Page images
PDF
EPUB

trouble to look into the fifth volume of Muratori's Antiquitates Italicæ Medii Ævi, pp. 711, et seq., and the first volume of Wilkins's Concilia pp. 140, et seq., will find in an instant that the assertion is utterly groundless and untenable. The rates of absolution were in point of fact originally sums of money paid to the priest as the price of a certain number of masses, the repetition of which, as is well known, is said to have a power of redeeming souls from purgatory: when the eternal punishment of sin in hell is remitted by the absolution of the priest in the sacrament of penance, its temporal punishment still remains due. This temporal punishment must be undergone either here in the form of corporal chastisement, fasting and such like, or hereafter in the flames of purgatory. Such is the doctrine of the Roman church. In consequence however of the inordinate castigations and protracted fastings which the penitential Canons required, and which no life, however long, could suffice to perform, a system of compensations was invented to save the faithful from being flogged to death in this life, or burnt eternally in the next. At first the compensation was to sing so many psalms, or repeat so many prayers instead of fasting so many days; but at length the penitent was exempted from all personal services, provided he would pay a priest so much money for such a number of masses: the repetition of one mass compensated for twelve days penance. By the Canons of a famous monastery at Bobbio, founded by St. Columbanus, as given by Muratori, vol. v., the penance for murder was seven years' fasting, three on bread and water; the pecuniary compensation twenty-six solidi for each year, or 182 in the whole; which, reckoning the solidus at the value of our old noble, 6s. 8d., would make the price of absolution from murder amount to £60 sterling. By the canons of Egbert, Archbishop of York, given in Wilkins's Concilia, vol. i., the penance for incest was fifteen years' fasting; the pecuniary compensation, thirty solidi for each year, or 450 solidi in the whole. This rule of compensation is thus laid down in Archbishop Egbert's canons. "Si quis propter infirmitatem suam jejunium et severitatem hanc sufferre nequit quam confessarius ei præscribit, ei permissum est jejunium suum redimere cum pietate et facultatibus mundi. Hoc est, si quis dives sit, det pro duodecim mensium jejunio triginta solidos; si nec adeo dives sit, det decem." And yet Mr. Butler says the price of an indulgence was only a fee of office. Surely, as we said before, he must fancy we have neither eyes

nor ears.

We must then revert to our original assertion. We repeat it, we are most unwilling to give any offence to our Roman Ca

tholic brethren; we grudge them no temporal privileges; we do not shut the gates of heaven against them; but as long as they assume the right of calling us heretics, schismatics, hypocrites, and liars, and denounce the horrible calamity of everlasting condemnation against us; as long as we have the liberty of speaking what we consider to be the truth, and are permitted to call things by their proper names,- -so long must we lift up our voice against what we unwillingly but most conscientiously believe to be the superstition and idolatry of the church of Rome.

Letters to Charles Butler, Esq. on the Theological parts of his Book of the Roman Catholic Church; with Remarks on certain Works of Dr. Milner and Dr. Lingard, and on some parts of the Evidence of Dr. Doyle, before the two Committees of the Houses of Parliament. By the Rev. HENRY PHILLPOTTS, D.D. Rector of Stanhope. Svo. pp. 372. 9s. 6d. Murray. 1825.

THE object of Dr. Phillpotts in this publication, and a most important one it is, seems principally to have been to refute the slanders which have recently been uttered against the church of England, by representing her doctrines as nearly similar to those of the church of Rome. "This," he says, "is become the more necessary from the increasing prevalence, even in quarters where we might hope to find more accurate information, of an opinion that the line which separates the two churches is, in fact, much less strongly marked than the prejudices and passions of our predecessors have taught us to believe." Now, no doubt it may seem very amiable to attempt to obliterate the recollection of past differences, and soothe the angry feelings of two adverse parties, by persuading them that they differ more in name than in reality: but if this can only be done by leading incautious men to depart from early convictions upon the most important of all subjects, and by comparing the tenets of the Reformation with the most revolting dogmas of Rome, then we say, that the intent, so far from being meri torious, deserves the reprehension of all honourable men: for, as Dr. Phillpotts says to Mr. Butler, "If the differences between the two churches be indeed so slight as you and others would represent them, the plain consequence must be that our separation from you was, and is, schismatical; that the fathers

and martyrs of the Reformation were not only in error, but in sin; that they have propagated that sin to us, their descendants, and that we cannot too soon retrace our steps, and sue to be re-admitted into the bosom of your church." Now we do on this, as on all other occasions, disclaim all uncharitable and angry feelings against our Roman catholic brethren; we do not sentence them to an everlasting curse because they believe in transubstantiation, and adhere to the errors of the see of Rome. As theologians we have nothing to do with their political claims, and solemnly and sincerely declare that we wish to see them in full possession of every thing that they can wisely or reasonably desire: but as Protestants we must as solemnly and sincerely declare, with Dr. Phillpotts, that in matters of doctrine "there is between us and them a great gulph, which may indeed be passed from either side to the other, but which admits of no true resting-place being found between them." We repeat, that with the politics of catholic emancipation we have nothing to do; but if our statesmen and senators will, for the sake of passing that measure, overlook the principles of the Reformation, and attempt to reconcile the minds of Englishmen to a political question, by weakening their attachment to the Protestant faith, then we say that "it is not, nor can it ever be, one of those cases in which silence and compromise are consistent with good faith, or can therefore be demanded by charity." We consequently feel much indebted to Dr. Philipotts for his present work. A tone of gentleness and courtesy, upon the whole, pervades it, though we think we can now and then perceive that it costs him a struggle; an occasional spasm of indignation disturbs the otherwise unwrinkled features of his work, and a burst of impassioned eloquence betrays the inward workings of his mind. But we think it cannot be said that his indignation has mastered his politeness, or that propriety has given place to wrath. Although in exquisitely elaborate courtesy Mr. Butler certainly exceeds him, still in candour and sincerity, he as certainly gains the palm,

The object of the Romanists of the present day is to represent the creed and discipline of the church of Rome as nearly in accordance with those of the Established Church: priests and laymen, whigs and tories, rats and radicals, are joined together in a holy alliance for this singular purpose; and certainly, at the present moment, for one particular end,-catholic emancipation. Dr. Phillpotts opposes himself manfully to the purpose, but disclaims all intention of interfering with, or alluding to, the political object; and we, in reviewing him, beg leave to do the same. We are bound to consider the question

theologically, and expose, as far as we can expose to public view, those diluting and deluding sophistries by which the doctrines of the Roman church are modified, and those of the church of England perverted, in order to produce in appearance, what never can be effected in reality, an approximation of their creeds. However great our wish may be to bring the season of religious discord to an end, we may depend upon it that it will be as absurd to attempt to plough with an ox and an ass together, as to bring within one pale the churches of England and Rome.

Having dilated in another article upon the CREATURE-WORSHIP of the Roman church, we need not dwell much at length on Dr. Phillpotts' Second Letter, where this subject is treated in a most masterly manner. Messrs. Butler, Milner, and Bossuet, affirm that Roman Catholics are not absolutely obliged and commanded to pray to saints, but only recommended to do so, as a good and profitable practice; whereas, the Council of Trent, in its 25th Session, decrees that they who deny the necessity of this worship are impious. "Illos qui negant sanctos invocandos esse impié sentire." This sentence by an infallible Council, seems something more like a command than a recommendation. Again, Mr. Butler says that they do not pray to them as independent agents,-that they never do more than beg their prayers just as we beg the prayers of any good man. Dr. Phillpotts proves this to be incorrect, by sundry extracts from Roman catholic prayer-books such as the following in Off. B. M.

Again:

Solve vincla reis

Profer lumen cœecis
Mala nostra pelle

Bona cuncta posce.

Monstra te esse Matrem

Sumat per te preces

Qui pro nobis natus

Tulit esse tuus.

"To thy protection we fly, O holy Mother of God. Despise not our prayers in time of need, but from all dangers always deliver us, O Virgin glorious and blessed."

Again:

"Admit our prayers within the sanctuary of hearing, and bring back to us the antidote of reconciliation." "Through thee may that be pardonable which through thee we urge may that be able to

[ocr errors]

:

be obtained which with a faithful mind we pray, because thou art the only hope of sinners: through thee we hope for pardon of our offences, and in thee, O most blessed, is the expectation of our rewards." "Tu

es spes unica peccatorum. Per te speramus delictorum veniam; et in te beatissima nostrorum est expectatio præmiorum," &c. (Sect. 5 et 6, in Die. 9 Sept. 2da. infra. oct. nativ. B. V. M.)"

Now, we would ask, is it not the very abomination of pro faneness to call a dead woman beatissima, and to say that she is the only hope of sinners? Can such prayers be made to any person less than divine, without downright blasphemy? Or can any man, with any semblance of truth, urge that in such passages as these the Virgin is only called upon to aid men with her prayers?

Having disposed of Creature Worship in his Second Letter, Dr. Phillpotts proceeds to IMAGE-WORSHIP in his Third. Dr. Milner says that images in the Roman church are only made and retained" to put them in mind of the persons and things which they represent ;" and that the relative veneration to which they are entitled, is "no other than the honour which Protestants pay the Bible, the name of Jesus, or the King's throne." (End of Controversy, pp. 258, 259.) Now let us see whether this explanation be consistent with the doctrine or the practice of the church of Rome.

The Council of Trent, in its decree on the subject of images, refers to the second Council of Nice: and the second Council of Nice, in order to fulfil the duty of being its own trumpeter, pronounces itself "secured from error by the energy of the Holy Ghost." Whatever it says, then, on an article of faith must be right; and image worship is an article of faith. Listen then to its dictates. Dr. Milner says that images are only retained to put the faithful in mind of the persons they represent. Mr. Butler says, we only "venerate the images of saints as memorials that bring their virtues and rewards to our minds and hearts." (Book of the R. C. Ch. p. 103.) Now the second Council of Nice, confirmed by the infallible Council of Trent, says, "as for them who say it is sufficient to have images for the sake of exciting their livelier remembrance of the prototypes, and not for worship, as they reject one part of the truth and admit the other, they are ημιφαυλοι half bad, ψευδαληθεις speakers of truth and falsehood in a breath; alas! their madness." According to the Council of Nice, then, "secured as it is from error by the energy of the Holy Ghost," Dr. Milner and Mr. Butler are "mad." Nay, more, the Council is rude enough to imply that they are, what Dr. Challoner calls Protestants, every time they say the Apostles' Creed, "liars."

« PreviousContinue »