Page images
[ocr errors]

tency, then, in objecting to them the want of unity, as a single Church; when, by his own confession, they are to be regarded, as composing many independent Churches; and when, it is manifest, that each of them possesses within itself the same unity in doctrine, worship, and government, as that on which the Church of Rome founds her exclusive claims: the members of every communion, as long as they continue members, necessarily professing the same faith, using the same sacraments, and conforming to the same discipline ;-since were they to cease to do so, they would, also, cease to be accounted members of that communion, The number of dissentients from the Church of England is not, in point of fact, so much to be objected to her, as to the Church of Rome. Whatever may be their disagreement with the English Church, they all unanimously join with her, in protesting against the Romish errors; there is, in short, a striking agreement with her on the most important points in dispute, and as striking a disagreement with the Church of Rome.

The following observation is a further instance of the force of prejudice, and of the delusion arising from the abuse of terms. "You may convince yourself of this (the Catholic Unity of the Romish Church) any day at the Royal Exchange, by conversing with intelligent Catholic merchants, from Ireland to Chili, and from Canada to India."........" As to the fundamental articles of Christianity........I will venture to say, you will not find any es-sential variation in the answers of any of them:

and much less, such as you will find, by proposing the same questions to an equal number of Protestants, whether learned or unlearned, of the same denomination." Ib. 131. Now,

it is plain, that believers in the same creed, equally conversant with the articles and catechisms of their Churches, whether Protestants or Romanists, would be uniform in their answers on the same points; what is more, it may be expected, that, generally speaking, the Protestant answerers would assign a better reason for the faith that is in them, than the Romish; having been taught to examine for themselves, and to be ready to give an answer to every one that asketh."-All Protestants would, with greater concord, join in rejecting the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, and the infallibility of his Church, than the Romanists in defining in what that supremacy consists, and where that infallibility resides.-This boasted mark of unity turns out, therefore, to be an unity of opinion amongst members of the same communion, who would cease to be accounted so, from the moment that they differed in their creeds. It is an unity possessed by the most inconsiderable sect of Christians, no less than by the most nume"It amounts to this, that those who agree amongst themselves, do agree. So that this is no more a mark of unity, than every division of men can plead, and every sect.". Leslie's Case stated, p. 470.


It is but laying down arbitrary terms of Communion with other Churches, and denying

all dissentients to be members of Christ's body, and then unity is obtained, and we become, like the Romanists in their own estimation, the sole Catholics. "Ubi solitudinem faciunt,

pacem appellant."

In his second mark, sanctity of doctrine, he includes, 1. the doctrine of holiness. Το prove that this is not in the English Church, he rakes up the filth and fanatical nonsense of those who never belonged to her, or of those who belonging to her, forsook her genuine principles. One is tempted to recriminate, by citing the doctrines and practices which were adopted, not only by men who professed to be members of the Church of Rome, but which have been sanctioned by that Church herself. Is Dr. Milner unacquainted with the history of facts, and of opinions? He is not; but he is the most prejudiced of writers. The Provincial letters of Pascal would alone have furnished him with a few hints, as to "the doctrine of holiness," professed by one of the most celebrated orders of his Church;-an order expressly dedicated to the office of instruction. But I forbear. 2. The means of sanctity, "amongst which the principal and most efficacious are the Sacraments." I select a single instance of his want, either of information, or of candour, on this head. "Of the Lord's Supper, as they call it, the Protestant societies, and

* "Maldonate, the Jesuit, in his comments upon Matt. xxvi. 26. took upon him to reproach the Protestants in an unhandsome manner, for speaking of the Eucharist under the name of a supper; which he thought irreverent, and not warranted

particularly, the Church of England, in her prayer-book, say great things: nevertheless, what is it after all, upon her shewing? mere bread and wine, received in memory of Christ's passion and death, in order to excite the receiver's faith in him: that is to say, it is a bare type, or memorial of Christ."-ib. Is Dr. Milner ignorant of the Church of England's doctrine, or does he intentionally misrepresent it? Her sacraments are not defined, mere signs of grace, but " means whereby we receive that grace, and pledges to assure us thereof." The bread and wine are not, after consecration, "bare types and memorials of Christ;" they convey "the body and blood of Christ," that is, as our Church sufficiently explains herself, the benefits of his death and passion, which are, by means of these elements, "received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." Will he confess his error? No: I am persuaded that he will not, by the angry temper and disingenuousness manifested in these letters. He will go on, as in his 21st and 22d letters, misrepresenting the facts of history,

by scripture, antiquity, or sound reason. The learned Casaubon some time after, appeared in behalf of the Protestants, and easily defended them, as to the main thing, against the injurious charge. Albertinus, long after, searched with all diligence into ancient precedents and authorities for the name, and produced them in great abundance, more than sufficient to confute the charge of novelty, rashness, or profaneness, on that head." Waterland on the Eucharist, ch. 1. p. 30.

and calumniating the dead, though required to acknowledge his error, or challenged to produce his proof; and lastly, as in his 23d letter, exposing to ridicule the very name of miraculous interposition, by alleging "as a divine attestation of the sanctity of the Catholic Church," the discarded tricks practised under the most fraudulent pretences in the dark ages; the prophecies of a nun, and the miracles of a French pilgrim in the 18th century; the miraculous cure performed on the 12th of August, 1814, by the hand of F. Arrowsmith, one of the Catholic priests who suffered death at Lancaster, for the exercise of his religion, in the reign of Charles I., "with incurable cancers and other disorders remedied by the same instrument of God's bounty;" which "it would be a tedious work to transcribe." Two of the "attestations in his possession of a similar nature," he has, however, favoured us with; by which we may judge of the rest, and be excused from taking further notice of this Romish mark of sanctity. One is, the cure of Mary Wood, on the 6th of August, 1809, by a piece of moss from St. Winefred's well; and the other, the miraculoas cure of Winefred White, on the 28th of July, 1805, at Holy Well. To these he might now add the restoration of Mrs. Stuart, "by the tural interference of the divine power, through the intercession of Prince Hohenlohe, and a


*I allude more particularly to his obstinacy in adhering to the confuted story of Bishop Halifax's death-bed conversion.

« PreviousContinue »