christ's body.
54 LETTER XXXVI.
\yith Luther, the bread is the body of Christ, or with Osiander, the bread is one and the same person with Christ, or with Bishop Cosin, that ' Christ is present really 'and substantially by an incomprehensible mys- ' tery (l),' or with Dr. Balguy, that there is no mystery at all, but a mere ' federal rite, barely signify - ' ing the receiver's acceptance of the benefit of redemp- ' tion (2);' in short, you may say any thing you please concerning the Eucharist, without obloquy or incon- venience to yourself, except what the words of Christ, this is my body, so clearly imply, namely that he changes the bread into his body. In fact, as the Bishop of Meaux observes, ' the declarations of Christ operate 6 what they express ; when he speaks, nature obeys,
* and he does what he says : thus he cured the Ruler's -' son, by saying to him : Thy son liveth ; and the
* crooked woman, by saying, Thou art loosed from thy
* infirmity (3).' The Prelate adds, for our further observation, that Christ did not say, My body is here ; this contains my body, but, this is my body : this is my blood. Hence Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, and the defen- ders of the figurative sense in general, all except the Protestants of England, have expressly confessed, that, admitting the Real Presence, the Catholic doctrine is far more conformable to Scripture than the Lutheran.
(1) Hist, of Transub. p. 44. (2) Charge vii. (3) Variat. T. ii. p. 54.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 55
I shall finish this letter with remarking that, as Tran- substantiation, according to Bishop Cosin, was the first of Christ miracles, in changing water into wine; so it may be said to have been his last, during his mortal course, by changing bread and wine into his sacred body and blood.
-,: i rmitO 70 :r>/3Fr.rani| &c. nt V* '
W J. M.
bfi
LETTER XXXVII.
^,om-*o^r^r tf
Zb XU4ES BflOTTtf, -&?.
ON THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE B. SACRAMENT.
DEAR SIR,
IT is clear from what I have stated in my last letter to you, that the first and main question to be settled between Catholics and Church Protestants is concerning the real or figurative presence of Christ in the Sacrament This being determined, it will be time enough, and, in my opinion, it will not require a long time, to conclude upon the manner of his presence, namely, whether by Consubstantiation or Transubstan- tiation. To consider the authorized exposition or Ca- techism of the Established Church, it might appear certain that she herself holds the Real Presence ; since she declares that, * The body and blood of Christ are ' verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful ' in the Lord's Supper.' To this declaration I alluded, in the first place, where I complained of Protestants disguising their real tenets, by adopting language of a different meaning from their sentiments and conforma- ble to those of Catholics, in consequence of such being
THE REAL PRESENCE. 5?
the language of the sacred text. In fact, it is certain and confessed that she does not, after all, believe the real body and blood to be in the Supper, but mere bread and wine, as the same Catechism declares. This involves an evident contradiction ; it is saying : you receive that in the Sacrament, which does not exist in the Sacrament (l) : it is like the speech of a debtor, who should say to his creditor : I hereby verily and indeed
(1) Dryden, in his Hind and Panther, ridicules this inconsistency as follows :
' The literal sense is hard to flesh and blood ; * But nonsense never could be understood.'
Even Dr. Hey calls this ' an unsteadiness of language and a seeming incon- ' sistency.' Lect. vol. iv. p. 338.
N. B. It is curious to trace in the Liturgy of the Established Church her variations on this most important point of Christ's presence in the Sacra- ment. The first Communion Service, drawn up by Cranmer, Ridley, and other Protestant Bishops and Divines, and published in 1548, clearly ex- presses the Real Presence, and that ' the whole body of Christ is received ' under each particle of the Sacrament/ Burnet, P. ii. b. 1.
Afterwards, when the Calvinistic party prevailed, the 29th of the 42 Ar- ticles of Religion, drawn up by the same Prelates and published in 1552, expressly denies the Real Presence, and the very possibility of Christ being in the Eucharist, since he has ascended up to, heaved. Ten years afterwards, Elizabeth being on the throne, who patronizecHfee Real Presence, (see Hey- lin, p. 124,) when the 42 Articles were reduced to 39, this declaration against the Real and Corporal Presence of Christ was left out of the Common Prayer Book, for the purpose of comprehending those persons who believed in it, as was the whole of the former Rubric, which explained that ' by kneeling at ' the Sacrament no adoration was intended to any corporal presence of Christ's i natural flesh and blood/ Burnet, P. ii. p. 392. So the Liturgy stood for just 100 years, when in 1662, during the reign of Charles II, among other alterations of the Liturgy, which then took place, the old Rubric against the Real Presence and the adoration of the Sacrament was again restored as it stands at present !
PART III. I
58 LETTER XXXVII.
pay you the money I owe you ; but I have not verily and indeed the money to pay you with.
Nothing proves more clearly the fallacy of theCalvi- nists and other Dissenters, as likewise of the Established Churchmen in general, who profess to make the Scrip- ture in its plain and literal sense, the sole Rule of their Faith, than their denial of the real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament which is so manifestly and emphatical- ly expressed therein. He explained and promised this divine mystery near one of the Paschs, John vi. 4, pre- vious to his institution of it. He then multiplied five loaves and two fishes, so as to afford a superabundant meal to five thousand men, besides women and children, Mat. xiv. 21 ; which was an evident sign of the future multiplication of his own person on the several altars of the world ; after which he took occasion to speak of this mystery, by saying : I am the living bread, which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever : and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. John vi. 5 1. The sacred text goes on to inform us of the perplexity of the Jews, from their understanding Christ's words in their plain and natural sense, which he, so far from remov- ing by a different explanation, confirms by expressing that sense in other terms still more emphatical. The Jews therefore strove amongst themselves, saying : How can this man give us his flesh to eat ? Then Jesus said
THE REAL PRESENCE. 59
unto them: Verily verity 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 indeed. Ver. 52, 53, 55. Nor was it the mul-
, *,
titucle alone who took offence at this mystery of a real and corporal reception of Christ's person, so energeti- cally and repeatedly expressed by him, but also several of his own beloved disciples, whom certainly he would not have permitted to desert him to their own destruc- tion, if he could have removed their difficulty by barely telling them that they were only to receive him by faith, and to take bread and wine in remembrance of him. Yet this merciful Saviour permitted them to go their ways, and he contented himself with asking the Apostles, if they would also leave him ? They were as incapable of comprehending the mystery as the others were, but they were assured that Christ is ever to be credited upon his word, and accordingly they made that generous act of faith, which every true Christian will also make, who seriously and devoutly considers the sacred text before us. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said : This is
a hard saying : who can hear it ? From that time
many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said unto the twelve: will ye also go away ? Then Simon Peter answered him * Lord, to whom*
60 LETTER XXXVII.
shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. Ver. 60, 66, 67, 68.
The Apostles thus instructed by Christ's express and repeated declaration as to the nature of this Sacra- ment when he promised it to them, were prepared for the sublime simplicity of his words in instituting it. For, whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said : take ye and eat : THIS IS MY BODY And taking the chalice he gave thanks, and gave it to them saying : drink ye all of this; FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Mat. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. This account of St. Matthew is repeated by St. Mark, xiv. 22, 23, 24, and nearly, word for word, by St. Luke, xxii. 19, 20, and St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25 ; who adds : There- fore whoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord — and eateth and drinketh judgment (the Protestant Bible says damnation) to himself. 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29. To the native evidence of these texts I shall add but two words. First, supposing it possible that Jesus Christ had deceived the Jews of Ca- pharnaum, and even his Disciples and his very Apostles, in the solemn asseverations which he, six times over, repeated of his real and corporal presence in the Sacra-
THE REAL PRESENCE. 61
ment, when he promised to institute it ; can any one believe that he would continue the deception on his dear Apostles in the very act of instituting it ? and when he was on the point of leaving them ? in short, when he was bequeathing them the legacy of his love ? In the next place, what propriety is there in St. Paul's heavy denunciations of profaning Christ's person, and of dam- nation, on the part of unworthy communicants, if they partook of it only by faith and in figure: for, after all, the Paschal Lamb, which the people of God had, by his command, every year eat since their deliverance out of Egypt, and which the Apostles themselves eat, before they received the Blessed Eucharist, was, as a mere figure, and an incitement to faith, far more strik- ing, than eating and drinking bread and wine are : hence the guilt of profaning the Paschal Lamb, and the numerous other figures of Christ, would not be less hei- nous than profaning the Sacrament, if it were not really there.
I should write a huge folio volume, were I to tran- scribe all the authorities in proof of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation which may be collected from the ancient Fathers, Councils and historians, anterior to the origin of these doctrines assigned by the Bi- shops of London (l) and Lincoln, The latter, who
(1) Page 38.
62 LETTEH xxxvri.
speaks more precisely on the subject, says: 'The idea * of Christ's bodily presence in the Eucharist was first ' started in the beginning of the eighth century. In ' the twelfth century, the actual change of the bread 1 and wine into the body and blood of Christ, by the ' consecration of the Priest, was pronounced to be a ' Gospel truth. The first writer who maintained it ' was Pascasius Radbert. It is said to have been ' brought into England by Lanfranc (l).' What will the learned men of Europe, who are versed in ecclesias- tical literature, think of the state of this science in England, should they hear that such positions, as these, have been published by one of its most celebrated Prelates? I have assigned the cause why I must content myself with a few of the : numberless docu- ments which present themselves to me in refuta- tion of such bold assertions. — St. Ignatius, then, an apostolical Bishop of the first century, describing cer- tain contemporary heretics, says : * They do not ad- 4 mit of Eucharists and oblations, because they do not ' believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour * Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins (g).' I pass over the testimonies, to the same effect, of St. Justin Martyr (3), St. Irenasus (4), St. Cyprian (5), and
(1) Elem. of Theol. vol. ii. p. 380. (4) L. v. c. 11.
(2) Ep. ad Sroyrn. (5) Ep. 54 ad Cornel.
(3) Apolog. to Emp. Antonin,
THE REAL PRESENCE; 63
other Fathers of the second and third centuries ; but will quote the following words from Origen, because the Prelate appeals to his authority, in another pas- sage, which is nothing at all to the purspose. He says then, ' Manna was formerly given, as a figure ; but,
* now, the flesh and blood of the Son of God is speci-
* fically given, and is real food (l).' I must omit the clear and beautiful testimonies for the Catholic doc- trine, which St. Hilary, St. Basil, St. John Chrysos- tom, St. Jerom, St. Austin, and a number of other illustrious Doctors of the fourth and fifth ages fur- nish; but I cannot pass over those of St. Cyril of Je- rusalem and St. Ambrose of Milan, because these oc- curring in catechetical discourses or expositions of the Christian doctrine to their young neophytes, must evi- dently be understood in the most plain and literal sense they can bear. — The former says : ' Since Christ ' himself affirms thus of the bread : This is my body ; ' who is so daring as to doubt of it ? And since he
* affirms : This is my blood; who will deny that it is ' his blood ? At Cana of Galilee, he, by an act of his
* will, turned water into wine, which resembles blood ; ' and is he not then to be credited when he changes ' wine into blood ? Therefore, full of certainty, let us 1 receive the body and blood of Christ : for, under the ' form of bread, is given ro thee his body, and, under
(1) Horn. 7. in Levit.
64 LETTER XXXVII.
' the form of wine, his blood (l).' St. Ambrose thus argues with his spiritual children: ' Perhaps you will
* say : Why do you tell me that I receive the body of 'Christ, when I see quite another thing? We have < this point therefore to prove.— How many examples « do we produce to shew you, that this is not what ' nature made it, but what the benediction has conse- ' crated it; and that the benediction is of greater ' force than nature, because, by the benediction, na-
* ture itself is changed ! Moses cast his rod on the
* ground, and it became a serpent ; he caught hold of
* the serpent's tail, and it recovered the nature of a ' rod. The rivers of Egypt, &c, — Thou hast read of 1 the creation of the world : if Christ, by his word, ' was able to make something out of nothing, shall he ' not be thought able to change one thing into ana-
*ther?f(2). But I have quoted enough from the
ancient Fathers to refute the rash assertions of the two modern Bishops.
True it is that Pascasius Radbert, an Abbot of the ninth century, writing a treatise on the Eucharist, for the instruction of his novices, maintains the real cor- poral presence of Christ in it: bat so far from teach- ing a novelty, he professes to say nothing but what all the world believes and professes (3). The truth of this
(1) Catech. Mystagog. 4. (2) De his qui Myst. Init. c. 9
(3) « Quod totus orbis credit et Confitetur.' See Perpetuite tie la Foi.
THE REAL PRESENCE. 65
appeared when Berengarius in the eleventh century, among other errors, denied the Real Presence; for then the whole Church rose up against him : he was attacked by a whole host of eminent writers, and among others by our Archbishop Lanfranc ; all of whom, in their respective works, appeal to the belief of all nations ; and Berengarius was condemned in no less than eleven Councils. I have elsewhere shewn the absolute impossibility of the Christians of all the na- tions in the world being persuaded into a belief, of that sacrament which they were in the habit of receiving, being the living Christ, if they had before held it to be nothing but an inanimate memorial of him; though, even by another impossibility, all the clergy of the nations were to combine together for effecting this* On the other hand, it is incontestable, and has been carried to the highest degree of moral evidence (1), that all the Christians of all the nations of the world, Greeks ^as well as Latins, Africans as well as Euro- peans, except Protestants and a handful of Vaudois peasants, have, in all ages, believed and still believe in the Real Presence and Transubstantiation.
I am now, Dear Sir, about to produce evidence of a different nature, I mean Protestant evidence for the
(1) See in particular the last named victorious work, which has proved the conversion of many Protestants, and among the rest of a distinguished Churchman now living.
PART III. K
66 LETTER XXXVII.
main point under consideration, the Real Presence. My first witness is no other than the father of the pre- tended Reformation, Martin Luther himself. He tells us how very desirous he was, and how much he labour- ed in his mind to overthrow this doctrine, because, says he, (observe his motive), * 1 clearly saw how much ' I should thereby injure Popery : but I found my- ' self caught, without any way of escaping : for the ' text of the Gospel was too plain for this purpose (l).' Hence he continued, till his death, to condemn those Protestants who denied the corporal presence, employ- ing for this purpose sometimes the shafts of his coarse ridicule (2), and sometimes the thunder of his vehe- ment declamation and anathemas (3). To speak now of former eminent Bishops and Divines of the Esta- blishment in this country; it is evident from their
(1) Epist. ad Argenten. torn. 4, fol. 502, Ed. Witten.
(2) In one place he says, that 'The Devil seems to have mocked ' those, to whom he has suggested a heresy so ridiculous and contrary to * Scripture as that of the Zuinglians,' who explained away the words of the Institution in a figurative way. He elsewhere compares these glosses with the following translation of the first words of Scripture : In prindpio Deus creavit codum et terram : — In the beginning the cuckoo eat the sparrow and his
feathers. Defens. Verb. Dom.
(3) On one occasion he calls those who deny the Real and corporal Pre- sence ; * A damned sect, lying heretics, bread-breakers, wine-drinkers, and ' soul-destroyers.' In Parv. Catech. On other occasions he says : 'They are ' indevilized and superdevilized.' Finally he devotes them to everlasting flames, and builds his own hopes of finding mercy at the tribunal of Christ on his having, with all his soul, condemned Carlostad, Zuinglius, and other believers in the symbolical presence.
THE REAL PRESENCE^ 67
works that many of them believed firmly in the Real Presence, such as the Bishops Andrews, Bilson, Mor- ton, Laud, Montague, Sheldon, Gunning, Forbes, Bramhall and Cosins, to whom I shall add the justly esteemed Divine, Hooker, the testimonies of whom, for the Real Presence, are as explicit as Catholics them- selves can wish them to be. I will transcribe in the margin a few words from each of the three last named authors (1). — The near, or rather close approach of these and other eminent Protestant Divines to the constant doctrine of the Catholic Church, on this prin- cipal subject of modern controversy, is evidently to be ascribed to the perspicuity and force of the decla- ration of Holy Scripture concerning it. As to the holy Fathers, they received this, with her other doc-
(1) Bishop Bramhall writes thus : ' No genuine son of the Church (of ' England) did ever deny a true, real presence. Christ said : This is my body, 1 and what he said we steadfastly believe. He said neither CON nor SUB ' nor TRANS : therefore we place these among the opinions of schools,
' not among articles of faith/ Answer to Militiaire, p. 74. Bishop Cosin is
not less explicit in favour of the Catholic doctrine. He says : * It is a mon- ' strous error to deny that Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist' •• *We ' confess the necessity of a supernatural and heavenly change, and that the ' signs cannot become sacraments but by the infinite power of God. If any ' one make a bare figure of the Sacrament, we ought not to suffer him in our
* Churches.' Hist. ofTransub. Lastly, the profound Hooker expresses
himself thus: * I wish men would give themselves more to meditate, with ' silence, on what we have in the sacrament, and less to dispute of the ' manner how. Sith we all agree that Christ, by the Sacrament, doth really 1 and truly perform in us his promise, why do we vainly trouble ourselves with so fierce contentions whether by Consubstaritiation, or else '. substantiation ?' Eccles. Polit. B. v. 67.
58 LETTER XXXVII.
/
trines, from the Apostles, independently of Scripture : for, before even St. Matthew's Gospel was promulgat- ed, the sacrifice of the Mass was celebrated, and the body and blood of Christ distributed to the faithful throughout a great part of the known world.
In finishing this letter I must make an important remark on the object or end of the institution of the Blessed Sacrament: this our Divine Master tells us was to communicate a new and special grace, or life, as he calls it, to us his disciples of the New Law. The bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father ; so he that eateth me, the same shall also live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven : not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead : he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. John vi. 52, 58, 59. He explains, in the same passage, the particular nature of this spiritual life, and shews in what it consists, namely, in an intimate union with him, where he says: He that eateth my fash, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him. Ver. 57» Now the servants of God, from the beginning of the world, had striking figures and memorials of the promised Messiah, the participation of which, by faith and devotion, was, in a limited degree, beneficial to their souls ; such were the Tree of Life, the various sacrifices of the Patriarchs those of the Mosaic Law, but more particularly
THE EEAL PRESENCE. 69
the Paschal Lamb, the Loaves of Proposition, and the Manna of which Christ here speaks : still, these signs, in their very institution, were so many promises, on the part of God, that he would bestow upon his people the thing signified by them ; even that incarnate Deity, who is at once our victim and our food, and who gives spiritual life to the worthy communicants, not in a limited measure, but indefinitely, according to each one's preparation. The same tender love which made him shroud the rays of his Divinity and take upon himself the form of a servant, and the like- ness of man, in his Incarnation ; and become as a 'worm and not a man, the reproach of men and the outcast of the people, in his immolation on Mount Calvary, has caused him to descend a step lower, and to conceal his human nature also, under the veils of our ordinary nourishment, that thus we may be able to salute him with our mouths and lodge him in our breasts ; in order that we may thus, each one of us, abide in him and he abide in us, for the life of our souls. No wonder that Protestants, who are strangers to these heavenly truths, and who are still immersed in the clouds of types and figures, not pretending to any thing more in their sacrament, than what the Jews possessed in their ordinances, should be comparatively so indif- ferent, as to the preparation for receiving it, and, indeed, as to the reception of it at all ! No wonder
70 LETTER XXXVII.
that many of them, and among the rest Antony Ulric, Duke of Brunswick (l), should have reconciled them- selves to the Catholic Church, chiefly for the benefit of exchanging the figure for the substance ; the bare memorial of Christ, for his adorable Body and Blood.
I am, &c.
J. M.
(1) Lettres d'un Docteur Allemand, par Scheffmacker, Vol. i. p. 393.
fci r-
71
LETTER XXXVIII.
To the Rev. ROBERT CLAYTON, M.A.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. REV. SIB,
THOUGH I had not received the letter with which you have honoured me, it was my intention to write to Mr. Brown, by way of answering Bishop Porteus's objections against the Catholic doc- trine of the Blessed Eucharist. As you, Rev. Sir, have in some manner adopted those objections, I address my answer to you.
You begin with the Bishop's arguments from Scrip- ture, and say, that the same Divine Personage who says : Take, eat, this is my body, elsewhere calls him- self a door and a vine : hence you argue, that, as the two latter terms are metaphorical, so the first is also. I grant that Christ makes use of metaphors when he calls himself a door and a vine ; but then he explains that they are metaphors, by saying; I am the door of the sheep, by me if any man enter he shall be saved, John x. 9. ; and again, lam the vine, you the branches : he that abideth in me, and I in him, beareth much fruit : for without me you can do nothing. John xv. 5. But,
72 LETTER XXXVIII.
in the institution of the Sacrament, though he was then making his last will, and bequeathing that legacy to his children which he had in his promise of it assur- ed them should be meat indeed and drink indeed ; not a word falls from him to signify that his legacy is not to be understood in the plain sense of the term she makes use of. Hence those incredulous Christians, who insist on allegorizing the texts in question, (pro- fessing at the same time to make the plain natural sense of Scripture their only rule of faith), may allegorize every other part of Holy Writ, as ridiculously as Lu- ther has translated the first words of Genesis i and thus gain no certain knowledge from any part of it. His Lordship adds, that the Apostles did not understand this institution literally, as they asked no questions, nor expressed any surprise concerning it. True, they did not ; but then they had been present on a former occa- sion, at a scene in which the Jews, and even many of the disciples, expressed great surprise at the annuncia- tion of this mystery, and asked : How can this man give us his flesh to eat? On that occasion we know that Christ tried the faith of his Apostles, as to this mystery ; when they generously answered : Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life.
You may quote, after Dr. Porteus, Christ's answer to the murmur of the Jews on this subject : Doth this
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. •?$
offend you ? If then you shall see the Son of Man as* cend up where he was before ? It is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh proflteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. John vi. 63, 64. To this I answer, that if there were an apparent con- tradiction between this passage and those others in the same chapter, in which Christ so expressly affirms, that his fashis MEAT INDEED, and his blood DRINK INDEED, it would only prove more clearly the neces- sity of inquiring into the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning them. But there is no such ap- pearance of contradiction : on the contrary, our con* trovertists draw an argument from the first part of this passage, in favour of the Real Presence ( 1 ). The utmost that can be deduced from the remaining part is, that Christ's inanimate flesh, manducated, like that of animals, according to the gross idea of the Jews, would not confer the spiritual life which he speaks of : though some of the Fathers .understand these words, not of the Body and Blood of Christ, but of our unen- lightened natural reason, in contradistinction to inspired faith, in which sense Christ says to St. Peter : Blessed art thou, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to thee9 but my Father who is in heaven. Mat. xvi. 17- — You add from St. Luke, that Christ says in the very
(1) Verite de la Relig. Cat. prouv^e par 1'Ecriture, par M. DCS Mahis, p. 163.
PART III. L
74 LETTER XXXVIII.
institution : Do this in memory of me. Luke xxii. 19. — I answer, that neither here is there any contradiction : for the Eucharist is both a memorial of Christ and the Real Presence of Christ. When a person stands visibly before us, we have no need of any sign to call him to our memory ; but if he were present in such manner as to be concealed from all our senses, without a me- morial of him, we might as easily forget him, as if he were at a great distance from us. These words of Christ then, which we always repeat at the consecra- tion, and the very sight of the sacramental species serve for this purpose.
The objections, however, which you, Rev. Sir, and Bishop Porteus, chiefly insist upon, are the testimony of our senses. You both say ; the bread and wine are seen, and touched, and tasted in our Sacrament the same as in yours. ' If we cannot believe our senses,'
the Bishop says, ' we can believe nothing.' This
was a good popular topic for Archbishop Tillotson, from whom it is borrowed, to flourish upon in the pulpit, but it will not stand the test of Christian theology. It would undermine the Incarna- tion itself. With equal reason the Jews said of Christ : Is not this the carpenter's son ? Is not his mother called Mary ? Mat. xiii. 55. Hence they concluded that he was not what he proclaimed himself to be, the Son of God. In like manner, Josuah thought he saw a man,
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 75
Josuah v. 13, and Jacob that he touched one, Gen. xxxii. 24, and Abraham that he eat with three men, Gen. xviii. 8, when in all these instances there were no real men, but unbodied spirits present; the dif- ferent senses of those Patriarchs misleading them. Again, were not the eyes of the disciples, going to Emmaus, held so that they should not know Jesus ? Luke xxiv. 16. Did not the same thing happen to Mary Magdalen and the Apostles? John xx. 15. But in- dependently of Scripture, philosophy and experience shew that there is no essential connexion between our sensations and the objects which occasion them, and that, in fact, each of our senses frequently deceives us. How unreasonable then is it, as well as impious, to oppose their fallible testimony to God's infallible word ! (1).
But the Bishop, as you remind me, undertakes to shew that there are absurdities and contradictions in the doctrine of Transubstantiation ; he ought to have said of the Real Presence: for every one of his al- Jedged contradictions is equally found in the Lutheran Consubstantiation, in the belief of which our gracious
(1) For example, we think we see the setting sun in a line with our eyes, but philosophy demonstrates that a large portion of the terraqueous globe, is interposed between them, and that the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon. As we trust more to our feeling than any other sense : let any person cause his neighbour to shut his eyes, and then crossing the two first fingers of either hand, make him rub a pea, or any other round substance between them, he will then protest that he feels two such objects.
I. a
76 LETTER XXXVIII.
Queen was educated, and in the corporal presence, held by so many English Bishops. He accordingly asks how Christ's body can be contracted into the space of a Host ? How it can be at the right-hand of his Father in heaven, and upon our altars at the same time ? &c. I answer first, with an ancient Father, that if we insist on using this HOW of the Jews, with respect to the mysteries revealed in Scripture, we must renounce our faith in it?(l). 2dly, I answer that we do not know what constitutes the essence of matter and of space. I say, 3dly, that Christ transfigured his body, on Mount Thabor, Mark ix. 1, bestowing on it many properties of a spirit before his passion, and that after he had ascended up to heaven, he appeared to St. Paul on the road to Damascus, Acts'm. J7> and stood by
him in the Castle of Jerusalem, Acts xxiii. 11. Lastly,
\ *
I answer, that God fills all space, and is whole and entire in every particle of matter; likewise that my own soul, is in my right-hand and my left, whole and entire ; that the bread and wine, which I eat and drink, are transubstantiated into my own flesh and blood ; that this body of mine, which some years ago was of a small size, has now increased to its present bulk ; that soon it will turn into dust, or perhaps be devoured by animals or cannibals, and thus become part of their substance, and that, nevertheless, God
(1) Cyril. Alex. 1, 4, in Joan.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 77
will restore it entire, at the last day. Whoever will enter into these considerations, instead of employing the Jewish HOW, will be disposed with St. Austin, to ' admit that God can do much more than we can 1 understand/ and to cry out with the Apostles, re- specting this mystery : Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life.
I am, &c.
J. M.
78 LETTER XXXIX.
To JAMES BROWN, Esq.
COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. DEAR SIR,
I TRUST you have not forgotten, what I demonstrated in the first part of our corres- pondence; that the Catholic Church was formed and instructed in its divine doctrine and rites, and espe- cially in its Sacraments and Sacrifice, before any part of the New Testament was published, and whole cen- turies before the entire New Testament was collected and pronounced by her to be authentic and inspired. Indeed Protestants are forced to have recourse to the Tradition of the Church, for determining a great num- ber of points which are left doubtful by the Sacred Text, particularly with respect to the two Sacraments, which they acknowledge. From the doctrine and practice of the Church alone they learn that, though Christ, our pattern, was baptized in a river, Mark i. 9, and the Ethiopian Eunuch was led by St. Philip into the water, Acts viii. 38, for the same purpose, the ap- plication of it by infusion or aspersion is valid, and that, though Christ says : He that EELIEVETH and is baptized shall be saved, Mark xvi. 16, infants are
COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 79
susceptible of the benefits of baptism, who are incapa- ble of making an act of faith. In like manner, respecting the Eucharist, it is from the doctrine and practice of the Church alone, Protestants learn that, though Christ communicated the Apostles, at an evening supper, after they had feasted on a lamb, and their feet had been washed, a ceremony which he ap- pears to enjoin on that occasion with the utmost strictness, John xiii. 8, 15, none of these rites are essential to that ordinance, or necessary to be prac- tised at present With what pretension to con- sistency then can they reject her doctrine and prac- tice in the remaining particulars of this mysterious institution ? A clear exposition of the institution itself, and of the doctrine and discipline of the Church, concerning the controversy in question, will afford the best answer to the objections raised against the latter.
It is true that our B. Saviour instituted the Holy Eu- charist 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, namely his twelve Apostles, (for none else but they were present on the occasion) to consecrate this Sacrament and offer this Sacrifice. Now, for the latter purpose, namely a Sacrifice, it was requisite that the victim should be really present, and, at least, mystically immolated, which was then, and is
80 LETTER XXXIX.
still, performed in the Mass, by the symbolical disunion, or separate consecration of the Body and the Blood. It was requisite, also, for the completion of the Sacri- fice, that the Priests who had immolated the victim, by mystically separating its body and its blood, should consummate it in both these kinds. Hence it is seen, that the command of Christ, on which our op- ponents lay so much stress, drink ye all of this, regards the Apostles, as Priests, and not the laity, as commu- nicants (1). True it is, that when Christ promised
this Sacrament to the faithful in general, he promised, in express terms, both his Body and his Blood, Johnvi. : but this does not imply that they must, therefore, receive them under the different appearances of bread and wine. For as the Council of Trent teaches : ' He who said : Un- ' less you shall eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink 1 his blood, you shall not have life in you, has likewise
* said; If any one shall eat of this bread, he shall live 1 for ever. And he who has said : Whoso eateth my ' flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting, has c also said : The bread which I will give, is my fleshy for ' the life of the world. And lastly, he who has said : c He who eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth
(1) The acute Apologist of the Quakers has observed, how inconclusively Protestants argue from the words of the institution. He says : ' I would gladly ' know how from the words, they can be certainly resolved that these words ' (Do this) must be understood of the Clergy. Take, bless and break this
* bread, and give it to others; but to the laity only : Take and eat, but do
* not bless/ &c.— Barc/oy'i Apology, Prop. xiii. p. 7.
COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 81
' in me and I in him : has nevertheless said : He who ' eateth this bread shall live for ever ( 1 ).
The truth is, Dear Sir, after all the reproaches of the Bishop of Durham concerning our alledged sacrilege, in suppressing half a Sacrament, and the general com- plaint of Protestants, of our robbing the laity of the cup of salvation (2), that the precious Body and Blood, being equally and entirely present under each species, is equally and entirely given to the faithful, which- ever they receive : whereas the Calvinists and Angli- cans do not so much as pretend to communicate either the real body or the blood ; but present mere types or me- morials of them. I do not deny that, in their mere figurative system, there may be some reason for re- ceiving the liquid as well as the solid substance, since the former may appear to represent more aptly the blood, and the latter the body ; but to us Catholics, who possess the reality of them both, their species or outward appearance is no more than a matter of changeable discipline.
It is the sentiment of the great lights of the Church, St. Chrysostom, St. Austin, St. Jerom, &c. and seems clear from the text, that when Christ, on the day of his Resurrection, took bready and blessed and brake, and
(1) Sess. xxi. c. 1.
(2) Conformably to the above doctrine, neither our Priests nor our Bishops receive under more than one kind, when they do not offer up the Holy Sacrifice.
PART III. M
g£ LETTER XXXIX.
gave it to Cleophas and the other disciple, whose o-uest he was at Emmaus, on his doing which their eyes were opened, and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight, Luke xxiv. 30, 31, he administered the holy communion to them under the form of bread alone. In like manner, it is written of the baptized converts of Jerusalem, that, they were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communication of the BREAKING OF BREAD, and in prayer, Acts ii. 42 ; and of the religious meeting at Troas : on the Jirst day of the week, when we were assembled to BREAK BREAD, Acts xx. 7, without any men- tion of the other species. These passages plainly sig- nify that the Apostles were accustomed, sometimes at least, to give the Sacrament under one kind alone, though Bishop Porteus has not the candour to confess it. Another more important passage for communion under either kind he entirely overlooks, w^ere the Apostle says: Whosoever shall eat this bread, OR , , drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord (l). True it is
(1) H KIWI, or drink, 1 Cor. xi. 27. The Rev. Mr. Grier,'who has attempted to vindicate the purity of the English Protestant Bible, has nothing else to say for this alteration of St. Paul's Epistle, than that in what they falsely call * the parallel texts of Luke and Matthew/ the conjunctive and occurs ! Grier's Answer to Ward's Errata, p. 13. — I may here notice the horrid and notorious misrepresentation of the Catholic doctrine concerning the Eucharist, of which two living dignitaries are guilty in their publications. The Bishop of Lincoln says : < Papists contend that the mere receiving of the
COMMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 83
that, in the English Bible, the text is here corrupted, the conjunctive AND being put for the disjunctive OR, contrary to the original Greek, as well as to the Latin Vulgate, to the version of Beza, &c. but as his Lordship could not be ignorant of this corruption and the importance of the genuine text, it is inexcus- able in him to have passed it over unnoticed.
The whole series of Ecclesiastical History proves that the Catholic Church, from the time of the Apos* ties down to the present, ever firmly believing that the whole Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ equally subsist under each of the species or appear- ances of bread and wine, regarded it as a mere matter of discipline, which of them was to be received in the Holy Sacrament, It appears from Tertullian, in the second century (l), from St. Dennis of Alexan- dria (2) and St. Cyprian (3), in the third ; from St.
f *< Lord's Supper merits the remission of sin, ex opere operate, as it were ' mechanically, whatever may be the character or disposition of the com- * municants/ Elem. of Theol. vol. ii. p. 491. Dr. Hey repeats the charge in nearly the same words. Lectures, vol. iv. p. 365. What Catholic will not lift up his hands in amazement at the grossness of this calumny, know- ing, as he does, from his catechism and all his books, what purity of soul, and how much greater a preparation is required for the reception of our Sacrament than Protestants require for receiving theirs. See Concil. Trid. Sess. xiii. c. 7. Cat. Rom. Douay Catech. &c.
(1) AdUxor. l.ii.
(2) A pud Euseb. L iv. c. 44,
(3) DeLapsis.
M2
84 LETTER XXXIX.
Basil(l) and St. Chrysostom, in the fourth, &c. (2) that the Blessed Sacrament, under the form of bread, was preserved in the oratories and houses of the primitive Christians, for private communion, and for the viati- cum in danger of death. There are instances also of its being carried on the breast, at sea, in the orarium or neckcloth (3). On the other hand, as it was the custom to give the B. Sacrament to baptized children, it was adminstered to those who were quite infants, by a drop out of the chalice (4). On the same principle, it being discovered, in the fifth century, that certain Manichaean heretics, who had come to Rome from Africa, objected to the sacramental cup, from an er- roneous and wicked opinion, Pope Leo ordered them to be excluded from the communion entirely (5), and Pope Gelasius required all his flock to receive under both kinds (6). It appears that, in the twelfth century, only the officiating Priest and infants received under the form of wine, which discipline was confirmed at the beginning of the fifteenth by the Council of Con-
(1) Epistad Cesar.
(2) Apud Soz. l.viii. c.5.
(3) St. Ambros. In obit. Frat.— It appears also that St. Birinus, the Apostle of the West Saxons, brought the Blessed Sacrament with him into this Island in an Orarium. Gul. Malm. Vit. Pontif. Florent. Wigorn, Higden, &c.
(4) St. Cypr. de Laps.
(5) Sermo. iv. de Quadrag.
(6) Decret. Cpmperimus Dist. iii.
COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 85
stance (1), on account of the profanations, and other evils resulting from the general reception of it in that form. Soon after this, the more orderly sect of the Hus- sites, namely the Calixtins, professing their obedience to the Church in other respects, and petitioning the Council of Basil to be indulged in the use of the Chalice, this was granted them (2). In like manner Pope Pius IV, at the request of the Emperor Ferdinand, authorized several Bishops of Germany to allow the use of the cup to those persons of their respective dioceses who desired it (3). The French Kings, since the reign of Philip, have had the privilege of re- ceiving under both kinds, at their coronation and at their death (4). The officiating deacon and sub- deacon of St. Dennis, and all the monks of the order of Cluni, who serve the altar, enjoy the same (5).
From the above statement Bishop Porteus will learn, if not that the manner of receiving the Sacra- ment under one or the other kind, or under both kinds,
(J) Dr. Porteus, Dr.Coomber, Kemnitius, &c. accuse this Council of de- creeing 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 the Council opposed its authority to that of Christ ; whereas it barely defines that some circumstances of the institution (namely, that it took place, after supper, that the Apostles received without being fasting, and that both species were consecrated) are not obligatory on all Christians. See Can, xiii.
(2) Sess. ii.
(3) Mem. Granv. t. xiii. Odorhainal.
(4) Annal. Pagi.
(5) Nat. Alex. t. i. p. 430.
36 LETTER XXXIX.
is a mere matter of variable discipline, at least that the doctrine and the practice of the Catholic Church is consistent with each other. I am now going to produce evidence of another kind, which, after all his, and the Bishop of Durham's anathemas against us, on account of this doctrine and discipline, will demonstrate that, conformably with the declarations of the three principal denominations of Protestants, the point at issue is a mere matter of discipline, or else that they are utterly inconsistent with themselves.
To begin with Luther : he reproaches his disciple Carlostad, who in his absence had introduced some new religious changes at Wittenberg, with having < placed Christianity in things of no account, such as ' communicating under both kinds,' &c.( 1). On another occasion, he writes : l if a Council did ordain or permit
* both kinds, in spite of the Council, we would take but ' one, or take neither, and curse those who should c take both (2).' Secondly, the Calvinists of France, in their Synod at Poictiers in 1560, decreed thus : ' the ' bread of our Lord's Supper ought to be administered 1 to those who cannot drink wine, on their making a
* protestation that they do not refrain from con- ' tempt (3).' — Lastly, by separate Acts of that Parlia-
(1) Epist ad Gasp. Gustol.
(9) Form. Miss. t. ii. pp. 384, 386.
(3) On the Lord's Supper, c. iii. p. 7.
COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 87
ment and that King, who established the Protestant Religion in England, and, by name, Communion in both kinds, it is provided that the latter should only be commonly so delivered and ministered, and an ex- ception is made in case ' necessity did otherwise re- 1 quire (l).' Now I need not observe that, if the use of the cup were, by the appointment of Christ, an essen- tial part of the Sacrament, no necessity can ever be pleaded in bar of that appointment, and men might as well pretend to celebrate the Eucharist without bread as without wine (l), or to confer the Sacrament of Baptism without water. The dilemma is inevitable. Either the ministration of the Sacrament under one or under both kinds is a matter of changeable discipline, or each of the three principal denominations of Pro- testants has contradicted itself. I should be glad to know what part of the alternative his Lordship may choose.
I am, &c.
J. M.
(1) Burnet's Hist, of Reform. Partii. p. 41. Heylin's Hist, of Reform, p. 58. For the Proclamation, see Bishop Sparrow's Collection, p. 17. — N. B. The writer has heard of British made wine being frequently used by Church Ministers in their Sacrament for real wine. The Missionaries, who were sent toOtaheite, used the bread fruit for real bread on the like occasion. See Voyage of the ship Duff.
88
LETTER XL.
rf •''"vfV^
To JAMES BROWN, Esq.
ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE NEW LAW. DEAR SIR,
THE Bishop of London leads me next to the consideration of the Sacrifice of the New Law, commonly called THE MASS, on which, however, he is brief and evidently embarrassed. As I have already touched upon this subject, in treating of the means of sanctification in the Catholic Church, I shall be as brief upon it as I well can.
A Sacrifice is an offering up and immolation of a living animal, or other sensible thing, to God, in testi- mony that he is the master of life and death, the Lord of us and all things. It is evidently a more expressive act of the creature's homage to his Creator, as well as one more impressive on the mind of the creature itself than mere prayer is, and therefore it was revealed by God to the Patriarchs, at the beginning of the world, and afterwards more strictly enjoined by him to his chosen people in the revelation of his written law to Moses, as the most acceptable and efficacious worship that could be offered up to his Divine Majesty. The
SACRIFICE OF THE NEW LAW. 89
tradition of this primitive ordinance and the notion of its advantageousness have been so universal that it has been practiced, in one form or other, in every age from our first parents down to the present, and by every people, whether civilized or barbarous, except modern Protestants. For when the nations of the earth changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and of birds and four- footed beasts, Rom. i. 23, they continued the rite of sacrifice, and transferred it to these unworthy objects of their idolatry. From the whole of this I infer that it would have been truly surprising, if under the most perfect dispensation of God's benefits to men, the New Law, he had left them destitute of sacrifice. But he has not so left them ; on the contrary, that prophecy of Malachy is evidently verified in the Catholic Church, spread as it is over the surface of the earth : From the rising of the sun, even to the going down thereof, my name is great among the Gentiles ; and, in everyplace, there is sacrifice ; and there is offered to my name a clean oblation. Malac. i. 11. If Protestants say : we have the sacri- fice of Christ's death; I answer, so had the servants of God under the law of nature and the written law : for it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away : nevertheless, they had perpe- tual sacrifices of animals to represent the death of Christ, and to apply the fruits of it to their souls ; in PAUT in. N
$0 LETTER XL.
the same manner Catholics have Christ himself really present, and mystically offered on their altars daily, for the same ends, but in a far more efficacious man- ner, and, of course, a true propitiatory sacrifice. That Christ is truly present in the blessed Eucharist, I have proved by many arguments ; that a mystical immolation of him takes place in the Holy Mass, by the separate consecration of the bread and of the wine, which strikingly represents the separation of his blood from his body, I have likewise shewn : finally, I have shewn you that the officiating Priest performs these mysteries by command of Christ, and in memory of what he did at the last supper and what he endured on Mount Cal- vary : DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME. Nothing then is wanting in the Holy Mass to constitute it the true and propitiatory sacrifice of theNew Law, a sacrifice which as much surpasses, in dignity and efficacy, the sacrifices of the Old Law as the chief Priest and victim of it, the Incarnate Deity, surpasses in these respects, the sons of Aaron, and the animals which they sacrificed. No wonder then that, as the Fathers of the Church from the earliest times have borne testimony to the reality of this sacrifice (l), so they should speak, in
<1) St. Justin, who appears to have been, in his youth, contemporary with St. John the Evangelist, says, that « Christ instituted a Sacrifice in bread ' and wine, which Christians offer up in every place/ quoting Malachy i. 19. Dialog, cum Tryphon. St. Iren^Hj, whose master, Polycarp, was a disciple
SACRIFICE OF THE NEW LAW. 91
such lofty terms, of its awfulness and efficacy : no wonder that the Church of God should retain and re- vere it as the most sacred and the very essential part of her sacred liturgy : and I will add, no wonder that Satan should have persuaded Martin Luther to attempt to abrogate this worship, as that which, most of all, is offensive to him (I).
The main arguments of the Bishops of London and Lincoln, and of Dr. Hey with other Protestant con- trovertists, against the sacrifice of the New Law, are drawn from St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, where, comparing the sacrifice of our Saviour with the sacri- fices of the Mosaic Law, the Apostle says : that Christ being come a High Priest of the good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is, not of this creation :• neither by the blood of goats, or of calves, but by his own blood, entered once
of that Evangelist, says, that * Christ in consecrating bread and wine, has ' instituted the Sacrifice of the New Law, which the Church received from the
* Apostles, according to the prophecy of Malachy.' L. iv. 32. St. Cyprian calls the Eucharist * A true and full Sacrifice;' and says, that * as Melchise- ' dech offered bread and wine, so Christ offered the same, namely his body and
* blood/ Epist. 63. St. Chrysostom, St. Austin, St. Ambrose, &c. are equally clear and expressive on this point. The last mentioned calls this sacrifice by the name of Missa or Mass, so do St. Leo, St. Gregory, our Ven. Bede, &c.
(1) Luther, in his Book De Unct. et Miss. Priv. torn. vii. fol. 228, gives an account of the motive which induced him to suppress the sacrifice of the Mass among his followers. He says that the Devil appeared to him at mid- night, and in a long conference with him, the whole of which he relate^ convinced him that the worship of the Mass is Idolatry. See Letters to a. Prebendary. Let. v.
N 2
£2 LETTER XL.
into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption. Heb. ix. 11, 12. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the High Priest entereth into the Holies every year. Ver. 25. Again, St. Paul says : Every Priest standeth indeed daily ministering and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins : but this man offering one sacrifice for sins, sitteth at the right hand of God. Chap. x. 11, 12. Such are the texts, at full length, which modern Protestants urge so confi- dently against the sacrifice of the New Law ; but in which neither the ancient Fathers, nor any other description of Christians, but themselves, can see any argument against it. In fact, if these passages be read in their context, it will appear that the Apos- tle is barely proving to the Hebrews (whose lofty ideas and strong tenaciousness of their ancient rites appear from different parts of the Acts of the Apostles) how infinitely superior the sacrifice of Christ is, to those of the Mosaic Law; particularly from the circumstance, which he repeats, in different forms, namely, that there was a necessity of their Sacrifices being of ten repeated, \vhich, after all, could not, of themselves and indepen- dently of the one they prefigured, take away sin ; whereas the latter, namely Christ's death on the cross, obliterated at once the sins of those who availed them- selves of it. Such is the argument of St. Paul to the Jews, respecting their sacrifices, which, in no sort,
SACRIFICE OF THE NEW LAW. 93
militates against the Sacrifice of the Mass ; this being the same sacrifice with that of the cross, as to the t?£c- tim that is offered, and as to the Priest who offers it, differing in nothing but the manner of offering (I) ; in the one there being a real, and in the other a mysti- cal, effusion of the victim's blood (2). So far from invalidating the Catholic doctrine on this point, the Apostle confirms it, in this very Epistle; where, quot- ing and repeating the sublime Psalm of the Royal Prophet concerning the Messiah; Thou art a Priest for ever ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MEL- CHISEDECH, Ps. 109, alias 110, he enlarges on the dignity of this Sacerdotal Patriarch, to whom Aaron himself, the High Priest of the Old Law, paid tribute, as to his superior, through his ancestor Abraham. Heb. v. — vii. Now in what did this Order of Melchisedech consist ? In what, I ask, did his sacrifice differ from those which Abraham himself and the other Patriarchs, as well as Aaron and his sons offered ? Let us consult the sacred text, as to what it says concerning this Royal Priest, when he came to meet Abraham, on his return from victory : Melchisedech, the King of Salem, bringing forth BREAD AND WINE, for he was the Priest of the Most High God; blessed him. Gen. xiv. 18. It was then
s
(1) Concil. Trid. Sess. xxii. cap. 2. (2) Cat. ad. Faroe. P. ii. p. 81.
94 tETTEIl XL.
in offering up a sacrifice of Bread and Wine, (1), in- stead of slaughtered animals, that Melchisedech's sa- crifice differed from the generality of those in the Old Law, and that he prefigured the sacrifice, which Christ was to institute in the New Law, from the same ele- ments. No other sense but this can be elicited from the Scripture as to this matter, and accordingly, the Holy Fathers unanimously adhere to this meaning (2). In finishing this letter, I cannot help, Dear Sir, making two or three short but important observations. — The first regards the deception practiced on the un- learned by the above named Bishops, Dr. Hey, and most other Protestant controvertists, in talking, on every occasion, of the Popish Mass, and representing the tenets of the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, and a subsisting true propitiatory Sacrifice, as peculiar to Catholics ; whereas, if they are persons of any learn- ing, they must know that these are and have always been held by all the Christians in the world, except the comparatively few who inhabit the northern parts of Europe. I speak of the Melchite or common Greeks of Turkey, the Armenians, the Muscovites, the
(1) The sacrifice of Cain, Gen. iv. 3, and that ordered in Levit. ii. 1, of flour, oil and incense, prove that inanimate things were sometimes of old offered in sacrifice.
(2) St. Cypr. Ep. 63. St. Aug. in Ps, xxxiii. St, Chrys. Horn. 35. St. Jerom, Ep. 126, &c.
SACRIFICE OF THE NEW LAW. 95
Nestorians, the Eutychians or Jacobites, the Christi- ans of St. Thomas in India, the Cophts and Ethiopi- ans in Africa; all of whom maintain each of those articles, and almost every other on which Protestants differ from Catholics, with as much firmness as we ourselves do. Now as these sects have been totally separated from the Catholic Church, some of them 800 and some 1400 years, it is impossible they should have derived any recent doctrines or practices from her; and, divided, as they ever have been among themselves, they cannot have combined to adopt them. On the other hand, since the rise of Protest- antism, attempts have been repeatedly made to draw some or other of them to the novel creed ; but all in vain. Melancthon translated the Ausburg Confes- sion of Faith into Greek and sent it to Joseph, Patri- arch of C. P., hoping he would adopt it ; whereas the Patriarch did not so much as acknowledge the receipt of the present (1). Fourteen years later Crusius, Professor of Tubigen, made a similar attempt on Jere- my, the successor of Joseph, who wrote back, request- ed him to write no more on the subject, at the same time making the most explicit declaration of his be- lief in the seven Sacraments, the sacrifice of the Mass, Transubstantiation, &c. (2). In the middle of the 17th century, fresh overtures being made to the
(1) Sheffmac. torn. ii. p. 7". (2) Ibid.
gg LETTER XL.
Greeks by the Calvinists of Holland, the most con- vincing evidence of the orthodox belief of all the above mentioned communions, on the articles in ques- tion, were furnished by them, the originals of which were deposited in the French king's library at Paris (l). — I have to remark, in the second place, on the incon- sistencies of the Church of England, respecting this point; she has Priests (2), but, no sacrifice ! She has
41
altars (3), but, no victim ! She has an essential con- secration of the sacramental elements (4), without any the least effect upon them! Not to dive deeper into this chaos, I would gladly ask Bishop Poiteus; what hinders a Deacon, or even a layman, from consecrating the sacramental bread and wine as validly as a Priest or a Bishop can do, agreeably to his system of conse- cration? There is evidently no obstacle at all, ex- cept such as the mutable law of the land interposes. — In the last place, I think it right to quote some of the absurd and irreligious invectives of the renowned Dr. Hey against the Holy Mass, because they shew the
(1) Perpetuite de la Foi.
(2) See the Rubrics of the Communion Service.
(3) See ditto in Sparrow's Collec. p. 20.
(4) ' If the consecrated bread or wine be all spent, before all have commu- * nicated, the Priest is to consecrate more.' Ilubr. N. B. Bishop War- burton and Bishop Cleaver earnestly contend that the Eucharist is a feast upon a sacrifice; but as, in their dread of Popery, they admit no change, nor even the reality of a victim, their feast is proved to be an imaginary banquet on an ideal viand.
SACRIFICE OF THE NEW LAW. 97
extreme ignorance of our religion, which generally prevails among the most learned Protestants, who write against it. The Doctor first describes the Mass as ' blasphemous, in dragging down Christ from heaven,' according to his expression ; 2dly, as ' pernicious in ' giving men an easy way,' as he pretends, 'of evad- ' ing all their moral aud religious duties ; 3dly, as * promoting infidelity :' in conformity with which lat- ter assertion, he maintains that ' most Romanists of 6 letters and science are infidels.' He next proceeds seriously to advise Catholics to abandon this part of their sacred liturgy, namely the adorable sacrifice of the New Law ; and he then concludes his theological farce with the following ridiculous threats against this sacrifice : ' If the Romanists will not listen to our ' brotherly exhortations ; let them fear our threats. ' The rage of paying for Masses will not last for ever : ' as men improve, (by the French Revolution), it will ' continue to grow weaker ; as Philosophy ( that of ' Atheism) rises, Masses will sink in price and super- ' stition pine away.' (1) — I wish I had an opportunity of telling the learned Professor, that I should have ex- pected, from the failure of Patriarch Luther, coun-
(1) Dr. Key's Theol. Lectures, vol. iv. p. 385. The Professor tells us in a note, that this lecture was delivered in the year 1792 ; the hey-day of that antichristian and antisocial Philosophy, which attempted, through an ocean of blood, to subvert every altar and every throne.
PART III. O
98 LETTER XL.
selled and assisted as he was by Satan himself, in his attempts to abolish the Holy Mass, he would have been more cautious in dealing prophetic threats against it ! [In fact he has lived to see this Divine Worship publicly restored in every part of Christendom, where it was proscribed, when he vented his menaces : for as to the private celebration of Mass, this was never in- termitted, not even in the depth of the gloomiest dun- geons, and where no pay could be had, by the Catho- lic Priesthood. What other religious worship, I ask, could have triumphed over such a persecution ! The same will be the case in the latter days ; when the Man of sin shall have indignation against the covenant of the sanctuary — and shall take away the continual sacrifice, Dan. xi. 30, 34 ; for even then, the mystical woman who is clothed with the sun, and has the moon under her feet, — shall fly into the wilderness, Rev. xii. 1, 6, and perform the Divine Mysteries of an Incarnate Deity in caverns and catacombs, as she did in early times, till that happy day, when her heavenly Spouse, casting aside those sacramental veils, under which his love now shrouds him, shall shine forth in the glory of God the Father, the Judge of the living and the dead.]
T ~*V» 0-r<»
:*••;.
99
LETTER XLI.
To the Rev. ROBERT CLAYTON, M.A.
ON ABSOLUTION FROM SIN. REV. SIR,
I PERCEIVE that you chiefly follow B. Porteus, who mixes in the same chapter the hete- rogeneous subjects of the Mass and the Forgiveness of Sins, in the selection of your objections against the Church, though you adopt some others from the Tracts of Bishop Watson, and even from writers of such little repute as the Rev. C. De Coetlogon. This preacher, in venting the horrid calumnies, which a great proportion of other Protestant preachers and controvertists of different sects, equally with himself, instil into the minds of their ignorant hearers and readers, expresses himself as follows : ' In the Church ' of Rome you may purchase not only pardons for sins ' already committed, but for those that shall be com-
* mitted ; so that any one may promise himself impu-
* nity, upon paying the rate that is set upon any sin he
* hath a mind to commit. And so truly is Popery the
* Mother of Abominations, that if any one hath where-
* withal to pay, he may not only be indulged in his
O2
100 LETTER XLI.
' present transgressions, but may even be permitted to 'transgress in future (I).9 — And are these shameless calumniators real Christians, who believe in a judg- ment to come ! And do they expect to make us Catholics renounce our religion, by representing it to us as the very reverse of what we know it to be ! — It is true, Bishop Porteus does not go the lengths of the pulpit-declaimer above quoted, and of the other con- trovertists alluded to, in his attack upon the Catholic doctrine of absolution and justification : still he is guilty of much gross misrepresentation of it. As his language is confused, if not contradictory on the subject, I will briefly state what thq Catholic Church
(1) Abominations of the Church of Rome, p. 13. The preacher goes on lo state the sums of money for which, he says, Catholics believe they may commit the most atrocious crimes : ' For incest, &c. five sixpences ; for de- ' bauching a virgin, six sixpences; for perjury, ditto ; for him who kills his
' father, mother, &c. one crown and five groats !' This curious account
is borrowed from the Taxa Cancellari<s Romana, a book which has been fre- quently published, though with great variations both as to the crimes and the prices, by the Protestants of Germany and France, and as frequently condemned by the See of Rome. It is proper that Mr. Clayton and his friends should know, that the Pope's Court of Chancery has no^more to do, nor pretends to have any more to do, with the forgiveness of sins, than his Majesty's Court of Chancery does. In case there ever was the least real ground-work of this vile book, which I cannot find there was, the money paid into the Papal Chancery could be nothing else but the fees of office, on restoring certain culprits to the civil privileges which they had forfeited by their crimes. When the proceedings in Doctors Commons in a case of incest are suspended (as I have known them suspended dur- ing the whole life of one of the accused parties) fees of office are always required : but would it not be a vile calumny to say, that leave to commit incest may be purchased in England for certain sums of money ?
ABSOLUTION FROM SIN. 101
has ever believed, and has solemnly defined in her last General Council concerning it.
The Council of Trent, then, teaches that, ' All men ' lost their innocence and become defiled and children ' of wrath, in the prevarication of Adam ; that, not ' only the Gentiles were unable, by the force of na-
* ture, but that even the Jews were unable, by the ' Law of Moses, to rise, notwithstanding free-will was
* not extinct in them, however weakened and deprav- 4 ed (l) :' that * The heavenly Father of mercy and ' God of all consolation sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to
* men, in order to redeem both Jews and Gentiles (2);' that, ' Though he died for all, yet all do not receive ' the benefit of his death ; but only those to whom the ' merit of his passion is communicated (3) :' that, for this purpose, ' Since the preaching of the Gospel, Bap- ' tism, or the desire of it, is necessary (4) ;' that ' The ' beginning of justification, in adult persons (those
* who are come to the use of reason) is to be derived c from God's preventing grace, through Jesus Christ, by ' which, without any merits of their own, they are called ; ' so that they who, by their sins, were averse from ' God, by his exciting and assisting grace, are prepared ' to convert themselves to their justification, by freely ' consenting to and co-operating with his grace (5):'
(1) Sess. vi. cap. i. (2) Cap. ii. (3) Cap. iii.
(4) Cap. iv. (5) Cap. v.
102 LETTER XLI.
that, ' Being excited and assisted by Divine grace, c and receiving faith from hearing, they are freely ' moved towards God, believing the things which have ' been divinely revealed and promised- — they are excited ' to hope that God will be merciful to them for Christ's
* sake, and they begin to love him, as the fountain of € all justice ; and therefore are moved to a certain ' hatred and detestation of sins.' Lastly, ' They resolve
* on receiving baptism, to begin a new life and keep ' God's commandments (l).' — Such is the doctrine of the Church concerning the justification of the adult in Baptism. With respect to the pardon of sins, com- mitted after baptism, the Church teaches that, ' The
< penance of a Christian, after his fall, is very different ' from that of baptism, and that it consists, not only in ' refraining from sins and a detestation of them, namely ' a contrite and humble heart , but also in a sacramental
< confession of them, at least in desire, and, at a proper c time, and the priestly absolution ; and likewise in
* satisfaction, by fasting, alms, prayers and other ' pious exercises of a spiritual life ; not indeed for the ' eternal punishment, which, together with the crime, ' is remitted in the Sacrament, or the desire of the Sa- ' crament, but/0?* the temporal punishment, which the ' Scripture teaches is not always and wholly remit-
(1) Cap. vi.
ABSOLUTION FROM SIN. 103
* ted, as in baptism.' (1) Such is and always was the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which thus ascribes the whole glory of man's justification, both in its beginning and its progress, to God, through Jesus Christ; in opposition to Pelagians and modern Lu- therans, who attribute the beginning of conversion to the human creature. On the other hand, this doctrine leaves man in possession of his free-will, for co-operat- ing in this great work ; and thereby rejects the perni- cious tenet of the Calvinists, who deny free-will and ascribe even our sins to God. In short, the Catholic Church equally condemns the enthusiasm of the Me- thodist, who fancies himself justified, in some unex- pected instant, without faith, hope, charity, or con- trition; and the presumption of the unconverted sinner, who supposes that exterior good works and the recep- tion of the Sacrament will avail him, without any de- gree of the above-mentioned Divine virtues. Such, I say, is the Catholic doctrine, in spite of De Coetlogon and Bishop Porteus' calumnies. — This Prelate is chiefly bent on disproving the necessity of sacramental Confession, and on depriving the sacerdotal Absolution of all efficacy whatsoever. Accordingly, he maintains that when Christ breathed upon his Apostles and said to them : Receive ye the Holy Ghost : WHOSE SINS YOU SHALL FORGIVE, THEY ARE FORGIVEN
(1) John xx. 22, 23.
104 LETTER XLI.
TO THExM : AND WHOSE SINS YOU SHALL RETAIN, THEY ARE RETAINED, John xx. 22, 23, he did not give them any real power to remit sins, but only ' a power of declaring who where truly ' penitent, and of inflicting miraculous punishments on
* sinners; as likewise of preaching the word of God,* &c. (l). And is this, I appeal to you, Rev. Sir, follow- ing the plain natural sense of the written word ? But, instead of arguing the case myself, I will produce an authority against the Bishop's vague and arbitrary gloss on this decisive passage, which I think he cannot object to or withstand ; it is no other than that of the renowned Protestant champion, Chillingworth. Treat- ing of this text he says : ' Can any man be so unrea- 'sonable as to imagine, that, when our Saviour, in so ' solemn a manner, having first breathed upon his dis- ' ciples, thereby conveying and insinuating the Holy ' Ghost into their hearts, renewed unto them, or rather
* confirmed that glorious commission, &c. whereby ' he delegated to them an authority of binding and ' loosing sins upon earth, &c, can any one think, I say, ' so unworthily of our Saviour as to esteem these words ' of his for no better than compliment? Therefore, in ' obedience to his gracious will, and as I am warranted
* and enjoined by my holy Mother, the Church of Eng- 1 land, I beseech you that, by your practice and use,
(1)P.45.
ABSOLUTION FROM SIN. 105
c you will not suffer that commission, which Christ ' hath given to his Ministers, to be a vain form of ' words, without any sense under them. When you * find yourselves charged and oppressed, &c. have re- ' course to your spiritual physician, and freely disclose ' the nature and malignancy of your disease, &c. And ' come not to him, only with such a mind as you would ' go to a learned man, as one that can speak comforta- ' ble things to you ; but as to one that hath authority, ' delegated to him from God himself } to absolve and acquit ' you of your sins ( 1 ).'
Having quoted this great Protestant authority against the Prelate's cavils concerning Sacerdotal ab- solution, I shall produce one or two more of the same sort, and then return to the more direct proofs of the doctrine under consideration. The Lutherans, then, who are the elder branch of the Reformation, in their Confession of Faith and Apology for that Confession, expressly teach that absolution is no less a Sacrament than Baptism and the Lord's Supper, that particular absolution is to be retained in confession, that to reject it is the error of the Novatian heretics ; and that, by the power of the keys, Mat. xvi. 19, sins are remitted, not only in the sight of the Church, but also in the sight of God (2). Luther himself, in his Catechism, re-
(1) Serm. vii. &elig. of Prot. pp. 408, 409. (tf) Confess. August. Art. xi. xii. xiii. ApoL
PART III. P
LETTER XLI.
quired that the penitent, in confession, should expressly declare that he believes ' the forgiveness of the Priest ' to be the forgiveness of God (1).' What can Bishop Porteus and other modern Protestants say to all this, except that Luther and his disciples were infected with Popery ? Let us then proceed to inquire into the doc- trine of the Church itself, of which he is one of the most distinguished heads. In The Order of the Com- munion, composed by Cranmer, and published by Edward VI, the Parson, Vicar or Curate, is to pro- claim this among other things : ' If there be any of you ' whose conscience is troubled and grieved at any i thing, lacking comfort or counsel, let him come to
* me, or to some other discreet and learned Priest, and ' confess and open his sin and grief secretly, &c. and ' that of us, as a Minister of God and of the Church,
* he may receive comfort and absolution (2).' Conform- ablywith this admonition, it is ordained in the Common Prayer Book that when the minister visits any sick person, the latter * should be moved to make a special ' confession of his sins, if he feels his conscience troubled c with any weighty matter ; after which confession,
* the Priest shall absolve him, if he humbly and heartily c desire it, after this sort : Our Lord Jesus Christ, who
(1) In Catech. Parv. See also Luther's Table Talk, c. xviii, on Auricular Confession.
(2) Bishop Sparrow's Collect, p. 20.
ABSOLUTION FROM SIN. 107
* hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners, who ' truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy *, for- 'give thee thine offences : and, by his authority commit- ted to me, I ABSOLVE THEE FROM ALL THY 1 SINS, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of ' the Holy Ghost. Amen(\)S I may add, that, soon after James I. became, at the same time, the member and the head of the English Church, he desired his Prelates to inform him, in the Conference at Hampton Court, what authority this Church claimed in the article of Absolution from sint when Archbishop Whitgift began to entertain him with an account of the general Con- fession and Absolution, in the Communion Service ; with which the king not being satisfied, Bancroft, at that time Bishop of London, fell on his knees, and said : ' It becomes us to deal plainly with your Ma- ' jesty : there is also in the book a more particular and ' personal Absolution in the visitation of the sick. Not ' only the Confession of Augusta, (Ausburg) Bo- ' hernia and Saxony, retain and allow It, but also Mr. ' Calvin doth approve both such a general and such a ' private confession and absolution. To this the King ' answered, I exceedingly well approve it being an
(1) Order for the Visitation of the Sick. N. B. To encourage the secret confession of sins the Church of England has made a Canon, requiring her Ministers not to reveal the same. See Canones Eccles. A, D. 1605,, n. 113.
108 LETTER XLI.
' Apostolical and Godly Ordinance, given in the name ' of Christ to one that desireth it upon the clearing of ' his conscience (l).'
I have signified that there are other passages of Scripture, besides that quoted above from John xx. in proof of the authority exercised by the Catholic Church in the forgiveness of sin ; such as St. Mat. xvl. 19, where Christ gives the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter; and chap, xviii. 18, where he de- clares to all his Apostles : Verily I say unto you ; whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound In hea- ven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. But here also Bp. Porteus and mo- dern Protestants distort the plain meaning of Scrip- ture, and say, that no other power is expressed by these words, than those of inflicting miraculous pu- nishments, and of preaching the word of 'God ! Admit- ting, however, it were possible to affix so foreign a meaning to these texts, I would gladly ask the Bishop, why, after ordaining the Priests of his Church by this very form of words, he afterwards, by a separate form, commissions them to preach the word, and to
(1) Fuller's Ch. Hist. B. x. p. 9. See the Defence of Bancroft's Successor in the See of Canterbury, Dr. Laud, who endeavoured to enforce auricular Confession, in Heylin's Life of Laud, P. ii. p. 415. It appears from this writer, that Laud was Confessor to the Duke of Buckingham, and from Burnet, that Bishop Morley was confessor to the Duchess of York when a Protestant, Hist, of his own Times.
ABSOLUTION FROM SIN. 109
minister ?(l) € No one,' exclaims the Bishop, ' but
' God, can forgive sins.' True ; but as he has annexed the forgiveness of sins committed before baptism, to the reception of this sacrament with the requisite disposi- tions : Do penance, said St. Peter to the Jews, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christy for the remission of your sins, Acts ii. 38 ; so he is pleas- ed to forgive sins committed after baptism, by means of contrition, confession, satisfaction, and the priest's absolution.
Against the obligation of confessing sins, which is so evidently sanctioned in scripture: Many that believed, came and confessed, and declared their deeds, Acts xix. 18; and so expressly commanded therein, Confess your sins one to another, James v. 16, the Bishop contends that ' It is not know * ing a person's sins that can qualify the priest to 4 give him absolution, but knowing he hath re- ' pented of them (2).' In refutation of this objec- tion, I do not ask : Why, then, does the English Church move the dying man to confess his sins ? but I say, that the priest, being vested by Christ with a judicial power to bind or to loose, to forgive or to retain sins, cannot exercise that power, without tak- ing cognizance of the cause on which he is to pro-
(1) See the Form of Ordering Priests. (2) P. 40.
HO LETTER XLI.
nounce, and without judging in particular of the dis- positions of the sinner, especially as to his sorrow for his sins, and resolution to refrain from them in future : now this knowledge can only be gained from the peni- tent's own confession. From this may be gathered, whether his offences are those of frailty or of malice, whether they are accidental or habitual ; in which lat- ter case they are ordinarily to be retained, till his amendment gives proof of his real repentance. Con- fession is also necessary, to enable the minister of the sacrament to decide whether a public reparation for the crimes committed be or be not requisite ; and whether there is or is not restitution to be made to the neigh- bour who has been injured in person, property, or re- putation. Accordingly, it is well known that such restitutions are frequently made by those who make use of sacramental confession, and very seldom by those who do not use it. I say nothing of the incal- culable advantage it is to the sinner in the business of his conversion, to have a confidential and experienced pastor, to withdraw the veils behind which self-love is apt to conceal his favourite passions and worst crimes, and to expose to him the enormity of his guilt, of which before he had perhaps but an imperfect notion ; and to prescribe to him the proper remedies for his
entire spiritual cure. After all, it is for the Holy
Catholic Church, with whom the Word of God and
ABSOLUTION FROM SIN. Ill
the Sacraments were deposited by her Divine Spouse, Jesus Christ, to explain the sense of the former, and the constituents of the latter. In short, this Church has uniformly taught that Confession and the Priest's Absolution, where they can be had, are required of the penitent sinner, as well as contrition and a firm purpose of amendment. But, to believe the Bishop, our Church does not require contrition at all, though she has declared it to be one of the necessary parts of sacramental penance, nor ' any dislike to sin or love to ' God (1),' for the justification of the sinner. I will make no farther answer to this shameful calumny, than by referring you and your friends to my above citations from the Council of Trent. In these, you have seen that she requires ' a hatred and detestation 6 of sin ;' in short, ' a contrite and humble heart, which 6 God never despises;9 and moreover, 'an incipient ' love of God, as the fountain of all justice/
Finally, his Lordship has the confidence to main- tain that 'The Primitive Church did not hold Con- ' fession and Absolution of this kind to be necessary/ and that ' Private Confession was never thought of as a 4 command of God, for 900 years after Christ, nor de-
' termined to be such till after 1200(2).' The
few following quotations from ancient Fathers and
(1) P. 47. (2) Ibid.
112 LETTER XLI.
Councils, will convince our Salopian friends what sort of trust they are to place in this Prelate's assertions on theological subjects. Tertullian, who lived in the age next to that of the Apostles, and is the earliest Latin writer, whose works we possess, writes thus : * If you
* withdraw from confession, think of hell-fire, which 'confession extinguishes (1).' Origen, who wrote soon after him, inculcates the necessity of confessing our most private sins, even those of thought (2), and advises the sinner 'to look carefully about him in ' choosing the person to whom he is to confess his ' sins (3).' St. Basil, in the 4th century, wrote thus :
* It is necessary to disclose our sins to those to whom ' the dispensation of the divine mysteries is com- < mitted (4).' St. Paulinus, the disciple of St. Am- brose, relates, that this holy Doctor used to ' weep ' over the penitents whose confessions he heard, but ' never disclosed their sins to any but to God
* alone (5).' The great St. Austin writes : ' Our mer- 6 ciful God wills us to confess in this world, that we ' may not be confounded in the other (6) ;' and else* where he says : ' Let no one say to himself : I do pe- •* nance to God in private. Is it then in vain that
* Christ has said : Whatsoever you loose on earth shall lie
(1) Lib. de Pcenit. (4) Rule 229.
(2) Horn. 3 in Levit. (5) In Vit. Ambros,
(3) Horn. 2 in Pa. xxxvii. (6) Horn, 20.
ABSOLUTION FROM SIN. 115
1 loosed in heaven ? Is it in vain that the keys have
' been given to the Church ?* (l) 1 could produce
a long list of other passages to the same effect, from Fathers and Doctors, and also from Councils of the Church, anterior to the periods he has assigned to the commencement and confirmation of the doctrine in question : but I will have recourse to a shorter, and perhaps more convincing proof, that this doctrine could not have been introduced into the Church at any period whatsoever subsequent to that of Christ and his Apostles. My argument is this: it is impossi- ble it should have been at any time introduced, if it was not from the first necessary. The pride of the human heart would at all times have revolted at the imposition of such a humiliation, as that of confessing all its most secret sins, if Christians had not previous- ly believed that this rite is of divine institution, and even necessary for the pardon of them* Supposing, however, that the clergy, at some period, had fasci- nated the laity, kings and emperors, as well as pea- sants, to submit to this yoke ; it will still remain to be accounted for, how they took it up themselves ; for Monks, and Priests, and Bishops, and the Pope himself, must equally confess their sins with the mean- est of the people. And if even this could be explained,
(1) Horn. 49. PART lit. Q
114 LETTER XH.
it would still be necessary to shew how the numerous organized churches of the Nestorians and Eutychians, spread over Asia and Africa, from Bagdad to Axum, all of whom broke from the communion of the Catho- lic Church in the fifth century, took up the notion of penance being a sacrament, and that confession and absolution are essential parts of it, as they all believe at the present day. With respect to the main body of the Greek Christians, they separated from the Latins much about the period which our Prelate has set down for the rise of this doctrine: but though they re- proached the Latin Christians with shaving their beards, singing Alleluja at wrong seasons, and other such like minutiae, they never accused them of any error respecting private confession or sacerdotal abso- lution.— To support the Bishop's assertions on this and many other points, it would be necessary to suppose, as I have said before, that a hundred million of Greek and Latin Christians lost their senses on some one and the same day or night !
In finishing this Letter, I take leave, Rev. Sir, to advert to the case of some of your respectable society, who, to my knowledge, are convinced of the truth of the Catholic Religion, but are deterred from embrac- ing it, by the dread of that sacrament of which I have been treating. Their pitiable case is by no means sin- gular: we continually find persons, who are not only
ABSOLUTION FROM SIN. 115
desirous of reconciling themselves to their true Mother, the Catholic Church, but also of laying the sins of their youth and their ignorances, Ps. xxiv. alias xxv, 7, at the feet of some one or other of her faithful ministers, convinced that thereby they would procure ease to their afflicted souls, yet have not the courage to do this. Let the persons alluded to humbly and fervently pray to^e Giver of all good gifts for his strengthening grace, and let them be persuaded of the truth of what an unexceptionable witness says, who had experienced, while he was a Catholic, the interior joy he describes, where, persuading the penitent to go to his confessor, ' not as to one that can speak comfortable and quiet- 1 ing words to him, but as to one that hath authority ' delegated to him from God himself, to absolve and ' acquit him of his sins,' he goes on : ' If you shall do ' this, assure your souls, that the understanding of ' man is not able to conceive that transport, and ex- 1 cess of joy and comfort, which shall accrue to that ' man's heart, who is persuaded he hath been made par-
4 taker of this blessing(l).' On the other hand,
if such persons are convinced, as I am satisfied they are, that Christ's words to his Apostles, Receive the Holy Ghost : whose sins you shall remit, they are re- mitted, mean what they express, they must know, that
(1) Chillingworth, Sermon vii. p. 409.
Q2
116 LETTER XLI.
confession is necessary to buy off overwhelming con- fusion, as the Fathers I have quoted signify, at the great day of manifestation, and with this never-end- ing punishment.
I am, &c.
J. M.
117 LETTER XLII.
To the Rev. ROBERT CLAYTON, M. A.
ON INDULGENCES. REV. SIR,
I TRUST you will pardon me, if I do not send a special answer to the objections you have stated against my last letter to you, because you will find the substance of them answered in this and my next letter concerning Indulgences and Purga- tory. Bishop Porteus reverses the proper order of these subjects, by treating first of the latter : indeed his ideas are much confused, and his knowledge very imperfect concerning them both. This Prelate de- scribes an Indulgence to be, in the belief of Catholics, (without, however, giving any authority whatever for his description) 'a transfer of the overplus of the Saints' ' goodness, joined with the merits of Christ, &c. by * the Pope, as Head of the Church, towards the re- i mission of their sins, who fulfil, in their life-time, ' certain conditions appointed by him, or whose friends ' will fulfil them, after their death (!),' He speaks of it as ' a method of making poor wretches believe that
(1) P. 53.
LETTER XLII.
' wickedness here may become consistent with happi-
* ness hereafter — that repentance is explained away or 'overlooked among other things joined with it, as ' saying so many prayers and paying so much ' money (1).' Some of the Bishop's friends have pub- lished much the same description of Indulgences, but in more perspicuous language. One of them, in his attempt to shew that each Pope, in succession, has been the Man of Sin, or Antichrist, says : ' Besides c their own personal vices, by their indulgences, ' pardons, and dispensations, which they claim a ' power from Christ of granting, and which they have
* sold in so infamous a manner, they have encouraged
* all manner of vile and wicked practices. — They have
* contrived numberless methods of making a holy life 6 useless, and to assure the most abandoned of salva- ' tion, provided they will sufficiently pay the priests ' for absolution (2).' With the same disregard of charity and truth, another eminent Divine speaks of the matter thus : c the Papists have taken a notable ' course to secure men from the fear of hell, that of ' penances and indulgences. — To those, who will pay 6 the price, absolutions are to be had for the most 'abominable and not to be named villanies, and li-
(1) P. 54. Benson on the Man of Sin, republished by Bishop Watson, Tracts,vol. v. p. 273.
(2) Bishop Fowler's Design of Christianity, Tracts, vol. vi. p,
INDULGENCES. 119
'cence also for not a few wickednesses (l).' — In treating of a subject, the most intricate of itself among the common topics of controversy, and which has been so much confused and perplexed by the misrepresenta- tions of our opponents, it will be necessary, for giving you, Rev. Sir, and my other ^Salopian friends, a clear and just idea of the matter, that I should ad- vance, step by step, in my explanation of it. In this manner I propose shewing you, first, what an Indul- gence is not, and, next, what it really is.
I. An Indulgence, then, never was conceived by any Catholic to be a leave to commit a sin of any kind, as De Coetlogon, Bishop Fowler, and others charge them with believing. The first principles of natural Religion must convince every rational being that God himself cannot give leave to commit sin. The idea of such a licence takes away that of his sanctity, and, of course, that of his very being, — II. No Catholic ever believed it to be a pardon for fu- ture sins, as Mrs. Hannah More, and a great part of other Protestant writers represent the matter. This Lady describes the Catholics as * procuring indemnity ' for future gratifications by temporary abstractions and * indulgences, purchased at the Court of Rome (2).'
(1) Benson on the Man of Sin, Collect.
(2) Strictures on Female Education, vol. ii. p. 239.
120 LETTER XLII.
Some of her fraternity, indeed, have blasphemously written : ' Believers ought not to mourn for sin, because * it was pardoned before it was committed (1);' but every Catholic knows that Christ himself could not pardon sin before it was committed, because this would imply that he forgave the sinner without repentance. — III. An Indulgence, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, is not, and does not include the pardon of any sin at all, little or great, past, present, or to come, or the eternal punishment due to it, as all Protestants suppose. Hence, if the pardon of sin is mentioned in any Indulgence, this means nothing more than the remission of the temporary punishments an- nexed to such sin. — IV. We do not believe an In- dulgence to imply any exemption from repentance, as B. Porteus slanders us ; for this is always enjoined or im- plied in the grant of it, and is indispensably necessary for the effect of every grace (2) ; nor from the works of penance, or other good works; because our Church teaches that the ' life of a Christian ought to be a perpetual penance (3), and that to enter into life, we must keep God's commandments (4), and must abound
(1) Eaton's Honeycomb of Salvation. See also Sir Richard Hill's Letters.
(2) Concil. Trid. Sess. vi. c. 4, c. 13, &c.
(3) Sess. xiv. DeExtr. Unc.
(4) Sess. vi. can. 19.
INDULGENCES. 121
in every good work (1). Whether an obligation of all this can be reconciled with the Articles of being
* justified by faith only (2), and that ' works done
* before grace partake of the nature of sin (3),' I do not here enquire. — V. It is inconsistent with our doctrine of Inherent Justification (4), to believe, as the same Prelate charges us, that the effect of an Indulgence is to transfer * the overplus of the goodness,' or justifica- tion of the Saints, by the ministry of the Pope, to us Catholics on earth. Such an absurdity may be more easily reconciled with the system of Luther and other Protestants concerning Imputed Justification; which, being like a ' clean, neat cloak, thrown over a filthy le- ' per(5),'may be conceived transferable from one person to another. — Lastly, whereas the Council of Trent calls Indulgences Heavenly Treasures (6), we hold that it would be a sacrilegious crime in any person whomso- ever to be concerned in buying or selling them. I am
(1) Ibid. cap. 16. — N. B. There are eight Indulgences granted to Catho- lics at the chief festivals, &c. in every year ; the conditions of which are, con- fession with sincere repentance, the H. Communion, alms to the poor, (without distinction of their religion) prayers for the Church and strayed souls, the peace of Christendom, and the blessing of God on this nation ; finally, a disposition to hear the word of God, and to assist the sick. See Laity's Directory, Keating and Brown.
(2) Art. XI. of 39 Art.
(3) Art. XIII.
(4) Trid. Sess. vi. can. xi.
(5) Becanus de JustiK
(6) Sess. xxi. c. 9.
PART III. R
122 LETTER XLIf.
far, however, Rev. Sir, from denying that Indulgences have ever been sold ( 1 ) — alas ! what is so sacred that the avarice of men has not put up to sale ! Christ himself was sold, and that by an Apostle, for thirty pieces of sil- ver. I do not retort upon you the advertisements I fre- quently see in the Newspapers about buying and selling benefices, with the cure of souls annexed to them, in your Church ; but this I contend for, that the Catholic Church, so far from sanctioning this detestable simony, has used her utmost pains, particularly in the General Councils of Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, and Trent, to prevent it.
To explain, now, in a clear and regular manner, what an Indulgence is ; I suppose, first, that no one will deny that a Sovereign Prince, in shewing mercy to a capital convict, may either grant him a remission of all punishment, or may leave him subject to some lighter punishment : of course he will allow that the Almighty may act in either of these ways with respect to sinners. — II. I equally suppose that no person, who is versed in the Bible, will deny that many instances oc- cur there of God's remitting the essential guilt of sin and the eternal punishment due to it, and yet leaving a temporary punishment to be endured by the penitent
(1) The Bishop tells us that he is in possession of an Indulgence, lately grained at Rome, for a small sum of money; but he does not say who granted it. In like manner he may buy forged Bank notes and counterfeit coin in London very cheap, if he pleases.
INDULGENCES. 123
sinner. Thus, for example, the sentence of spiritual death and everlasting torments was remitted to our first father, upon his repentance, but not that of cor- poral death. Thus, also, when God reversed his severe sentence against the idolatrous Israelites, he added : Nevertheless, in the day, when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them. Exod. xxxii, 34. Thus, again, when the inspired Nathan said to the model of penitents, David : The Lord hath put away thy sin, he added : nevertheless, the child that is born unto thee shall die. 2 Kings, alias Sam. xii. 14. Finally, when David's heart smote him, after he had numbered the people, the Lord, in pardoning him, offered him by his Prophet, Gad, the choice of three temporal punishments, war, famine, and pestilence. Ibid, xxiv.— III. The Catholic Church teaches that the same is still the common course of God's mercy and wisdom, in the forgiveness of sins committed after baptism ; since she has formally condemned the proposition, that 'every penitent sinner, who, after ' the grace of justification, obtains the remission of 1 his guilt and eternal punishment, obtains also the re- ' mission of all temporal punishment (1).' The essen- tial guilt and eternal punishment of sin, she declares, can only be expiated by the precious merits of our Re- deemer, Jesus Christ; but a certain temporal punish-
(1) Cone. Trid. Sess. vi. can. SO. R 2
124 LETTER XLII.
ment God reserves for the penitent himself to endure, ' lest the easiness of his pardon should make him 'careless about falling back into sin (I).' Hence satisfaction for this temporal punishment has been instituted by Christ as a part of the Sacrament of penance ; and hence * a Christian life,' asv the Council has said above, ' ought to be a penitential life.' This Council, at the same time, declares, that this very satisfaction for temporal punishment is only efficacious through Jesus Christ (2). — Nevertheless, as the promise of Christ to the Apostles, and St. Peter in particular, and to their successors, is unlimited : WHATSO- EVER you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven, Mat. xviii. 18, — xvi. 19; hence the Church believes and teaches that her jurisdiction extends to this very satisfaction, so as to be able to remit it wholly or partially, in certain circumstances, by what is called an INDULGENCE (3). St. Paul exercised this power in behalf of the incestuous Co- rinthian, at his conversion and the prayers of the faithful, 2 Cor. \\. 10; and the Church has claimed and exercised the same power ever since the time of the Apostles down to the present (4).— V, Still this
(1) Sess. vi. cap, 7, cap. 14. Sess. xiv. cap. 8,
(2) Sess. xiv. 8.
(S) Trid. Sess. xxv. De Indulg.
(4) Tertul. in Lib, ad Martyr, c. i. St. Cypr. 1. 3. Epist. Concil. i. Nic. . &c.
INDULGENCES. 125
.
power, like that of absolution, is not arbitrary ; there must be a just cause for the exercise of it, namely, the greater good of the penitent, or of the faithful, or of Christendom in general ; and there must be a certain proportion between the punishment remitted and the good work performed (1). Hence no one can ever be sure that he has gained the entire benefit of an indul- gence, though he has performed all the conditions ap- pointed for this end (2) : and hence, of course, the pastors of the Church will have to answer for it, if they take upon themselves to grant indulgences for unworthy or insufficient purposes. — VI. Lastly, it is the received doctrine of the Church that an indul- gence, when truly gained, is not barely a relaxation of the canonical penance enjoined by the Church, but also an actual remission by God of the whole or part of the temporal punishment due to it in his sight. The con- trary opinion, though held by some theologians, has been condemned by Leo X (3) and Pius VI (4) : and, indeed, without the effect here mentioned, indulgences would not be heavenly treasures, and the use of them would not be benejicial, but rather pernicious to Chris- tians, contrary to two declarations of the last General Council, as Bellarmin well argues (5).
(1) Bellarm. Lib. i. De Indulg. c. 12. (2) Ibid.
(3) Art 19, inter Art. Damn. Lutheri.
(4) Const. Auctor. Fid, (5) L. i. c. T, prop. 4.
LETTER XIII.
The above explanation of an Indulgence, conforma- bly to the doctrine of Theologians, the decrees of Popes and the definitions of Councils, ought to silence the objections and suppress the sarcasms of Protestants on this head: but if it be not sufficient for such purpose, I would gladly argue a few points with them concerning their own indulgences. Methinks, Rev. Sir, I see you start at the mention of this, and hear you ask; what Protestants hold the doctrine of indul- gences ? — I answer you ; all the leading sects of them, with which I am acquainted. — To begin with the Church of England : One of the first articles, I meet with in its canons, regards indulgences and the use that is to be made of the money paid for them (I). In the Synod of 1640 a Canon was made which authorized the employment of commutation-money, namely, of such sums as were paid for indulgences from ecclesiastical penances, not only in charitable, but also in public uses (2). At this period the established clergy were
(1) ' Ne quse fiat posthac solemnis penitentiae commutatio nisi rationibus, ' gravioribus que de causis, &c. Deinde quod mulcta ilia pecuniaria vel in ' relevam pauperum, vel in alios pios usus erogetur.' Articuli pro Clero, A. D. 1584, Sparrow, p. 194. The next article is, « De moderandis quibus- < dam Indulgentiis pro celebratione matrimonii/ £c. p. 195. These indul- gences were renewed, under the same titles, in the Synod held in London in 1597. Sparrow, pp. 248, 252.
(3) ' That no Chancellor, Commissary or Official, shall have power to com- ' mute any penance, in whole or in part ; but either, together with the ' Bishop, &c. that he shall give a full and just account of such commutations,
INDULGENCES. 127
devoting all the money they could any way procure to the war which Charles I. was preparing in defence of the Church and State against the Presbyterians of
Scotland and England : so that, in fact, the money
i then raised by indulgences was employed in a real
Crusade. — It has been before stated that the second offspring of Protestantism, the Anabaptists, claimed an indulgence from God himself, in quality of his chosen ones, to despoil the impious, namely, all the rest of mankind, of their property ; while the genuine Cal- vinists, of all times, have ever maintained that Christ has set them free from the observance of every law of God as well as of man. Agreeably to this tenet, Sir Richard Hill says : ' It is a most pernicious error of ' the schoolmen to distinguish sins according to the 'fact, and not according to the person (i).' — With re- spect to Patriarch Luther, it is notorious that he was in the habit of granting indulgences, of various kinds, to himself and his disciples. Thus, for example, he dis-
' to the Bishop, who shall see that all such moneys shall be disposed of for ' charitable and public uses, according to law — saving always to Ecclesiastical * Officers their due and accustomable fees.' Canon 14. Sparrow, p. 368. — In the Remonstrance of grievances presented by a Committee of the Irish Par- liament to Charles I, one of them was, that ' Several Bishops received great ' sums of money for commutation of penance (that is for Indulgences) which 1 they converted to their own use.' Commons Journ. quoted by Curry, Vol. i. p. 169. (1) Fletcher's Checks, vol. iii.
128 LETTER XLil.
pensed with himself and Catherine Boren from their vows of a religious life, and particularly that of celibacy : and even preached up adultery in his public sermons (l). In like manner he published Bulls, authorizing the robbery of Bishops and Bishoprics, and the murder of Popes and Cardinals. But the most celebrated of his indulgences is that which, in conjunction with Bucer and Melancthon, he granted to Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, in consideration of the latter's protection of Protestantism, for so it is stated, to marry a second wife, his former being living (2). But if any credit is due to this same Bucer, who, for his learning, was invited by Cranmer and the Duke of Somerset into England, and made the Divinity Professor of Cambridge, the whole business of the pretended Reformation was an indulgence for libertinism. His words are these : ' The ' greater part of the people seem only to have em- ' braced the Gospel, in order to shake off the yoke of ' discipline and the obligation of fasting, penance, &c, ' which lay upon them in Popery, and to live at * their pleasure, enjoying their lusts and lawless ' appetites, without controul. Hence they lent a
(1) ' Si nolit Domina, veniat ancilla,&c/ Serm. De Matrim. t. v.
(2) This infamous indulgence, with the deeds belonging to it, was pub- lished from the original by permission of a descendant of the Landgrave, and republiahed by Bossuet. Variat, book vi.
INDULGENCES.
1 willing ear to the doctrine that we are saved by faith t alone, and not by good works, having no relish for ' them (1).'
I am, &c.
J. M.
(1) Bucer, De Regn. Chris. 1. i. c. 4.
PART III
130
LETTER XLIIL
To *Ae #et>. ROBERT CLAYTON, M. A.
ON PURGATORY AND PRAYERS FOR THE DEA1>. REV. SIR,
IN the natural order of our contro- versies this is the proper place to treat of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead. On this subject, Bishop Porteus begins with saying, ' There is no Scripture
* proof of the existence of Purgatory : heaven and hell ' we read of perpetually in the Bible; but purgatory ' we never meet with : though surely, if there be such ' a place, Christ and his Apostles would not have con-
* cealed it from us (1).' I might expose the incon- clusiveness of this argument by the following parallel one ; The Scripture no where commands us to keep the
jlrst day of the week holy : we perpetually read of sancti- fying the Sabbath, or Saturday; but never meet with the Sunday, as a day of obligation ; though, if there be such an obligation, Christ and his Apostles would not have concealed it from us! I might likewise answer, with the Bishop of Lincoln, that the inspired Epistles (and I may add the Gospels also) ' are not to be con-
(1) Ccmfut. p. 48.
PURGATORY. 131
' sidered as regular treatises upon the Christian Reli- 'gion(l),' But I meet the objection in front, by saying, first, that the Apostles did teach their converts the doctrine of purgatory, among their other doctrines, as St. Chrysostom testifies, and the tradition of the Church proves; secondly, that the same is demonstra- tively evinced from boththeOldand theNewTestament. To begin with the Old Testament ; I claim a right of considering the two first Books of Machabees as an integral part of them; because the Catholic Church so considers them (2), from whose tradition, and not from that of the Jews, as St. Austin signifies (3), our sacred canon is to be formed. Now in the second of these Books, it is related that the pious General, Judas Machabeus, sent 12,000 drachmas to Jerusalem for sacrifices, to be offered for his soldiers, slain in battle, after which narration, the inspired writer concludes thus : It is therefore a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins. Q Mac. xii, 46. I need not point out the in-, separable connexion there is between the practice of praying for the dead and the belief of an intermediate state of souls, since it is evidently needless to pray for the Saints in heaven, and useless to pray for the
(1) Elem. of Theol. vol. i. p. 277.
(2) Concil. Cartag. iii. St. Cyp. St. Aug. Innoc. I. Gelas. &c. (U) Lib. 18. De Civ. Dei.
S3
132 LETTER XLIII.
reprobate in hell. But, even Protestants, who do not receive the Books of Machabees, as canonical Scripture, venerate them as authentic and holy records : as such, then, they bear conclusive testimony of the belief of God's people, on this head, J 50 years before Christ That the Jews were in the habit of practising some religious rites for the relief of the departed, at the beginning of Christianity, is clear from St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, who mentions them, without any censure of them (l) : and that this people continue to pray for their deceased brethren, at the present time, may be learned from any living Jew.
To come now to the New Testament: What place, I ask, must that be, which our Saviour calls Abrahanfs bosom, where the soul of Lazarus reposed, Luke xvi. 22, among the other just souls, till he by his sacred passion paid their ransom ? Not heaven, otherwise Dives would have addressed himself to God instead of Abraham ; but evidently a middle state, as St. Austin teaches (2). Again, of what place is it that St. Peter speaks, where he says : Christ died for our sins ; being put to death in the flesh^ but enlivened in the spirit ; in which also com- ing, he preached to those spirits that were in prison. 3 Pet. iii. 19. It is evidently the same which is
(1) Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? Why are they then baptized for them ? 1 Cor. xv. 29. (2) DeCivit. Dei, 1. xv. c. 20.
PURGATORY. 133
mentioned in the Apostles' Creed : He descended into hell : not the hell of the damned, to suffer their tor- ments, as the blasphemer, Calvin, asserts (1), but the prison above-mentioned, or Abraham's bosom, in short a middle state. It is of this prison, according to the Holy Fathers (2), our blessed Master speaks, where he says : / tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the 'very last mite. Luke xii. 59. — Lastly, what other sense can that passage of St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians bear, than that which the Holy Fathers affix to it (3), where the Apostle says : The day of the Lord shall be revealed by Jire, and the Jire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any mans work abide, he shall receive a reward. If any man's zvork be burnt, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by Jire. 1 Cor. iii. 13, 15. The Prelate's diversified attempts to explain away these scriptural proofs of Purgatory, are really too feeble and inconsistent to merit being even mentioned. I might here add, as a further proof, the denunciation of Christ, concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; namely, that this sin shall not be forgiven, either in this
(1) Instit. 1. ii. c. 16.
(2) Tertul. St. Cypr. Origen, St. Ambrose, St. Jerom, &c.
(3) Origen, Horn. 14 in Levit. &c. St. Ambrose iu Ps. 118. St. Jerom, 1. 2. contra Jovin, St. Aug. in Ps. 37, where he prays thus : * Purify me,
* O Lord, in this life, that I may not need the chastising fire of those who will
* be saved, yet so as by fire.'
134 LETTER XLIII.
world or in the world to come, Mat. xii. 32 : which words clearly imply, that some sins art forgiven in the world to come, as the ancient Fathers shew (l) : but I hasten to the proofs of this doctrine from tradition, on which head the Prelate is so ill advised as to challenge Catholics.
II. Bp. Porteus, then, advances, that ' Purgatory, in ' the present Popish sense, was not heard of for 400 years ' after Christ ; nor universally received for 1000 years, c nor almost in any other Church than that of Rome to c this day (2).' Here are no less than three egregious falsities, which I proceed to shew, after stating what his Lordship seems not to know, namely, that all which is necessary to be believed, on this subject, is contained in 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, and
* particularly by the acceptable Sacrifice of the
* altar (3).' — St. Chrysostom, the light of the eastern Church, flourished within 300 years of the age of the Apostles, and must be admitted as an unexceptionable witness of their doctrine and practice. Now he writes as follows : ' It was not without good reason OR- ' DAINED BY THE APOSTLES, that mention should
(1) St. Aug. De Civit, Dei,l. 21, c. 24. St. Greg. 1. 4. Dialog. Bed, in cap. 3, Marc.
(2) P. 50. (3) Sess. xxv, De Purg.
PURGATORY. 135
* be made of the dead in the tremendous mysteries, ' because they knew well that these would receive great
* benefit from it (l).' Tertullian, who lived in the age next to that of the Apostles, speaking of a pious widow, says : ' She prays for the soul of her husband, and c begs refreshment (2) for him,' Similar testimonies of St. Cyprian, in the following age, are numerous: I shall satisfy myself with quoting one of them, where, describing the difference between some souls, which are immediately 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 ; another to receive im- c mediately the reward of faith and virtue : One thing to ' suffer lengthened torments for sin, and to be chastised 'and purified for a long time in that fire; another to 'have cleansed away all sin by suffering (3),' namely, by martyrdom. It would take up too much time to quote authorities on this subject from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerom, St. Augustin, and several other ancient Fathers and writers, who demonstrate, that the doctrine of the Church was the same that it is now, not only within a thousand, but also within 400 years from the time of
(1) In cap. i. Philip. Horn. 5. (2) L. De Monogam. c 10.
(3) S. Cypr. 1. 4. ep. 2.
136 LETTER XLIII.
Christ, with respect both to prayers for the dead, and an intermediate state, which we call Purgatory. How express is the authority