Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

dence of the dates uncertain -Positive evidence for the story—Marianus
Scotus, Sigebertus, Martinus Polonus—A Romanist should not doubt
the truth of oral tradition—Local memory may suffice without a writ-
ten record—No possible motive for fabricating such a story two hun-
dred years after the time-The first writer of the story an honest and
faithful monk—No Protestants to gratify–The statue erected—The
processions avoided the spot-The perforated chair-General acquies-
cence for centuries in the truth of the story—Theodoric of Nerin-
Another statue of Pope Joan in the Cathedral of Siena-Still seen in
the time of Baronius-Metamorphosed into Pope Zachary-Removed
• and broken up before 1677Testimony of Antonius Pagi—Testimony
of St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence-Never questioned till the
time of Pius II.-Sarau and Blondel-Why Pope Urban did not turn
away from the place-Summary of the argument on both sides—Pre-
ponderance of evidence in favor of the truth of the story-No theologi-
cal importance to be attached to it-Inconsistency of Milner in scout-
ing the story of Pope Joan, while he pretends to believe in the absur-
dity of the Nagg's-Head ordination. Pp. 13—23.

LETTER XXVII.
Missions Success or failure of modern missions has no proper place
in theological controversy–Rapid spread of Mahometanism-Rapid
progress of the Reformation-Mormonism-Milner's character of Romish
missionaries—Carnal weapons employed to propagate Romanism-
Policy of Jesuit missionaries—Milner's objection that there are no mar-
tyrs among Protestant missionaries—The apostles did not court mar-
tyrdom-St. Augustine, of Canterbury, no martyr—The monks of Ban-
gor—The Jesuit martyrdoms in distant lands, if true, probably resulted
from the same causes that produced their expulsion in Europe—Their
compromises with heathen idolatries—Dissipation of their boasted con-
quests—Expulsions, dissolution, and restoration of the order-Milner's
misrepresentation of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, and
the Moravian missions—British and Foreign Bible Society-Work of
the S. P. G. since its foundation, in 1701, in the colonies of North
America, the West Indies, Newfoundland, Guinea, Sierra Leone, the
Canadas, Cape Breton, New Brunswick, New South Wales, and Nor-
folk Island-Also in India, China, and Australia, though Milner had
heard nothing of its doings~Permanency of the work-Operations of
the Bible Society—The Scriptures early translated in the primitive
Church-Rome has done comparatively nothing of this in modern days

LETTER XXX.
Evidence of Scripture and the primitive Church concerning angel and
saint-worship-Rome makes the Blessed Virgin a sharer, if not an ab-
solute rival; in the powers and graces of the Saviour and the Holy
Spirit—This proved— Rome carries it into every possible particular-
Yet all this is called mere invocation-Even if so, how can she hear so
many millions at once without ubiquity ?-Said to be revealed to her
by God himself—Analogy of an earthly king—The Roman theory a
mere absurdity—The popular idea attributes to the Saints a universal
presence, one of the attributes of God alone- This is the first branch of
Roman idolatry— The attributes of God are incommunicable—The
angels not omnipresent-Omniscience another attribute of God--The
Virgin regarded as practically knowing all things—This is the second
branch of Roman idolatry—The third ascribes to her omnipotence, all
power both in heaven and earth-Not said to be inherent, but ac-
quired-Yet she is believed to possess it-Christ Himself possessed it
only by the hypostatic union of His human nature with the Eternal
Word_Milner's inconsistent rhapsody-Sublime and consoling privi-
lege—How many petitions the Blessed Virgin hears (or receives by
revelation) daily, hourly, momevtly—The attributes of God alone suffi-
cient for this—The true doctrine infinitely more sublime and consoling.
Pp. 58—68.

LETTER XXXI.
The Apostles and the Fathers not on the side of Rome–The whole
Scriptural proof claimed is from the Angelic Salutation—"Full of grace,"
not so correct a translation as “thou that art highly favored”—The Roman
translation of the same word in another place agrees with ours-
“Blessed among women” refers only to the Saints below--The same said
of Jael, and of Israel-As Mother of our Lord, we, also, call her Blessed
—“All power, both in heaven and earth,” is another thing-Our Saviour
never calls his Mother by any title but woman—“What have I to do
with thee?"-Our version again justified by the Romish in a similar
place—The miracle at Cana-Admitted harshness of our Lord's ex-
pression–Our Lord foresaw the coming superstition-Christ's tarrying
behind at Jerusalem-His rebuke to Joseph and Mary-Yet St. Joseph
is addressed by Rome as the ruler, governor, and saviour of his Lord-

Mother and my brethren"—No special pre-eminence at.
tached to the earthly relationship—“Rather blessed are they that hear

Behold my

[blocks in formation]

the Word of God and keep it”—“Woman, behold thy son”—Majesty
of the God in man, even in death-Negative testimony of Scripture-
The Blessed Virgin nowhere interferes, or counsels—Almost nothing
further recorded of her-Milner's claim that the Roman doctrine came
immediately from the Apostles before the New Testament was written
-The testimony of the primitive Church disproves this—St. Augustine
-In his time the Virgin not styled the "Mother of God”—He held her
to be a sinner, needing to be saved by the death of her Son-Difference
between honoring the Saints and worshipping them-St. Basil—Pope
Leo-Pope Gregory the Great-St. Epiphanius against the Collyridians

- Against the Assumption also—St. Isidore of Seville-Superstition
already begun—The ancient Liturgies—The Clementine Liturgy–The
Liturgy of St. James—The Liturgy of St. Mark—The Liturgy of St.
Chrysostom—The Liturgy of St. Basil—The Ethiopian Liturgy—The
Nestorian Liturgy–The Liturgy of Severus-St. James, the chief of
Bishops—The old Roman Missal does less honor to the Virgin than
some of the others; no Hail Mary, nor is she entitled Immaculate—The
Sacramentary of Pope Gregory the Great contains no address to the
Virgil or the Saints—Service for the Festival of the Assumption-Sum-
mary of proof drawn from all these quotations—The Fathers held that
the Virgin was not Immaculate; that Saints were to be honored, not
worshipped ; and that the story of the Virgin's death, resurrection, and
assumption, were unknown at the end of the fourth century-Gradual
growth of superstition as proved from the Liturgies—The primitive
Church prayed for the Virgin, not to her-Deórokos, Deipara—The Ora
pro nobis not adopted before the beginning of the seventh century-
Differences between Roman doctrine then and now-Formal idolatry
not charged upon the Church of Rome Latria, Doulia, and Hyper-
doulin-Idolatry in substance may exist without idolatry in form— The
Church of England renders all due honor to the Virgin, acknowledges
her to be Blessed, and Osórokos, or the God-bearer, according to the
Council of Ephesus—Milner's misrepresentations of the Fathers—St.
Irenaeus—St. Justin the Martyr-St. Basil—None of all these prove
Miln-r's doctrine–The passages quoted by him critically examined
Irrelevancy_False translation—Spurious epistles referred to by him
as genuine-Pious fraud-Summary of Milner's patristic proof. Pp.
69-101.

LETTER XXXII.
Images and Relics—Milner's statement of Roman doctrine, and his
proofs in support of it from Scripture, and the members of the Church
of England–He claims only relative or secondary veneration for these
memorials of the Saints--Historical use-He acknowledges that the
memorials of religion form no essential part of it-Milner's omissions in
stating the Roman doctrine supplied— The doctrine as defined by the
Council of Irent–The Decree of the second Council of Nice in the year
787—The representation given by Milner proved from these to be
wrong, both in what it asserts and what it omits—Images required,
under anathema, to be adored with kisses, incense, and lighted candles
-Veneration for relics proved from the Breviary-Relics of St. Isidore,
St. Ubald, St. Januarius, St. Francis Xavier, the images of the Virgin at
Ancona and Mercatello-Milner’s Scriptural proof examined—The
corpse touching the bones of the Prophet Elisha—A particular act of
Divine Power, not a standing system-The reference to ancient Israel
unfortunate for Rome-No images or relics of Moses, Elijah, Elisha,
Miriam, Deborah, Jael, and Hannah-Nehushtan—Veneration not paid
to the Ark, but to the Shekinah upon the Mercy-seat—The woman
healed of her issue of blood, not by Christ's garment, but by the Lord's
will and her own faith—The use of aprons and handkerchiefs had power
by the prayers of living Apostles-Relics are only of the dead—St.
Stephen carried by devout men to his burial, not preserved for relics-
All this pretended Scripture proof weak and flimsy-Bowing to the
throne in the English House of Lords—The vacant throne not a relic-
No prayers addressed to it, or benefit expected from it-So of kneeling
to the Sovereign-Royal etiquette-Bowing at the name of Jesus—The
name of Jesus not an image, or a relic-Bowing the head is a true act
of worship to Christ himself—Kissing the Bible, or a miniature, or a
letter-In these cases no incense, no lights, no prayers, no hope of re-
ceiving benefits, or of deliverance from evils—No fault found with paint-
ing and sculpture as memorials merely-No objection to relics as simple
memorials of persons or events—The primitive Church entirely hostile
to Rome on these points—Clement of Alexandria-Jerome~ The Council
of Eliberis-Ambrose-Augustine Epiphanius—He tears the painted
veil at Anablatha-Cyril of Jerusalem-Optatus, Pope Gregory the
Great patronizes images, but carefully prohibits their being worshipped
-His letter to Serenus, who bad destroyed the images—Slow but steady
progress of image-worship and papal power together-Gregory III.
still stronger in favor of images—Prayers addressed to the Saints

« ElőzőTovább »