{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_58108/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_58108","id":"gutenberg_58108","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/58108","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Catholic Church -- Controversial literature"],"text":"[Picture: Public domain book cover]\n\n\n\n\n\n                          FACTS AND ASSERTIONS:\n\n\n                                    OR\n                       A BRIEF AND PLAIN EXHIBITION\n                                  OF THE\n                  INCONGRUITY OF THE PECULIAR DOCTRINES\n                                    OF\n                            The Church of Rome\n                               WITH THOSE,\n                      BOTH OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES,\n                                AND OF THE\n             EARLY WRITERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH CATHOLIC.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                    BY\n                        GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B.D.\n           RECTOR OF LONG-NEWTON, AND PREBENDARY OF SALISBURY.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n    It is the part of mere triflers to propound and to speak the things\n    which are not written.  _Athanas. Epist. ad Scrap. Oper._ vol. ii. p.\n    29.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 LONDON:\n                   PRINTED FOR C. J. G. & F. RIVINGTON,\n     _Booksellers to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge_,\n                         ST.  PAUL\u2019S CHURCH-YARD,\n                      AND WATERLOO-PLACE, PALL-MALL.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                  1831.\n\n[410]\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n        GILBERT & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. John\u2019s Square, London.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\nIT has been suggested to me, that _A brief and plain Exhibition of the\nutter Incongruity of the peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome with\nthose both of the Sacred Scriptures and of the early writers of the\nChristian Church Catholic_ might be useful as a small Tract for general\ncirculation.\n\nThis suggestion has given rise to the present little manual.  As for\nthose, who either desire more copious information on the subject, or who\nmay wish to see my authorities in the original Greek and Latin: I refer\nthem to the second edition of my _Difficulties of Romanism_, printed for\nMessrs. Rivingtons, St. Paul\u2019s Church-Yard, and Waterloo-Place, London,\n1830.\n\nIf, from the Written Word of God and from the Fathers of the three first\nages, any Latin Divine can make out an historical case, for _The alleged\nApostolicity of the peculiarities of the Church of Rome_, better than the\nfailures of Mr. Berington and Bishop Trevern of Strasbourg: let him by\nall means come forward, whether he be Bishop or Priest or Deacon.  The\nBible and the Fathers of the three first centuries, whence alone any\nhistorical substantiation of the assertions made by the Romish Clergy can\nbe deduced, are open to them as well as to ourselves.\n\nRespecting _opinions in the abstract_, ingenious men may dispute for\never: but FACTS are of a more stubborn and intractable quality.\n\n_Assertions_ of the apostolicity and perpetuity and immutability and\nprimeval universality of Romish Peculiarities are cheaply made: but FACTS\nand ASSERTIONS are matters widely different from each other.\n\nTo the satisfactory test of BARE FACTS I have brought the peculiar\ndoctrines and practices of Romanism.\n\nLet the Latin Clergy, if it be in their power, set aside _my_ FACTS, and\nhistorically substantiate _their own_ ASSERTIONS.\n\n_Long-Newton Rectory_,\n      _August_ 3, 1830.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n                                                                  PAGE\n                              CHAPTER I.\nIntroductory Statement                                               7\n                             CHAPTER II.\nTransubstantiation                                                   9\n                             CHAPTER III.\nPurgatory                                                           24\n                             CHAPTER IV.\nUnwritten Tradition and Insufficiency of the Written Word           29\nalone\n                              CHAPTER V.\nMeritorious Satisfaction                                            39\n                             CHAPTER VI.\nSaint-worship, Image-worship, Relic-worship, Cross-worship          44\n                             CHAPTER VII.\nPapal Supremacy                                                     55\n                            CHAPTER VIII.\nRemarkable acknowledgements made by the Romish Clergy               59\n                             CHAPTER IX.\nExtraordinary theological practices of the Romish Clergy            62\n                              CHAPTER X.\nConclusion                                                          72\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\nINTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.\n\n\nTHE great and constant boast of the Latin Clergy is: that _The Catholic\nor Universal Church of Christ from the very beginning_, _has_ ALWAYS\n_taught the doctrines which are now taught by the Church of Rome_; that\n_These doctrines are revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures_, and that\n_They have_ ALWAYS _been set forth and maintained by those early\necclesiastical writers who are commonly styled the Fathers_.\n\nI.  On these points lest we should labour under any mistake, let us hear\nthe positive declarations of the Council of Trent, which sat in the\nsixteenth century, and which by the Romanists is considered as having\nfinally set at rest all disputes respecting the points of doctrine\nlitigated between themselves and the Reformed. {7}\n\nThe declarations of that last reputed infallible General Council run in\nmanner following.\n\n1.  This faith was ALWAYS in THE CHURCH OF GOD. {8a}\n\n2.  THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH thus ALWAYS understood. {8b}\n\n3.  This matter was ALWAYS held for certain in THE CHURCH OF GOD. {8c}\n\n4.  THE SACRED SCRIPTURES declare, and the tradition of THE CATHOLIC\nCHURCH has ALWAYS taught. {8d}\n\n5.  Since, by the testimony of SCRIPTURE, by apostolical tradition, and\nby the unanimous consent of THE FATHERS, the matter is perspicuous:\u2014no\none ought to doubt. {8e}\n\n6.  The Council of Trent, following the testimonies of THE SACRED\nSCRIPTURES and THE HOLY FATHERS and the most esteemed Councils and the\njudgment and consent of the Church herself, determines, confesses, and\ndeclares, these doctrines. {8f}\n\nII.  Here we have no ambiguity.  The Church of Rome, we see, speaking\nthrough the organ of the Council of Trent, declares: that _Her doctrines\nare revealed in Holy Scripture_; and that, _Expressly as such_, _they\nhave always been unanimously taught by the Fathers_, _and have always\nbeen invariably received by the Church Universal_. {8g}\n\nIII.  Now the meanest capacity will at once perceive: that, _In making\nthis declaration_, _the Church of Rome asserts_, _not merely a point of\nopinion_, _but_ AN ABSOLUTE MATTER OF FACT.\n\nThe simple question, therefore, is: _Whether the asserted_ FACT _be\ncapable of substantiation by competent_ EVIDENCE.\n\n1.  In submitting this matter to the plain and honest inquirer, it is\nobvious, that nothing more is necessary: than, first, to state any\nparticular doctrine of the Roman Church; next, to bring forward either\nthe silence or the declarations of Scripture; and, lastly, to adduce the\ntestimony of the Fathers.\n\n2.  By the adoption of such a plan, without a grain of any extraordinary\nlearning, and by the mere exercise of common sense, every reader will be\nenabled fully to judge for himself.\n\n3.  Nor can a member even of the Roman Church justly refuse to hear me.\nFor the present is simply A QUESTION OF FACT: and, by Mr. Berington, one\nof his own Clergy, he is distinctly assured; that _It is no article of\nCatholic Faith_, _that the Church cannot err in_ MATTERS OF FACT. {9}\nUnder the express sanction, therefore, of Mr. Berington, the laic\ngentlemen of the Roman Church will, I hope, be persuaded to indulge me\nwith their company.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\nTRANSUBSTANTIATION.\n\n\nI SHALL begin with subjecting, to the test proposed by the Council of\nTrent itself, the doctrine of Transubstantiation.\n\nI.  The following, as defined by the Council of Trent, is the doctrine of\nthe Roman Church with respect to the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s Supper.\n\n1.  _In the sacrament of the Eucharist_, _after the consecration of the\nbread and wine_, _our Lord Jesus Christ_, _true God and true man_, _is_,\n_truly and really and substantially_, _contained_, _under the species of\nthose sensible objects_: _so that_, _immediately after consecration_,\n_the true body and the true blood of our Lord_, _together with his soul\nand divinity_, _exist under the species of bread and wine_: _for_, _by\nthe very force of the words themselves_, _the blood exists under the\nspecies of the wine_; _and the body_, _under the species of the bread_.\n_But_, _furthermore_, _by virtue of that natural connection and\nconcomitance_, _through which the parts of the Lord_, _after his\nresurrection from the dead_, _are mutually joined together_, _the body\nexists under the species of the wine_, _the blood exists under the\nspecies of the bread_, _and the soul exists under the species both of the\nbread and the wine_.  _The divinity_, _moreover_, _on account of its\nadmirable hypostatic union with the body and the soul_, _similarly exists\nalike under each species_.  _Wherefore_, _under each species and under\nboth species_, _so much as even the whole is contained_.  _For the entire\nChrist exists both under the species of bread_, _and under each particle\nof that species_: _and the entire Christ exists_, _both under the species\nof wine_, _and under all the particles of that species_.  _Hence_,\n_through the consecration of the bread and wine_, _there takes place a\nconversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the\nbody of our Lord Christ_, _and of the whole substance of the wine into\nthe substance of his blood_: _which conversion is properly and\nconveniently denominated Transubstantiation_.\n\n2.  _All the faithful are bound to offer to the Eucharist that same\nadoration of Latria_, _which is paid to the Deity_: _for such adoration\nrests upon the belief_, _that in that sacrament there is substantially\npresent the filial God_, _concerning whom the Father pronounced_; _Let\nall the angels of God worship him_.  _And_, _analogously_, _in point of\nbeneficial efficacy_, _the Eucharist_, _being the identical sacrifice\nwhich Christ __offered upon the cross_, _must be deemed a true\npropitiatory sacrifice_, _making satisfaction_, _each time that it is\noffered_, _not only for the living_, _but likewise for the dead in the\nLord who have not as yet been fully purified_. {11a}\n\nII.  Let us now hear Scripture with respect to this same holy sacrament.\n\n1.  _I am the living bread_, _which came down from heaven_.  _If any man\neat of this bread_, _he shall live for ever_: _and the bread that I will\ngive is my flesh_, _which I will give for the life of the world_.  _The\nJews_, _therefore_, _strove among themselves_, _saying_: _How can this\nman give us his flesh to eat_?  _Then Jesus said unto them_: _Verily_,\n_verily_, _I say unto you_; _Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man\nand drink his blood_, _ye have no life in you_.  _Whoso eateth my flesh_,\n_and drinketh my blood_, _hath eternal life_: _and I will raise him up at\nthe last day_.  _For my flesh is meat indeed_: _and my blood is drink\nindeed_.  _He_, _that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood_, _dwelleth\nin me_, _and I in him_\u2014_These sayings said he in the synagogue_, _as he\ntaught in Capernaum_.  _Many_, _therefore_, _of his disciples_, _when\nthey had heard this_, _said_: _This is an hard saying_; _who can hear\nit_?  _When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it_, _he\nsaid unto them_: _Doth this offend you_?  _What and if ye shall see the\nSon of man ascend up where he was before_?  IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT\nQUICKENETH: THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING.  THE WORDS, THAT I SPEAK UNTO\nYOU, ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE. {11b}\n\nWhen our Lord enforced the necessity of eating his flesh and of drinking\nhis blood, the Jews and even his disciples, understanding him _literally_\njust as the Romish Clergy _now_ expound his language, murmured at so hard\na saying, and asked how he could possibly give men his flesh to eat.\nWhereupon Christ, in the avowed way of explanation, immediately declared:\nthat _the words_, _which he spake_, _are spirit_; and that _the flesh\nprofiteth nothing_.  Clearly, therefore, according to his own distinct\nexplanation, his words are to be understood _spiritually_ or\n_figuratively_, not _carnally_ or _literally_.\n\n2.  _As they were eating_, _Jesus took bread_, _and blessed_, _and\nbrake_, _and gave to his disciples_, _and said_: _Take_, _eat_; _this is\nmy body_.  _And he took the cup_, _and gave thanks_, _and gave to them_,\n_saying_: _Drink ye all of it_; _for this is my blood of the New\nTestament_, _which is shed for many for the remission of sins_.  _But I\nsay unto you_: _I will not drink henceforth of_ THIS FRUIT OF THE VINE,\n_until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father\u2019s kingdom_.\n{12a}\n\n(1.)  The authoritative interpretation of such language, as that which is\nhere employed by our Lord, had already been given by him at Capernaum.\nHis words are to be understood _spiritually_ or _figuratively_: just as\nwhen he declared himself to be a _vine_ and his disciples to be\n_branches_. {12b}\n\nAccordingly, even _after_ consecration, when the Romish Clergy assert the\nwine to have been literally transubstantiated into the actual material\nblood of Christ; he himself still calls it _this fruit of the vine_: an\nappellation, if we receive as scriptural truth the doctrine of\nTransubstantiation, _then_ clearly false and erroneous and inaccurate.\n\n(2.)  We may note, that the Apostles expressed not the least surprise, or\nuttered the smallest murmur, on account of our Lord\u2019s phraseology, when\nhe instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist.\n\nThe reason is obvious, though the fact is highly worth our special\nattention.  They had heard and recollected his own explanation of the\nparallel language which he employed at Capernaum.  Hence they _now_, as a\nmatter of course, understood him to speak _figuratively_, not\n_literally_: and hence, what was the natural result, his words _now_ gave\nthem NO offence.\n\n3.  _I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you_:\n_that The Lord Jesus_, _the night in which he was betrayed_, _took\nbread_: _and_, _when he had given thanks_, _he brake_, _and said_:\n_Take_, _eat_; _this is my body_, _which is broken for you_: _this do in\nremembrance of me_.  _After the same manner also_, _the cup_, _when he\nhad supped_, _saying_: _This cup is the New Testament in my blood_: _this\ndo ye as oft as ye drink_, _in remembrance of me_.  _For_, _as often as\nye eat_ THIS BREAD _and drink_ THIS CUP, _ye do shew the Lord\u2019s death\ntill he come_.  _Wherefore_, _whosoever shall eat_ THIS BREAD _and drink_\nTHIS CUP _of the Lord unworthily_, _shall be guilty of the body and blood\nof the Lord_.  _But let a man examine himself_: _and so let him eat of_\nTHE BREAD, _and drink of_ THE CUP. {13a}\n\n(1.)  The language of St. Paul exactly corresponds with the language of\nChrist.\n\nEven after consecration, the Apostle, we may observe, still repeatedly\ncalls the elements _this bread_ and _this cup_ or _the bread_ and _the\ncup_.  Yet he could not _truly_ have thus called them: if, all the while,\nthey had become, by transubstantiation, literal human flesh and literal\nhuman blood.\n\n(2.)  We may here again note, that the _true_ doctrine of the Eucharist,\nas undoubtedly delivered by St. Paul to the gentile converts of Corinth,\ndoes not appear to have excited either surprise or offence.\n\nWhence the presumption, or rather indeed the certainty, is: that, in\ndelivering it to them, he distinctly taught, on the authority of his Lord\nand Master, that _it is the spirit which quickeneth_, that _the flesh\nprofiteth nothing_, and that _the words spoken by Christ are spirit and\nlife_.\n\n4.  As our Saviour thus fully explains his own phraseology: so, in strict\ncongruity with his explanation; on the existence, of the soul and\ndivinity of Christ in the consecrated elements, and on the adoration of\nthose elements with the very same adoration as that which is paid to the\nDeity, Holy Scripture is PROFOUNDLY SILENT.\n\nFrom whatever quarter the duty of such worship was learned by the Romish\nPriesthood, it assuredly was _not_ learned from the Bible.  The written\nword of God neither enjoins it, nor gives a single instance of its ever\nhaving being paid either in the time or with the sanction of the\nApostles.\n\n5.  EQUALLY SILENT also is the Bible, respecting the alleged\ncircumstance: that _The celebration of the Eucharist is a true\npropitiatory sacrifice both for the quick and for the dead_.\n\nThe Church of Rome, indeed, teaches this doctrine: but she did _not_\nlearn it from Scripture.\n\nIII.  We may now, with advantage, proceed to hear the declarations of the\nFathers concerning the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s Supper.\n\n1.  Clement of Alexandria lived in the second century.\n\n(1.)  The Scripture has named wine A MYSTIC SYMBOL of the holy blood.\n{14a}\n\n(2.)  Know well, that the Lord himself also partook of WINE: for he\nhimself also was a man.  And he blessed the wine, saying: _Take_,\n_drink_; _this is my blood_, _the blood of the vine_.  The holy stream of\nexhilaration ALLEGORICALLY REPRESENTS the Word, who poured himself out on\nbehalf of many, for the remission of sins. {14b}\n\n2.  Tertullian flourished at the end of the second and at the beginning\nof the third century.\n\n(1.)  We must not call our senses in question, lest we should doubt\nrespecting their fidelity even in the case of Christ himself.  For, if we\nquestion their fidelity, we might be led to say: that Christ\u2014TASTED A\nDIFFERENT FLAVOUR OF THE WINE WHICH HE CONSECRATED IN MEMORY OF HIS OWN\nBLOOD. {15a}\n\n(2.)  If Christ declares, that _The_ FLESH _profiteth nothing_; the sense\nmust be decided from the matter of the saying.  For, because the Jews\ndeemed his discourse hard and intolerable, as if he had truly determined\nthat his FLESH was to be eaten by them: in order that he might dispose\nthe state of salvation TOWARD THE SPIRIT, he promised; _It is the_ SPIRIT\n_that quickeneth_.  And thus he subjoined: _The_ FLESH _profiteth\nnothing_, namely, to quicken.  There follows also, WHAT HE WOULD HAVE US\nUNDERSTAND BY SPIRIT.  _The words_, _which I have spoken unto you_, _are\nspirit and life_. {15b}\n\n(3.)  Christ reprobated, neither the water of the Creator with which he\nwashes his people, nor the oil with which he anoints them, nor the\nfellowship of honey and milk with which he feeds them as infants, nor the\nBREAD by which he REPRESENTS his own body: for, even in his sacraments,\nhe needs the beggarly elements of the Creator. {15c}\n\n3.  Athanasius flourished in the fourth century.\n\nWhen our Lord conversed on the eating of his body, and when he thence\nbeheld many scandalised, he forthwith added: _Doth this offend you_?\n_What if ye shall behold the Son of man ascending where he was before_?\n_It is the spirit that quickeneth_: _the flesh profiteth nothing_.  _The\nwords_, _which I speak unto you_, _are spirit and life_.  Both these\nmatters, THE FLESH and THE SPIRIT, he said respecting himself.  And he\ndistinguished the spirit from the flesh: IN ORDER THAT, BELIEVING BOTH\nTHE VISIBLE AND THE INVISIBLE, THEY MIGHT UNDERSTAND HIS SAYINGS TO BE\nNOT CARNAL BUT SPIRITUAL.  For TO HOW MANY PERSONS COULD HIS BODY HAVE\nSUFFICED FOR FOOD: SO THAT IT MIGHT BECOME THE ALIMENT OF THE WHOLE\nWORLD?  But, that he might divert their minds from carnal cogitations,\nand that they might learn the flesh which he would give them to be\nsupercelestial and spiritual food: he, on this account, mentioned the\nascent of the Son of man to heaven.  _The words_, said he, _which I speak\nunto you_, _are spirit and life_.  As if he had intimated: My body shall\nbe exhibited and given as food for the world; so THAT THAT FOOD SHALL BE\nGIVEN TO EACH ONE SPIRITUALLY, and shall to all be a preservative to the\nresurrection unto life eternal. {16a}\n\n4.  Eusebius of Cesarea lived in the fourth century.\n\n(1.)  Christ himself gave the SYMBOLS of the divine economy to his own\ndisciples; commanding, that the IMAGE of his own body should be made.\n{16b}\n\n(2.)  He delivered to us, that we should use the bread as the SYMBOL of\nhis own body. {16c}\n\n5.  Ambrose lived in the fourth century.\n\nIn the Law, was the shadow: in the Gospel, is the IMAGE: in heaven, is\nthe REALITY.  Formerly, a lamb was offered, a calf was offered: now,\nChrist is offered\u2014Here, he is in an IMAGE: there, he is in REALITY. {16d}\n\n6.  Macarius the Egyptian lived in the fourth century.\n\nIn the Church are offered bread and wine, the ANTITYPE of Christ\u2019s flesh\nand blood: and they, who partake of the visible bread, eat the flesh of\nthe Lord SPIRITUALLY. {16e}\n\n7.  Gregory of Nyssa lived in the fourth century.\n\nSince this holy altar, at which we stand, is in its nature only a common\nstone, differing nothing from those other flat tablets, which are built\ninto our walls or which ornament our pavements; but, when it has been\ndedicated to the service of God and has received the benediction, it is a\nholy table, an unpolluted altar, no longer indiscriminately handled by\nall, but touched only by the priests and even by them with pious caution:\nand, again, since the bread is originally mere common bread; but, when\nthe mystery shall have wrought its sanctification, it is both called and\nis the body of Christ: THUS the mystic oil, THUS the wine, though of\nsmall value before the benediction, respectively operate with mighty\npower after sanctification by the Spirit.  The SAME potency of the word,\nmoreover, effects a venerable and honourable priest: when, through the\nnewness of the benediction, the individual is separated from common\nfellowship with the many.  For, only yesterday and the day before, he was\nnothing more than one out of the many, nothing more than one of the\nlaity: but now he is set forth, as a leader, as a precessor, as a teacher\nof piety, as a heirophant of the hidden mysteries.  And these things he\ndoes, not at all changed in body or in form: but he does them; being, in\noutward appearance, the same person that he was before; though, in his\ninvisible soul, through a certain invisible power and grace, being\ntransmuted into a better condition. {17a}\n\n8.  Cyril of Jerusalem lived in the fourth century.\n\n(1.)  While eating, the communicants are commanded to eat, not bread and\nwine, but the ANTITYPE of the body and blood of Christ. {17b}\n\n(2.)  As ALSO the bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the\nHoly Spirit, is no longer bare bread, but the body of Christ: so\nLIKEWISE, after the invocation, this holy ointment (the ointment or\nchrism formerly used in the rite of Confirmation) is no longer mere\nointment, nor as one may say common ointment. {17c}\n\n9.  Augustine flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries.\n\n(1.)  The Lord, when he gave the SIGN of his body, did not doubt to say:\n_This is my body_. {18a}\n\n(2.)  These are sacraments, in which, not _what they are_, but _what they\nshew forth_, is the point to be always attended to: far THEY ARE THE\nSIGNS OF THINGS, BEING ONE THING, AND SIGNIFYING ANOTHER THING. {18b}\n\n(3.)  Christ instructed them, and said unto them: _It is the spirit that\nquickeneth_; _the flesh profiteth nothing_.  _The words_, _which I speak\nunto you_, _are spirit and life_.  As if he had said: Understand\nSPIRITUALLY what I have spoken.  You are NOT about to eat this identical\nbody, which you see; and you are NOT about to drink this identical blood,\nwhich they who crucify me will pour out.  I have commended unto you a\ncertain sacrament: which, if SPIRITUALLY understood, will vivify you.\nThough it must be celebrated visibly, it must be understood invisibly.\n{18c}\n\n(4.)  In the interpretation of figurative passages, let the following\ncanon be observed.\u2014\n\nIf the passage be preceptive, either forbidding some flagitious deed and\nsome heinous crime, or commanding something useful and beneficent: then\nsuch passage is NOT FIGURATIVE.  But, if the passage seems, either to\ncommand some flagitious deed and some heinous crime, or to forbid\nsomething useful and beneficent: then such passage is FIGURATIVE.\n\nThus, for example, Christ says: _Unless ye shall eat the flesh of the Son\nof man and drink his blood_, _ye shall have no life in you_.\n\nNow, in these words, he seems to command a heinous crime or a flagitious\ndeed.  THEREFORE THIS PASSAGE IS A FIGURE. {18d}\n\n10.  Theodoret lived in the fifth century.\n\n(1.)  Our Saviour interchanged the names: for to his body be gave the\nname of the SYMBOL, while to the SYMBOL he gave the name of his body;\nand, having called himself A VINE, he applied the appellation of his\nblood to the SYMBOL.\u2014Our Lord required: that they, who partake of the\ndivine mysteries, should not attend to the nature of the things which\nthey see; but that, in the change of names, they should believe that\nchange which is wrought by grace: inasmuch as he, who called his own\nnatural body _wheat_ and _bread_, and who further bestowed upon himself\nthe appellation of _a vine_, honoured also the viable SYMBOLS with the\nname of his _body_ and _blood_; NOT CHANGING THEIR NATURE, BUT ADDING\nGRACE TO NATURE. {19a}\n\n(2.)  THE MYSTIC SYMBOLS, AFTER CONSECRATION, PASS NOT OUT OF THEIR OWN\nNATURE: FOR THEY REMAIN IN THE FORMER SUBSTANCE and shape and appearance:\nand they are seen and touched, such as they were before.  But they are\nunderstood to be what they were: and they are believed and venerated, as\nbeing those things which they are believed.  Compare, therefore, the\nIMAGE with the ARCHETYPE; and you will perceive their resemblance: for\nthe TYPE must needs be similar to the TRUTH. {19b}\n\n11.  Pope Gelasius lived in the fifth century: and, in his quality of a\nPope speaking judicially or controversially, it is thought, that he\nspecially merits the attention of the Romish Clergy.\n\nCertainly, the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord, which we\nreceive, are a divine thing: because, by these, we are made partakers of\nthe divine nature.  Nevertheless, THE SUBSTANCE OR NATURE OF THE BREAD\nAND WINE CEASES NOT TO EXIST: and, assuredly, the IMAGE and SIMILITUDE of\nthe body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the\nmysteries. {19c}\n\n12.  Vacundus lived in the sixth century.\n\nThe sacrament of adoption may be called _adoption_: just as the sacrament\nof the body and blood of Christ, which sacrament is in the consecrated\nbread and wine, we are wont to call _his body and blood_.  NOT, INDEED,\nTHAT THE BREAD IS PROPERLY HIS BODY, OR THAT THE WINE IS PROPERLY HIS\nBLOOD: but we so denominate them, because they contain the mystery (or\nsacrament) of his body and blood within themselves.  Hence it was, that\nour Lord called the consecrated bread and wine, which he delivered to his\ndisciples, _his own body and blood_. {20a}\n\n13.  Ephrem of Antioch flourished in the sixth century.\n\nThe body of Christ, which is taken by the faithful, NEITHER DEPARTS FROM\nITS SENSIBLE SUBSTANCE, on the one hand: nor remains separated from\nintellectual grace, on the other hand.  And spiritual baptism, likewise,\nbeing whole and single, both retains the propriety of ITS SENSIBLE\nSUBSTANCE, I mean THE WATER: and loses not that, which it hath become.\n{20b}\n\n14.  The venerable Bede flourished in the eighth century.\n\nThe Lord, in the Supper, gave to his disciples the FIGURE of his holy\nbody and blood. {20c}\n\n15.  Amalar of Triers lived in the ninth century.\n\n(1.)  Sacraments ought to have a certain SIMILITUDE of those things,\nwhereof they are sacraments.  Let us, therefore, say: that the\nofficiating priest bears a SIMILITUDE to Christ, AS the bread and wine\nbear a SIMILITUDE to the body and blood of Christ. {20d}\n\n(2.)  After a certain mode, the sacrament of the body of Christ is\nChrist\u2019s body.  For, unless sacraments had a certain SIMILITUDE of those\nthings whereof they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all:\nbut, FROM THIS VERY SIMILITUDE, THEY COMMONLY RECEIVE THE NAMES OF THE\nTHINGS THEMSELVES. {21a}\n\n16.  Walafrid Strabo lived in the ninth century.\n\nChrist, in the Supper, which, before his betrayal, he had celebrated with\nhis disciples after the solemnisation of the ancient Passover, delivered\nto the same disciples the sacraments of his body and blood IN THE\nSUBSTANCE OF BREAD AND WINE:\u2014and taught them; that they ought to pass,\nfrom things CARNAL to things SPIRITUAL, from things EARTHLY to things\nHEAVENLY, from IMAGES to TRUTH. {21b}\n\n17.  Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mentz, lived in the ninth century.\n\nLATELY, indeed, SOME INDIVIDUALS, not thinking rightly concerning the\nsacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, have said: that _That very\nbody and blood of the Lord_, _which was born from the Virgin Mary_, _in\nwhich the Lord himself suffered on the cross_, _and in the which he rose\nagain from the sepulchre_, _is the same as that which is received from\nthe altar_.  IN OPPOSITION TO WHICH ERROR as far as lay in our power,\nwriting to the Abbot Egilus, WE PROPOUNDED WHAT OUGHT TRULY TO BE\nBELIEVED CONCERNING THE BODY ITSELF. {21c}\n\n18.  Bertram of Corby lived in the ninth century.\n\nLet us now consider the question: _Whether the identical body_, _which\nwas born from Mary and suffered and died and was buried_, _and which now\nsits at the right hand of the Father_, _is that_, _which in the Church is\ndaily received by the mouth of the faithful through the mystery of the\nsacraments_.\u2014\n\nACCORDING TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CREATURES, WHAT THEY WERE BEFORE\nCONSECRATION, THAT ALSO THEY ARE AFTER IT.\u2014\n\nSpiritual flesh which is received by the mouth of the faithful, and\nspiritual blood which is daily given to be drunk by the faithful, DIFFER\nfrom the flesh which was crucified and from the blood which was shed by\nthe knee of the soldier.\n\nTHEREFORE THEY ARE NOT ME SAME. {22}\n\nIV.  The plain inquirer will now judge for himself: whether the romish\ndoctrine of Transubstantiation, with the associated practice of adoring\nas God the consecrated elements, be taught either in Scripture, or by the\nearly Fathers.\n\nAs for Scripture, sufficient has already been said: and, with respect to\nthe evidence afforded by the ancient Doctors of the Catholic Church,\nthose Doctors, we see, protest _against_ any such new-fangled notions,\nnot only during the three first centuries, but down even to the ninth\ncentury; and they protest, moreover, in every possible way that could\nwell have been either required or imagined.\n\n1.  According to _their_ interpretation of Scripture, which manifestly\nwas the interpretation received as orthodox by the universal Church at\nthe times when they respectively flourished, we have the following very\ndistinct and very important results.\n\n(1.)  The consecrated elements are IMAGES or SYMBOLS or TYPES or SIGNS or\nREPRESENTATIONS of the body and blood of Christ.\n\n(2.)  Communicants do NOT partake of that _literal_ body and blood, in\nwhich the Lord suffered and which he shed on the cross.\n\n(3.)  The symbols of bread and wine, AFTER consecration, STILL REMAIN\nUNCHANGED IN THEIR ORIGINAL SUBSTANCE: and, consequently, they are NOT\ntransubstantiated.\n\n(4.)  Christ called the bread and wine _his body and blood_, IN THE SAME\nSENSE and ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE that he called himself _a vine_.\n\n(5.)  When the early writers style the bread and wine _the body and blood\nof Christ_; or when they say, that _the bread and wine are the body and\nblood of Christ_; or when they affirm, that _the bread and wine are\nchanged into the body and blood of Christ_: they themselves state, by way\nof explanation, that they only speak metonymically and figuratively.  For\nthey distinctly tell us: that they are wont to call the bread and wine\n_Christ\u2019s body and blood_; NOT BECAUSE THE BREAD IS PROPERLY HIS BODY, OR\nBECAUSE THE WINE IS PROPERLY HIS BLOOD; but only because they contain the\nsacrament of his body and blood within themselves, or because the IMAGE\nand SIMILITUDE of his body and blood are exhibited in the due celebration\nof the Eucharist.\n\n(6.)  Hence, in strict consistency, the _sole_ change in the elements,\nproduced by consecration, is said, by the same early writers, to be a\nMORAL and not a PHYSICAL change.  For they pronounce it to be such a\nchange, as is produced in the confirmatory chrism or in the stone of an\naltar-table or in the baptismal water; when, by consecration, they cease\nto be secular, and are devoted to sacred purposes: and, even yet more\nremarkably, they pronounce it to be such a change, as is produced in a\nman; when, by ordination, he ceases to be a laic, and becomes a clerk.\n\n2.  Nor do we thus find, in the old Doctors of the Church, a mere simple\n_anticipatory_ protest against the modern Romish dogma, of\nTransubstantiation: we may note also, in the case of Raban and Bertram, a\nformal direct _synchranical_ protest against the wild notion of\n_Christ\u2019s_ CORPOREAL or LITERAL or SUBSTANTIAL _presence in the\nEucharist_, when, in the ninth century, and under the fostering\nmanagement of Paschase Radbert, it was attempting to creep into the\nhitherto untainted Western Churches.\n\nNo sooner was the idle phantasy started; that _The identical body and\nblood of Christ_, _in which he was born from the Virgin Mary_, _is\nliterally and substantially received from the altar_: than it was\ndistinctly and openly opposed, on the specific ground, not only of _its\nabstract scriptural falsehood_, but likewise of _its palpable novelty_\nand _its then scanty reception_.  For all these three points are clearly\nset forth by Archbishop Raban in his three very remarkable expressions,\nLATELY, and SOME INDIVIDUALS, and NOT THINKING RIGHTLY.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\nPURGATORY.\n\n\nFROM the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation, I shall pass on to the\nRomish doctrine of Purgatory.\n\nI.  Respecting a Purgatory, into which the souls of all, save those who\nare immediately conveyed to Hell, pass forthwith after death; in order\nthat, by its fiery pains, they may be purified from the remainder of\ntheir corruption, and at the same time by personal suffering may make\nsatisfaction to God for their hitherto unexpiated offences: the Church of\nRome, speaking through her organ the Council of Trent, thus defines and\npronounces.\n\n_There is a Purgatory_: _and the souls_, _there detained_, _are assisted\nby the suffrages of the faithful and most especially by the acceptable\nsacrifice of the altar_. {24}\n\nII.  Such is the authorised doctrine of the Roman Church: let us now see,\nwhether the existence of a Purgatory in the unseen world be revealed in\nScripture.\n\n1.  On this point, we may begin with very safely remarking: that, from\nthe first verse of Genesis to the last verse of the Revelation, God\u2019s\nwritten word, whether jewish or christian, SAYS NOT A SINGLE SYLLABLE\nconcerning the existence of any such place as a romish Purgatory.\n\nWhence, of course, it is EQUALLY SILENT, respecting the extraordinary\nalleged fact: that, _Souls_, _there detained_, _are assisted by the\nsuffrages or prayers of the faithful and most especially by the\nacceptable sacrifice of the altar_.\n\n2.  But Holy Scripture is not merely SILENT on this subject: by\nanticipation, it even FLATLY CONTRADICTS the popish doctrine before us.\n\n_I heard a voice from heaven_, _saying unto me_: _Write_; _Blessed are\nthe dead which die in the Lord from henceforth_: _Yea_, _saith the\nSpirit_, THAT THEY MAY REST FROM THEIR LABOURS; _and their works do\nfollow them_. {25}\n\nIf, as the Romish Clergy teach, even those, who die in the Lord, pass\ninto Purgatory, where they suffer pains equal to those of Hell in\nintensity and inferior to them only in duration: certainly, such souls\ncan with no truth be said henceforth to rest from their labours.\n\n3.  In reality, the very notion of a Purgatory stands irreconcileably\nopposed to the whole scheme and analogy of Scripture.\n\nFor the doctrine of a Purgatory holds out the speculation: that, _By\npenal suffering_, _we both may be purified from our sins_, _and likewise\nmay make personal meritorious satisfaction to God for them_.\n\nWhereas Scripture teaches us: that _We are justified from our sins by the\nsole merits of the Son_, and that _We are sanctified from our pollutions\nby the exclusive ordinary operation of the Spirit_.\n\nOn the present point, then, are we to believe the Bible, or the Council\nof Trent and the Latin Priesthood?\n\n4.  Finding it impossible to establish the existence of a Purgatory from\nthe genuine written word of God, the Romish Clergy attempt to\nsubstantiate it from a text in the Apocrypha.\n\n_When Judas had made a gathering throughout the __company to the sum of\ntwo thousand drachms of silver_, _he sent it to Jerusalem_, _to offer a\nsin-offering_; _doing therein well and honestly_, _in that he was mindful\nof the resurrection_ (_for_, _if he had not hoped that they that were\nslain should have risen again_, _it had been superfluous and vain to pray\nfor the dead_), _and also in that he perceived that there was great\nfavour laid up for those that died godly_.  _It was a holy and good\nthought_.  _Whereupon_, _he made a reconciliation for the dead_, _that\nthey might be delivered from sin_. {26a}\n\nNow this text, even if we could admit the canonical authority of a book\nwhich _praises self-murder_, and which _apologises for its own defects_,\n{26b} would stand the Latin Priesthood in small stead: for _it never once\nmentions any Purgatory_; and the persons, moreover, for whom Judas\nattempted to make reconciliation, were actually men who had died _in the\nmortal sin of idolatry unrepented of_, and consequently were men who (by\nthe determination of the Council of Trent) had passed not into Purgatory\nbut into Hell. {26c}\n\nIn truth, however, for the too evident purpose of serving a turn, the\ndoctors of the Council of Trent, in defiance of the universal testimony\nof the early Church as expressed most distinctly by Melito and Cyril and\nRuffinus and Jerome and Epiphanius and Athanasius, have foisted into the\ngenuine canon of inspired Scripture, those mere unauthoritative human\ncompositions, which are commonly styled _apocryphal_, and for the simple\nquoting of which about the close of the sixth century, Pope Gregory the\ngreat absolutely makes a regular formal apology. {26d}\n\nAs one out of our many witnesses against these daring innovators, let us\nhear, from the fourth century, the venerable Cyril of Jerusalem, while\nofficially instructing his Catechumens in order to their baptism.\n\n_Read the twenty and two books contained in the Old Testament_: _but_\nWITH THE APOCRYPHA HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON.  _Study diligently those\ntwenty and two books_ ALONE, _which also with confidence are read in the\nChurch_.  _The Apostles and the ancient Bishops_, _who delivered those\nbooks to us_, _were much wiser than you_.  _As children of the Church_,\n_therefore_, _set not upon her authorised documents the adulterating seal\nof a false impression_. {27a}\n\nThis _adulterating seal of a false impression_, so strongly reprobated by\nCyril in the fourth century, was, in the sixteenth century, employed,\nwithout the least scruple, for the impious corruption of God\u2019s written\nword, by the Romish Clergy at the Council of Trent.\n\nIII.  From Scripture, let us proceed to the early Fathers of the Church.\n\nI.  In the way of _negative_ evidence, Polycarp the disciple of St. John,\nAthenagoras, and Iren\u00e8us, who collectively flourished during a period\nwhich extends from the latter end of the first to the latter end of the\nsecond century, are TOTALLY SILENT respecting the existence of a\nPurgatory; even when the nature of their subject is such, that, had they\nbeen acquainted with the doctrine, they _must_ have mentioned it. {27b}\n\n2.  In the way of _positive_ evidence, Clement of Rome the disciple and\nfellow-labourer of St. Paul, Ignatius the disciple of St. John, Justin\nMartyr, Hippolytus, and Cyprian, who collectively flourished during a\nperiod which extends from the year 63 to the year 258, either by\nanticipation EXPRESSLY CONTRADICT, or else use language PALPABLY\nINCOMPATIBLE WITH, the doctrine of a Purgatory. {28a}\n\n3.  When this doctrine began to creep into the Church, the individuals,\nwho started it, could not agree among themselves, either as to _its\nnature_, or as to _its certainty_, or as to _its chronological location_:\nand, what is sufficiently whimsical, not one among them agreed with the\npresent Church of Rome. {28b}\n\nNow, if the doctrine of a Purgatory had been _uniformly_ and\n_universally_ and _constantly_ held in the Church Catholic from the very\nbeginning, as the Romish Clergy would persuade us: it is quite clear,\nthat this curious discrepance could never have occurred.\n\n4.  At _present_, the members of the Latin Church pray for the dead,\n_with the avowed object that their souls may be delivered from\nPurgatory_: but, when prayers for the dead _first_ came into use, those\nprayers were offered up _with no such purpose and intention_.\n\nLet it be known and observed (for many are ignorant of the circumstance):\nthat, at the commencement of the practice, supplication was made, not\n_that souls might be delivered from Purgatory_, but _that they might be\npartakers of the first resurrection_: {28c} and the notion itself\nevidently originated from a gratuitous interpretation of a well known\nobscure text in the Apocalypse. {29a}\n\n5.  The unauthorised practice of praying for the dead, under _any_\naspect, being thus plainly a mere innovation upon the primitive\nsimplicity of the Gospel; its utility, as we learn from Cyril of\nJerusalem, was questioned by MANY, even so late as the middle of the\nfourth century.  Finding not a vestige of the thing in the whole Bible,\nand naturally judging that we can know nothing about the matter save from\na distinct revelation, they very sensibly asked: _How is the soul\nbenefited by any such mention of it_, _whether it depart from this world\nwith sin or without sin_? {29b}\n\nIt were well, if the Romish Clergy, when they boast of the immutability\nof their doctrine and practice, would account of these odd variations.\n\nIV.  Meanwhile, let the sober inquirer judge for himself, whether there\nbe even a shadow for the idle plea: that the doctrine of Purgatory is\nrevealed in the Bible, and that it was maintained from the beginning by\nall the early Fathers.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\nUNWRITTEN TRADITION AND INSUFFICIENCY OF THE WRITTEN WORD ALONE.\n\n\nI SHALL next proceed to examine the Romish assertions respecting\nUnwritten Tradition and the Insufficiency of the Written Word alone.\n\nI.  Although the Church of Rome, speaking through the Council of Trent,\nclaims the Written Word of God as a voucher for her doctrines; yet, as if\nconscious, that, from Scripture ALONE, her peculiarities cannot be\nestablished as a part of divine revelation, she asserts: that _Unwritten\nTradition ought to be __had in_ EQUAL _reverence with the Written Word_;\n_so that_, _what cannot be proved from the Written Word_, _must be\nreceived without hesitation_, _if it be propounded by Unwritten\nTradition_.\n\nFrom this assertion it evidently results: that, _Without the concurrence\nof a supplemental Unwritten Tradition_, _the Written Word or the Holy\nBible is defective and insufficient as a rule of faith and practice_.\n\n_The Holy Synod_, say the doctors of the Council of Trent, _perceiving_,\n_that this faith and discipline are contained_, _both in the Written\nBooks_, _and in the Unwritten Traditions which have descended to us from\nChrist and his Apostles_, _receives and venerates_, _after the example of\nthe orthodox Fathers_, WITH AN EQUAL AFFECTION AND PIOUS REVERENCE, _both\nall the Books of the Old and New Testaments_, _and likewise the\nTraditions themselves_, _whether appertaining to faith or to morals_, _as\nif orally dictated from Christ and the Holy Spirit_, _and as preserved by\ncontinual succession in the Church Catholic_. {30}\n\nII.  Let us now hear what Scripture says on the topic at present under\ndiscussion.\n\n1.  The unwritten traditions of the Rabbins, by which they made void the\nLaw of God, claimed to have been delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai by the\nLord himself: and their pretended authenticity rested precisely upon the\nsame mode of reasoning, as that employed, for their parallel unwritten\ntraditions, by the Clergy of the Roman Communion.  Yet Christ reprobated\nsuch vain unhallowed phantasies in language and on principles, which\nequally apply to the antiscriptural unwritten traditions of the Latin\nChurch.\n\n_He answered and said unto them_: _Why do ye also transgress the\ncommandment of God by your tradition_?  _For God commanded_, _saying_:\n_Honour __thy father and thy mother_; _and_: _He that curseth father or\nmother_, _let him die the death_.  _But ye say_: _Whosoever shall say to\nhis father or his mother_; _It is a gift by whatsoever thou mightest be\nprofited by me_; _and honour not his father or his mother_, _he shall be\nfree_.  _Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your\ntradition_. {31a}\n\nNow where is the perceptible difference, between the conduct of the\nJewish Rabbins, and the conduct of the Romish Clergy?\n\n(1.)  The Written Word commanded: that a man should honour his father and\nmother.\n\nBut the Jewish Rabbins made this commandment of none effect by their\nUnwritten Tradition: that, if a man vowed to dedicate his substance to\nGod, he was not bound to relieve out of it the necessities of his\nparents.\n\n(2.)  The Written Word has prohibited the bowing down before graven\nimages and the invocation of any being save the Deity.\n\nBut the Romish Clergy have made this prohibition of none effect by their\nUnwritten Tradition: that images may be worshipped relatively with the\nworship due to their prototypes, that dead saints may be justifiably\ninvocated to give us their intercessory assistance, and that, provided\nonly we take care to denominate the worship of the Saints and the Virgin\n_Dulia_ and _Hyperdulia_ while we rigidly style the worship of the Deity\n_Latria_, we may laudably (after the precise manner of the old Pagan\nidolaters {31b}) kiss and uncover our heads and fall prostrate before\ntheir images, duly through each image (again on the exact avowed\nprinciple of the same Old Pagan idolaters {31c}) referring to each being\nrepresented by such image his own appropriate reverence and adoration.\n{32a}\n\n2.  A similar admonition, against the vanity of following Unwritten\nTradition rather than the certainty of the Written Word, is given by the\nApostle St. Paul.\n\n_As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord_, _so walk ye in\nhim_; _rooted and built up in him_, _and stablished in the faith_, _as ye\nhave been taught_, _abounding therein with thanksgiving_.  _Beware_,\n_lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit_, _after the\ntradition of men_, _after the rudiments of the world_, _and not after\nChrist_. {32b}\n\n3.  The romish pretence of _an_ EQUALLY _authoritative Unwritten\nTradition_ plainly involves an assertion of _the Insufficiency of the\nWritten Word_.  But the written Word declares its own Sufficiency.\nTherefore, on that precise ground, it condemns the romish pretence of an\nEQUALLY authoritative concurrent Unwritten Tradition.\n\n(1.)  _Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you_, _neither\nshall ye diminish ought from it_: _that ye may keep the commandments of\nthe Lord your God_, _which I command you_. {32c}\n\n(2.)  _To the law and to the testimony_: _if they speak not according to\nthis word_, _it is because there is no light in them_. {32d}\n\n(3.)  _Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you\nthan that which we have preached unto you_, _let him be accursed_. {32e}\n\n(4.)  _From a child_, _thou hast known the holy scriptures_, _which are\nable to make thee wise unto salvation_, _through faith which is in Christ\nJesus_.  _All scripture is given by inspiration of God_: _and is\nprofitable for doctrine_, _for reproof_, _for correction_, _for\ninstruction in righteousness_; _that the man of God may be perfect_,\n_throughly furnished unto all good works_. {33a}\n\n4.  The Romish Clergy are wont to tell us, that their scheme of\nconcurrent Unwritten Tradition is recognised and enjoined even by\nScripture: because St. Paul speaks of a brother, walking disorderly, and\nnot after the TRADITION received from himself by the Thessalonians; {33b}\nbecause the same St. Paul exhorts the same Thessalonians to stand fast\nand hold the TRADITIONS which they had been taught whether by word or by\nhis epistle; {33c} and because still the same St. Paul praises the\nCorinthians, for remembering him in all things, and for keeping the\nTRADITIONS as he delivered to them. {33d}\n\nRespecting this vain plea, which can only mislead the ignorant and the\nincautious, we readily answer in manner following.\n\n(1.)  St. Paul must not be interpreted, so as to contradict both his Lord\nand himself.\n\n(2.)  The Romish Clergy cannot prove, that _all_ the Traditions,\nmentioned by the Apostle, were _unwritten_: for _some_ are distinctly\nspecified as taught by a _written_ epistle; and the simple word\n_Tradition_ itself, which merely denotes _any thing handed down or\ndelivered or communicated_, has no necessary reference to what is\n_unwritten_ rather than to what is _written_.\n\n(3.)  It is not known by the Romish Clergy: whether the _originally_ oral\nunwritten traditions, mentioned by St. Paul, were not _finally_ committed\nto durable writing in documents, composed _subsequently_ to those\nepistles in which he mentions them, and _afterward_ added to the sacred\ncanon; so that, what were _once_ unwritten traditions, became\n_ultimately_ a portion of our present written word: for the plain reader\nmay be usefully taught or reminded, that several portions of the New\nTestament were written at a _later_ period than the epistles in which St.\nPaul speaks of Traditions.\n\n(4.)  Whensoever the Romish Clergy shall _prove_ the unwritten traditions\nof their Church to have been received from Christ and his apostles with\nas much certainty, as the Thessalonians and Corinthians _knew_ what they\nhad personally received from the mouth of St. Paul: we will cheerfully\nattend to them with all due reverence.\n\n(5.)  Both on the principle of our Lord\u2019s own censure of the rabbinical\ntraditions, and likewise on the principle of plain common sense, we\ncannot embrace oral traditions purporting to be God\u2019s unwritten word;\nwhen they are _palpably irreconcileable with_, and _grossly contradictory\nto_, God\u2019s own acknowledged written word.\n\nIII.  We may now, in the way of historical testimony, go on profitably to\nhear the ancient Fathers: those identical old orthodox Fathers to wit;\nwhom, in respect to the present question, the doctors of the Council of\nTrent, as the reader may peradventure recollect, claim as being clearly\nand indisputably quite their own.\n\n1.  Let us first attend to Iren\u00e8us in the second century.\n\n(1.)  The disposition of our salvation we know not through any other\npersons, than those by whom the Gospel has come to us: which then,\nindeed, they themselves orally preached; but which afterward, according\nto the will of God, they traditionally handed down to us IN THE WRITTEN\nWORD, as the future basis and column of our faith. {34}\n\n(2.)  When the Gnostics are confuted from SCRIPTURE, their answer is:\nthat, _By those who are ignorant of_ UNWRITTEN TRADITION, _truth cannot\nbe discovered from_ THE WRITTEN WORD; _for truth was __delivered_, _not_\n(merely) _through letters_, _but through the living voice_. {35a}\n\n2.  Let us next hear Tertullian in the second and third centuries.\n\nAs for Hermogenes, let his shop produce THE WRITTEN WORD.  If he be\nunable to produce THE WRITTEN WORD in substantiation of his tenets; let\nhim dread that scriptural _Woe_, which is destined to those who either\nadd to it or detract from it. {35b}\n\n3.  Let us next hear Hippolytus in the third century.\n\nThere is one God, whom we know from no other authority, than THE HOLY\nSCRIPTURES.\u2014Whatsoever matters, then, THE DIVINE SCRIPTURES declare;\nthese let us learn: and, whatsoever matters they teach; these let us\nrecognise:\u2014not according to our own humour or according to our own mind,\nneither with any wresting of the things delivered from God; but, even as\nhe himself wished THROUGH THE HOLY SCRIPTURES to shew us, thus let us\nlearn. {35c}\n\n4.  Let us next hear Cyprian in the third century.\n\nWhence is that pretended TRADITION?  Does it descend from the authority\nof the Lord and the Gospels: or does it come down from the mandates and\nletters of the Apostles?  God testifies, that those things are to be\ndone, which are WRITTEN.\u2014If, then, any such precept can be found, EITHER\nIN THE GOSPEL OR IN THE EPISTLES AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES:\u2014let this\ndivine and holy (written) tradition be observed. {35d}\n\n5.  Let us next hear Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century.\n\nRespecting the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not even a tittle\nought to be delivered without the authority of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.\nNeither ought any thing to be propounded, on the basis of mere\ncredibility, or through the medium of plausible ratiocination.  Neither\nyet repose the slightest confidence in the bare assertions of me your\nCatechist, unless you shall receive from THE HOLY SCRIPTURES foil\ndemonstration of the matters propounded.  For the security of our faith\ndepends, not upon verbal trickery, but upon demonstration from THE HOLY\nSCRIPTURES. {36a}\n\n6.  Let us next hear the great Athanasius in the fourth century.\n\n(1.)  The holy and divinely inspired SCRIPTURES are sufficient for the\ndeclaration of the truth. {36b}\n\n(2.)  Let a person solely learn the matters, which are set forth in THE\nSCRIPTURES: for the demonstrations, contained in them, are, in order to\nthe settling of this point, quite sufficient and complete. {36c}\n\n(3.)  If ye are disciples of the Gospels,\u2014walk according to WHAT IS\nWRITTEN.  But, if you choose to allege any other matters BEYOND WHAT IS\nWRITTEN: why do you contend against us, WHO WILL NEVER BE PERSUADED\nEITHER TO HEAR OR TO SPEAK A SINGLE SYLLABLE BEYOND GOD\u2019S WRITTEN WORD?\n{36d}\n\n(4.)  These; namely, the canonical books of Scripture, from which the\napocryphal books are carefully excluded by the accurate Father: These are\nthe fountains of salvation; so that he, who thirsts, may drink from the\noracles contained in them.  In THESE ALONE is the evangelical school of\npiety.  Let no one add to them: and let no one detract from them. {36e}\n\n(5.)  It is the part of mere triflers to propound and to speak THE THINGS\nWHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN. {36f}\n\n(6.)  What THE WRITTEN WORD had never revealed, you will never be able to\ndiscover. {37a}\n\n7.  Let us next hear Basil in the fourth century.\n\n(1.)  It is a manifest apostasy from the faith, and a clear proof of\narrogance, either to disregard any matter of THE THINGS WHICH ARE\nWRITTEN, Or to introduce argumentatively any matter of THE THINGS WHICH\nARE NOT WRITTEN. {37b}\n\n(2.)  THE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN believe: THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT\nWRITTEN Seek not after. {37c}\n\n8.  Let us next hear Jerome in the fourth and fifth centuries.\n\n(1.)  As we deny not THE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN: SO THE THINGS WHICH\nARE NOT WRITTEN we reject.  We believe, that God was born of a virgin;\nBECAUSE WE READ IT: we believe not, that Mary was married after her\nparturition; BECAUSE WE READ IT NOT. {37d}\n\n(2.)  Learn, then, in THE DIVINE SCRIPTURES, through which ALONE you can\nunderstand the full will of God, that some things are prohibited and that\nother things are commanded, that some things are granted and that other\nthings are persuaded. {37e}\n\n9.  Finally, let us hear Augustine in the fourth and fifth centuries.\n\nDemonstrate, from any one of THE CANONICAL APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, the\ntruth of what Cyprian has written to Jubaianus: and I should then have no\nroom for contradiction.  But now, since what you produce is NOT\nCANONICAL; through the liberty, to which the Lord hath called us, I\nreceive not the decision. {37f}\n\nIV.  From the evidence now faithfully laid before him, the prudent\ninquirer is invited to judge for himself: whether the romish doctrine, of\n_the concurrent_ EQUAL _authority of Unwritten Tradition and the\ninsufficiency of the Written Word alone_, be warranted either by\nScripture or by the early Fathers.\n\nMeanwhile the following questions may not be altogether unworthy of his\nattention.\n\n1.  Do, or do not, the doctors of the Council of Trent, agreeably to\ntheir own formal and distinct profession, follow the example of the old\northodox Fathers, when they decide: that _the Written Word of God_, _and\nthe Unwritten Traditions of the Latin Church_, _are to be received by the\nfaithful with an_ EQUAL _affection and pious reverence_?\n\n2.  Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy imitate the Gnostics: who, when they\nwere confuted from Scripture, were accustomed to reply; that, _by those\nwho are ignorant of Unwritten Tradition_, _truth cannot be discovered\nfrom the Written Word_.\n\n3.  Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy copy the example of Cyril of\nJerusalem: who declared, that, _respecting the faith_, NOT A TITTLE\n_ought to be delivered without the authority of the Holy Scriptures_; and\nwho exhorted his Catechumens to _repose not_ THE SLIGHTEST CONFIDENCE _in\nhis assertions_, _unless they should receive from the Holy Scriptures\nfull demonstration of the matters propounded_?\n\n4.  Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy teach, with Athanasius: that, _the\nScriptures_ ALONE _are sufficient for the declaration of the truth_; and\nthat, _in the canonical Scriptures_ ALONE, _to the exclusion of the\nApocrypha_, _is the evangelical school of piety_?\n\n5.  Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy declare, with the same illustrious\nFather: that _they will never be persuaded either to hear or to speak_ A\nSINGLE SYLLABLE _beyond God\u2019s written word_?\n\n6.  Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy pronounce, still with the great\nAthanasius: that _it is the part of mere triflers to propound and to\nspeak the things which are not written_?\n\n7.  Do, or do not, the doctors of the Council of Trent, and after them\nour present Romish Clergy, take up, and make their own, the ancient pithy\ndistinction of Jerome: _The things which are written we acknowledge_;\n_the things which are not written we reject_?\n\n8.  Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy, make a point, with Tertullian, of\n_always requiring the production of proof from the Written Word_: and do\nthey, or do they not, allow and maintain, with the same Father; that\n_he_, _who is unable to produce the Written Word in substantiation of his\ntenets_, _but who for that purpose resorts to Unwritten Tradition_, _may\nwell dread the awful Woe so justly denounced against those who either add\nto it or detract from it_?\n\n9.  Finally, in their several estimates of Unwritten Tradition and the\nWritten Word, and in their several modes of conducting those theological\ncontroversies which respect the authoritative rule of faith and practice,\ndo the Romish Clergy or the Reformed Clergy approximate most closely to\nHoly Scripture and to the ancient orthodox Fathers?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\nMERITORIOUS SATISFACTION.\n\n\nFROM the perfect equality of Unwritten Tradition and the Written Word of\nGod, we may next proceed to the doctrine of Meritorious Satisfaction.\n\nI.  The Church of Rome lays down her decision, respecting what she calls\n_Works of Satisfaction_, in manner following.\n\n_So great is the abundance of divine munificence_, _that we are able to\nmake satisfaction to God the Father through Jesus Christ_, _not only by\npunishments __either spontaneously undergone by ourselves for the\navenging of sin or imposed upon us by the will of the priest according to\nthe measure of our offence_, _but also_ (_what is the greatest argument\nof love_) _by temporal flagellations inflicted of God and by us patiently\nendured_. {40a}\n\nII.  Thus speaks the Roman Church: let us now hear the declarations of\nHoly Scripture.\n\n1.  _When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you_,\n_say_: _We are unprofitable servants_; _we have done that which it was\nour duty to do_. {40b}\n\n2.  _Two men went up into the temple to pray_: _the one_, _a Pharisee_;\n_and the other_, _a Publican_.  _The Pharisee stood_, _and prayed thus\nwith himself_: _God_, _I thank thee_, _that I am not as other men are_,\n_extortioners_, _unjust_, _adulterers_, _or even as this Publican_.  _I\nfast twice in the week_: _I give tythes of all that I possess_.  _And the\nPublican_, _standing afar off_, _would not lift up so much as his eyes\nunto heaven_; _but smote upon his breast_, _saying_: _God be merciful to\nme a sinner_!  _I tell you_: _This man went down to his house justified\nrather than the other_: _for every one_, _that exalteth himself_, _shall\nbe abased_; _and he_, _that humbleth himself_, _shall be exalted_. {40c}\n\n3.  _Where is boasting then_?  _It is excluded_.  _By what law_?  _Of\nworks_?  _Nay_, _but by the law of faith_.  _Therefore we conclude_:\n_that a man is justified by faith_, _without the deeds of the law_. {40d}\n\n4.  _If Abraham were justified by works_, _he hath whereof to glory_,\n_but not before God_.  _For what saith the Scripture_?  _Abraham believed\nGod_: _and it was counted unto him for righteousness_.  _Now_, _to him\nthat worketh_, _is the reward reckoned_, _not of grace_, _but of debt_.\n_But_, _to him that worketh not_, _but believeth on him that justifieth\nthe ungodly_, _his faith is counted for righteousness_. {40e}\n\n5.  _Therefore_, _being justified by faith_, _we have peace with God_,\n_through our Lord Jesus Christ_. {41a}\n\n6.  _They_, _being ignorant of God\u2019s righteousness_, _and going about to\nestablish their own righteousness_, _have not submitted themselves unto\nthe righteousness of God_. {41b}\n\n7.  _We are all as an unclean thing_: _and all our righteousnesses are as\nfilthy rags_. {41c}\n\nIII.  Let us next attend to the language of the old orthodox Fathers.\n\n1.  Clement of Rome, in the first century, speaks as follows.\n\nAll, therefore, have been glorified and magnified, not through themselves\nor through their own works of righteousness which they have done, but\nthrough the will of God.  Wherefore, being called through his will in\nChrist Jesus, we are justified, not through ourselves, or through our own\nwisdom or intellect or piety, or through the works which we have wrought\nin holiness of heart; but through faith, by which the Almighty God has\njustified us all from everlasting. {41d}\n\n2.  The author of the Epistle to Diognetus, in the first or second\ncentury, speaks exactly to the same purpose.\n\nWhat else can cover our sins, than the righteousness of Christ?  In what\ncan we lawless and impious wretches be justified, save only in the Son of\nGod? {41e}\n\n3.  Ambrose of Milan, in the fourth century, still holds the same\nlanguage.\n\n(1.)  By what labours, by what injuries, can we lighten our sins?  The\nsufferings of this time are, in reference to future glory, altogether\nunworthy.  Hence, toward man, the form of celestial decrees proceeds, not\naccording to our merits, but according to the mercy of God. {42a}\n\n(2.)  Would that the Lord would not reject, but collect, this my mere\nstubble in the harvest, these empty wild oats of my fructification!\u2014It is\nfitting, therefore, to believe; both that penance is to be performed, and\nthat pardon is to be granted: nevertheless, in such manner, that we\nshould hope for pardon, as from faith, not as from debt. {42b}\n\n4.  Augustine, in the fourth and fifth centuries, exactly agrees with his\npredecessors.\n\nThe sins are thine: the merits are God\u2019s.  To thee punishment is due: and\nwhen the reward shall come, he will crown his own gifts, not thy merits.\n{42c}\n\nIV.  Let the patient enquirer now judge for himself: whether the romish\ndoctrine, that _Punishments_, _either self-inflicted_, _or commanded by a\npriest_, _or sent in the course of God\u2019s providence_, _can make\nsatisfaction to the Father through Christ in our behalf_, be the doctrine\neither of Scripture or of the early Church.\n\nV.  But, if no man can make satisfaction for _his own_ sins: still less,\naccording to the monstrous phantasy of Supererogation, can he make\nsatisfaction for the sins of _others_.\n\nYet this impious absurdity was openly advanced in the papal bull for the\nobservation of a jubilee is the recent year 1825.\n\n_We have resolved_, says Pope Leo, BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO US\nFROM HEAVEN, _fully to unlock that sacred treasure_, _composed of the\nmerits_, _sufferings_, _and virtues_, _of Christ our Lord and of his\nVirgin-Mother and of all the Saints_, WHICH THE AUTHOR OF HUMAN SALVATION\nHAS ENTRUSTED TO OUR DISPENSATION.\u2014_To you_, _therefore_, _venerable\nbrethren_, _Patriarchs_, _Primates_, _Archbishops_, _Bishops_, _it\nbelongs to explain with perspicuity the power of Indulgences_: _what is\ntheir efficacy in the remission_, _not only of the canonical penance_,\n_but also of the temporal punishment due to the divine justice for past\nsin_; _and what succour is afforded_, _out of this heavenly treasure_,\n_from the merits of Christ and his Saints_, _to such as have departed\nreal penitents in God\u2019s love_, _yet before they had duly satisfied by\nfruits worthy of penance for sins of commission and omission_, _and are\nnow purifying in the fire of Purgatory_, _that an entrance may be opened\nfor them into their eternal country where nothing defiled is admitted_.\n\n1.  Where is Pope Leo\u2019s PROOF of the validity of his claim to _an\nauthority given to him from heaven_: _by virtue of which authority he\nfully unlocks a sacred treasure_, _composed of the merits of Christ and\nthe Virgin Mary and all the Saints_, _and entrusted by the blessed author\nof our salvation to the wisdom of his doling out_?\n\nLet such PROOF be produced, if the Romish Clergy _can_ produce it, either\nfrom the Bible, or even from the received doctrine of the primitive\nChurch Catholic.\n\n2.  By what evidence does Pope Leo SUBSTANTIATE his assertion: that\n_Souls in Purgatory are benefited by the supererogatory merits of the\nVirgin Mary and the Saints strangely associated with the all-sufficient\nmerits of the Redeemer_?\n\nLet the Romish Clergy, if they be _able_, SUBSTANTIATE this most\nextraordinary allegation.\n\n3.  Where is Pope Leo\u2019s PROOF of the very position, upon which the whole\nof his bull professedly reposes; the position, to wit: that _The Virgin\nMary and the Saints not only have merit enough to make satisfaction for\ntheir own sins_, _but have even merit to spare for the benefit of less\nprivileged souls in Purgatory_?\n\nFrom the Bible or from the Doctors of the primitive Church, let his\nvenerable brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops, bring\nforward, if they can accomplish such a feat, the PROOF of this very\nremarkable position.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\nSAINT-WORSHIP, IMAGE-WORSHIP, RELIC-WORSHIP, CROSS-WORSHIP.\n\n\nI SHALL next examine the doctrine and practice of Saint-worship,\nImage-worship, Relic-worship, and Cross-worship.\n\nI.  In exhibiting the tenets of the Romish Church and Clergy on these\nseveral points, I shall successively give: the decision of the council of\nTrent; the comments of some of the most approved Latin Doctors; and the\nactual practice of the Romanists themselves as the best explanation of\ntheir received tenets.\n\n1.  Let us first hear the decision of the Council of Trent.\n\n_All Bishops_, _and others who discharge the duty of teaching_, _must\ndiligently instruct the faithful_, _concerning the intercession and\ninvocation of the Saints_, _the honouring of Relics_, _and the legitimate\nuse of Images_.\n\n_For this purpose_, _they must teach them_: _that the Saints_, _reigning\nwith Christ_, _offer up their prayers to God for men_; _and that it is\ngood and useful_, _suppliantly to invoke them_, _and to flee to their\nprayers and assistance for the purpose of obtaining benefits from God\nthrough his Son Jesus Christ our Lord who is our only Redeemer and\nSaviour_.\n\n_Furthermore_, _they must teach them_: _that those_, _who deny that the\nSaints in heaven ought to be invoked_, _or who assert either that they do\nnot pray for men or that the invoking of them to pray for us is idolatry\nor that it is contrary to God\u2019s word and adverse __to the honour of Jesus\nChrist the only mediator between God and man or that it is foolish by\nvoice or in mind to supplicate those who reign in heaven_, _think\nimpiously_.\n\n_They must also teach them_: _that the holy bodies of the Saints and\nMartyrs and others living with Christ are to be venerated by the\nfaithful_, _through which many benefits are afforded from God to men_;\n_so that the affirmers_, _that veneration and honour are not due to the\nRelics of the Saints_, _or that these and other sacred monuments are\nuselessly honoured by the faithful_, _or that it is vain to celebrate the\nmemories of the Saints for the purpose of obtaining their assistance_,\n_are wholly to be condemned_, _as the Church long since condemned and\nstill condemns them_.\n\n_Likewise_, _they must teach them_: _that the Images of Christ and of the\nVirgin Mother of God and of the other Saints are especially to be had and\nretained in Churches_, _and that due honour and veneration are to be paid\nto them_; _not that any divinity or virtue_, _on account of which they\nought to be worshipped_, _is believed to be inherent in them_; _or that\nany thing is to be sought from them_; _or that trust is to be placed in\nImages_, _as was formerly done by the Gentiles_, _who placed their hope\nin Idols_; _but because the honour_, _which is paid to them_, _is\nreferred to the originals which they represent_; _so that_, _through the\nImages which we kiss and before which we uncover our heads and bow down\nprostrate_, _we adore Christ and venerate the Saints whose similitude\nthey bear_. {45}\n\n2.  Let us next, upon the doctrinal and practical system of the\nprofessedly unchangeable Church of Rome, hear the comments of some of the\nmost approved Latin Doctors both before and after the Council of Trent.\n\n(1.)  From Thomas Aquinas, who was not only a mighty Schoolman but also a\ncanonised Saint of the Roman Church, we may clearly hope to derive the\nvery best and most accurate instruction as to the _real_ tenets of his\nCommunion.  Now this writer, through the medium of a syllogism\nprofessedly framed upon an _authorised_ Prayer in the Breviary,\nestablishes the DUTY of worshipping the cross with the self-same\nadoration as that which is paid to the Deity.\n\n_We offer the supreme adoration of Latria to that Being_, _in whom we\nplace our hope of salvation_.  _But we place our hope of salvation in the\ncross of Christ_: _for the Church sings_; _Hail_, _O cross_, _our only\nhope in this time of passion_, _increase righteousness to the pious_,\n_and grant pardon to the guilty_.  THEREFORE _the cross of Christ is to\nbe adored with the supreme adoration of Latria_. {46a}\n\n(2.)  Much wholesome instruction, in regard to the legitimate use of\nImages, may also be derived from the expositorial comment of James\nNaclantus Bishop of Clugium.\n\n_We must not only confess_, _that the faithful in the Church worship\nbefore an Image_; _as some over-squeamish souls might peradventure\nexpress themselves_: _but we must furthermore confess_, _without the\nslightest scruple of conscience_, _that_ THEY ADORE THE VERY IMAGE\nITSELF; _for_, _in sooth_, _they venerate it with the identical worship\nwherewith they venerate its prototype_.  _Hence_, IF THEY ADORE THE\nPROTOTYPE WITH THAT DIVINE WORSHIP WHICH IS RENDERED TO GOD AND WHICH\nTECHNICALLY BEARS THE NAME OF LATRIA, THEY ADORE ALSO THE IMAGE WITH THE\nSAME LATRIA OR SUPREME DIVINE WORSHIP: _and_, _if they adore the\nprototype with Dulia or Hyperdulia_, _they are bound also to adore the\nImage with the self-same species of inferior worship_. {46b}\n\n(3.)  In exactly the same expository strain proceeds Gabriel Biel, in his\nLectures upon the Canon of the Mass.\n\n_If there shall be Images of Christ_, THEY ARE ADORED WITH THE SAME\nSPECIES OF ADORATION AS CHRIST HIMSELF, THAT IS, WITH THE SUPREME\nADORATION CALLED LATRIA: _if_, _of the most blessed Virgin_; _with the\nworship of Hyperdulia_. {47a}\n\n(4.)  The commentary of Peter de Medrano will throw yet additional light\non the subject.\n\n_We must say_: _that_, _to our Lady the Mother of God_, _there has been\ngranted the remarkable privilege of being physically and really present\nin some of her statues or images_.\u2014_Hence we must piously believe_:\n_that_, _in some celebrated statues or images of herself_, _she is\ninherent and present_, _personally_, _physically_, _and really_;\u2014_in\norder that_, _in them_, _she may receive_, _from faithful worshippers_,\n_her due adoration_. {47b}\n\n(5.)  Yet still further light breaks in upon us from the statements of\nAringhi, penned and published at Rome under the very nose of the\nsovereign Pontiff.\n\n_This Image_, _translated from the city of Edessa_, _is at once preserved\nas a bulwark against mad Image-breakers_, _and is set forth to be taken\nup and_ ADORED _by the faithful_. {47c}\n\n_Within these few years_, _under every Pope successively_, _some or other\nof our sacred Images_, _especially of the more ancient_, _have made\nthemselves illustrious_, _and have acquired_ A PECULIAR WORSHIP AND\nVENERATION, _by the exhibition of fresh miracles_; _as it is notorious to\nall_, _who dwell in this city_. {47d}\n\n3.  Let us finally attend to the actual liturgical practice of the\nRomanists themselves, as the best explanation of the tenets received and\ninculcated by their Clergy: for, clearly, as men are taught to believe\nand to act, so will their authorised public prayers be constructed.\n\n(1.)  Hail, O cross, our only hope in this time of passion: increase\nrighteousness to the pious, and grant pardon to the guilty. {48a}\n\n(2.)  Holy Mary, succour the miserable, assist the pusillanimous, comfort\nthe mournful. {48b}\n\n(3.)  O singular Virgin, mild among all, make us, being delivered from\nour sins, mild and chaste.  Grant us purity of life; prepare for us a\nsafe journey: that, seeing Jesus, we may always jointly rejoice. {48c}\n\n(4.)  Mary, mother of grace, mother of mercy, do thou protect us from the\nenemy, and receive us in the hour of death.  Unloose their bonds to the\nguilty: give light to the blind: drive away our evils: demand all good\nthings.  Shew thyself to be a mother.  Let him, who for us endured to be\nthy son, receive our prayers through thee. {48d}\n\n(5.)  O George, illustrious martyr, praise and glory become thee.\u2014We\nbeseech thee, in our inmost heart, that, with all the faithful, we may be\njoined to the citizens of heaven, being washed from our impurities. {48e}\n\n(6.)  O martyr Christopher, for the honour of the Saviour, make us in\nmind worthy of the honour of the Deity.  According to the promise of\nChrist, for what thou askest thou obtainest, grant unto thy sorrowful\npeople the gifts, which in dying thou besoughtest. {48f}\n\n(7.)  O ye eleven thousand glorious girls, lilies of virginity, roses of\nmartyrdom, defend me in life by granting me your assistance: and shew\nyourselves in death, by bringing the last comfort. {48g}\n\n(8.)  O holy Mary; our sovereign queen, as God the Father, by his\nomnipotence, has made thee most powerful; so assist us, at the hour of\ndeath, by defending us against all power that is contrary to thine.\n_Hail_, _Mary_!  O holy Mary, our sovereign queen, as God the Son has\nendowed thee with so much knowledge and charity that it enlightens all\nheaven; so, in the hour of death, illustrate and strengthen our souls\nwith the knowledge of the true faith, that they may not be perverted by\nerror or pernicious ignorance.  _Hail_, _Mary_!  O holy Virgin, our\nsovereign queen, as the Holy Ghost has plentifully poured forth into thee\nthe love of God; so instil into us, at the hour of death, the sweetness\nof divine love, that all bitterness at that time may become acceptable\nand pleasant to us.  _Hail_, _Mary_! {49a}\n\n(9.)  Hail Mary, lady and mistress of the world, to whom all power has\nbeen given both in heaven and in earth! {49b}\n\nII.  After this ample statement of the doctrine and practice of the Roman\nChurch, it will be useful for us to observe, both _negatively_ what the\nBible _does not_ say, and _positively_ what the Bible _does_ say, on the\nsubject now before us.\n\n1.  In the first place, then, so far as respects the _negative_ part of\nthe question, the Bible is TOTALLY SILENT, as to the Trent-inculcated\nduty, of invoking Saints, venerating Relics, and kissing and uncovering\nthe head and falling prostrate before Images either in nitches or upon\ncrucifixes.\n\nIt NO WHERE recognises or recommends any such practices and notions: as\nthose, of invoking dead Saints, to aid us by their prayers, or to grant\nus purity of life, or to unloose the bands of the guilty, or to make us\nmild and chaste, or to defend us in life, or to assist us in the hour of\ndeath; of celebrating their memories, for the avowed purpose of obtaining\ntheir help and protection; of much benefit being derived, from God to man\nby the veneration of Relics; of worshipping Christ and venerating the\nSaints, through the medium of worship and veneration paid relatively to\nImages; of beseeching the cross, a mere dumb piece of wood even if any of\nits remains should now be actually in existence, to increase\nrighteousness to the pious and to grant pardon to the guilty.\n\nFrom beginning to end, NOT A SYLLABLE of sanction or approbation, in\nregard to any such phantasies can we discover in the Holy Scriptures.\n\nHence, even to say the very least of the matter, the doctrine, avowedly\ntaught and liturgically introduced by the Church of Rome, has not the\nslightest support or warrant from the Written Word of God.  Whatever be\nthe ground, upon which it rests: at all events, it clearly rests _not_\nupon the Bible.\n\n3.  But this is not all.  For, in the second place, so far as respects\nthe _positive_ part of the question, Holy Scripture is full and express\nAGAINST any worship or invocation of the creature, however disguised or\nmodified or palliated by the closely harmonizing distinctions and\ndefinitions of Paganism and Popery: inasmuch as the Pagans, though\nslanderously misrepresented by the doctors of the Council of Trent, did\nin truth defend their Idol-worship against the primitive Christians, on\nthe self-same plea and principle of _relative adoration_, as the said\ndoctors themselves and their followers the Romish Clergy defend their\nImage-worship against us Reformed Catholics. {50}\n\n(1.)  _Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image_, _or any likeness\nof any thing that is in heaven_. _above or that is in the earth beneath\nor that is in the water under the earth_.  _Thou shalt not bow down\nthyself unto them_, _nor serve them_: _for I_, _the Lord thy God_, _am a\njealous God_, _visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children\nunto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me_, _and shewing\nmercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments_.\n{51a}\n\n(2.)  _Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image_, _an\nabomination unto the Lord_, _the work of the hands of the craftsman_.\n{51b}\n\n(3.)  _They_, _that make a graven image_, _are all of them vanity_; _and\ntheir delectable things shall not profit_: _and they are their own\nwitnesses_; _they see not_, _nor know_; _that they may be ashamed_. {51c}\n\n(4.)  _None considereth in his heart_, _neither is there knowledge nor\nunderstanding to say_: _I have burned part of it in the fire_; _yea also\nI have baked bread upon the coals thereof_; _I have roasted flesh_, _and\neaten it_: _and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination_; _shall\nI fall down to the stock of a tree_? {51d}\n\n(5.)  _What profiteth the graven image_, _that the maker thereof hath\ngraven it_: _the molten image_, _and a teacher of lies_, _that the maker\nof his work trusteth therein to make dumb idols_?  _Woe unto him that\nsaith to the wood_; _Awake_: _to the dumb stone_; _Arise_, _it shall\nteach_.  _Behold_, _it is laid over with gold and silver_; _and there is\nno breath at all in the midst of it_. {51e}\n\n(6.)  _Then said Jesus unto him_: _Get thee hence_, _Satan_: _for it is\nwritten_; _Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God_, _and him only shalt thou\nserve_. {51f}\n\n(7.)  _Let no man beguile you of your reward_, _in a voluntary humility\nand worshipping of angels_, _intruding __into those things which he hath\nnot seen_, _vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind_. {52a}\n\n(8.)  _When I had heard and seen_, _I fell down to worship before the\nfeet of the angel which shewed me these things_.  _Then saith he unto\nme_: _See thou do it not_; _for I am thy fellow-servant and of thy\nbrethren the prophets and of them which keep the sayings of this book_.\n_Worship God_. {52b}\n\n(9.)  _When the people saw what Paul had done_, _they lifted up their\nvoices_, _saying in the speech of Lycaonia_: _The gods are come down to\nus in the likeness of men_.  _And they called Barnabas Jupiter_; _and\nPaul Mercurius_, _because he was the chief speaker_.  _Then the priest of\nJupiter_, _which was before their city_, _brought oxen and garlands unto\nthe gates_, _and would have done sacrifice with the people_.  _When the\napostles Barnabas and Paul heard_, _they rent their clothes_, _and ran in\namong the people_, _crying out and saying_: _Sirs_, _why do ye these\nthings_?  _We also are men of like passions with you_; _and preach unto\nyou_, _that ye should turn away from these vanities unto the living God_.\n{52c}\n\nIII.  We may now profitably hear the testimony of the early\necclesiastical writers.\n\n1.  The Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, relative to the martyrdom of\nPolycarp, was written about the middle of the second century.\n\nNicetas was urged by the envious and the wicked to intercede with the\ngovernor, that the remains of Polycarp should not be delivered for\nsepulture: lest, leaving him that was crucified, the Christians, it was\nsuggested, should begin to worship this person.  These things they said,\nat the instigation of the Jews: because they were ignorant; that neither\ncan we ever forsake Christ who suffered for the salvation of the saved\nthroughout the whole world, nor that we can ever worship any other.  For\nhim, being the Son of God, we adore: but the martyrs, as disciples and\nimitators of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their special\naffection to their own King and Master. {53a}\n\n2.  Clement of Alexandria flourished in the second century.\n\n(1.)  Images, wrought by mean artizans, are produced from worthless\nmaterials.  Therefore they themselves must be worthless and profane.\n{53b}\n\n(2.)  An image, truly, is mere dead matter, fashioned by the hand of the\nartizan.  But, with us Christians, there is no sensible representation\nformed out of sensible matter.  God, the alone true God, is our\nintellectual image. {53c}\n\n3.  Minucius Felix lived in the third century.\n\n(1.)  Why have the Christians no altars, no temples, no known images?\n{53d}\n\n(2.)  We neither worship crosses, nor wish for them. {53e}\n\n4.  Origen lived in the third century.\n\n(1.)  Celsus remarks, that we have neither altars nor images nor\ntemples.\u2014We ought not to dedicate images constructed by the ingenuity of\nartizans. {53f}\n\n(2) We deem those the most ignorant: who are not ashamed, to address\nlifeless things, to petition the weak for health, to ask life from the\ndead, to pray for health from the needy.  And, though some may allege,\nthat these images are not gods but only their symbols and\nrepresentations: yet even such persons, fancying that imitations of the\nDeity can be made by the hands of some mean artizan, are not a whit less\nignorant and slavish and uninstructed.  From this sottish stupidity, the\nvery lowest and least informed of us Christians are exempt. {53g}\n\n5.  The Council of Elvira sat at the beginning of the fourth century.\n\nIt hath seemed good to us, that pictures ought not to be admitted into a\nchurch: lest that should be painted upon walls which is worshipped and\nadored. {54a}\n\n6.  Athanasius flourished in the fourth century.\n\nWe are truly worshippers of God: because we invocate no one of the\ncreatures nor any mere man, but the Son who is by nature from God and\ntrue God. {54b}\n\n7.  Augustine lived in the fourth and fifth centuries.\n\n(1.)  Let not our point of religion be the worship of dead men.  For\nthough they lived piously; still they are not to be accounted of, as\nrequiring from us any such honours: but they rather wish us to worship\nhim, through whose illumination they rejoice that we should be partners\nof their merit.  They are to be honoured, therefore, on account of\nimitation; not to be prayed to on account of religion. {54c}\n\n(2.)  I have known that many are adorers of sepulchres and of\npictures:\u2014but the Church herself condemns them, and as bad children\nstudies to correct them. {54d}\n\n8.  Epiphanius flourished in the fourth-century.\n\nLet Mary be held in honour: but let the Father and the Son and the Holy\nGhost be worshipped.  As for Mary, let no one worship her. {54e}\n\nIV.  Once more, let the honest inquirer freely judge and determine for\nhimself, whether the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church and\nClergy, relative to Saints and Images and Relics and Crosses, be\nsupported either by Holy Scripture or by Primitive Antiquity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\nPAPAL SUPREMACY.\n\n\nTHE doctrine of Papal Supremacy shall next be brought to the legitimate\ntest of Scripture and Historical Evidence.\n\nI.  We find the claim of this supremacy authoritatively propounded, in\nmanner following.\n\n1.  _The Roman Church is the mother and mistress of all other Churches_.\n{55a}\n\n2.  _I acknowledge the holy catholic and apostolic Roman Church to be the\nmother and mistress of all Churches_: _and I promise and swear true\nobedience to the Roman Pontiff_, _the successor of the blessed Peter\nPrince of the Apostles_, _and the Vicar of Jesus Christ_. {55b}\n\nII.  Such, in form, is the claim: but where find we its substantiation in\nthe Bible?\n\n1.  The Roman Church had indisputably been founded in the apostolic age:\nfor one of St. Paul\u2019s Epistles is addressed to it.\n\nYet NOT A SINGLE SYLLABLE is said in Scripture, either prophetic or\ndeclarative, respecting _the divine appointment_, and consequently _the\ndivine right_, of the Papal Supremacy.\n\nWe NO WHERE read in Holy Writ: either that _the Roman Church ought justly\nto be obeyed_, _as the mother and mistress of all other Churches_; or\nthat _the Pope is_, _at once_, _the successor of the blessed Peter Prince\nof the Apostles_, _and the Vicar of Jesus Christ_.\n\nFrom whatever quarter the divines of Trent have made these discoveries:\nit is quite clear, that the Bible throws no light upon the present\nsubject.\n\n2.  The Romish Clergy, however, assure us: that the primacy or monarchy\nof the entire Catholic Church was, in the following express terms,\ngranted to St. Peter by Christ himself.\n\n_Thou art Peter_: _and upon this rock I will build my Church_; _and the\ngates of hell shall not prevail against it_.  _And I will give unto thee\nthe keys of the kingdom of heaven_: _and_, _whatsoever thou shalt bind on\nearth shall be bound in heaven_; _and_, _whatsoever thou shalt loose on\nearth_, _shall be loosed in heaven_. {56}\n\nNow, whether our Lord did or did not grant the monarchy of the Church to\nPeter; respecting which monarchy, by the way, neither claim nor trace can\nbe found in any part of the New Testament: the _true_ question, I\napprehend, touches, not _Peter_, but _the Pope_.  In other words, it\nmatters little to the point before us, whether _Peter_ was or was not\ndivinely appointed the monarch of the Church: unless it can _also_ be\nproved, that _the Pope_ is the lawfully and divinely constituted\nsuccessor to all Peter\u2019s alleged regalities.\n\nWhere, then, is the scriptural demonstration of the Pope\u2019s hereditary\nsuccessorship to the asserted special privileges and authority of St.\nPeter?  In other words, where have we any proof from the Bible: that _The\nRoman Pontiff_, as the oath in the Tridentine Profession of Faith\ndetermines, _is_, _at once_, _the Successor of the blessed Peter Prince\nof the Apostles_, _and the Vicar of Jesus Christ_?\n\nTruly, the Bible, though we painfully search it through from beginning to\nend, SAYS NOT ONE WORD about the matter.\n\nIII.  But, where the Bible is so provokingly silent, peradventure the\nearliest Fathers, in delivering their testimony, may be somewhat more\ncommunicative.\n\nTo establish the Pope\u2019s _claim_ of rightful successorship to St. Peter,\nwe must obviously establish the FACT that _St. Peter was the first\ndiocesan Bishop of Rome_.  For, since, so far as _foundership_ is\nconcerned, St. Peter founded _many_ Churches: the mere circumstance, even\nif the circumstance were ever so well established, of his having\n_founded_ the Roman Church, would no more constitute _the Roman Bishop_\nheir to his regalities, than the same circumstance would convey the same\nprivilege to _the Bishop of any other Church_ similarly _founded_ by St.\nPeter.  Whence it is quite clear: that, in no method, save that of _The\nregular succession of one diocesan Bishop to another diocesan Bishop in\nthe same episcopal See_, _each Bishop inheriting the duly transmitted\nauthority of his predecessor_, can any intelligible case be made out for\nthe Pope\u2019s alleged successorship to Peter in the pretended office of\nChrist\u2019s supreme Vicar.\n\nAccordingly, as the Romish Clergy well know and confess, this precise\nmatter is the very hinge, upon which turns the whole of the present\nquestion.\n\nWAS, OR WAS NOT, THE APOSTLE PETER THE FIRST DIOCESAN BISHOP OF THE ROMAN\nCHURCH?\n\nWe have here before us a simple question of FACT: and doubtless, like\nevery other simple question of FACT, it must be determined by historical\ntestimony.\n\n1.  _Negatively_, then, we may safely say, that the alleged fact of\n_Peter\u2019s diocesan Roman Episcopate_ is altogether incapable of\nsubstantiation through the medium of evidence.\n\nNot a single writer of the three first centuries gives the slightest\nintimation, that _Peter was the first diocesan Bishop of Rome_.\n\nBut, if the alleged fact cannot be established from the writers of the\nthree _earliest_ centuries; it is obvious to the meanest capacity, that\nit can never be established from the interested fictions of _a later_\nperiod.\n\n2.  We may, however, advance beyond _negativeness_: though even _that_\nwere amply sufficient; for no man can be justly required to admit an\nalleged fact, without so much as a shadow of historical substantiation.\n_Positively_, we can say: that, in the writers of the three first ages,\nnot only is there no testimony to be found _for_ the asserted fact of\n_Peter\u2019s diocesan Roman Episcopate_, but we are absolutely encountered\nwith direct testimony _against_ it.\n\n(1.)  Iren\u00e8us of Lyons, who lived from the latter end of the first\ncentury to the latter end of the second, distinctly attests: that _the\nChurch of Rome was_ JOINTLY _founded by the_ TWO _Apostles Peter and\nPaul_; and that, _When the_ TWO _Apostles had thus_ JOINTLY _founded it_,\n_they_ JOINTLY _delivered the Episcopate of their newly founded Society\nto Linus_.  Accordingly, in strict agreement with this account of the\ntransaction, Iren\u00e8us places Linus the FIRST in his list of the twelve\nsuccessive Roman Bishops, who governed that Church, from the time of its\noriginal joint foundation by Peter and Paul, down to the year 175 when he\npublished his Work against Heresies. {58a}\n\nNow such an account is plainly incompatible with the pretended fact: that\n_Peter was the first diocesan Bishop of Rome_.  For the account states:\nthat _Peter and Paul_, _having jointly founded the Roman Church,\ncommitted the episcopate of it to Linus_.  Whence it dearly follows: that\nthe first diocesan Bishop of Rome was _Linus_, not _Peter_.\n\n(2.)  The evidence of Iren\u00e8us is directly confirmed by the ancient author\nof the Apostolical Constitutions.\n\nHe gives us a list of the primitive apostolically ordained Bishops: and,\nin the course of it, he unequivocally states, even in so many words, that\n_Linus was consecrated the_ FIRST _Bishop of the Roman Church_; adding\nwhat is not unworthy the attention of the Latin Clergy, that Linus was so\nconsecrated the FIRST Roman Bishop, not by Peter but by Paul. {58b}\n\nIV.  On the grounds now stated, many persons will incline to rest, either\npartially or wholly, in the strongly expressed judgment of the learned\nScaliger.\n\n_As for the coming of Peter to Rome_, HIS ROMAN EPISCOPATE OF TWENTY-FIVE\nYEARS, _and his final martyrdom at Rome_, _no man_, _whose head can boast\na grain of common sense_, _will believe a single syllable_. {59a}\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\nREMARKABLE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS MADE BY THE ROMISH CLERGY.\n\n\nSo far as respects the _evidence_ upon which stands the alleged\napostolicity of the peculiar doctrines and practices of Romanism, it will\nnow be useful to hear the various acknowledgments which have been made by\nthe Latin Clergy themselves.\n\nI.  Let us begin with that cherished dogma of the Roman Church, the tenet\nof Transubstantiation.\n\n1.  On this point, the theologians of Trent assure us: that _The words of\nChrist_, _as recorded by the Evangelists_, SO PLAINLY AND SO DISTINCTLY\n_propound the doctrine of Transubstantiation_, _that_, _on the part of\nwicked and contentious Protestants_, _it is both a burning shame and a\ncrying sin to interpret them figuratively_. {59b}\n\n2.  Yet the great schoolmen, Johannes Scotus, Biel, Occam, Peter ab\nAlliaco Cardinal-Archbishop of Cambray, Cardinal Cajetan, and Cardinal\nFisher of Rochester, have all declared: that _The doctrine of\nTransubstantiation is_ INCAPABLE OF PROOF _from Scripture_; that _The\ndoctrine of the bread and wine remaining substantially unchanged is_ LESS\nREPUGNANT _to Scripture_, _than the doctrine of their transubstantiation\ninto the body and blood of Christ_; and, consequently, that _The doctrine\nof Transubstantiation_ CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED _from the institutive words\nof Christ_, _unless to such words the authoritative decision of the Roman\nChurch be superadded_. {60a}\n\nII.  Let us next pass to the dogma of Purgatory.\n\n1.  The divines of Trent profess to have received the doctrine of\nPurgatory, both from _the declaration of_ SCRIPTURE, and from _the\nancient tradition of_ THE FATHERS. {60b}\n\n2.  Yet Bishop Trevern confesses; that JESUS CHRIST _has not revealed to\nus the knowledge of Purgatory_: {60c} Cardinal Fisher admits; that,\n_Among_ THE ANCIENTS, _there was either no mention or very rare mention\nof Purgatory_, that _Purgatory was but lately known and received by the\nCatholic Church_, and that _To this day the Greeks believe not in its\nexistence_. {60d}  Father Barns tells us; that _Punishment in Purgatory\nis a doctrine seated in human opinion_, that _Neither from_ SCRIPTURE\n_nor from_ THE FATHERS _nor from_ THE EARLIER COUNCILS _can it be firmly\ndeduced_, and that _The contrary opinion seems more conformable to them_:\n{60e} and Petrus Picherellus drily enough remarks; that _In_ SCRIPTURE\n_there is no fuel to be found_, _either to kindle or to maintain the fire\nof Purgatory_. {60f}\n\nIII.  We may next turn our attention to Image-worship and Saint-worship.\n\n1.  The doctors of the Council of Trent declare: that _According to the\nuse of the Catholic and Apostolic Church_ RECEIVED IN THE PRIMEVAL TIMES\nOF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, _the invocation of dead __Saints_, _the\nveneration of Relics_, _and the kissing and falling down before graven or\nmolten Images_, _ought_, _by the Clergy_, _to be diligently inculcated\nupon the Laity_. {61a}\n\n2.  Yet the learned Jesuit Petavius roundly pronounces it to be a matter\nof absolute certainty; that, IN THE FIRST AGES OF THE CHURCH, _Images of\nChrist were not substituted in the place of pagan Idols nor proposed to\nthe veneration of the faithful_: {61b} while Cardinal Perron tells us;\nthat _No traces of the practice of invocating the Saints can be found_ IN\nTHE AUTHORS, WHO LIVED NEAREST TO THE TIMES OF THE APOSTLES. {61c}\n\nIV.  Let us next advert to the high authority ascribed by the Romish\nClergy to those Councils which are styled _Ecumenical_ or _General_.\n\n1.  These Ecumenical Councils with the Pope at their head are believed by\nthe Romanists to be, like the Divinity himself _infallible_ and\n_incapable of error_.\n\n2.  Yet the learned Albert Pighius scruples not to assert: that _General\nCouncils are_, _not of divine_, _but of merely human_, _institution_;\nthat _They originate only from a dictate of right reason_, _because\ndoubtful matters may be better debated by many than by few_, _more\nespecially when the many are prudent and experienced persons_; that _In\nthe canonical Scriptures there is not a word about General Councils_,\n_nor from the institution of the Apostles did the primitive Church of\nChrist receive any thing special respecting them_: and that _From\ntheological grounds it is impossible to demonstrate that the whole Church\nought to be represented by a General Council_. {61d}\n\nV.  Pass we next to the evidence upon which _all_ the manifold\npeculiarities of Romanism claim to repose.\n\n1.  The members of the Council of Trent declare: that, _In settling and\ndefining the doctrines and practices of their Church_, _they follow the_\nUNANIMOUS CONSENT AND TESTIMONY of the Holy Fathers. {62a}\n\n2.  Yet a modern romish doctor, Mr. Husenbeth, has been driven to\nconfess: that, _Although the Latin Clergy_ OUGHT _to be able to trace\nevery point of what he calls Catholic Faith up to the Apostles_, _they_,\n_in truth_, CANNOT _trace their peculiarities up to the Apostles_ THROUGH\nTHE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS OF THE THREE FIRST CENTURIES. {62b}\n\nIV.  How persons, who make such acknowledgments, can still have adhered\nto the communion of the Church of Rome, I pretend not to comprehend, and\ntherefore cannot explain.\n\nSuffice it to say: that the acknowledgments _have_ been made, and that\nthe individuals have nevertheless most unaccountably maintained and\ndefended their unsubstantiated and confessedly unsubstantiable\npeculiarities.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\nEXTRAORDINARY THEOLOGICAL PRACTICES OF THE ROMISH CLERGY.\n\n\nREMARKABLE as are the acknowledgments made by the Romish Clergy, their\ntheological practices will be found not less worthy the attention of the\nhonest and conscientious inquirer.\n\nI.  The general PRINCIPLE, on which these practices are constructed, is\nvery clearly and distinctly laid down by the Professors of Douay.\n\n_In managing the old catholic writers when in disputation opposed to us\nby our adversaries_, say they, _we endure very many errors_.\n_Sometimes_, _we extenuate them_: _sometimes_, _we excuse them_: _very\nfrequently_, _having devised some plausible comment_, _we even roundly\ndeny them altogether_, _affixing to them some convenient sense_. {63a}\n\nII.  Such is the avowed PRINCIPLE of these ingenious divines, through the\nmedium of which when reduced to practice, a troublesome old author, whose\nclaim to catholicity cannot be quite decently denied, by dint of\njudicious explaining and managing and correcting and garbling and\ninterpolating, may be compelled, either apparently to uphold, or at least\nnot to contradict, the peculiarities advocated by the Romish Clergy.\n\nLet us now, descending to particulars, mark how the PRINCIPLE is reduced\nto PRACTICE.\n\n1.  The first specimen, which I shall give, is that, afforded by the\nDouay Doctors themselves, and afterward very greatly improved upon by the\ndexterous Bossuet Bishop of Meaux.\n\nBertram of Corby, always admitted to be an orthodox catholic divine, had\nwritten, in the ninth century, a book on the Eucharist; which, in its\nnatural construction, is plainly fatal to the doctrine of\nTransubstantiation. {63b}\n\nWhereupon, the Professors of Douay state; that Bertram\u2019s book, when\n_emendated_, may be tolerated: observing with perfect truth, that, since\nthey had kindly done the good office of _emendation_ for sundry other\nancient catholic writers, no imaginable reason could be assigned, why\nBertram, in all equity, should not deserve and receive _the same diligent\nrecognition_. {64a}\n\nNumerous copies of the Work, however, escaped the ambiguous benefit of\nthe Douay _emendation_.  Bossuet, therefore, as in such cases the\nProfessors wisely direct, finally judged it best to affix to Bertram\u2019s\nundeniable phraseology _some convenient sense_.  Hence, in settling the\nmerits of the eucharistic controversy between Paschase and Bertram, the\nBishop of Meaux compendiously assures us: that these two champions, with\ntheir respective followers, were all alike staunch Transubstantialists,\nthough they unluckily differed as to the best mode of expressing and\npropounding their common favourite doctrine. {64b}\n\n2.  Another specimen occurs in the remarkable case of Elfric\u2019s Epistle to\nWulfstane, written about the close of the tenth century.\n\nThe original Saxon, luckily preserved in the library of Exeter Cathedral,\ncontains a passage flat against Transubstantiation.\n\n_Nevertheless_, _this sacrifice is_, NOT _the same body of his wherein he\nsuffered for us_, NOR _the same blood which he shed for us_: _but_,\nSPIRITUALLY, _it is made his body and blood_; AS _was that manna which\nrained from heaven_, _and_ AS _was that water which did flow out of the\nrock_. {64c}\n\nYet, in the Latin translation of the Epistle contained in the library of\nWorcester Cathedral, this passage, the decisive strength of which was\nevidently felt and tacitly acknowledged, has been carefully _erased_.\n{64d}\n\n3.  The treatment of the writings of Theodoret will afford us yet a third\nspecimen.\n\nThis Father, who lived in the fifth century, had expressed himself so\nstrongly against the doctrine now denominated _Transubstantiation_, that\nJohn Clement, perceiving the force of his testimony, and losing his own\ntemper, tore out and burned the guilty leaf which contained the passage.\n{65a}\n\nNow such a summary process might _emendate_ John Clement\u2019s individual\ncopy of Theodoret: but, unluckily, other copies were abroad in the world.\nWhat, then, was to be done?  Why, truly, as the Douay Doctors advise in\nsuch cases, _a commodious sense_, by dint of _excogitating a comment_,\nmust be affixed to the noxious passage.\n\nTheodoret, avowedly opposing the phantasy of Transubstantiation, had\nwritten, concerning the eucharistic bread and wine _after_ consecration,\nthat _they remain in their former_ SUBSTANCE _and shape and appearance_.\n{65b}\n\nBut three modern Romish Doctors, Mr. Berington, Bp. Trevern of\nStrasbourg, and Mr. Husenbeth, _excogitating a more commodious sense_\nwhich never occurred to John Clement, make Theodoret say, in despite both\nof greek grammar and clear context, that _the_ consecrated bread and wine\n_remain in the shape and form of the former_ SUBSTANCE. {65c}\n\nNow this translation, as every schoolboy who reads the original Greek\nwill at once perceive, is _grammatically impossible_.  But let that\noriginal be withheld from the gaze of the curious: and ten to one but\n_the commodious sense_ will pass muster among the Romish Laity, nay even\namong some of the Protestant Laity, without any further difficulty.\n\n4.  A fourth specimen is yet again afforded by the liberality of the same\nBp. Trevern of Strasbourg.\n\nSpeaking of a _moral_, not of a _literal_ or _substantial_, change in the\nconsecrated elements, as they themselves distinctly assure us in the way\nof explaining their own language, the old Fathers often say: that _the\nbread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ_.\n\nBut Bp. Trevern, by deliberately in more than a single instance\n_interpolating_ the decisive word SUBSTANCE, while from the eyes of his\nreaders he carefully withholds the originals, makes them speak, not their\nown sentiments, but those of the Church and Clergy of Rome.\n\nThus, when Cyril of Jerusalem writes; _Whatsoever the Holy Spirit hath\ntouched_, _that thing is sanctified and changed_: Bp. Trevern forces him\nto say; _All that_, _which has received the impression of the Holy\nSpirit_, _is sanctified and changed_ INTO ANOTHER SUBSTANCE. {66a}\n\nAnd thus, when the old author of the Treatise on the Sacraments in the\nWorks of Ambrose writes; _They are changed into other_: Bp. Trevern\nremorselessly compels him to say; _They pass into another_ SUBSTANCE.\n{66b}\n\n5.  For our fifth specimen we are indebted jointly to Bp. Trevern and Mr.\nBerington.\n\nCyprian speaks of men being _cleansed for sins through the suffering of\nlong pain_ and of their being _long purged in fire_. {66c}\n\nThese expressions, as the whole context shews and as it was rightly\nobserved by the honest romish commentator Rigaltius, relate simply to the\nallegorical fire of penitential austerities in _this_ world: a fire, in\nwhich, by the early discipline of the Church, it was required, that the\nlapsed should for an appointed season be exercised.\n\nBut Bp. Trevern and Mr. Berington, wholly _suppressing_ the context and\n_saying not a single syllable_ about their respectable fellow-religionist\nRigaltius, gravely adduce the passage as proof positive: that _Cyprian_,\n_in the middle of the third century_, _held and taught the existence of a\nPurgatory after death in the next world_. {67}\n\n6.  Our sixth specimen is afforded by Mr. Husenbeth.\n\nThe famous text in the Gospel of St. Matthew, which exhibits our Lord as\nsaying, _Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church_, is\nuniversally explained by the Romish Clergy, as being _a grant from Christ\nof a monarchal supremacy in the Catholic Church_, _both to Peter\nindividually_, _and to Peter\u2019s alleged heirs and successors the Bishops\nof Rome_.\n\nNow, most unluckily for this current explanation, the primitive\ntheologians knew nothing of it: for, while the early Fathers, Justin and\nTertullian and Cyprian and Origen and Athanasius and Jerome and Augustine\nand Chrysostom and Hilary, differ as to the true meaning of the text\n(some supposing the rock to be Peter personally and exclusively; some, to\nbe Christ himself; and some, to be Peter\u2019s confession of Christ\u2019s\ndivinity); NOT ONE of them interprets it, as the Romish Clergy would now\ninterpret it.\n\nYet, by way of putting to open shame every opponent of the Pope\u2019s\nsupremacy by divine right, Mr. Husenbeth deliberately assures his plain\ncountry readers: that, _by_ ALL _the holy Fathers and Doctors_, _by_ ALL\n_the Councils_, _and by the most learned and pious men in the world in_\nEVERY _age down to the Reformation_, _the text in question has been_\nUNIFORMLY _understood as it is now explained by the Romish Clergy_. {68a}\n\n7.  The copiousness of Mr. Husenbeth will afford us also yet a seventh\nspecimen.\n\nWith every semblance of even scrupulous fidelity, giving distinct\nreferences to his authorities, this theologian, in a small Work written\nfor circulation among _the unlearned_, declares; that _Papias_,\n_Ignatius_, _Iren\u00e8us_, _Dionysius of Corinth_, _Caius of Rome_, _Clement\nof Alexandria_, _Tertullian_, _Origen_, _and Cyprian_, _all with one\nvoice explicitly assert St. Peter to have been the first diocesan Bishop\nof Rome_: and he adds, still for the information of _the unlearned_; that\n_Mr. White_, who had unceremoniously pronounced St. Peter\u2019s Roman\nEpiscopate to be an idle and ungrounded report, _did but attempt to\nimpose upon such humble readers as have no means of examining history_,\n_by such worn out fallacies and vile fabrications_. {68b}\n\nYet I have myself examined all Mr. Husenbeth\u2019s references to his above\nalleged witnesses from the three first centuries: and I can positively\nstate, from the testimony of my own eye-sight, that NOT ONE _of those\nwitnesses says a single syllable_, _as to St. Peter having been the first\ndiocesan Bishop of Rome_, _or indeed as to his_ EVER _having been Bishop\nof that See_.\n\n8.  Our eighth specimen is furnished by the joint industry and rival\nintrepidity of Bp. Trevern and Mr. Husenbeth.\n\nFor the purpose of persuading the unwary, that _the highest divine\nadoration of the consecrated bread and wine had been the practice of the\nChurch from the earliest ages_, Bp. Trevern adduces a direction or rubric\nfrom the ancient Clementine Liturgy: and, after him, Mr. Husenbeth\neagerly catches up, for the same purpose, the same ancient rubric or\ndirection. {69a}\n\nMeanwhile the direction itself, in its _genuine_ state says not a\nsyllable respecting _any_ adoration of the consecrated bread and wine.\nBp. Trevern first _interpolates_ it, to make it serve his purpose: and\nthen Mr. Husenbeth brings forward, _as evidence_, the precise words of\nthe gallican prelates _interpolation_ wedged into an utterly false\nconstruction of the original passage. {69b}\n\n9.  Our ninth and last specimen is of a somewhat wholesale nature: whence\nit will the more completely exemplify the PRINCIPLE, laid down, for the\nbetter furtherance of truth, by the painful Professors of Douay.\n\nThe King of Spain (I avail myself of the diligent researches of our own\nexcellent Bishop Jeremy Taylor) gave a commission to the Inquisitors, to\n_purge_ all catholic authors: but with this special clause; that _they\nshould keep private among themselves the expurgatory index_, _neither\ncommunicating it to others_, _nor giving a copy of it to any one_.\n\nIt happened, however, by the Divine Providence so ordering it, that,\nabout thirteen years after, a copy of it was procured and published by\nJohannes Pappus and Franciscus Junius.  This circumstance compelled the\nInquisitors to acknowledge their expurgatory index: and they have since\nprinted it themselves.\n\n(1.)  Let us now observe some few of the exploits of _emendation_,\nachieved by these honest and laborious correctors of erring Antiquity.\n\nIn Chrysostom\u2019s Works printed at Basil, the words, _There is no merit_,\n_but what is given us by Christ_, are commanded to be expunged.  Yet\nthese very words occur in his first Homily upon the text of St. John, _Ye\nare my friends_.\n\nA similar erasure is enjoined of the clause, _The Church is built_, _not\nupon the man_, _but upon the faith_.  Yet this clause occurs in his\nSermonon Pentecost.\n\nThe same _expurgatory process_ has been undergone by Chrysostom in many\nother places: and Ambrose and Augustine and the rest of the old Fathers\nhave been subjected to the like necessary _emendations_.\n\nIn short the _curtailments_ of the ancient writers were carried to so\ngreat an extent, that Ludovicus Saurius, the corrector of the press at\nLyons, shewed and complained of them to Junius: lamenting, that he was\nforced to cancel and erase many sayings of Ambrose in that edition of his\nWorks which was printed at Lyons in the year 1559.\n\n(2.)  Not content with thus _emendating_ the Fathers, our pains-taking\nInquisitors, in order that their editions might throughout be perfectly\nharmonious and consistent, fell doggedly to work upon the very tables or\nindexes, which contained any references to the expunged passages: for, of\ncourse, it were unseemly, that a reference should appear, indicating the\noccurrence of a place which _itself_ could no where be found in an\nimproved or expurgated edition.\n\nThus, out of one of Froben\u2019s indexes, they have directed the erasure of\nthe following references: _The use of images forbidden_; _The Eucharist\nno sacrifice_, _but the commemoration of a sacrifice_; _Works_, _although\nthey do not justify_, _yet are necessary to salvation_; _Marriage is\ngranted to all that will not contain_; _Venial sins damn_; _The dead\nSaints_, _after this life_, _cannot help us_.\n\nAnd thus, out of the index of Augustine\u2019s Works by Claudius Chevallonius\nat Paris in the year 1531, they have commanded a still more extraordinary\nerasure of a reference: _Dele_, _Solus Deus adorandus_; that is, _Blot\nout the words_, _God alone is to be adored_. {71a}\n\n(3.)  On such disgraceful practices, Bp. Taylor well remarks: _These\ninstances may serve_, _instead of multitudes which might be brought_, _of\ntheir corrupting the witnesses and razing the records of antiquity_,\n_that the errors and novelties of the Church of Rome might not be so\neasily reproved_.  _Now_, _if the Fathers were not against them_, _what\nneed these arts_?  _Why should they use them thus_?  _Their own\nexpurgatory indices me infinite testimony against them_, _both that they\ndo so_, _and that they need it_. {71b}\n\nIII.  It were easy to have multiplied specimens of the same description:\nbut these, I apprehend, may well suffice.\n\nRespecting such a topic, any observations of my own are quite\nsuperfluous.  By some marvellous perversion of the moral sense, Sixtus\nSenensis, indeed, has even _lauded_ Pope Pius V, because he had taken\ndiligent care, that the writings of all catholic authors, and more\nespecially the writings of the ancient Fathers, should be _expurgated and\nemaculated_: but the plain good sense of every upright and honourable man\nwill deem such praise no very flattering compliment. {71c}\n\nYet, though I shall not weary the prudent inquirer with any needless\nremarks of my own, either on the Douay Principle itself, or on the\nreduction of that principle to systematic practice: I may, at parting, be\npermitted, in all good will, to offer him a word of not altogether\nuseless advice.\n\nWhenever a Romish Doctor makes a large or extraordinary or startling\nassertion, there clearly can be _no harm_ in A CAUTIOUS SUSPENSION OF\nBELIEF, until either the enquirer himself or some competent and\ntrust-worthy friend shall have had an opportunity of ACTUAL AND PERSONAL\nVERIFICATION OF ALLEGED AUTHORITIES.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\nCONCLUSION.\n\n\nAT the close of this brief manual, it may perhaps be useful to state the\nquestion as it now presents itself.\n\nI.  Upon those who _assert_, rests the duty and incumbency of _proof_.\nYet, in regard to what by a single comprehensive word may be styled\n_Popery_, the question stands _negatively_, in manner following.\n\n_The peculiar doctrines and practices_, _which the Clergy of the Roman\nChurch pertinaciously inculcate upon their Laity_, _and to which they\nwould proselyte the unthinking and uninformed Protestant_, CAN NOT BE\nTRACED UP TO CHRIST AND HIS INSPIRED APOSTLES, _either by the evidence of\nGod\u2019s Written Word_, _or by the subordinate testimony of the successive\necclesiastical writers of the three first centuries_.\n\nII.  But this circumstance, bad enough even in itself, is by no means the\nworst part of the matter.\n\n_Scripture and the early Fathers_, _not only_, _negatively_, DO NOT\nESTABLISH _the apostolicity of the peculiarities of Popery_: _but they\nalso_, _positively_, CONTRADICT AND CONDEMN _those same peculiarities_.\n\nIII.  Hence, if I mistake not, the sober inquirer, who demands _proof_\ninstead of _assertion_, will at length find himself irresistibly brought\nto the following very important conclusion.\n\nIN ADMITTING THE PECULIARITIES OF THE LATIN CHURCH AS ARTICLES OF THE\nCHRISTIAN REVELATION, THE ROMANIST BELIEVES, NOT ONLY WITHOUT EVIDENCE,\nBUT EVEN AGAINST EVIDENCE.\n\n                                 THE END.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n        GILBERT & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. John\u2019s Square, London.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n{7}  Such, avowedly, has been the language of Dr. Norris, of Stonyhurst;\nsuch also, unless my memory altogether fail me, has been the language of\nDr. Doyle.  _Roma locuta est_: _causa finita est_.  Which, being\ninterpreted, Is: _Rome hath spoken_:_ the cause_, _therefore_, _is\ndetermined_.\n\nThese two divines seem, either _themselves_ to have forgotten, or to have\nexpected _their opponents_ to forget; that the theologians of Trent, not\nonly define DOCTRINES, but assert FACTS; not only assert FACTS, but\nassert them as THE AVOWED BASIS OF DOCTRINES.\n\nThe defined DOCTRINES being thus _professedly_ made to rest upon the\nasserted FACTS, we should feel ourselves greatly obliged to Dr. Norris,\nand Dr. Doyle, if they would distinctly teach us; _What becomes of the\ndefined_ DOCTRINES, _when the asserted_ FACTS _themselves turn out to be\nmere shadowy non-entities_?\n\nWill a house continue to stand, when its foundations are removed?  Can\ndoctrines remain secure, when their _professed_ basis of facts proves to\nbe nothing better than the fabric of a vision?\n\n{8a}  Concil. Trident. sess. xiii. a 3. p. 124.\n\n{8b}  Ibid. sess. xiv. c. 5. p. 148.\n\n{8c}  Ibid. sess. xiv. c. 7. p. 153.\n\n{8d}  Ibid. sess. xxiii. c 1. p. 279.\n\n{8e}  Ibid. sess. xxiii. a 3. p. 280.\n\n{8f}  Ibid. sess. v. p. 12, 13.\n\n{8g}  Here let the reader mark the circumstance, alluded to in a\npreceding note.\n\n_We have_ A DOCTRINAL SYSTEM _professedly resting upon_ A BASIS OF\nASSERTED FACTS.\n\nThe DOCTRINAL SYSTEM comprehends _all the peculiarities of Popery_: the\nBASIS OF ASSERTED FACTS is _the unanimous teaching of those peculiarities\nboth by Holy Scripture and by the whole body of the Fathers_.\n\nNow, if, _simply as an historical matter of fact_, the peculiarities of\nPopery be _not_ taught by Holy Scripture, and by the whole body of the\nFathers, will Dr. Norris and Dr. Doyle have the goodness to tell us; how,\non the declared principles of the Council of Trent, we are to estimate\nthe _value_ of those same peculiarities?\n\n{9}  Faith of Cathol. p. 154, 155.\n\n{11a}  Concil. Trident. sess. xiii. c. 1, 3, 4, 5. can. 1, 2, 3, 4. p.\n122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130. sess. xxii. c. 2. can. 1, 3. p. 239,\n240, 244.\n\n{11b}  John vi. 51\u201363.\n\n{12a}  Matt. xxvi. 26\u201329.\n\n{12b}  Thus formally interprets Theodoret.  See below, \u00a7 in. 9. (1.)\n\n{13a}  1. Corinth, xi. 23\u201328.\n\n{14a}  Clem. Alex. P\u0153dag. lib. ii. c. 2. Oper. p. 156.\n\n{14b}  Ibid. p. 158.\n\n{15a}  Tertull. de anim. Oper. p. 653.\n\n{15b}  Tertull. de resurr. carn. \u00a7 xxviii. Oper. p. 69.\n\n{15c}  Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. i. \u00a7 9. Oper. p. 155.\n\n{16a}  Athan. in illud Evan. Quicunque dixerit. Oper. vol. i. 771, 772.\n\n{16b}  Euseb. Demons. Evan. lib. viii. c. 2. p. 236.\n\n{16c}  Ibid. p. 236.\n\n{16d}  Ambros. Officior. lib. i. c. 48. Oper. col. 33.\n\n{16e}  Macar. \u00c6gypt.  Homil. xxvii.  For the scripturally determined\nsense of the word _Antitype_, see, in the original Greek, Heb. ix. 24.\n\n{17a}  Gregor. Nyssen. in Baptism. Christ Oper. vol. ii. p. 801, 802.\n\n{17b}  Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Mystag. v. p. 244.\n\n{17c}  Ibid. iii. p. 235.\n\n{18a}  August. cont. Adimant. c. xii. Oper. vol. v.. pi 69.\n\n{18b}  August. cont. Maximin. lib. iii. c. 22. Oper. vol. vi. p. 275.\n\n{18c}  August. Enarr. in Psalm. xcviii. Oper. vol. viii. p. 397.\n\n{18d}  August de Doctrin. Christian. lib. iii. c. 15, 16.\n\n{19a}  Theodoret. Dial. i. Oper. vol. iv. p. 17, 18.\n\n{19b}  Ibid. Dial. ii. Oper. vol. iv. p. 84, 85.\n\n{19c}  Gelas. de duab. Christ. natur. in Biblioth. Patr. vol. iv. p. 422.\n\n{20a}  Vacund. Defens. Concil. Chalced. lib. ix. c. 5. Oper. p. 144.\n\n{20b}  Ephr\u0153m. Theopolitan. apud Phot. Bibl. cod. ccxxix. p. 794.\n\n{20c}  Bed. Comment. in Psalm. iii.\n\n{20d}  Amalar. de Eccles. Offic. in Pr\u00e6fat.\n\n{21a}  Amalar. de Eccles. Offic. lib. i. c. 24.\n\n{21b}  Walaf. Strab de Reb. Eccles. c. xiv\n\n{21c}  Raban. Mogunt. Epist. ad Heribald. de Euchar. c. xxxii.\n\n{22}  Bertram. de corp. et sanguin. Domin. p. 203, 205, 213, 214.\n\n{24}  Concil. Trident. sess. xxv. p. 505, 506.  Profess. Fid. Trident. in\nSyllog. Confess. p. 4.\n\n{25}  Rev. xiv. 13\n\n{26a}  2 Macc. xii. 43\u201346.\n\n{26b}  2 Macc. xiv. 37\u201346; xv. 37, 38.\n\n{26c}  2 Macc. xii. 39\u201342.  Concil. Trident. sess. xiv. c. 1, 5. p. 144,\n148, 149. sess. xxv. p. 506.\n\n{26d}  Melit. Sardens. apud Euseb.  Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. c. 25.  Cyril.\nHieros. Catech. iv. p. 37, 38.  Ruffin. Expos. in Symbol. Apost. ad calc.\nCyprian. Oper. p. 26, 27.  Hieron. Prolog. Scriptur. Galeat. Oper. vol.\niii. p. 287.  Epiphan. de mensur. et ponderib. Oper. p. 300.  Athan.\nEpist. Festal. xxxix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 44, 45.  Athan. Succinct. Script.\nSynop. Oper. vol. ii. p. 61\u201363, 101, 133.  Gregor. Magn. Moral. in Job.\nlib. xix. c. 13.  As if in bitter mockery of the popish proof of the\ndoctrine of a Purgatory from the second book of Maccabees, Ruffinus tells\nus, in the fifth century, that, although the apocryphal books might be\nread in churches for edification, they were not to be controversially\nadduced as any authority for the settlement of a point of faith and\ndoctrine.  Pope Gregory says the same.\n\n{27a}  Cyril. Hieros. Catech. iv. p, 37.\n\n{27b}  Polycarp. Epist. ad Philipp. \u00a7 2, 7.  Athenag. de Resurrect.\nMortuor. Oper. p. 143\u2013219.  Iren. adv. h\u00e6r. lib. v. c. 26. p. 356.\n\n{28a}  Clem. Rom. Epist. ad Corinth. ii. \u00a7 8.  Ignat. Epist. ad Magnes. \u00a7\n5.  Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 270.  Hippolyt. e libr. adv. Gr\u00e6c.\nOper. vol. i. p. 220, 221.  Cyprian. ad Demetrian. Oper. vol. i. p. 196.\n\n{28b}  Tertull. de anim. Oper. p. 689.  Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Mystag. v.\np. 241.  Ambros. Enarr. in Psalm l. Oper. col. 1286.  August. de Fid. et\nOper. c. xv.  Oper. vol. iv. p. 28, 29.  August de Ign. Purgat. serm. iv.\nOper. vol. x. p. 382.  August. de octo Dulcit. qu\u00e6st. Oper. vol. iv. p.\n250.  August. Enarr. in Psalm ciii. conc. 3. Oper. vol. viii. p. 430.\nAugust. de Civ. Dei. lib. x. c. 25, 26.\n\n{28c}  Tertull. de. monogam. \u00a7 10. Oper. p. 578.\n\n{29a}  Rev. xx. 4\u20136.\n\n{29b}  Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Mystag. v. p. 241.\n\n{30}  Concil. Trident. sess. iv. p. 7, 8.\n\n{31a}  Matt. xv. 3\u20136.\n\n{31b}  See 1 Kings xix. 18.  Job xxxi. 27.  Hos. xiii. 2.\n\n{31c}  See Orig. cont. Cels. lib. vi. p. 284.  Arnob. adv. Gent. lib. vi.\np. 195.  Lactant. Divin. Instit. lib. ii. \u00a7 2. p. 141.\n\n{32a}  Concil. Trident. sess. xxv. p. 507, 508.\n\n{32b}  Coloss. ii. 6\u20138.\n\n{32c}  Deut. iv. 2.\n\n{32d}  Isaiah viii. 20.\n\n{32e}  Galat. i. 8.\n\n{33a}  2 Tim. iii. 15\u201317.\n\n{33b}  2 Thess. iii. 6.\n\n{33c}  Thess. ii. 15.\n\n{33d}  Corinth. xi. 2.\n\n{34}  Iren. adv. h\u00e6r. lib. iii. c. l. p. 169.\n\n{35a}  Iren. adv. h\u00e6r. lib. iii. c. 2. p. 169.\n\n{35b}  Tertull. adv. Hermog. \u00a7 12. Oper. p. 346.\n\n{35c}  Hippol. cont. Noet. \u00a7 ix.  Oper. vol. ii. p. 12, 13.\n\n{35d}  Cyprian. Epist. lxxiv.  Oper. vol. ii. p. 211.\n\n{36a}  Cyril. Hieros. Catech. iv. p. 30.\n\n{36b}  Athan. Orat. cont. gent. Oper. vol. i. p. 1.\n\n{36c}  Athan. ad Serap. Oper. vol. i. p. 359.\n\n{36d}  Athan. de incar. Christ. Oper. vol. i. p. 484.\n\n{36e}  Athan. Epist. Fest. xxxix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 45.\n\n{36f}  Athan. Epist. ad Serap. Oper. vol. ii. p. 29.\n\n{37a}  Athan. de S. Trin. dial. ii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 172.\n\n{37b}  Basil. de Ver. Fid. Oper. vol. ii. p. 386.\n\n{37c}  Basil. Homil. de Trin. xxix.\n\n{37d}  Hieron. adv. Helvid. c. ix. Oper. vol. ii. p. 116.\n\n{37e}  Hieron. ad Demet. de virgin. Oper. vol. ix. p. 4.\n\n{37f}  August. cont. Crescon. lib. ii. c. 32. Oper. vol. vii. p. 160.\n\n{40a}  Concil. Trident. sess. xiv. c. 9. p. 158, 159.\n\n{40b}  Luke xvi. 10.\n\n{40c}  Luke xviii. 10\u201314.\n\n{40d}  Rom. ii. 27, 28.\n\n{40e}  Rom. iv. 2\u20135.\n\n{41a}  Rom. v. 1.\n\n{41b}  Rom. x. 3.\n\n{41c}  Isaiah lxiv. 6.\n\n{41d}  Clem. Roman. Epist. ad Corinth, i. \u00a7 32.\n\n{41e}  Epist. ad Diognet. in Oper. Justin Martyr. p. 386.\n\n{42a}  Ambros. Comment. in Psalm. cxviii. (cxix.) serm. xx. ver. 4. Oper.\ncol. 1595.\n\n{42b}  Ambros. de poenit. lib. ii. c. 8.  Oper. col. 191.\n\n{42c}  August. Enarr. in Psalm. lxx.  Oper. vol. viii. p. 277.\n\n{45}  Concil. Trident. sess. xxv. p. 507, 508.\n\n{46a}  S. Thom. Aquin. part. iii. q. 25. art 4.\n\n{46b}  Jacob. Naclant. Ciug. Expos. Epist. ad Roman. cap. i.\n\n{47a}  Gabriel. Biel. super Can. Miss. lect. xlix.\n\n{47b}  Pet. de Medran. Roset. Theolog. p. 311.\n\n{47c}  Aring. Rom. Subt. lib. v. c. 4.\n\n{47d}  Ibid. vol. ii. p. 464.\n\n{48a}  Breviar. Rom. Hebdom. 4.  Quadrag. die sabbat.\n\n{48b}  Collect. in Hor. ad usum Sarum. fol. 30.\n\n{48c}  Ibid. fol. 33.\n\n{48d}  Offic. parv. beat. Mar. p. 127.\n\n{48e}  Collect. in Hor. ad. usum Sarum. for. 77.\n\n{48f}  Ibid. fol. 77.\n\n{48g}  Ibid. fol. 80.\n\n{49a}  The Devotion of the sacred heart of Jesus, including the Devotion\nto the sacred heart of the blessed Virgin Mary; with an Appendix and the\nindult of Pope Pius VII. in favour of it; for the use of the midland\ndistrict.  Edit. 12. p. 212, 213.  Keating and Brown, 1821.\n\n{49b}  Ibid. p. 206.  See also p. 293.\n\n{50}  You pagans allege, says Arnobius, that YOU WORSHIP THE GODS THROUGH\nTHE MEDIUM OF IMAGES\u2014You tell us, that THEY RECEIVE YOUR PRAYERS THROUGH\nTHE MEDIUM OF A SORT OF GO-BETWEENS.  Arnob. adv. gent. lib. vi. p. 1 95.\nWe do not fear the images themselves, the Pagans tell us, says\nLactantius; but those beings, after whose similitude they are fashioned,\nand by whose names they are consecrated.  Lactant. Divin. Instit. lib.\nii. \u00a7 2. p. 141.\n\n{51a}  Exod. xx. 4\u20136.\n\n{51b}  Deuter. xxvii. 15.\n\n{51c}  Isa. xliv. 9.  See also Psalm cxxxv. 15\u201318.\n\n{51d}  Isa. xliv. 19.\n\n{51e}  Habak. ii. 18, 19.\n\n{51f}  Mat. lv. 10.\n\n{52a}  Coloss. ii. 18.\n\n{52b}  Rev. xxii. 8, 9.\n\n{52c}  Acts xiv. 10\u201315.\n\n{53a}  Epist. Eccles. Smyrn. \u00a7 17, 18.\n\n{53b}  Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. vii. Oper. p. 714.\n\n{53c}  Clem. Alex. Admon. ad Gent. Oper. p. 34.\n\n{53d}  Minuc. Fel. Octav. p. 91.\n\n{53e}  Ibid. p. 284.\n\n{53f}  Orig. cont. Cels. lib. viii. p. 389.\n\n{53g}  Ibid. lib. vi. p. 284.\n\n{54a}  Concil. Elib. can. xxxvi.\n\n{54b}  Athan. cont. Arian. Orat. iv.  Oper. vol. i. p. 275.\n\n{54c}  August. de ver. relig. c. lv.  Oper. vol. i. p. 317.\n\n{54d}  August de. morib. Eccles. Cathol. lib. i. c. 34.\n\n{54e}  Epiphan. cont. h\u00e6r. lib. iii. tom. ii. h\u00e6r. 79.\n\n{55a}  Concil. Trident. sess. vii. p. 87. sess. xiv. c. 3. p. 162. sess.\nxxii. c. 8. p. 243.\n\n{55b}  Profess. Fid. Trident. in syllog. Confess. p. 5.\n\n{56}  Matt. xvi. 18, 19.\n\n{58a}  Iren. adv. h\u00e6r. lib. iii. c. 3. p. 170, 171.\n\n{58b}  Constit. Apost. lib. vii. c. 46.\n\n{59a}  Scalig. in. Joan. xviii. 31.\n\n{59b}  Concil. Trident. sess. xiii. cap. l. p. 123.\n\n{60a}  Johan. Scot. in 4 sent. dist. xi. q. 3.  Biel. in Can. Miss. lect.\n40.  Occam.  Centil. lib. iv. q. 6. et in 4 sent. dist. xi. q. 6.  Petr.\nab. Alliac. Camerac. in 4 sent. dist. xi. q. 6. art. 1, 2.  Cajet. in Th.\np. 3. q. lxxv. art. l. q. xlv. art. 14.  Fisher. Roffens. cont. Luther.\nde capt. Babyl. c. 1.\n\n{60b}  Concil. Trident. sess. xxv. p. 505, 506.\n\n{60c}  Trevern\u2019s Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 242.\n\n{60d}  Fisher. Roffens. cont. Luther. art. xviii. Oper. p. 496.\n\n{60e}  Barn. Catholico-Rom. Pacif. sect. ix. litt. D. ad fin. Paralip.\n\n{60f}  Picherell. de Miss. c. ii. p. 150.\n\n{61a}  Concil. Trident sess. xxv. p. 507.\n\n{61b}  Petav. Dogmat. Theol. lib. xv. c. 13. n. 3.\n\n{61c}  See Stillingfleet\u2019s Rational Account of the Grounds of Protest.\nRelig. part. iii. chap. 3. \u00a7 19. p. 590.\n\n{61d}  Albert. Pigh. Hierarch. Eccles. lib. vi. c. 1, 4.\n\n{62a}  Concil. Trident. sess. v. p. 12, 13. sess. xxiii. c 3. p. 280.\n\n{62b}  Pamph. p. 9, 10.  For a full account of this fatal, though very\ntrue, acknowledgment, extorted from Mr. Husenbeth by my repeated demand\nof _distinct evidence from the writers of the three first centuries_, see\nmy Difficulties of Roman. book i. chap. 7. 2d edit.  The futile attempts\nof Bp. Trevern and Mr. Berington to bring, from the same early period, a\nshadow of testimony to their peculiarities, are, in the same Work,\nexposed and exploded.  Should any of Mr. Husenbeth\u2019s clerical brethren\nrefuse to be bound by his confession, let them, if they _can_, come\nforward and trace their doctrines up to the Apostles through the\nsuccessive writings of the Fathers of the three first centuries.\n\n{63a}  Ind. Expurg. Belg. p. 54.  For the original Latin, see Diff. of\nRom. p. 346. 2d edit.\n\n{63b}  See above, chap. ii. \u00a7 III. 18.\n\n{64a}  Ind. Expurg. Belg. p. 54.\n\n{64b}  Hist. des Variat. livr. iv. \u00a7 32.\n\n{64c}  Elfric has plainly borrowed both the turn and the sentiment of the\npresent erased passage from Augustine.  See above, chap. ii. \u00a7 III. 9.\n(3.)\n\n{64d}  See Soames\u2019s Hist. of the Reform. vol. iii. p. 165, 166: and\nStewart\u2019s Protest. Layman. p. 322, 323, 324.\n\n{65a}  Bp. Taylor\u2019s Dissuasive from Popery, chap. i. sect. 1.\n\n{65b}  See above, chap. ii. \u00a7. III. 10. (2.)\n\n{65c}  Berington\u2019s Faith of Cathol. p. 240.  Trevern\u2019s Ans. to Diffic. of\nRoman. p. 270.  Husenbeth\u2019s Reply to Supplem. p. 243.\n\n{66a}  Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Myst. v. p. 241.  Discuss. Amic. vol. ii.\np. 87.\n\n{66b}  Tract. de Sacram. lib. iv. c. 4.  Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 92.\n\n{66c}  Cyprian. Epist. lv. vol. ii. p. 109, 110.\n\n{67}  Berington\u2019s Faith of Cathol. p. 355.  Trevern\u2019s Discuss. Amic. vol.\nii. p. 243.\n\n{68a}  Husenbeth\u2019s Defence of the Creed and Discip. of the Cath. Church.\nchap. iii. p. 69.\n\n{68b}  Husenbeth\u2019s Defence of Creed. chap. ii. p. 41, 42.\n\n{69a}  Trevern\u2019s Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 407.  Trevern\u2019s Answ. to Diff.\nof Rom. p. 202.  Husenbeth\u2019s Reply to Supplem. p. 273.\n\n{69b}  See my Diffic. of Roman, p. 526\u2013529. 2d. edit.\n\n{71a}  Index Expurg. Madr. 1612. in indice libr. expurg. p. 39.\n\n{71b}  Bp. Taylor\u2019s Dissuasive from Popery, chap. i. sect. I.\n\n{71c}  Sixtus Senensis, in Epistola dedicatoria ad Pium Quintum, laudat\nPontificem in h\u00e6c verba: _Expurgari et emaculari curasti_, _omnium\ncatholicorum scriptorum_, _ac pr\u00e6cipu\u00e8 veterum Patrum_, _scripta_.  See\nBp. Taylor\u2019s Dissuas. from Poper. ch. i. sect. 1.","title":"Facts and Assertions: or a Brief and Plain Exhibition of the Incongruity of the Peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Rome: With Those Both of the Sacred Scriptures and of the Early Writers of the Christian Church Catholic","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":21238}