« AnteriorContinuar »
and practice of Rome in praying to angels, the later editions of this council have impudently put in angulas (angles or corners), instead of angelos (angels); though all the Greek copies and fathers read Ayyédous, and all the old Latin exemplars have angelos. Nay, Pope Adrian himself (before this worship of angels arose) read it angelos in that epitome of canons which he sent to Charles the Great, An. 773. Thus they corrupt the councils to suit them to their own opinions; nor have single fathers and ancient authors fared better. St. Cyprian published by Pamelius, is altered in many places contrary to the ancient copies; for example, where that father says "the church is founded, super petram," Pamelius changes it into super Petrum, upon Peter, instead of upon a rock. And Ludovicus Vives ( a Romanist) assures us, that there are ten or twelve lines positively asserting purgatory, put into the printed copies of S. Aug. de Civitate Dei, lib. 22, cap. 24, contrary to the ancient manuscripts. Fulbertus Carnotensis quotes St. August. as saying of the sacramental bread, “this then is a figure,” but the Roman editions insert as a heretic will say, when, in truth, it is St. Augustus himself who says so, and speaks his own sense. Aimonius speaking of the eighth council says, “they determined about images otherwise than the orthodox fathers had decreed;" and so Baronius reads; but the modern printed copies, quite contrary, insert_according as the orthodox fathers had decreed. But why do I stand upon particular instances? This wickedness, which all other men account the same villany with suborning false witnesses, stopping the mouths of the true, and counterfeiting hands and seals, is owned by the present Church of Rome; and Sixtus Senensis highly extols Pope Pius V. for his “most holy decree to burn all books which were accounted heretical, to purge and cleanse all Catholic authors, and especially the writings of the fathers. Now in what manner they affect this most holy work, the Belgic Inquisitors (appointed by the Roman see) shall tell you; "We strike out (say they) many errors, in other of the ancients we extenuate and excuse them, or, by feigning a commentitious gloss, either deny or fix a commodious sense to their words." Thus they served the works of St. Ambrose, cancelling and altering whole pages together, contrary to all the old manuscripts, as appeared by the original papers which Savarius the stationer shewed to Francis Junius, according to which the inquisitors had ordered him to print that edition, Lugdun, An. 1559. I might fill a volume with instances of similar unjust dealings, but I will only add the memorable account which Boxhornius, one of your divinity professors at Lovain, gives of himself, viz. “ that he having been einployed by the inquisitors to strike out at least six hundred places of the ancients, which seemed to make against the Roman doctrines, was so troubled in mind upon it, that it was an occasion of his turning Protestant, and made him resolve to quit that religion which could not defend itself without such manifest impostures." I wish the consideration thereof may have the same effect upon you; for the matter of fact is so evident, that the Index Expurgatorius, the book which directs these falsifications, is now come into Protestant hands, to the eternal infamy of the Roman church, whose people cannot rationally trust to any author which comes through their priests' dishonest hands. Since, then, false books are invented, true and genuine writers altered and corrupted, or else wholly prohibited if they seem to make against them (for which cause Clement VIII. puts the Bible into his index of prohibited books) and all editions but their own condemned and burnt by the Roman church—the people must needs be deluded into a persuasion that all these new doctrines are primitive truths, when, in truth, this abominable system of forgery evidently shews that the pope and his conclave think that both scripture and antiquity make against these innovations, and would discover the imposture if they were suffered to speak out: to whom I may justly apply the words of Arnobius, “to intercept what is written, and to design to smother published records, is not to defend the gods, but to fear the testimony of the truth.” And because "good men (as St. Augustine says) will not deceive, while neither good nor evil men would willingly be deceived,” I may suppose that the most devoted Romanists cannot but discern how unsafe they are in believing as those men
teach them, who make no conscience to invent, impose, and pretend things never so false, provided they may thereby advance the interest of their church, or their own private ends.--Pp. 77–86.
In the fifth section it is asked—“ Whether the Roman Bishop have sufficient authority to impose the said opinions upon all Christian churches?” On this portion of the inquiry we have a valuable note from Mr. Hook :
How the most devoted Romanist can believe in the Papal Infallibility it is difficult to conceive. A Romanist holds that heretical Baptism is invalid, yet in the third century, Stephen, the Bishop of Rome, pronounced sentence in favour of it; a Romanist considers Arianism to be heresy, yet the Arian doctrine was sanctioned by Pope Liberius in the fourth century; a Romanist condemns Pelagianism, yet it was indirectly countenanced by Pope Zosimus in the fifth century; a Romanist abjures Monothelitism, yet in the seventh century Pope Honorius was denounced as a Monothelite; a Romanist cannot approve of offering incense to an heathen idol, yet by Pope Marcellinus this was done.
Again, Infallibility cannot contradict itself, yet Pope Boniface reversed the decision of Pope Zosimus with respect to the Bishops of Arles and Vincennes; which of the two was infallible? Both could not be; yet both were Popes. In the sixth century Pope Vigilius three times changed his decision on the subject of the three chapters. In which decision was he infallible? In all he could not be. Even in the fourteenth century Pope Gregory XI, cancelled the excommunication denounced by John XXII. against the disciples of Peter de Oliva; and here again, which of the two was infallible?
If they would apply the Infallibility to a Papal Council;—even in the Council of Trent a most glaring contradiction occurs. In one session it is stated that the bread in the sacrament contains the body, and the wine the blood of Christ, yet in another, in order to authorize the decree of half-communion, it is affirmed that both body and blood are contained under either the bread or the wine.Note, pp. 118–120.
The sixth section inquires—“Whether the Pope has any right to exercise a jurisdiction over England ?” Here it is shown that such claim was almost always considered an usurpation even when the doctrinal decisions of Rome were received without qualification. This argument, however, has been turned upon us in a political point of view; and we are told that the Romanists, as they formerly withstood the temporal power of the Pope, would, if admitted to legislation, act in like manner at the present day. The argument is, however, a fallacy. Let any person read the volume now beside us, and he must be satisfied, that the Papal supremacy is an essential doctrine of the Romish religion. Those who opposed it formerly, did so far forego their Romanism, and they were frequently most solemnly excommunicated from their Church on that account. They opposed the Papal usurpations, because themselves were the victims of them. Should the Pope again advance the claims WHICH HE NEVER HAS RETRACTED, the Protestants, not the Romanists, would be the victims. It is very unlikely that the Romanist would contradict THE ESSENTIAL OBLISATION OF HIS RELIGION, and risk excommunication from that Church, out of
WHICH IS NO SALVATION,* merely for the protection of his Protestant brethren, of whom he has never been very tender.
The seventh section contains—“ Advice to the English Roman Catholics, to forsake the opinions of Rome, and embrace the religion of the Church of England, which is a pure and reformed branch of the Catholic Church.”
In conclusion, we most cordially recommend the perusal of this little volume to all who are anxious to form a sound opinion on its subject. Brief as it is, its arguments are complete and cogent, its facts beyond doubt or question. It may remove much misapprehension and misrepresentation. It is a decisive refutation of the Romish novelties, and a clear vindication of the primitive and Catholic foundation of the Church of England. Mr. Hook has our thanks for the republication, and he will, we doubt not, receive those of every friend to truth and sound catholic Christianity.
the Edinbike Objections of Grace the Archalcón Basilikdy
Art. III.-1. A Letter to a Friend, touching the Question, “ Who
ναs the Author of Eικών Βασιλική ?” By WILLIAM GRANT BROUGHTON, M. A. Curate of Hartley Wespall, Hants. London:
Rivingtons. 1826. Pp. 92. 2. King Charles the First, the Author of Icôn Basilikė, further
proved, in a Letter to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, in Reply to the Objections of Dr. Lingard, Mr. Todd, Mr. Broughton, the Edinburgh Review, and Mr. Hallam. By CHRISTOPHER WordsWORTH, D.D. Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Rector of Buxted with Uckfield, Sussex. Cambridge: John Murray, M.DCCC.XXVIII. Pp. 256. We willingly resume our labours on the subject of this inquiry. Indeed, the pamphlet which stands at the head of this article, would justly have claimed our earlier attention, but that with the numerous antagonists whom Dr. Wordsworth's former publications on this subject have raised against him, it was not probable, after the language in which he had before declared his convictions, that he would long remain silent, but would either own himself vanquished, or else give reasons for claiming the victory. We, therefore, waited to see whether that would be the case. The event has justified our expectations, and Dr. Wordsworth has again appeared in the field, to meet his opponents.
The writers, who have opposed themselves to Dr. W.'s statements, arguments, and conclusion, are five in number, whose names are stated
• See the Bull of Pius V. printed in the Appendix, p. 192.
Fhis Historgara's is, Baroudeung, al silence,
his pretensiclared himself the Pet Dr. Lingard's ingland. (Vol. VI. et
in his title-page, according to the order of date in which their respective remarks appeared. He examines their arguments in the same order.
First, Dr. LINGARD. His remarks are not very copious, being comprised in one single page of his History of England. (Vol. VI. 4to. p. 637.) The first assertion of Dr. Lingard's is, that “ Dr. Gauden, (having) declared himself the real author of Eirwy Baoilik), advanced his pretensions with secrecy, and received, as the price of his silence, first, the Bishopric of Exeter.” To this Dr. Wordsworth replies at large; but it is sufficient for us to adduce the testimony of Dr. G.'s own witness, his wife, together with that of Dr. G. himself. First, Mrs. Gauden says, “The King being still ignorant of what he (my husband) had done, he was, by the mediation of a person perfectly ignorant* of his merit, as to this matter, made Bishop of Exeter.” Next writes Bishop Gauden himself: “ As to the King and Duke, whom, before I came away (that is, from London to Exeter), I acquainted with it, when I saw myself not so much considered, in my present disposure, &c." These extracts make two out of the scanty list of three witnesses on the Gauden side, who expressly contradict Dr. Lingard's assertion, that Dr. G. “ received, as the price of his silence, the Bishopric of Exeter;" and the third does not say that he did so receive it. But, secondly, says Dr. L. “ Afterwards (when he complained of the poverty of that See), he received, on the same score, the richer Bishopric of Worcester.” To this also the words of his widow supply a refutation: “ For what my dear husband has writ, I do protest he nor his did ever receive any thing." This is all we think it necessary to notice from Dr. Lingard; the rest being pretty much the same ground we have already trodden, or shall tread, with others.
2. Next comes Mr. TODD. As his remarks have appeared before the public in a lengthened and specific form, so they have already fallen under our notice.t Dr. Wordsworth's present publication is abundantly calculated to confirm our impression that Mr. T.'s book, as regards the external evidence, merited no attention, and as respects the internal, next to none. One and only one point from Mr. Todd, we will return to. We find Dr. Wordsworth giving a similar opinion to that we had before expressed (Vol. viii. p. 141) of the distinguished comparative value of Mr. T.'s 20th parallelism, wherein the use of the words "owls and bats and feral birds" in very close juxta position, is adduced, first, from a sermon of Gauden's prior to any account we have of the existence of the Icôn, and next from the Icôn itself. Dr. Wordsworth, after research and investigation we can lay no claim to, calls this “the only one in the whole thirty-seven, that
• This person, she says, was the Duke of Albemarle. Doc. Sup. p. 46.
occasions to (him) any serious difficulty, (p. 55.) As far as mere expression goes, independent of sentiment, we think the instance abundantly forcible; but, when we consider how very little, after all, this instance, standing almost alone as it does, proves; when we look, on the other hand, to the vast body of evidence, both external and internal, against Dr. Gauden's claim; we may fairly ascribe the resemblance to the readiness of the king in catching a phrase from a sermon preached a few years before, which had doubtless fallen under, his eyes, and applying it to his own state and circumstances. Having made the above admission, which we do willingly, we pass on from Mr. Todd to
3. Mr. BROUGHTON. Before we descend into the nicer parts of Mr. B.'s argument, we will just remark, that what he calls (p. 4) "a splendid reward,” he, whose claim Mr. B. espouses, did not consider, in the case of Exeter at least, and the partner of his counsels both in Exeter and Worcester, as having any thing to do with the Icôn. What Mr. B. too, calls here “splendid,” he elsewhere (p. 9) appears to call “unimportant," and (at p. 10)“ an object very inadequate.” Mr. B.-in a parallel case he supposes, at pp. 11, 12,-introduces the word “hastening,” (to compliment and reward the claimants,) meaning, we presume, to insinuate Clarendon's eagerness to reward: but where is there proof of any thing like “haste ?” Does not the claimant rather complain in unequivocal terms of delay and reluctance, and apply the spur? In p. 13 of Mr. Broughton, we must propose, if the argument is to assume its proper logical shape, an amendment in Mr. Broughton's expression. Instead of the secret imparted to Clarendon was "burdensome to him, (because he was become, to a certain extent, an accomplice in an imposition which, as a man, he could not approve:" truth requires us to read —“He was in possession of a secret which he was bound, not by political considerations, but by promise to preserve, though against his will: it was a clog upon him-a clog, above all, to the investigation of its own truth or falsehood." The improbability thus proposed by Mr. B. of Clarendon's not “having tried all means to satisfy himself,” &c. (p. 4) is thus removed. He was prevented by his promise from resorting to such means. Mr. B. thinks himself warranted in coming to the conclusion that Clarendon " had inquired." (p. 14.) We say, on the contrary, if he was the man of honour and probity we believe him to have been, and his own letter to Bishop Gauden of March 13, 1661, affirms him to be, he could not have inquired. It was a moral impossibility: he was tongue-tied.
These, however, are perhaps comparatively minor points in Mr. Broughton's statement. We proceed without delay to two strongholds of his argument, which Mr. B, thus states, and it is due to him to give them in his own words :