Facts and Assertions: or a Brief and Plain Exhibition of the Incongruity of the Peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Rome, by George Stanley Faber

OR
A BRIEF AND PLAIN EXHIBITION
OF THE
INCONGRUITY OF THE PECULIAR DOCTRINES
OF
The Church of Rome
WITH THOSE,
BOTH OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES,
AND OF THE
EARLY WRITERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH CATHOLIC.

BY
GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B.D.
RECTOR OF LONG-NEWTON, AND PREBENDARY OF SALISBURY.

LONDON:
PRINTED FOR C. J. G. & F. RIVINGTON,
Booksellers to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
ST. PAUL’S CHURCH-YARD,
AND WATERLOO-PLACE, PALL-MALL.

p. 3ADVERTISEMENT.

It has been suggested to me, that A brief and plain Exhibition of the utter Incongruity of the peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome with those both of the Sacred Scriptures and of the early writers of the Christian Church Catholic might be useful as a small Tract for general circulation.

This suggestion has given rise to the present little manual. As for those, who either desire more copious information on the subject, or who may wish to see my authorities in the original Greek and Latin: I refer them to the second edition of my Difficulties of Romanism, printed for Messrs. Rivingtons, St. Paul’s Church-Yard, and Waterloo-Place, London, 1830.

If, from the Written Word of God and from the Fathers of the three first ages, any Latin Divine can make out an historical case, for The alleged Apostolicity of the peculiarities of the Church of Rome, better than the failures of Mr. Berington and Bishop Trevern of Strasbourg: let him by all means come forward, whether he be Bishop or Priest or Deacon. The Bible and the Fathers of the three first centuries, whence alone any historical substantiation of the assertions made by the Romish Clergy can be deduced, are open to them as well as to ourselves.

p. 4Respecting opinions in the abstract, ingenious men may dispute for ever: but FACTS are of a more stubborn and intractable quality.

Assertions of the apostolicity and perpetuity and immutability and primeval universality of Romish Peculiarities are cheaply made: but FACTS and ASSERTIONS are matters widely different from each other.

To the satisfactory test of BARE FACTS I have brought the peculiar doctrines and practices of Romanism.

Let the Latin Clergy, if it be in their power, set aside my FACTS, and historically substantiate their own ASSERTIONS.

p. 5CONTENTS.

p. 7CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.

The great and constant boast of the Latin Clergy is: that The Catholic or Universal Church of Christ from the very beginning, has ALWAYS taught the doctrines which are now taught by the Church of Rome; that These doctrines are revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures, and that They have ALWAYS been set forth and maintained by those early ecclesiastical writers who are commonly styled the Fathers.

I. On these points lest we should labour under any mistake, let us hear the positive declarations of the Council of Trent, which sat in the sixteenth century, and which by the Romanists is considered as having finally set at rest all disputes respecting the points of doctrine litigated between themselves and the Reformed. [7]

p. 8The declarations of that last reputed infallible General Council run in manner following.

4. The sacred scriptures declare, and the tradition of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH has ALWAYS taught. [8d]

5. Since, by the testimony of SCRIPTURE, by apostolical tradition, and by the unanimous consent of THE FATHERS, the matter is perspicuous:—no one ought to doubt. [8e]

6. The Council of Trent, following the testimonies of THE SACRED SCRIPTURES and THE HOLY FATHERS and the most esteemed Councils and the judgment and consent of the Church herself, determines, confesses, and declares, these doctrines. [8f]

II. Here we have no ambiguity. The Church of Rome, we see, speaking through the organ of the Council of Trent, declares: that Her doctrines are revealed in Holy Scripture; and that, Expressly as such, they have always been unanimously taught by the Fathers, and have always been invariably received by the Church Universal. [8g]

p. 9III. Now the meanest capacity will at once perceive: that, In making this declaration, the Church of Rome asserts, not merely a point of opinion, but AN ABSOLUTE MATTER OF FACT.

The simple question, therefore, is: Whether the asserted FACT be capable of substantiation by competent EVIDENCE.

1. In submitting this matter to the plain and honest inquirer, it is obvious, that nothing more is necessary: than, first, to state any particular doctrine of the Roman Church; next, to bring forward either the silence or the declarations of Scripture; and, lastly, to adduce the testimony of the Fathers.

2. By the adoption of such a plan, without a grain of any extraordinary learning, and by the mere exercise of common sense, every reader will be enabled fully to judge for himself.

3. Nor can a member even of the Roman Church justly refuse to hear me. For the present is simply A QUESTION OF FACT: and, by Mr. Berington, one of his own Clergy, he is distinctly assured; that It is no article of Catholic Faith, that the Church cannot err in MATTERS OF FACT. [9] Under the express sanction, therefore, of Mr. Berington, the laic gentlemen of the Roman Church will, I hope, be persuaded to indulge me with their company.

CHAPTER II.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

I SHALL begin with subjecting, to the test proposed by the Council of Trent itself, the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

I. The following, as defined by the Council of Trent, is the doctrine of the Roman Church with respect to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

p. 101. In the sacrament of the Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is, truly and really and substantially, contained, under the species of those sensible objects: so that, immediately after consecration, the true body and the true blood of our Lord, together with his soul and divinity, exist under the species of bread and wine: for, by the very force of the words themselves, the blood exists under the species of the wine; and the body, under the species of the bread. But, furthermore, by virtue of that natural connection and concomitance, through which the parts of the Lord, after his resurrection from the dead, are mutually joined together, the body exists under the species of the wine, the blood exists under the species of the bread, and the soul exists under the species both of the bread and the wine. The divinity, moreover, on account of its admirable hypostatic union with the body and the soul, similarly exists alike under each species. Wherefore, under each species and under both species, so much as even the whole is contained. For the entire Christ exists both under the species of bread, and under each particle of that species: and the entire Christ exists, both under the species of wine, and under all the particles of that species. Hence, through the consecration of the bread and wine, there takes place a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of our Lord Christ, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood: which conversion is properly and conveniently denominated Transubstantiation.

2. All the faithful are bound to offer to the Eucharist that same adoration of Latria, which is paid to the Deity: for such adoration rests upon the belief, that in that sacrament there is substantially present the filial God, concerning whom the Father pronounced; Let all the angels of God worship him. And, analogously, in point of beneficial efficacy, the Eucharist, being the identical sacrifice which Christ p. 11offered upon the cross, must be deemed a true propitiatory sacrifice, making satisfaction, each time that it is offered, not only for the living, but likewise for the dead in the Lord who have not as yet been fully purified. [11a]

1. I am the living bread, which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them: Verily, verily, I say unto you; Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He, that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him—These sayings said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many, therefore, of his disciples, when they had heard this, said: This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them: Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH: THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING. THE WORDS, THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU, ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE. [11b]

When our Lord enforced the necessity of eating his flesh and of drinking his blood, the Jews and even his disciples, understanding him literally just as the Romish Clergy now expound his language, murmured at so hard a saying, and asked how he could possibly give men his flesh to eat. Whereupon Christ, in the p. 12avowed way of explanation, immediately declared: that the words, which he spake, are spirit; and that the flesh profiteth nothing. Clearly, therefore, according to his own distinct explanation, his words are to be understood spiritually or figuratively, not carnally or literally.

2. As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you: I will not drink henceforth of THIS FRUIT OF THE VINE, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. [12a]

(1.) The authoritative interpretation of such language, as that which is here employed by our Lord, had already been given by him at Capernaum. His words are to be understood spiritually or figuratively: just as when he declared himself to be a vine and his disciples to be branches. [12b]

Accordingly, even after consecration, when the Romish Clergy assert the wine to have been literally transubstantiated into the actual material blood of Christ; he himself still calls it this fruit of the vine: an appellation, if we receive as scriptural truth the doctrine of Transubstantiation, then clearly false and erroneous and inaccurate.

(2.) We may note, that the Apostles expressed not the least surprise, or uttered the smallest murmur, on account of our Lord’s phraseology, when he instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist.

The reason is obvious, though the fact is highly worth our special attention. They had heard and recollected his own explanation of the parallel language which he employed at Capernaum. Hence they now, as a matter of course, understood him to p. 13speak figuratively, not literally: and hence, what was the natural result, his words now gave them NO offence.

3. I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you: that The Lord Jesus, the night in which he was betrayed, took bread: and, when he had given thanks, he brake, and said: Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also, the cup, when he had supped, saying: This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye as oft as ye drink, in remembrance of me. For, as often as ye eat THIS BREAD and drink THIS CUP, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat THIS BREAD and drink THIS CUP of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself: and so let him eat of THE BREAD, and drink of THE CUP. [13a]

Even after consecration, the Apostle, we may observe, still repeatedly calls the elements this bread and this cup or the bread and the cup. Yet he could not truly have thus called them: if, all the while, they had become, by transubstantiation, literal human flesh and literal human blood.

(2.) We may here again note, that the true doctrine of the Eucharist, as undoubtedly delivered by St. Paul to the gentile converts of Corinth, does not appear to have excited either surprise or offence.

Whence the presumption, or rather indeed the certainty, is: that, in delivering it to them, he distinctly taught, on the authority of his Lord and Master, that it is the spirit which quickeneth, that the flesh profiteth nothing, and that the words spoken by Christ are spirit and life.

4. As our Saviour thus fully explains his own p. 14phraseology: so, in strict congruity with his explanation; on the existence, of the soul and divinity of Christ in the consecrated elements, and on the adoration of those elements with the very same adoration as that which is paid to the Deity, Holy Scripture is PROFOUNDLY SILENT.

From whatever quarter the duty of such worship was learned by the Romish Priesthood, it assuredly was not learned from the Bible. The written word of God neither enjoins it, nor gives a single instance of its ever having being paid either in the time or with the sanction of the Apostles.

5. Equally silent also is the Bible, respecting the alleged circumstance: that The celebration of the Eucharist is a true propitiatory sacrifice both for the quick and for the dead.

The Church of Rome, indeed, teaches this doctrine: but she did not learn it from Scripture.

III. We may now, with advantage, proceed to hear the declarations of the Fathers concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

(2.) Know well, that the Lord himself also partook of WINE: for he himself also was a man. And he blessed the wine, saying: Take, drink; this is my blood, the blood of the vine. The holy stream of exhilaration ALLEGORICALLY REPRESENTS the Word, who poured himself out on behalf of many, for the remission of sins. [14b]

2. Tertullian flourished at the end of the second and at the beginning of the third century.

(1.) We must not call our senses in question, lest we should doubt respecting their fidelity even in the case of Christ himself. For, if we question their p. 15fidelity, we might be led to say: that Christ—TASTED A DIFFERENT FLAVOUR OF THE WINE WHICH HE CONSECRATED IN MEMORY OF HIS OWN BLOOD. [15a]

(2.) If Christ declares, that The FLESH profiteth nothing; the sense must be decided from the matter of the saying. For, because the Jews deemed his discourse hard and intolerable, as if he had truly determined that his FLESH was to be eaten by them: in order that he might dispose the state of salvation TOWARD THE SPIRIT, he promised; It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth. And thus he subjoined: The FLESH profiteth nothing, namely, to quicken. There follows also, WHAT HE WOULD HAVE US UNDERSTAND BY SPIRIT. The words, which I have spoken unto you, are spirit and life. [15b]

(3.) Christ reprobated, neither the water of the Creator with which he washes his people, nor the oil with which he anoints them, nor the fellowship of honey and milk with which he feeds them as infants, nor the BREAD by which he REPRESENTS his own body: for, even in his sacraments, he needs the beggarly elements of the Creator. [15c]

When our Lord conversed on the eating of his body, and when he thence beheld many scandalised, he forthwith added: Doth this offend you? What if ye shall behold the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words, which I speak unto you, are spirit and life. Both these matters, THE FLESH and THE SPIRIT, he said respecting himself. And he distinguished the spirit from the flesh: IN ORDER THAT, BELIEVING BOTH THE VISIBLE AND THE INVISIBLE, THEY MIGHT UNDERSTAND HIS SAYINGS TO BE NOT CARNAL BUT SPIRITUAL. For TO HOW MANY PERSONS COULD HIS BODY HAVE SUFFICED p. 16FOR FOOD: SO THAT IT MIGHT BECOME THE ALIMENT OF THE WHOLE WORLD? But, that he might divert their minds from carnal cogitations, and that they might learn the flesh which he would give them to be supercelestial and spiritual food: he, on this account, mentioned the ascent of the Son of man to heaven. The words, said he, which I speak unto you, are spirit and life. As if he had intimated: My body shall be exhibited and given as food for the world; so THAT THAT FOOD SHALL BE GIVEN TO EACH ONE SPIRITUALLY, and shall to all be a preservative to the resurrection unto life eternal. [16a]

(1.) Christ himself gave the SYMBOLS of the divine economy to his own disciples; commanding, that the IMAGE of his own body should be made. [16b]

(2.) He delivered to us, that we should use the bread as the SYMBOL of his own body. [16c]

In the Law, was the shadow: in the Gospel, is the IMAGE: in heaven, is the REALITY. Formerly, a lamb was offered, a calf was offered: now, Christ is offered—Here, he is in an IMAGE: there, he is in REALITY. [16d]

In the Church are offered bread and wine, the ANTITYPE of Christ’s flesh and blood: and they, who partake of the visible bread, eat the flesh of the Lord SPIRITUALLY. [16e]

Since this holy altar, at which we stand, is in its nature only a common stone, differing nothing from those other flat tablets, which are built into our walls or which ornament our pavements; but, when it has p. 17been dedicated to the service of God and has received the benediction, it is a holy table, an unpolluted altar, no longer indiscriminately handled by all, but touched only by the priests and even by them with pious caution: and, again, since the bread is originally mere common bread; but, when the mystery shall have wrought its sanctification, it is both called and is the body of Christ: THUS the mystic oil, THUS the wine, though of small value before the benediction, respectively operate with mighty power after sanctification by the Spirit. The SAME potency of the word, moreover, effects a venerable and honourable priest: when, through the newness of the benediction, the individual is separated from common fellowship with the many. For, only yesterday and the day before, he was nothing more than one out of the many, nothing more than one of the laity: but now he is set forth, as a leader, as a precessor, as a teacher of piety, as a heirophant of the hidden mysteries. And these things he does, not at all changed in body or in form: but he does them; being, in outward appearance, the same person that he was before; though, in his invisible soul, through a certain invisible power and grace, being transmuted into a better condition. [17a]

(1.) While eating, the communicants are commanded to eat, not bread and wine, but the ANTITYPE of the body and blood of Christ. [17b]

(2.) As ALSO the bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no longer bare bread, but the body of Christ: so LIKEWISE, after the invocation, this holy ointment (the ointment or chrism formerly used in the rite of Confirmation) is no longer mere ointment, nor as one may say common ointment. [17c]

p. 18(1.) The Lord, when he gave the SIGN of his body, did not doubt to say: This is my body. [18a]

(2.) These are sacraments, in which, not what they are, but what they shew forth, is the point to be always attended to: far THEY ARE THE SIGNS OF THINGS, BEING ONE THING, AND SIGNIFYING ANOTHER THING. [18b]

(3.) Christ instructed them, and said unto them: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words, which I speak unto you, are spirit and life. As if he had said: Understand SPIRITUALLY what I have spoken. You are NOT about to eat this identical body, which you see; and you are NOT about to drink this identical blood, which they who crucify me will pour out. I have commended unto you a certain sacrament: which, if SPIRITUALLY understood, will vivify you. Though it must be celebrated visibly, it must be understood invisibly. [18c]

(4.) In the interpretation of figurative passages, let the following canon be observed.—

If the passage be preceptive, either forbidding some flagitious deed and some heinous crime, or commanding something useful and beneficent: then such passage is NOT FIGURATIVE. But, if the passage seems, either to command some flagitious deed and some heinous crime, or to forbid something useful and beneficent: then such passage is FIGURATIVE.

Thus, for example, Christ says: Unless ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you.

Now, in these words, he seems to command a heinous crime or a flagitious deed. Therefore this passage is a figure. [18d]

(1.) Our Saviour interchanged the names: for to p. 19his body be gave the name of the SYMBOL, while to the SYMBOL he gave the name of his body; and, having called himself A VINE, he applied the appellation of his blood to the SYMBOL.—Our Lord required: that they, who partake of the divine mysteries, should not attend to the nature of the things which they see; but that, in the change of names, they should believe that change which is wrought by grace: inasmuch as he, who called his own natural body wheat and bread, and who further bestowed upon himself the appellation of a vine, honoured also the viable SYMBOLS with the name of his body and blood; NOT CHANGING THEIR NATURE, BUT ADDING GRACE TO NATURE. [19a]

(2.) The mystic symbols, AFTER CONSECRATION, PASS NOT OUT OF THEIR OWN NATURE: FOR THEY REMAIN IN THE FORMER SUBSTANCE and shape and appearance: and they are seen and touched, such as they were before. But they are understood to be what they were: and they are believed and venerated, as being those things which they are believed. Compare, therefore, the IMAGE with the ARCHETYPE; and you will perceive their resemblance: for the TYPE must needs be similar to the TRUTH. [19b]

11. Pope Gelasius lived in the fifth century: and, in his quality of a Pope speaking judicially or controversially, it is thought, that he specially merits the attention of the Romish Clergy.

Certainly, the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord, which we receive, are a divine thing: because, by these, we are made partakers of the divine nature. Nevertheless, THE SUBSTANCE OR NATURE OF THE BREAD AND WINE CEASES NOT TO EXIST: and, assuredly, the IMAGE and SIMILITUDE of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. [19c]

The sacrament of adoption may be called adoption: just as the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which sacrament is in the consecrated bread and wine, we are wont to call his body and blood. Not, INDEED, THAT THE BREAD IS PROPERLY HIS BODY, OR THAT THE WINE IS PROPERLY HIS BLOOD: but we so denominate them, because they contain the mystery (or sacrament) of his body and blood within themselves. Hence it was, that our Lord called the consecrated bread and wine, which he delivered to his disciples, his own body and blood. [20a]

The body of Christ, which is taken by the faithful, NEITHER DEPARTS FROM ITS SENSIBLE SUBSTANCE, on the one hand: nor remains separated from intellectual grace, on the other hand. And spiritual baptism, likewise, being whole and single, both retains the propriety of ITS SENSIBLE SUBSTANCE, I mean THE WATER: and loses not that, which it hath become. [20b]

The Lord, in the Supper, gave to his disciples the FIGURE of his holy body and blood. [20c]

(1.) Sacraments ought to have a certain SIMILITUDE of those things, whereof they are sacraments. Let us, therefore, say: that the officiating priest bears a SIMILITUDE to Christ, AS the bread and wine bear a SIMILITUDE to the body and blood of Christ. [20d]

(2.) After a certain mode, the sacrament of the body of Christ is Christ’s body. For, unless sacraments had a certain SIMILITUDE of those things whereof they are sacraments, they would not be p. 21sacraments at all: but, FROM THIS VERY SIMILITUDE, THEY COMMONLY RECEIVE THE NAMES OF THE THINGS THEMSELVES. [21a]

Christ, in the Supper, which, before his betrayal, he had celebrated with his disciples after the solemnisation of the ancient Passover, delivered to the same disciples the sacraments of his body and blood IN THE SUBSTANCE OF BREAD AND WINE:—and taught them; that they ought to pass, from things CARNAL to things SPIRITUAL, from things EARTHLY to things HEAVENLY, from IMAGES to TRUTH. [21b]

Lately, indeed, SOME INDIVIDUALS, not thinking rightly concerning the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, have said: that That very body and blood of the Lord, which was born from the Virgin Mary, in which the Lord himself suffered on the cross, and in the which he rose again from the sepulchre, is the same as that which is received from the altar. In opposition to which error as far as lay in our power, writing to the Abbot Egilus, WE PROPOUNDED WHAT OUGHT TRULY TO BE BELIEVED CONCERNING THE BODY ITSELF. [21c]

Let us now consider the question: Whether the identical body, which was born from Mary and suffered and died and was buried, and which now sits at the right hand of the Father, is that, which in the Church is daily received by the mouth of the faithful through the mystery of the sacraments.—

According to the substance of the creatures, WHAT THEY WERE BEFORE CONSECRATION, THAT ALSO THEY ARE AFTER IT.—

Spiritual flesh which is received by the mouth of p. 22the faithful, and spiritual blood which is daily given to be drunk by the faithful, DIFFER from the flesh which was crucified and from the blood which was shed by the knee of the soldier.

IV. The plain inquirer will now judge for himself: whether the romish doctrine of Transubstantiation, with the associated practice of adoring as God the consecrated elements, be taught either in Scripture, or by the early Fathers.

As for Scripture, sufficient has already been said: and, with respect to the evidence afforded by the ancient Doctors of the Catholic Church, those Doctors, we see, protest against any such new-fangled notions, not only during the three first centuries, but down even to the ninth century; and they protest, moreover, in every possible way that could well have been either required or imagined.

1. According to their interpretation of Scripture, which manifestly was the interpretation received as orthodox by the universal Church at the times when they respectively flourished, we have the following very distinct and very important results.

(1.) The consecrated elements are IMAGES or SYMBOLS or TYPES or SIGNS or REPRESENTATIONS of the body and blood of Christ.

(2.) Communicants do NOT partake of that literal body and blood, in which the Lord suffered and which he shed on the cross.

(3.) The symbols of bread and wine, AFTER consecration, STILL REMAIN UNCHANGED IN THEIR ORIGINAL SUBSTANCE: and, consequently, they are NOT transubstantiated.

(4.) Christ called the bread and wine his body and blood, IN THE SAME SENSE and ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE that he called himself a vine.

(5.) When the early writers style the bread and p. 23wine the body and blood of Christ; or when they say, that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ; or when they affirm, that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ: they themselves state, by way of explanation, that they only speak metonymically and figuratively. For they distinctly tell us: that they are wont to call the bread and wine Christ’s body and blood; NOT BECAUSE THE BREAD IS PROPERLY HIS BODY, OR BECAUSE THE WINE IS PROPERLY HIS BLOOD; but only because they contain the sacrament of his body and blood within themselves, or because the IMAGE and SIMILITUDE of his body and blood are exhibited in the due celebration of the Eucharist.

(6.) Hence, in strict consistency, the sole change in the elements, produced by consecration, is said, by the same early writers, to be a MORAL and not a PHYSICAL change. For they pronounce it to be such a change, as is produced in the confirmatory chrism or in the stone of an altar-table or in the baptismal water; when, by consecration, they cease to be secular, and are devoted to sacred purposes: and, even yet more remarkably, they pronounce it to be such a change, as is produced in a man; when, by ordination, he ceases to be a laic, and becomes a clerk.

2. Nor do we thus find, in the old Doctors of the Church, a mere simple anticipatory protest against the modern Romish dogma, of Transubstantiation: we may note also, in the case of Raban and Bertram, a formal direct synchranical protest against the wild notion of Christ’s CORPOREAL or LITERAL or SUBSTANTIAL presence in the Eucharist, when, in the ninth century, and under the fostering management of Paschase Radbert, it was attempting to creep into the hitherto untainted Western Churches.

No sooner was the idle phantasy started; that The identical body and blood of Christ, in which he was born from the Virgin Mary, is literally and substantially received from the altar: than it was distinctly p. 24and openly opposed, on the specific ground, not only of its abstract scriptural falsehood, but likewise of its palpable novelty and its then scanty reception. For all these three points are clearly set forth by Archbishop Raban in his three very remarkable expressions, LATELY, and SOME INDIVIDUALS, and NOT THINKING RIGHTLY.

CHAPTER III.
PURGATORY.

From the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation, I shall pass on to the Romish doctrine of Purgatory.

I. Respecting a Purgatory, into which the souls of all, save those who are immediately conveyed to Hell, pass forthwith after death; in order that, by its fiery pains, they may be purified from the remainder of their corruption, and at the same time by personal suffering may make satisfaction to God for their hitherto unexpiated offences: the Church of Rome, speaking through her organ the Council of Trent, thus defines and pronounces.

There is a Purgatory: and the souls, there detained, are assisted by the suffrages of the faithful and most especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar. [24]

II. Such is the authorised doctrine of the Roman Church: let us now see, whether the existence of a Purgatory in the unseen world be revealed in Scripture.

1. On this point, we may begin with very safely remarking: that, from the first verse of Genesis to the last verse of the Revelation, God’s written word, whether jewish or christian, SAYS NOT A SINGLE SYLLABLE concerning the existence of any such place as a romish Purgatory.

Whence, of course, it is EQUALLY SILENT, respecting p. 25the extraordinary alleged fact: that, Souls, there detained, are assisted by the suffrages or prayers of the faithful and most especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar.

2. But Holy Scripture is not merely SILENT on this subject: by anticipation, it even FLATLY CONTRADICTS the popish doctrine before us.

I heard a voice from heaven, saying unto me: Write; Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, THAT THEY MAY REST FROM THEIR LABOURS; and their works do follow them. [25]

If, as the Romish Clergy teach, even those, who die in the Lord, pass into Purgatory, where they suffer pains equal to those of Hell in intensity and inferior to them only in duration: certainly, such souls can with no truth be said henceforth to rest from their labours.

3. In reality, the very notion of a Purgatory stands irreconcileably opposed to the whole scheme and analogy of Scripture.

For the doctrine of a Purgatory holds out the speculation: that, By penal suffering, we both may be purified from our sins, and likewise may make personal meritorious satisfaction to God for them.

Whereas Scripture teaches us: that We are justified from our sins by the sole merits of the Son, and that We are sanctified from our pollutions by the exclusive ordinary operation of the Spirit.

On the present point, then, are we to believe the Bible, or the Council of Trent and the Latin Priesthood?

4. Finding it impossible to establish the existence of a Purgatory from the genuine written word of God, the Romish Clergy attempt to substantiate it from a text in the Apocrypha.

When Judas had made a gathering throughout the p. 26company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem, to offer a sin-offering; doing therein well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection (for, if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), and also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly. It was a holy and good thought. Whereupon, he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin. [26a]

Now this text, even if we could admit the canonical authority of a book which praises self-murder, and which apologises for its own defects, [26b] would stand the Latin Priesthood in small stead: for it never once mentions any Purgatory; and the persons, moreover, for whom Judas attempted to make reconciliation, were actually men who had died in the mortal sin of idolatry unrepented of, and consequently were men who (by the determination of the Council of Trent) had passed not into Purgatory but into Hell. [26c]

In truth, however, for the too evident purpose of serving a turn, the doctors of the Council of Trent, in defiance of the universal testimony of the early Church as expressed most distinctly by Melito and Cyril and Ruffinus and Jerome and Epiphanius and Athanasius, have foisted into the genuine canon of inspired Scripture, those mere unauthoritative human compositions, which are commonly styled apocryphal, and for the simple quoting of which about the close of the sixth century, Pope Gregory the great absolutely makes a regular formal apology. [26d]

p. 27As one out of our many witnesses against these daring innovators, let us hear, from the fourth century, the venerable Cyril of Jerusalem, while officially instructing his Catechumens in order to their baptism.

Read the twenty and two books contained in the Old Testament: but WITH THE APOCRYPHA HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON. Study diligently those twenty and two books ALONE, which also with confidence are read in the Church. The Apostles and the ancient Bishops, who delivered those books to us, were much wiser than you. As children of the Church, therefore, set not upon her authorised documents the adulterating seal of a false impression. [27a]

This adulterating seal of a false impression, so strongly reprobated by Cyril in the fourth century, was, in the sixteenth century, employed, without the least scruple, for the impious corruption of God’s written word, by the Romish Clergy at the Council of Trent.

I. In the way of negative evidence, Polycarp the disciple of St. John, Athenagoras, and Irenèus, who collectively flourished during a period which extends from the latter end of the first to the latter end of the second century, are TOTALLY SILENT respecting the existence of a Purgatory; even when the nature of their subject is such, that, had they been acquainted with the doctrine, they must have mentioned it. [27b]

2. In the way of positive evidence, Clement of Rome the disciple and fellow-labourer of St. Paul, p. 28Ignatius the disciple of St. John, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, and Cyprian, who collectively flourished during a period which extends from the year 63 to the year 258, either by anticipation EXPRESSLY CONTRADICT, or else use language PALPABLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH, the doctrine of a Purgatory. [28a]

3. When this doctrine began to creep into the Church, the individuals, who started it, could not agree among themselves, either as to its nature, or as to its certainty, or as to its chronological location: and, what is sufficiently whimsical, not one among them agreed with the present Church of Rome. [28b]

Now, if the doctrine of a Purgatory had been uniformly and universally and constantly held in the Church Catholic from the very beginning, as the Romish Clergy would persuade us: it is quite clear, that this curious discrepance could never have occurred.

4. At present, the members of the Latin Church pray for the dead, with the avowed object that their souls may be delivered from Purgatory: but, when prayers for the dead first came into use, those prayers were offered up with no such purpose and intention.

Let it be known and observed (for many are ignorant of the circumstance): that, at the commencement of the practice, supplication was made, not that souls might be delivered from Purgatory, but that they might be partakers of the first resurrection: [28c] and the notion itself evidently originated from p. 29a gratuitous interpretation of a well known obscure text in the Apocalypse. [29a]

5. The unauthorised practice of praying for the dead, under any aspect, being thus plainly a mere innovation upon the primitive simplicity of the Gospel; its utility, as we learn from Cyril of Jerusalem, was questioned by MANY, even so late as the middle of the fourth century. Finding not a vestige of the thing in the whole Bible, and naturally judging that we can know nothing about the matter save from a distinct revelation, they very sensibly asked: How is the soul benefited by any such mention of it, whether it depart from this world with sin or without sin? [29b]

It were well, if the Romish Clergy, when they boast of the immutability of their doctrine and practice, would account of these odd variations.

IV. Meanwhile, let the sober inquirer judge for himself, whether there be even a shadow for the idle plea: that the doctrine of Purgatory is revealed in the Bible, and that it was maintained from the beginning by all the early Fathers.

CHAPTER IV.
UNWRITTEN TRADITION AND INSUFFICIENCY OF THE WRITTEN WORD ALONE.

I SHALL next proceed to examine the Romish assertions respecting Unwritten Tradition and the Insufficiency of the Written Word alone.

I. Although the Church of Rome, speaking through the Council of Trent, claims the Written Word of God as a voucher for her doctrines; yet, as if conscious, that, from Scripture ALONE, her peculiarities cannot be established as a part of divine revelation, she asserts: that Unwritten Tradition ought to be p. 30had in EQUAL reverence with the Written Word; so that, what cannot be proved from the Written Word, must be received without hesitation, if it be propounded by Unwritten Tradition.

From this assertion it evidently results: that, Without the concurrence of a supplemental Unwritten Tradition, the Written Word or the Holy Bible is defective and insufficient as a rule of faith and practice.

The Holy Synod, say the doctors of the Council of Trent, perceiving, that this faith and discipline are contained, both in the Written Books, and in the Unwritten Traditions which have descended to us from Christ and his Apostles, receives and venerates, after the example of the orthodox Fathers, WITH AN EQUAL AFFECTION AND PIOUS REVERENCE, both all the Books of the Old and New Testaments, and likewise the Traditions themselves, whether appertaining to faith or to morals, as if orally dictated from Christ and the Holy Spirit, and as preserved by continual succession in the Church Catholic. [30]

II. Let us now hear what Scripture says on the topic at present under discussion.

1. The unwritten traditions of the Rabbins, by which they made void the Law of God, claimed to have been delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai by the Lord himself: and their pretended authenticity rested precisely upon the same mode of reasoning, as that employed, for their parallel unwritten traditions, by the Clergy of the Roman Communion. Yet Christ reprobated such vain unhallowed phantasies in language and on principles, which equally apply to the antiscriptural unwritten traditions of the Latin Church.

He answered and said unto them: Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying: Honour p. 31thy father and thy mother; and: He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say: Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother; It is a gift by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. [31a]

Now where is the perceptible difference, between the conduct of the Jewish Rabbins, and the conduct of the Romish Clergy?

(1.) The Written Word commanded: that a man should honour his father and mother.

But the Jewish Rabbins made this commandment of none effect by their Unwritten Tradition: that, if a man vowed to dedicate his substance to God, he was not bound to relieve out of it the necessities of his parents.

(2.) The Written Word has prohibited the bowing down before graven images and the invocation of any being save the Deity.

But the Romish Clergy have made this prohibition of none effect by their Unwritten Tradition: that images may be worshipped relatively with the worship due to their prototypes, that dead saints may be justifiably invocated to give us their intercessory assistance, and that, provided only we take care to denominate the worship of the Saints and the Virgin Dulia and Hyperdulia while we rigidly style the worship of the Deity Latria, we may laudably (after the precise manner of the old Pagan idolaters [31b]) kiss and uncover our heads and fall prostrate before their images, duly through each image (again on the exact avowed principle of the same Old Pagan idolaters [31c]) referring to each being represented by p. 32such image his own appropriate reverence and adoration. [32a]

2. A similar admonition, against the vanity of following Unwritten Tradition rather than the certainty of the Written Word, is given by the Apostle St. Paul.

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him; rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. [32b]

3. The romish pretence of an EQUALLY authoritative Unwritten Tradition plainly involves an assertion of the Insufficiency of the Written Word. But the written Word declares its own Sufficiency. Therefore, on that precise ground, it condemns the romish pretence of an EQUALLY authoritative concurrent Unwritten Tradition.

(1.) Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it: that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you. [32c]

(2.) To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. [32d]

(3.) Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. [32e]

(4.) From a child, thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God: and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, p. 33for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. [33a]

4. The Romish Clergy are wont to tell us, that their scheme of concurrent Unwritten Tradition is recognised and enjoined even by Scripture: because St. Paul speaks of a brother, walking disorderly, and not after the TRADITION received from himself by the Thessalonians; [33b] because the same St. Paul exhorts the same Thessalonians to stand fast and hold the TRADITIONS which they had been taught whether by word or by his epistle; [33c] and because still the same St. Paul praises the Corinthians, for remembering him in all things, and for keeping the TRADITIONS as he delivered to them. [33d]

Respecting this vain plea, which can only mislead the ignorant and the incautious, we readily answer in manner following.

(1.) St. Paul must not be interpreted, so as to contradict both his Lord and himself.

(2.) The Romish Clergy cannot prove, that all the Traditions, mentioned by the Apostle, were unwritten: for some are distinctly specified as taught by a written epistle; and the simple word Tradition itself, which merely denotes any thing handed down or delivered or communicated, has no necessary reference to what is unwritten rather than to what is written.

(3.) It is not known by the Romish Clergy: whether the originally oral unwritten traditions, mentioned by St. Paul, were not finally committed to durable writing in documents, composed subsequently to those epistles in which he mentions them, and afterward added to the sacred canon; so that, what were once unwritten traditions, became ultimately a portion of our present written word: for the plain reader may be usefully taught or reminded, that p. 34several portions of the New Testament were written at a later period than the epistles in which St. Paul speaks of Traditions.

(4.) Whensoever the Romish Clergy shall prove the unwritten traditions of their Church to have been received from Christ and his apostles with as much certainty, as the Thessalonians and Corinthians knew what they had personally received from the mouth of St. Paul: we will cheerfully attend to them with all due reverence.

(5.) Both on the principle of our Lord’s own censure of the rabbinical traditions, and likewise on the principle of plain common sense, we cannot embrace oral traditions purporting to be God’s unwritten word; when they are palpably irreconcileable with, and grossly contradictory to, God’s own acknowledged written word.

III. We may now, in the way of historical testimony, go on profitably to hear the ancient Fathers: those identical old orthodox Fathers to wit; whom, in respect to the present question, the doctors of the Council of Trent, as the reader may peradventure recollect, claim as being clearly and indisputably quite their own.

(1.) The disposition of our salvation we know not through any other persons, than those by whom the Gospel has come to us: which then, indeed, they themselves orally preached; but which afterward, according to the will of God, they traditionally handed down to us IN THE WRITTEN WORD, as the future basis and column of our faith. [34]

(2.) When the Gnostics are confuted from SCRIPTURE, their answer is: that, By those who are ignorant of UNWRITTEN TRADITION, truth cannot be discovered from THE WRITTEN WORD; for truth was p. 35delivered, not (merely) through letters, but through the living voice. [35a]

As for Hermogenes, let his shop produce THE WRITTEN WORD. If he be unable to produce THE WRITTEN WORD in substantiation of his tenets; let him dread that scriptural Woe, which is destined to those who either add to it or detract from it. [35b]

There is one God, whom we know from no other authority, than THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.—Whatsoever matters, then, THE DIVINE SCRIPTURES declare; these let us learn: and, whatsoever matters they teach; these let us recognise:—not according to our own humour or according to our own mind, neither with any wresting of the things delivered from God; but, even as he himself wished THROUGH THE HOLY SCRIPTURES to shew us, thus let us learn. [35c]

Whence is that pretended TRADITION? Does it descend from the authority of the Lord and the Gospels: or does it come down from the mandates and letters of the Apostles? God testifies, that those things are to be done, which are WRITTEN.—If, then, any such precept can be found, EITHER IN THE GOSPEL OR IN THE EPISTLES AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES:—let this divine and holy (written) tradition be observed. [35d]

Respecting the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not even a tittle ought to be delivered without the authority of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. Neither p. 36ought any thing to be propounded, on the basis of mere credibility, or through the medium of plausible ratiocination. Neither yet repose the slightest confidence in the bare assertions of me your Catechist, unless you shall receive from THE HOLY SCRIPTURES foil demonstration of the matters propounded. For the security of our faith depends, not upon verbal trickery, but upon demonstration from THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. [36a]

(1.) The holy and divinely inspired SCRIPTURES are sufficient for the declaration of the truth. [36b]

(2.) Let a person solely learn the matters, which are set forth in THE SCRIPTURES: for the demonstrations, contained in them, are, in order to the settling of this point, quite sufficient and complete. [36c]

(3.) If ye are disciples of the Gospels,—walk according to WHAT IS WRITTEN. But, if you choose to allege any other matters BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN: why do you contend against us, WHO WILL NEVER BE PERSUADED EITHER TO HEAR OR TO SPEAK A SINGLE SYLLABLE BEYOND GOD’S WRITTEN WORD? [36d]

(4.) These; namely, the canonical books of Scripture, from which the apocryphal books are carefully excluded by the accurate Father: These are the fountains of salvation; so that he, who thirsts, may drink from the oracles contained in them. In THESE ALONE is the evangelical school of piety. Let no one add to them: and let no one detract from them. [36e]

(5.) It is the part of mere triflers to propound and to speak THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN. [36f]

p. 37(6.) What THE WRITTEN WORD had never revealed, you will never be able to discover. [37a]

(1.) It is a manifest apostasy from the faith, and a clear proof of arrogance, either to disregard any matter of THE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN, Or to introduce argumentatively any matter of THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN. [37b]

(2.) THE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN believe: THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN Seek not after. [37c]

(1.) As we deny not THE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN: SO THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN we reject. We believe, that God was born of a virgin; BECAUSE WE READ IT: we believe not, that Mary was married after her parturition; BECAUSE WE READ IT NOT. [37d]

(2.) Learn, then, in THE DIVINE SCRIPTURES, through which ALONE you can understand the full will of God, that some things are prohibited and that other things are commanded, that some things are granted and that other things are persuaded. [37e]

Demonstrate, from any one of THE CANONICAL APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, the truth of what Cyprian has written to Jubaianus: and I should then have no room for contradiction. But now, since what you produce is NOT CANONICAL; through the liberty, to which the Lord hath called us, I receive not the decision. [37f]

p. 38IV. From the evidence now faithfully laid before him, the prudent inquirer is invited to judge for himself: whether the romish doctrine, of the concurrent EQUAL authority of Unwritten Tradition and the insufficiency of the Written Word alone, be warranted either by Scripture or by the early Fathers.

Meanwhile the following questions may not be altogether unworthy of his attention.

1. Do, or do not, the doctors of the Council of Trent, agreeably to their own formal and distinct profession, follow the example of the old orthodox Fathers, when they decide: that the Written Word of God, and the Unwritten Traditions of the Latin Church, are to be received by the faithful with an EQUAL affection and pious reverence?

2. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy imitate the Gnostics: who, when they were confuted from Scripture, were accustomed to reply; that, by those who are ignorant of Unwritten Tradition, truth cannot be discovered from the Written Word.

3. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy copy the example of Cyril of Jerusalem: who declared, that, respecting the faith, NOT A TITTLE ought to be delivered without the authority of the Holy Scriptures; and who exhorted his Catechumens to repose not THE SLIGHTEST CONFIDENCE in his assertions, unless they should receive from the Holy Scriptures full demonstration of the matters propounded?

4. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy teach, with Athanasius: that, the Scriptures ALONE are sufficient for the declaration of the truth; and that, in the canonical Scriptures ALONE, to the exclusion of the Apocrypha, is the evangelical school of piety?

5. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy declare, with the same illustrious Father: that they will never be persuaded either to hear or to speak A SINGLE SYLLABLE beyond God’s written word?

6. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy pronounce, p. 39still with the great Athanasius: that it is the part of mere triflers to propound and to speak the things which are not written?

7. Do, or do not, the doctors of the Council of Trent, and after them our present Romish Clergy, take up, and make their own, the ancient pithy distinction of Jerome: The things which are written we acknowledge; the things which are not written we reject?

8. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy, make a point, with Tertullian, of always requiring the production of proof from the Written Word: and do they, or do they not, allow and maintain, with the same Father; that he, who is unable to produce the Written Word in substantiation of his tenets, but who for that purpose resorts to Unwritten Tradition, may well dread the awful Woe so justly denounced against those who either add to it or detract from it?

9. Finally, in their several estimates of Unwritten Tradition and the Written Word, and in their several modes of conducting those theological controversies which respect the authoritative rule of faith and practice, do the Romish Clergy or the Reformed Clergy approximate most closely to Holy Scripture and to the ancient orthodox Fathers?

CHAPTER V.
MERITORIOUS SATISFACTION.

From the perfect equality of Unwritten Tradition and the Written Word of God, we may next proceed to the doctrine of Meritorious Satisfaction.

I. The Church of Rome lays down her decision, respecting what she calls Works of Satisfaction, in manner following.

So great is the abundance of divine munificence, that we are able to make satisfaction to God the Father through Jesus Christ, not only by punishments p. 40either spontaneously undergone by ourselves for the avenging of sin or imposed upon us by the will of the priest according to the measure of our offence, but also (what is the greatest argument of love) by temporal flagellations inflicted of God and by us patiently endured. [40a]

II. Thus speaks the Roman Church: let us now hear the declarations of Holy Scripture.

1. When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do. [40b]

2. Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one, a Pharisee; and the other, a Publican. The Pharisee stood, and prayed thus with himself: God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this Publican. I fast twice in the week: I give tythes of all that I possess. And the Publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven; but smote upon his breast, saying: God be merciful to me a sinner! I tell you: This man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one, that exalteth himself, shall be abased; and he, that humbleth himself, shall be exalted. [40c]

3. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude: that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law. [40d]

4. If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God: and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now, to him that worketh, is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt. But, to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. [40e]

p. 415. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. [41a]

6. They, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. [41b]

7. We are all as an unclean thing: and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. [41c]

All, therefore, have been glorified and magnified, not through themselves or through their own works of righteousness which they have done, but through the will of God. Wherefore, being called through his will in Christ Jesus, we are justified, not through ourselves, or through our own wisdom or intellect or piety, or through the works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but through faith, by which the Almighty God has justified us all from everlasting. [41d]

2. The author of the Epistle to Diognetus, in the first or second century, speaks exactly to the same purpose.

What else can cover our sins, than the righteousness of Christ? In what can we lawless and impious wretches be justified, save only in the Son of God? [41e]

(1.) By what labours, by what injuries, can we lighten our sins? The sufferings of this time are, in reference to future glory, altogether unworthy. Hence, toward man, the form of celestial decrees p. 42proceeds, not according to our merits, but according to the mercy of God. [42a]

(2.) Would that the Lord would not reject, but collect, this my mere stubble in the harvest, these empty wild oats of my fructification!—It is fitting, therefore, to believe; both that penance is to be performed, and that pardon is to be granted: nevertheless, in such manner, that we should hope for pardon, as from faith, not as from debt. [42b]

4. Augustine, in the fourth and fifth centuries, exactly agrees with his predecessors.

The sins are thine: the merits are God’s. To thee punishment is due: and when the reward shall come, he will crown his own gifts, not thy merits. [42c]

IV. Let the patient enquirer now judge for himself: whether the romish doctrine, that Punishments, either self-inflicted, or commanded by a priest, or sent in the course of God’s providence, can make satisfaction to the Father through Christ in our behalf, be the doctrine either of Scripture or of the early Church.

V. But, if no man can make satisfaction for his own sins: still less, according to the monstrous phantasy of Supererogation, can he make satisfaction for the sins of others.

Yet this impious absurdity was openly advanced in the papal bull for the observation of a jubilee is the recent year 1825.

We have resolved, says Pope Leo, BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO US FROM HEAVEN, fully to unlock that sacred treasure, composed of the merits, sufferings, and virtues, of Christ our Lord and of his Virgin-Mother and of all the Saints, WHICH THE AUTHOR OF HUMAN SALVATION HAS ENTRUSTED TO p. 43OUR DISPENSATION.—To you, therefore, venerable brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, it belongs to explain with perspicuity the power of Indulgences: what is their efficacy in the remission, not only of the canonical penance, but also of the temporal punishment due to the divine justice for past sin; and what succour is afforded, out of this heavenly treasure, from the merits of Christ and his Saints, to such as have departed real penitents in God’s love, yet before they had duly satisfied by fruits worthy of penance for sins of commission and omission, and are now purifying in the fire of Purgatory, that an entrance may be opened for them into their eternal country where nothing defiled is admitted.

1. Where is Pope Leo’s PROOF of the validity of his claim to an authority given to him from heaven: by virtue of which authority he fully unlocks a sacred treasure, composed of the merits of Christ and the Virgin Mary and all the Saints, and entrusted by the blessed author of our salvation to the wisdom of his doling out?

Let such PROOF be produced, if the Romish Clergy can produce it, either from the Bible, or even from the received doctrine of the primitive Church Catholic.

2. By what evidence does Pope Leo SUBSTANTIATE his assertion: that Souls in Purgatory are benefited by the supererogatory merits of the Virgin Mary and the Saints strangely associated with the all-sufficient merits of the Redeemer?

Let the Romish Clergy, if they be able, SUBSTANTIATE this most extraordinary allegation.

3. Where is Pope Leo’s PROOF of the very position, upon which the whole of his bull professedly reposes; the position, to wit: that The Virgin Mary and the Saints not only have merit enough to make satisfaction for their own sins, but have even merit to spare for the benefit of less privileged souls in Purgatory?

From the Bible or from the Doctors of the primitive Church, let his venerable brethren, Patriarchs, p. 44Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops, bring forward, if they can accomplish such a feat, the PROOF of this very remarkable position.

CHAPTER VI.
SAINT-WORSHIP, IMAGE-WORSHIP, RELIC-WORSHIP, CROSS-WORSHIP.

I SHALL next examine the doctrine and practice of Saint-worship, Image-worship, Relic-worship, and Cross-worship.

I. In exhibiting the tenets of the Romish Church and Clergy on these several points, I shall successively give: the decision of the council of Trent; the comments of some of the most approved Latin Doctors; and the actual practice of the Romanists themselves as the best explanation of their received tenets.

All Bishops, and others who discharge the duty of teaching, must diligently instruct the faithful, concerning the intercession and invocation of the Saints, the honouring of Relics, and the legitimate use of Images.

For this purpose, they must teach them: that the Saints, reigning with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for men; and that it is good and useful, suppliantly to invoke them, and to flee to their prayers and assistance for the purpose of obtaining benefits from God through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord who is our only Redeemer and Saviour.

Furthermore, they must teach them: that those, who deny that the Saints in heaven ought to be invoked, or who assert either that they do not pray for men or that the invoking of them to pray for us is idolatry or that it is contrary to God’s word and adverse p. 45to the honour of Jesus Christ the only mediator between God and man or that it is foolish by voice or in mind to supplicate those who reign in heaven, think impiously.

They must also teach them: that the holy bodies of the Saints and Martyrs and others living with Christ are to be venerated by the faithful, through which many benefits are afforded from God to men; so that the affirmers, that veneration and honour are not due to the Relics of the Saints, or that these and other sacred monuments are uselessly honoured by the faithful, or that it is vain to celebrate the memories of the Saints for the purpose of obtaining their assistance, are wholly to be condemned, as the Church long since condemned and still condemns them.

Likewise, they must teach them: that the Images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God and of the other Saints are especially to be had and retained in Churches, and that due honour and veneration are to be paid to them; not that any divinity or virtue, on account of which they ought to be worshipped, is believed to be inherent in them; or that any thing is to be sought from them; or that trust is to be placed in Images, as was formerly done by the Gentiles, who placed their hope in Idols; but because the honour, which is paid to them, is referred to the originals which they represent; so that, through the Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our heads and bow down prostrate, we adore Christ and venerate the Saints whose similitude they bear. [45]

2. Let us next, upon the doctrinal and practical system of the professedly unchangeable Church of Rome, hear the comments of some of the most approved Latin Doctors both before and after the Council of Trent.

p. 46(1.) From Thomas Aquinas, who was not only a mighty Schoolman but also a canonised Saint of the Roman Church, we may clearly hope to derive the very best and most accurate instruction as to the real tenets of his Communion. Now this writer, through the medium of a syllogism professedly framed upon an authorised Prayer in the Breviary, establishes the DUTY of worshipping the cross with the self-same adoration as that which is paid to the Deity.

We offer the supreme adoration of Latria to that Being, in whom we place our hope of salvation. But we place our hope of salvation in the cross of Christ: for the Church sings; Hail, O cross, our only hope in this time of passion, increase righteousness to the pious, and grant pardon to the guilty. Therefore the cross of Christ is to be adored with the supreme adoration of Latria. [46a]

(2.) Much wholesome instruction, in regard to the legitimate use of Images, may also be derived from the expositorial comment of James Naclantus Bishop of Clugium.

We must not only confess, that the faithful in the Church worship before an Image; as some over-squeamish souls might peradventure express themselves: but we must furthermore confess, without the slightest scruple of conscience, that THEY ADORE THE VERY IMAGE ITSELF; for, in sooth, they venerate it with the identical worship wherewith they venerate its prototype. Hence, IF THEY ADORE THE PROTOTYPE WITH THAT DIVINE WORSHIP WHICH IS RENDERED TO GOD AND WHICH TECHNICALLY BEARS THE NAME OF LATRIA, THEY ADORE ALSO THE IMAGE WITH THE SAME LATRIA OR SUPREME DIVINE WORSHIP: and, if they adore the prototype with Dulia or Hyperdulia, they are bound also to adore the Image with the self-same species of inferior worship. [46b]

p. 47(3.) In exactly the same expository strain proceeds Gabriel Biel, in his Lectures upon the Canon of the Mass.

If there shall be Images of Christ, THEY ARE ADORED WITH THE SAME SPECIES OF ADORATION AS CHRIST HIMSELF, THAT IS, WITH THE SUPREME ADORATION CALLED LATRIA: if, of the most blessed Virgin; with the worship of Hyperdulia. [47a]

(4.) The commentary of Peter de Medrano will throw yet additional light on the subject.

We must say: that, to our Lady the Mother of God, there has been granted the remarkable privilege of being physically and really present in some of her statues or images.—Hence we must piously believe: that, in some celebrated statues or images of herself, she is inherent and present, personally, physically, and really;—in order that, in them, she may receive, from faithful worshippers, her due adoration. [47b]

(5.) Yet still further light breaks in upon us from the statements of Aringhi, penned and published at Rome under the very nose of the sovereign Pontiff.

This Image, translated from the city of Edessa, is at once preserved as a bulwark against mad Image-breakers, and is set forth to be taken up and ADORED by the faithful. [47c]

Within these few years, under every Pope successively, some or other of our sacred Images, especially of the more ancient, have made themselves illustrious, and have acquired A PECULIAR WORSHIP AND VENERATION, by the exhibition of fresh miracles; as it is notorious to all, who dwell in this city. [47d]

3. Let us finally attend to the actual liturgical practice of the Romanists themselves, as the best explanation of the tenets received and inculcated by their Clergy: for, clearly, as men are taught to believe p. 48and to act, so will their authorised public prayers be constructed.

(1.) Hail, O cross, our only hope in this time of passion: increase righteousness to the pious, and grant pardon to the guilty. [48a]

(2.) Holy Mary, succour the miserable, assist the pusillanimous, comfort the mournful. [48b]

(3.) O singular Virgin, mild among all, make us, being delivered from our sins, mild and chaste. Grant us purity of life; prepare for us a safe journey: that, seeing Jesus, we may always jointly rejoice. [48c]

(4.) Mary, mother of grace, mother of mercy, do thou protect us from the enemy, and receive us in the hour of death. Unloose their bonds to the guilty: give light to the blind: drive away our evils: demand all good things. Shew thyself to be a mother. Let him, who for us endured to be thy son, receive our prayers through thee. [48d]

(5.) O George, illustrious martyr, praise and glory become thee.—We beseech thee, in our inmost heart, that, with all the faithful, we may be joined to the citizens of heaven, being washed from our impurities. [48e]

(6.) O martyr Christopher, for the honour of the Saviour, make us in mind worthy of the honour of the Deity. According to the promise of Christ, for what thou askest thou obtainest, grant unto thy sorrowful people the gifts, which in dying thou besoughtest. [48f]

(7.) O ye eleven thousand glorious girls, lilies of virginity, roses of martyrdom, defend me in life by granting me your assistance: and shew yourselves in death, by bringing the last comfort. [48g]

(8.) O holy Mary; our sovereign queen, as God the Father, by his omnipotence, has made thee most powerful; so assist us, at the hour of death, by defending p. 49us against all power that is contrary to thine. Hail, Mary! O holy Mary, our sovereign queen, as God the Son has endowed thee with so much knowledge and charity that it enlightens all heaven; so, in the hour of death, illustrate and strengthen our souls with the knowledge of the true faith, that they may not be perverted by error or pernicious ignorance. Hail, Mary! O holy Virgin, our sovereign queen, as the Holy Ghost has plentifully poured forth into thee the love of God; so instil into us, at the hour of death, the sweetness of divine love, that all bitterness at that time may become acceptable and pleasant to us. Hail, Mary! [49a]

(9.) Hail Mary, lady and mistress of the world, to whom all power has been given both in heaven and in earth! [49b]

II. After this ample statement of the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church, it will be useful for us to observe, both negatively what the Bible does not say, and positively what the Bible does say, on the subject now before us.

1. In the first place, then, so far as respects the negative part of the question, the Bible is TOTALLY SILENT, as to the Trent-inculcated duty, of invoking Saints, venerating Relics, and kissing and uncovering the head and falling prostrate before Images either in nitches or upon crucifixes.

It NO WHERE recognises or recommends any such practices and notions: as those, of invoking dead Saints, to aid us by their prayers, or to grant us purity of life, or to unloose the bands of the guilty, or to make us mild and chaste, or to defend us in life, or to assist us in the hour of death; of celebrating their memories, for the avowed purpose of obtaining their p. 50help and protection; of much benefit being derived, from God to man by the veneration of Relics; of worshipping Christ and venerating the Saints, through the medium of worship and veneration paid relatively to Images; of beseeching the cross, a mere dumb piece of wood even if any of its remains should now be actually in existence, to increase righteousness to the pious and to grant pardon to the guilty.

From beginning to end, NOT A SYLLABLE of sanction or approbation, in regard to any such phantasies can we discover in the Holy Scriptures.

Hence, even to say the very least of the matter, the doctrine, avowedly taught and liturgically introduced by the Church of Rome, has not the slightest support or warrant from the Written Word of God. Whatever be the ground, upon which it rests: at all events, it clearly rests not upon the Bible.

3. But this is not all. For, in the second place, so far as respects the positive part of the question, Holy Scripture is full and express AGAINST any worship or invocation of the creature, however disguised or modified or palliated by the closely harmonizing distinctions and definitions of Paganism and Popery: inasmuch as the Pagans, though slanderously misrepresented by the doctors of the Council of Trent, did in truth defend their Idol-worship against the primitive Christians, on the self-same plea and principle of relative adoration, as the said doctors themselves and their followers the Romish Clergy defend their Image-worship against us Reformed Catholics. [50]

(1.) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven. p. 51above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. [51a]

(2.) Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman. [51b]

(3.) They, that make a graven image, are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit: and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed. [51c]

(4.) None considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say: I have burned part of it in the fire; yea also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination; shall I fall down to the stock of a tree? [51d]

(5.) What profiteth the graven image, that the maker thereof hath graven it: the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein to make dumb idols? Woe unto him that saith to the wood; Awake: to the dumb stone; Arise, it shall teach. Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver; and there is no breath at all in the midst of it. [51e]

(6.) Then said Jesus unto him: Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written; Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. [51f]

(7.) Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding p. 52into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind. [52a]

(8.) When I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me: See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant and of thy brethren the prophets and of them which keep the sayings of this book. Worship God. [52b]

(9.) When the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia: The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas Jupiter; and Paul Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. When the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out and saying: Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you; and preach unto you, that ye should turn away from these vanities unto the living God. [52c]

III. We may now profitably hear the testimony of the early ecclesiastical writers.

1. The Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, relative to the martyrdom of Polycarp, was written about the middle of the second century.

Nicetas was urged by the envious and the wicked to intercede with the governor, that the remains of Polycarp should not be delivered for sepulture: lest, leaving him that was crucified, the Christians, it was suggested, should begin to worship this person. These things they said, at the instigation of the Jews: because they were ignorant; that neither can we ever forsake Christ who suffered for the salvation of the saved throughout the whole world, nor that p. 53we can ever worship any other. For him, being the Son of God, we adore: but the martyrs, as disciples and imitators of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their special affection to their own King and Master. [53a]

(1.) Images, wrought by mean artizans, are produced from worthless materials. Therefore they themselves must be worthless and profane. [53b]

(2.) An image, truly, is mere dead matter, fashioned by the hand of the artizan. But, with us Christians, there is no sensible representation formed out of sensible matter. God, the alone true God, is our intellectual image. [53c]

(1.) Celsus remarks, that we have neither altars nor images nor temples.—We ought not to dedicate images constructed by the ingenuity of artizans. [53f]

(2) We deem those the most ignorant: who are not ashamed, to address lifeless things, to petition the weak for health, to ask life from the dead, to pray for health from the needy. And, though some may allege, that these images are not gods but only their symbols and representations: yet even such persons, fancying that imitations of the Deity can be made by the hands of some mean artizan, are not a whit less ignorant and slavish and uninstructed. From this sottish stupidity, the very lowest and least informed of us Christians are exempt. [53g]

It hath seemed good to us, that pictures ought not to be admitted into a church: lest that should be painted upon walls which is worshipped and adored. [54a]

We are truly worshippers of God: because we invocate no one of the creatures nor any mere man, but the Son who is by nature from God and true God. [54b]

(1.) Let not our point of religion be the worship of dead men. For though they lived piously; still they are not to be accounted of, as requiring from us any such honours: but they rather wish us to worship him, through whose illumination they rejoice that we should be partners of their merit. They are to be honoured, therefore, on account of imitation; not to be prayed to on account of religion. [54c]

(2.) I have known that many are adorers of sepulchres and of pictures:—but the Church herself condemns them, and as bad children studies to correct them. [54d]

Let Mary be held in honour: but let the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost be worshipped. As for Mary, let no one worship her. [54e]

IV. Once more, let the honest inquirer freely judge and determine for himself, whether the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church and Clergy, relative to Saints and Images and Relics and Crosses, be supported either by Holy Scripture or by Primitive Antiquity.

p. 55CHAPTER VII.
PAPAL SUPREMACY.

The doctrine of Papal Supremacy shall next be brought to the legitimate test of Scripture and Historical Evidence.

I. We find the claim of this supremacy authoritatively propounded, in manner following.

2. I acknowledge the holy catholic and apostolic Roman Church to be the mother and mistress of all Churches: and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. [55b]

II. Such, in form, is the claim: but where find we its substantiation in the Bible?

1. The Roman Church had indisputably been founded in the apostolic age: for one of St. Paul’s Epistles is addressed to it.

Yet NOT A SINGLE SYLLABLE is said in Scripture, either prophetic or declarative, respecting the divine appointment, and consequently the divine right, of the Papal Supremacy.

We NO WHERE read in Holy Writ: either that the Roman Church ought justly to be obeyed, as the mother and mistress of all other Churches; or that the Pope is, at once, the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

From whatever quarter the divines of Trent have made these discoveries: it is quite clear, that the Bible throws no light upon the present subject.

p. 562. The Romish Clergy, however, assure us: that the primacy or monarchy of the entire Catholic Church was, in the following express terms, granted to St. Peter by Christ himself.

Thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and, whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and, whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. [56]

Now, whether our Lord did or did not grant the monarchy of the Church to Peter; respecting which monarchy, by the way, neither claim nor trace can be found in any part of the New Testament: the true question, I apprehend, touches, not Peter, but the Pope. In other words, it matters little to the point before us, whether Peter was or was not divinely appointed the monarch of the Church: unless it can also be proved, that the Pope is the lawfully and divinely constituted successor to all Peter’s alleged regalities.

Where, then, is the scriptural demonstration of the Pope’s hereditary successorship to the asserted special privileges and authority of St. Peter? In other words, where have we any proof from the Bible: that The Roman Pontiff, as the oath in the Tridentine Profession of Faith determines, is, at once, the Successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ?

Truly, the Bible, though we painfully search it through from beginning to end, SAYS NOT ONE WORD about the matter.

III. But, where the Bible is so provokingly silent, peradventure the earliest Fathers, in delivering their testimony, may be somewhat more communicative.

To establish the Pope’s claim of rightful successorship to St. Peter, we must obviously establish the p. 57FACT that St. Peter was the first diocesan Bishop of Rome. For, since, so far as foundership is concerned, St. Peter founded many Churches: the mere circumstance, even if the circumstance were ever so well established, of his having founded the Roman Church, would no more constitute the Roman Bishop heir to his regalities, than the same circumstance would convey the same privilege to the Bishop of any other Church similarly founded by St. Peter. Whence it is quite clear: that, in no method, save that of The regular succession of one diocesan Bishop to another diocesan Bishop in the same episcopal See, each Bishop inheriting the duly transmitted authority of his predecessor, can any intelligible case be made out for the Pope’s alleged successorship to Peter in the pretended office of Christ’s supreme Vicar.

Accordingly, as the Romish Clergy well know and confess, this precise matter is the very hinge, upon which turns the whole of the present question.

Was, OR WAS NOT, THE APOSTLE PETER THE FIRST DIOCESAN BISHOP OF THE ROMAN CHURCH?

We have here before us a simple question of FACT: and doubtless, like every other simple question of FACT, it must be determined by historical testimony.

1. Negatively, then, we may safely say, that the alleged fact of Peter’s diocesan Roman Episcopate is altogether incapable of substantiation through the medium of evidence.

Not a single writer of the three first centuries gives the slightest intimation, that Peter was the first diocesan Bishop of Rome.

But, if the alleged fact cannot be established from the writers of the three earliest centuries; it is obvious to the meanest capacity, that it can never be established from the interested fictions of a later period.

2. We may, however, advance beyond negativeness: though even that were amply sufficient; for p. 58no man can be justly required to admit an alleged fact, without so much as a shadow of historical substantiation. Positively, we can say: that, in the writers of the three first ages, not only is there no testimony to be found for the asserted fact of Peter’s diocesan Roman Episcopate, but we are absolutely encountered with direct testimony against it.

(1.) Irenèus of Lyons, who lived from the latter end of the first century to the latter end of the second, distinctly attests: that the Church of Rome was JOINTLY founded by the TWO Apostles Peter and Paul; and that, When the TWO Apostles had thus JOINTLY founded it, they JOINTLY delivered the Episcopate of their newly founded Society to Linus. Accordingly, in strict agreement with this account of the transaction, Irenèus places Linus the FIRST in his list of the twelve successive Roman Bishops, who governed that Church, from the time of its original joint foundation by Peter and Paul, down to the year 175 when he published his Work against Heresies. [58a]

Now such an account is plainly incompatible with the pretended fact: that Peter was the first diocesan Bishop of Rome. For the account states: that Peter and Paul, having jointly founded the Roman Church, committed the episcopate of it to Linus. Whence it dearly follows: that the first diocesan Bishop of Rome was Linus, not Peter.

(2.) The evidence of Irenèus is directly confirmed by the ancient author of the Apostolical Constitutions.

He gives us a list of the primitive apostolically ordained Bishops: and, in the course of it, he unequivocally states, even in so many words, that Linus was consecrated the FIRST Bishop of the Roman Church; adding what is not unworthy the attention of the Latin Clergy, that Linus was so consecrated the FIRST Roman Bishop, not by Peter but by Paul. [58b]

p. 59IV. On the grounds now stated, many persons will incline to rest, either partially or wholly, in the strongly expressed judgment of the learned Scaliger.

As for the coming of Peter to Rome, HIS ROMAN EPISCOPATE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, and his final martyrdom at Rome, no man, whose head can boast a grain of common sense, will believe a single syllable. [59a]

CHAPTER VIII.
REMARKABLE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS MADE BY THE ROMISH CLERGY.

So far as respects the evidence upon which stands the alleged apostolicity of the peculiar doctrines and practices of Romanism, it will now be useful to hear the various acknowledgments which have been made by the Latin Clergy themselves.

I. Let us begin with that cherished dogma of the Roman Church, the tenet of Transubstantiation.

1. On this point, the theologians of Trent assure us: that The words of Christ, as recorded by the Evangelists, SO PLAINLY AND SO DISTINCTLY propound the doctrine of Transubstantiation, that, on the part of wicked and contentious Protestants, it is both a burning shame and a crying sin to interpret them figuratively. [59b]

2. Yet the great schoolmen, Johannes Scotus, Biel, Occam, Peter ab Alliaco Cardinal-Archbishop of Cambray, Cardinal Cajetan, and Cardinal Fisher of Rochester, have all declared: that The doctrine of Transubstantiation is INCAPABLE OF PROOF from Scripture; that The doctrine of the bread and wine remaining substantially unchanged is LESS REPUGNANT to Scripture, than the doctrine of their transubstantiation into the body and blood of Christ; and, p. 60consequently, that The doctrine of Transubstantiation CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED from the institutive words of Christ, unless to such words the authoritative decision of the Roman Church be superadded. [60a]

1. The divines of Trent profess to have received the doctrine of Purgatory, both from the declaration of SCRIPTURE, and from the ancient tradition of THE FATHERS. [60b]

2. Yet Bishop Trevern confesses; that Jesus Christ has not revealed to us the knowledge of Purgatory: [60c] Cardinal Fisher admits; that, Among the Ancients, there was either no mention or very rare mention of Purgatory, that Purgatory was but lately known and received by the Catholic Church, and that To this day the Greeks believe not in its existence. [60d] Father Barns tells us; that Punishment in Purgatory is a doctrine seated in human opinion, that Neither from SCRIPTURE nor from THE FATHERS nor from THE EARLIER COUNCILS can it be firmly deduced, and that The contrary opinion seems more conformable to them: [60e] and Petrus Picherellus drily enough remarks; that In SCRIPTURE there is no fuel to be found, either to kindle or to maintain the fire of Purgatory. [60f]

1. The doctors of the Council of Trent declare: that According to the use of the Catholic and Apostolic Church RECEIVED IN THE PRIMEVAL TIMES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, the invocation of dead p. 61Saints, the veneration of Relics, and the kissing and falling down before graven or molten Images, ought, by the Clergy, to be diligently inculcated upon the Laity. [61a]

2. Yet the learned Jesuit Petavius roundly pronounces it to be a matter of absolute certainty; that, IN THE FIRST AGES OF THE CHURCH, Images of Christ were not substituted in the place of pagan Idols nor proposed to the veneration of the faithful: [61b] while Cardinal Perron tells us; that No traces of the practice of invocating the Saints can be found IN THE AUTHORS, who lived nearest to the times of the Apostles. [61c]

IV. Let us next advert to the high authority ascribed by the Romish Clergy to those Councils which are styled Ecumenical or General.

1. These Ecumenical Councils with the Pope at their head are believed by the Romanists to be, like the Divinity himself infallible and incapable of error.

2. Yet the learned Albert Pighius scruples not to assert: that General Councils are, not of divine, but of merely human, institution; that They originate only from a dictate of right reason, because doubtful matters may be better debated by many than by few, more especially when the many are prudent and experienced persons; that In the canonical Scriptures there is not a word about General Councils, nor from the institution of the Apostles did the primitive Church of Christ receive any thing special respecting them: and that From theological grounds it is impossible to demonstrate that the whole Church ought to be represented by a General Council. [61d]

V. Pass we next to the evidence upon which all the manifold peculiarities of Romanism claim to repose.

p. 621. The members of the Council of Trent declare: that, In settling and defining the doctrines and practices of their Church, they follow the UNANIMOUS CONSENT AND TESTIMONY of the Holy Fathers. [62a]

2. Yet a modern romish doctor, Mr. Husenbeth, has been driven to confess: that, Although the Latin Clergy OUGHT to be able to trace every point of what he calls Catholic Faith up to the Apostles, they, in truth, CANNOT trace their peculiarities up to the Apostles THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS OF THE THREE FIRST CENTURIES. [62b]

IV. How persons, who make such acknowledgments, can still have adhered to the communion of the Church of Rome, I pretend not to comprehend, and therefore cannot explain.

Suffice it to say: that the acknowledgments have been made, and that the individuals have nevertheless most unaccountably maintained and defended their unsubstantiated and confessedly unsubstantiable peculiarities.

CHAPTER IX.
EXTRAORDINARY THEOLOGICAL PRACTICES OF THE ROMISH CLERGY.

Remarkable as are the acknowledgments made by the Romish Clergy, their theological practices will p. 63be found not less worthy the attention of the honest and conscientious inquirer.

I. The general PRINCIPLE, on which these practices are constructed, is very clearly and distinctly laid down by the Professors of Douay.

In managing the old catholic writers when in disputation opposed to us by our adversaries, say they, we endure very many errors. Sometimes, we extenuate them: sometimes, we excuse them: very frequently, having devised some plausible comment, we even roundly deny them altogether, affixing to them some convenient sense. [63a]

II. Such is the avowed PRINCIPLE of these ingenious divines, through the medium of which when reduced to practice, a troublesome old author, whose claim to catholicity cannot be quite decently denied, by dint of judicious explaining and managing and correcting and garbling and interpolating, may be compelled, either apparently to uphold, or at least not to contradict, the peculiarities advocated by the Romish Clergy.

Let us now, descending to particulars, mark how the PRINCIPLE is reduced to PRACTICE.

1. The first specimen, which I shall give, is that, afforded by the Douay Doctors themselves, and afterward very greatly improved upon by the dexterous Bossuet Bishop of Meaux.

Bertram of Corby, always admitted to be an orthodox catholic divine, had written, in the ninth century, a book on the Eucharist; which, in its natural construction, is plainly fatal to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. [63b]

Whereupon, the Professors of Douay state; that Bertram’s book, when emendated, may be tolerated: observing with perfect truth, that, since they had kindly done the good office of emendation for sundry p. 64other ancient catholic writers, no imaginable reason could be assigned, why Bertram, in all equity, should not deserve and receive the same diligent recognition. [64a]

Numerous copies of the Work, however, escaped the ambiguous benefit of the Douay emendation. Bossuet, therefore, as in such cases the Professors wisely direct, finally judged it best to affix to Bertram’s undeniable phraseology some convenient sense. Hence, in settling the merits of the eucharistic controversy between Paschase and Bertram, the Bishop of Meaux compendiously assures us: that these two champions, with their respective followers, were all alike staunch Transubstantialists, though they unluckily differed as to the best mode of expressing and propounding their common favourite doctrine. [64b]

2. Another specimen occurs in the remarkable case of Elfric’s Epistle to Wulfstane, written about the close of the tenth century.

The original Saxon, luckily preserved in the library of Exeter Cathedral, contains a passage flat against Transubstantiation.

Nevertheless, this sacrifice is, NOT the same body of his wherein he suffered for us, NOR the same blood which he shed for us: but, SPIRITUALLY, it is made his body and blood; AS was that manna which rained from heaven, and AS was that water which did flow out of the rock. [64c]

Yet, in the Latin translation of the Epistle contained in the library of Worcester Cathedral, this passage, the decisive strength of which was evidently felt and tacitly acknowledged, has been carefully erased. [64d]

p. 653. The treatment of the writings of Theodoret will afford us yet a third specimen.

This Father, who lived in the fifth century, had expressed himself so strongly against the doctrine now denominated Transubstantiation, that John Clement, perceiving the force of his testimony, and losing his own temper, tore out and burned the guilty leaf which contained the passage. [65a]

Now such a summary process might emendate John Clement’s individual copy of Theodoret: but, unluckily, other copies were abroad in the world. What, then, was to be done? Why, truly, as the Douay Doctors advise in such cases, a commodious sense, by dint of excogitating a comment, must be affixed to the noxious passage.

Theodoret, avowedly opposing the phantasy of Transubstantiation, had written, concerning the eucharistic bread and wine after consecration, that they remain in their former SUBSTANCE and shape and appearance. [65b]

But three modern Romish Doctors, Mr. Berington, Bp. Trevern of Strasbourg, and Mr. Husenbeth, excogitating a more commodious sense which never occurred to John Clement, make Theodoret say, in despite both of greek grammar and clear context, that the consecrated bread and wine remain in the shape and form of the former SUBSTANCE. [65c]

Now this translation, as every schoolboy who reads the original Greek will at once perceive, is grammatically impossible. But let that original be withheld from the gaze of the curious: and ten to one but the commodious sense will pass muster among the Romish Laity, nay even among some of the Protestant Laity, without any further difficulty.

p. 664. A fourth specimen is yet again afforded by the liberality of the same Bp. Trevern of Strasbourg.

Speaking of a moral, not of a literal or substantial, change in the consecrated elements, as they themselves distinctly assure us in the way of explaining their own language, the old Fathers often say: that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ.

But Bp. Trevern, by deliberately in more than a single instance interpolating the decisive word SUBSTANCE, while from the eyes of his readers he carefully withholds the originals, makes them speak, not their own sentiments, but those of the Church and Clergy of Rome.

Thus, when Cyril of Jerusalem writes; Whatsoever the Holy Spirit hath touched, that thing is sanctified and changed: Bp. Trevern forces him to say; All that, which has received the impression of the Holy Spirit, is sanctified and changed INTO ANOTHER SUBSTANCE. [66a]

And thus, when the old author of the Treatise on the Sacraments in the Works of Ambrose writes; They are changed into other: Bp. Trevern remorselessly compels him to say; They pass into another SUBSTANCE. [66b]

5. For our fifth specimen we are indebted jointly to Bp. Trevern and Mr. Berington.

Cyprian speaks of men being cleansed for sins through the suffering of long pain and of their being long purged in fire. [66c]

These expressions, as the whole context shews and as it was rightly observed by the honest romish commentator Rigaltius, relate simply to the allegorical fire of penitential austerities in this world: a fire, in which, by the early discipline of the Church, it was p. 67required, that the lapsed should for an appointed season be exercised.

But Bp. Trevern and Mr. Berington, wholly suppressing the context and saying not a single syllable about their respectable fellow-religionist Rigaltius, gravely adduce the passage as proof positive: that Cyprian, in the middle of the third century, held and taught the existence of a Purgatory after death in the next world. [67]

The famous text in the Gospel of St. Matthew, which exhibits our Lord as saying, Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, is universally explained by the Romish Clergy, as being a grant from Christ of a monarchal supremacy in the Catholic Church, both to Peter individually, and to Peter’s alleged heirs and successors the Bishops of Rome.

Now, most unluckily for this current explanation, the primitive theologians knew nothing of it: for, while the early Fathers, Justin and Tertullian and Cyprian and Origen and Athanasius and Jerome and Augustine and Chrysostom and Hilary, differ as to the true meaning of the text (some supposing the rock to be Peter personally and exclusively; some, to be Christ himself; and some, to be Peter’s confession of Christ’s divinity); NOT ONE of them interprets it, as the Romish Clergy would now interpret it.

Yet, by way of putting to open shame every opponent of the Pope’s supremacy by divine right, Mr. Husenbeth deliberately assures his plain country readers: that, by ALL the holy Fathers and Doctors, by ALL the Councils, and by the most learned and pious men in the world in EVERY age down to the Reformation, the text in question has been UNIFORMLY p. 68understood as it is now explained by the Romish Clergy. [68a]

With every semblance of even scrupulous fidelity, giving distinct references to his authorities, this theologian, in a small Work written for circulation among the unlearned, declares; that Papias, Ignatius, Irenèus, Dionysius of Corinth, Caius of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, all with one voice explicitly assert St. Peter to have been the first diocesan Bishop of Rome: and he adds, still for the information of the unlearned; that Mr. White, who had unceremoniously pronounced St. Peter’s Roman Episcopate to be an idle and ungrounded report, did but attempt to impose upon such humble readers as have no means of examining history, by such worn out fallacies and vile fabrications. [68b]

Yet I have myself examined all Mr. Husenbeth’s references to his above alleged witnesses from the three first centuries: and I can positively state, from the testimony of my own eye-sight, that NOT ONE of those witnesses says a single syllable, as to St. Peter having been the first diocesan Bishop of Rome, or indeed as to his EVER having been Bishop of that See.

8. Our eighth specimen is furnished by the joint industry and rival intrepidity of Bp. Trevern and Mr. Husenbeth.

For the purpose of persuading the unwary, that the highest divine adoration of the consecrated bread and wine had been the practice of the Church from the earliest ages, Bp. Trevern adduces a direction or rubric from the ancient Clementine Liturgy: and, p. 69after him, Mr. Husenbeth eagerly catches up, for the same purpose, the same ancient rubric or direction. [69a]

Meanwhile the direction itself, in its genuine state says not a syllable respecting any adoration of the consecrated bread and wine. Bp. Trevern first interpolates it, to make it serve his purpose: and then Mr. Husenbeth brings forward, as evidence, the precise words of the gallican prelates interpolation wedged into an utterly false construction of the original passage. [69b]

9. Our ninth and last specimen is of a somewhat wholesale nature: whence it will the more completely exemplify the PRINCIPLE, laid down, for the better furtherance of truth, by the painful Professors of Douay.

The King of Spain (I avail myself of the diligent researches of our own excellent Bishop Jeremy Taylor) gave a commission to the Inquisitors, to purge all catholic authors: but with this special clause; that they should keep private among themselves the expurgatory index, neither communicating it to others, nor giving a copy of it to any one.

It happened, however, by the Divine Providence so ordering it, that, about thirteen years after, a copy of it was procured and published by Johannes Pappus and Franciscus Junius. This circumstance compelled the Inquisitors to acknowledge their expurgatory index: and they have since printed it themselves.

(1.) Let us now observe some few of the exploits of emendation, achieved by these honest and laborious correctors of erring Antiquity.

In Chrysostom’s Works printed at Basil, the words, There is no merit, but what is given us by Christ, are commanded to be expunged. Yet these very p. 70words occur in his first Homily upon the text of St. John, Ye are my friends.

A similar erasure is enjoined of the clause, The Church is built, not upon the man, but upon the faith. Yet this clause occurs in his Sermonon Pentecost.

The same expurgatory process has been undergone by Chrysostom in many other places: and Ambrose and Augustine and the rest of the old Fathers have been subjected to the like necessary emendations.

In short the curtailments of the ancient writers were carried to so great an extent, that Ludovicus Saurius, the corrector of the press at Lyons, shewed and complained of them to Junius: lamenting, that he was forced to cancel and erase many sayings of Ambrose in that edition of his Works which was printed at Lyons in the year 1559.

(2.) Not content with thus emendating the Fathers, our pains-taking Inquisitors, in order that their editions might throughout be perfectly harmonious and consistent, fell doggedly to work upon the very tables or indexes, which contained any references to the expunged passages: for, of course, it were unseemly, that a reference should appear, indicating the occurrence of a place which itself could no where be found in an improved or expurgated edition.

Thus, out of one of Froben’s indexes, they have directed the erasure of the following references: The use of images forbidden; The Eucharist no sacrifice, but the commemoration of a sacrifice; Works, although they do not justify, yet are necessary to salvation; Marriage is granted to all that will not contain; Venial sins damn; The dead Saints, after this life, cannot help us.

And thus, out of the index of Augustine’s Works by Claudius Chevallonius at Paris in the year 1531, they have commanded a still more extraordinary erasure of a reference: Dele, Solus Deus adorandus; p. 71that is, Blot out the words, God alone is to be adored. [71a]

(3.) On such disgraceful practices, Bp. Taylor well remarks: These instances may serve, instead of multitudes which might be brought, of their corrupting the witnesses and razing the records of antiquity, that the errors and novelties of the Church of Rome might not be so easily reproved. Now, if the Fathers were not against them, what need these arts? Why should they use them thus? Their own expurgatory indices me infinite testimony against them, both that they do so, and that they need it. [71b]

III. It were easy to have multiplied specimens of the same description: but these, I apprehend, may well suffice.

Respecting such a topic, any observations of my own are quite superfluous. By some marvellous perversion of the moral sense, Sixtus Senensis, indeed, has even lauded Pope Pius V, because he had taken diligent care, that the writings of all catholic authors, and more especially the writings of the ancient Fathers, should be expurgated and emaculated: but the plain good sense of every upright and honourable man will deem such praise no very flattering compliment. [71c]

Yet, though I shall not weary the prudent inquirer with any needless remarks of my own, either on the Douay Principle itself, or on the reduction of that principle to systematic practice: I may, at parting, be permitted, in all good will, to offer him a word of not altogether useless advice.

Whenever a Romish Doctor makes a large or extraordinary or startling assertion, there clearly can be no harm in A CAUTIOUS SUSPENSION OF BELIEF, until p. 72either the enquirer himself or some competent and trust-worthy friend shall have had an opportunity of ACTUAL AND PERSONAL VERIFICATION OF ALLEGED AUTHORITIES.

CHAPTER X.
CONCLUSION.

At the close of this brief manual, it may perhaps be useful to state the question as it now presents itself.

I. Upon those who assert, rests the duty and incumbency of proof. Yet, in regard to what by a single comprehensive word may be styled Popery, the question stands negatively, in manner following.

The peculiar doctrines and practices, which the Clergy of the Roman Church pertinaciously inculcate upon their Laity, and to which they would proselyte the unthinking and uninformed Protestant, CAN NOT BE TRACED UP TO CHRIST AND HIS INSPIRED APOSTLES, either by the evidence of God’s Written Word, or by the subordinate testimony of the successive ecclesiastical writers of the three first centuries.

II. But this circumstance, bad enough even in itself, is by no means the worst part of the matter.

Scripture and the early Fathers, not only, negatively, DO NOT ESTABLISH the apostolicity of the peculiarities of Popery: but they also, positively, CONTRADICT AND CONDEMN those same peculiarities.

III. Hence, if I mistake not, the sober inquirer, who demands proof instead of assertion, will at length find himself irresistibly brought to the following very important conclusion.

IN ADMITTING THE PECULIARITIES OF THE LATIN CHURCH AS ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION, THE ROMANIST BELIEVES, NOT ONLY WITHOUT EVIDENCE, BUT EVEN AGAINST EVIDENCE.

FOOTNOTES.

[7] Such, avowedly, has been the language of Dr. Norris, of Stonyhurst; such also, unless my memory altogether fail me, has been the language of Dr. Doyle. Roma locuta est: causa finita est. Which, being interpreted, Is: Rome hath spoken: the cause, therefore, is determined.

These two divines seem, either themselves to have forgotten, or to have expected their opponents to forget; that the theologians of Trent, not only define DOCTRINES, but assert FACTS; not only assert FACTS, but assert them as THE AVOWED BASIS OF DOCTRINES.

The defined DOCTRINES being thus professedly made to rest upon the asserted FACTS, we should feel ourselves greatly obliged to Dr. Norris, and Dr. Doyle, if they would distinctly teach us; What becomes of the defined DOCTRINES, when the asserted FACTS themselves turn out to be mere shadowy non-entities?

Will a house continue to stand, when its foundations are removed? Can doctrines remain secure, when their professed basis of facts proves to be nothing better than the fabric of a vision?

We have A DOCTRINAL SYSTEM professedly resting upon A BASIS OF ASSERTED FACTS.

The DOCTRINAL SYSTEM comprehends all the peculiarities of Popery: the BASIS OF ASSERTED FACTS is the unanimous teaching of those peculiarities both by Holy Scripture and by the whole body of the Fathers.

Now, if, simply as an historical matter of fact, the peculiarities of Popery be not taught by Holy Scripture, and by the whole body of the Fathers, will Dr. Norris and Dr. Doyle have the goodness to tell us; how, on the declared principles of the Council of Trent, we are to estimate the value of those same peculiarities?

[11a] Concil. Trident. sess. xiii. c. 1, 3, 4, 5. can. 1, 2, 3, 4. p. 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130. sess. xxii. c. 2. can. 1, 3. p. 239, 240, 244.

[16e] Macar. Ægypt. Homil. xxvii. For the scripturally determined sense of the word Antitype, see, in the original Greek, Heb. ix. 24.

[24] Concil. Trident. sess. xxv. p. 505, 506. Profess. Fid. Trident. in Syllog. Confess. p. 4.

[26c] 2 Macc. xii. 39–42. Concil. Trident. sess. xiv. c. 1, 5. p. 144, 148, 149. sess. xxv. p. 506.

[26d] Melit. Sardens. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. c. 25. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. iv. p. 37, 38. Ruffin. Expos. in Symbol. Apost. ad calc. Cyprian. Oper. p. 26, 27. Hieron. Prolog. Scriptur. Galeat. Oper. vol. iii. p. 287. Epiphan. de mensur. et ponderib. Oper. p. 300. Athan. Epist. Festal. xxxix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 44, 45. Athan. Succinct. Script. Synop. Oper. vol. ii. p. 61–63, 101, 133. Gregor. Magn. Moral. in Job. lib. xix. c. 13. As if in bitter mockery of the popish proof of the doctrine of a Purgatory from the second book of Maccabees, Ruffinus tells us, in the fifth century, that, although the apocryphal books might be read in churches for edification, they were not to be controversially adduced as any authority for the settlement of a point of faith and doctrine. Pope Gregory says the same.

[27b] Polycarp. Epist. ad Philipp. § 2, 7. Athenag. de Resurrect. Mortuor. Oper. p. 143–219. Iren. adv. hær. lib. v. c. 26. p. 356.

[28a] Clem. Rom. Epist. ad Corinth. ii. § 8. Ignat. Epist. ad Magnes. § 5. Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 270. Hippolyt. e libr. adv. Græc. Oper. vol. i. p. 220, 221. Cyprian. ad Demetrian. Oper. vol. i. p. 196.

[28b] Tertull. de anim. Oper. p. 689. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Mystag. v. p. 241. Ambros. Enarr. in Psalm l. Oper. col. 1286. August. de Fid. et Oper. c. xv. Oper. vol. iv. p. 28, 29. August de Ign. Purgat. serm. iv. Oper. vol. x. p. 382. August. de octo Dulcit. quæst. Oper. vol. iv. p. 250. August. Enarr. in Psalm ciii. conc. 3. Oper. vol. viii. p. 430. August. de Civ. Dei. lib. x. c. 25, 26.

[31c] See Orig. cont. Cels. lib. vi. p. 284. Arnob. adv. Gent. lib. vi. p. 195. Lactant. Divin. Instit. lib. ii. § 2. p. 141.

[42a] Ambros. Comment. in Psalm. cxviii. (cxix.) serm. xx. ver. 4. Oper. col. 1595.

[49a] The Devotion of the sacred heart of Jesus, including the Devotion to the sacred heart of the blessed Virgin Mary; with an Appendix and the indult of Pope Pius VII. in favour of it; for the use of the midland district. Edit. 12. p. 212, 213. Keating and Brown, 1821.

[50] You pagans allege, says Arnobius, that YOU WORSHIP THE GODS THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF IMAGES—You tell us, that THEY RECEIVE YOUR PRAYERS THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF A SORT OF GO-BETWEENS. Arnob. adv. gent. lib. vi. p. 1 95. We do not fear the images themselves, the Pagans tell us, says Lactantius; but those beings, after whose similitude they are fashioned, and by whose names they are consecrated. Lactant. Divin. Instit. lib. ii. § 2. p. 141.

[55a] Concil. Trident. sess. vii. p. 87. sess. xiv. c. 3. p. 162. sess. xxii. c. 8. p. 243.

[60a] Johan. Scot. in 4 sent. dist. xi. q. 3. Biel. in Can. Miss. lect. 40. Occam. Centil. lib. iv. q. 6. et in 4 sent. dist. xi. q. 6. Petr. ab. Alliac. Camerac. in 4 sent. dist. xi. q. 6. art. 1, 2. Cajet. in Th. p. 3. q. lxxv. art. l. q. xlv. art. 14. Fisher. Roffens. cont. Luther. de capt. Babyl. c. 1.

[61c] See Stillingfleet’s Rational Account of the Grounds of Protest. Relig. part. iii. chap. 3. § 19. p. 590.

[62b] Pamph. p. 9, 10. For a full account of this fatal, though very true, acknowledgment, extorted from Mr. Husenbeth by my repeated demand of distinct evidence from the writers of the three first centuries, see my Difficulties of Roman. book i. chap. 7. 2d edit. The futile attempts of Bp. Trevern and Mr. Berington to bring, from the same early period, a shadow of testimony to their peculiarities, are, in the same Work, exposed and exploded. Should any of Mr. Husenbeth’s clerical brethren refuse to be bound by his confession, let them, if they can, come forward and trace their doctrines up to the Apostles through the successive writings of the Fathers of the three first centuries.

[63a] Ind. Expurg. Belg. p. 54. For the original Latin, see Diff. of Rom. p. 346. 2d edit.

[64c] Elfric has plainly borrowed both the turn and the sentiment of the present erased passage from Augustine. See above, chap. ii. § III. 9. (3.)

[64d] See Soames’s Hist. of the Reform. vol. iii. p. 165, 166: and Stewart’s Protest. Layman. p. 322, 323, 324.

[65c] Berington’s Faith of Cathol. p. 240. Trevern’s Ans. to Diffic. of Roman. p. 270. Husenbeth’s Reply to Supplem. p. 243.

[67] Berington’s Faith of Cathol. p. 355. Trevern’s Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 243.

[68a] Husenbeth’s Defence of the Creed and Discip. of the Cath. Church. chap. iii. p. 69.

[69a] Trevern’s Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 407. Trevern’s Answ. to Diff. of Rom. p. 202. Husenbeth’s Reply to Supplem. p. 273.

[71c] Sixtus Senensis, in Epistola dedicatoria ad Pium Quintum, laudat Pontificem in hæc verba: Expurgari et emaculari curasti, omnium catholicorum scriptorum, ac præcipuè veterum Patrum, scripta. See Bp. Taylor’s Dissuas. from Poper. ch. i. sect. 1.

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

	PAGE
CHAPTER I.
Introductory Statement	7
CHAPTER II.
Transubstantiation	9
CHAPTER III.
Purgatory	24
CHAPTER IV.
Unwritten Tradition and Insufficiency of the Written Word alone	29
CHAPTER V.
Meritorious Satisfaction	39
CHAPTER VI.
Saint-worship, Image-worship, Relic-worship, Cross-worship	44
CHAPTER VII.
Papal Supremacy	55
p. 6CHAPTER VIII.
Remarkable acknowledgements made by the Romish Clergy	59
CHAPTER IX.
Extraordinary theological practices of the Romish Clergy	62
CHAPTER X.
Conclusion	72

FACTS AND ASSERTIONS:

p. 3ADVERTISEMENT.

p. 5CONTENTS.

p. 7CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.

CHAPTER II. TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

CHAPTER III. PURGATORY.

CHAPTER IV. UNWRITTEN TRADITION AND INSUFFICIENCY OF THE WRITTEN WORD ALONE.

CHAPTER V. MERITORIOUS SATISFACTION.

CHAPTER VI. SAINT-WORSHIP, IMAGE-WORSHIP, RELIC-WORSHIP, CROSS-WORSHIP.

p. 55CHAPTER VII. PAPAL SUPREMACY.

CHAPTER VIII. REMARKABLE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS MADE BY THE ROMISH CLERGY.

CHAPTER IX. EXTRAORDINARY THEOLOGICAL PRACTICES OF THE ROMISH CLERGY.

CHAPTER X. CONCLUSION.