of religion, and with the affectation of candour. The Rev. Joseph Mendham, in his "Literary Policy of the Church of Rome," writes:-"I cannot forbear adding, with respect to this plausible, because deceitful work, that the reflection which but a cursory examination of it most constantly and forcibly impresses upon the mind, is the facility with which, particularly when aided by opportune suppression, invention, and adjustment, Romanists may prove anything, since the authors and authorities respected by them have maintained everything." The Rev. G. S. Faber, in his "Difficulties of Romanism," with great reason asserts:-"In point of dexterity and plausibility, the work of Dr. Milner, which he has entitled the End of Religious Controversy,' has probably not been surpassed since the days of that prince of sophists; the wily Bossuet. It is, however, strongly marked by what I have noted to be the grand characteristics of productions written in favour of Popery, and in opposition to the Reformation. These are unscrupulous misrepresentations on the one hand, and bold allegation on the other." And Mr. M'Gavin, in his refutation of parts of the work in question, declares that Dr. Milner "has displayed an impudent disregard of historical truth;" that "his End of Religious Controversy' bears one of the most prominent marks of the beast in its very front; there is downright lying and imposition." From these brief extracts, our readers will at once appreciate the estimation in which this work is held. To the Roman Catholic controversialist, Dr. Milner's book has very extensively supplied weapons of attack, though very few have cared, either to test the value of the authority on which their favourite author relies, or to go further for materials; while, on the other hand, there is scarcely a writer on the Protestant side of the question, who has not, in one shape or another, been able to detect gross and palpable misrepresentations in Dr. Milner's assertions. We have, therefore, scattered about in different quarters, in chapters and notes, materials, ample (though not easily obtainable by the generality of readers) for exposing these various "pious frauds." It is our purpose in the present work, without following any particular order, to bring before our readers illustrations PIOUS FRAUDS "of the REV. DR. MILNER, as exemplified in the work in question, availing ourselves, from time to time, of the labours of others, as well original as published; and, during this examination, we may occasionally refer to Dr. Milner's other work-" Letters to a Prebendary." of " a In the preface, 3rd edit. p. xxxiv. We shall confine ourselves as closely as possible to the exposure of Dr. Milner's misrepresentations, rather than enter on a general discussion or examination of the doctrines of the Roman Church. We are fully aware of the difficulty and extent of the task we have undertaken, arising from the wide range of subjects treated of by Dr. Milner, condensed into a small compass, without any attempt at accuracy, either in citation of historical facts, or quotations from other writers. Notwithstanding these difficulties, we feel confident that, though it may be impossible in a limited compass to expose all the misrepresentations of Dr. Milner, we shall be able to lay before our readers sufficient to destroy his credit, whether as a divine or a controversialist. We may be reminded, by some of our readers, of Dr. Grier's, Dr. Jarvis', Bishop Hopkins', and Mr. McGavin's very able works on the same subject; but it has been universally admitted, that they do not present a full examination of the work; and, besides, having confined themselves (with the exception of Mr. McGavin) to what more particularly engaged them, as members of the Church of England, they are rather incomplete. For though ourselves sincere members of our time-honoured scriptural Church, we shall, in the course of our examination, refute the calumnies which Dr. Milner has heaped on the various other denominations of Protestants with an unsparing and unscrupulous hand, and to this part of our plan we particularly invite the attention of our dissenting brethren. The greatest care has been taken to arrive at accuracy in the citations from authors. C. H. C. 10th September, 1856. NOTE.-Except when another edition is expressly named, the edition of Milner's "End of Religious Controversy," from which we have quoted throughout the following pages, is the 12mo. stereotype edition printed at Derby, "for the [Roman] Catholic Book Society," without date. The editor's Preface bears date 1842. CONTENTS. Issue raised by Milner between Protestants and Romanists, 2-His sophism of a supposed sudden corruption of the Christian Faith to Romanism, 3. No. II. The 14th Psalm. The alleged corruption of, and Milner's attempt to weaken the faith in, the Authorized Version, 5, 6-The Rhemish and Authorized Versions compared, 7-And Romish editions cited-Calmet's evidence-Various old versions cited, 12-Jerome's statements, 12, 13-The testimony of Estius, 12-Erasmus, No. III. Alleged Corruption of the Authorized Version, 1 John v. 7. Milner's statement, 15, 16-Authorized Version vindicated, 16. No. IV. Alleged Inaccuracies in the Authorized Translation. Milner's charge (1 Cor. xi. 27) stated, 17—19-The various Roman editions cited, 19, 20-As to Matt. xix. 11-Milner's case stated, 20-Dr. Lingard agrees with ours-The Authorized Translation vindicated, 21—Alleged obscure No. V.-Protestant Rule of Faith and Private Judgment. Milner's definitions, 24-His perversion exposed, 25-The principle of Private Judgment stated, 25, 29, 34-The Canons of 1571 and 1559, 26- No. VI.-The Objection that Christ himself never Wrote. Milner's argument stated, 34, 35-Replied to, 35-And also by Augustine (by anticipation), 35-Milner's preaching and teaching theory examined 36, 37. No. VII. Alleged limited Scope and insufficiency of the Gospels, and the Canonical Epistles of the New Testament as a Rule of Faith. Milner's preaching theory examined-Milner's statement, 37, 38-The suf- ficiency of Scriptures vindicated, 40-Patristic evidence-Irenæus, 42-Ter- tullian, 43-Ambrose-Jerome Augustine, 44-Clement of Alexandria- Origen, 46-Hippolytus-Athanasius-Cyril of Jerusalem, 47-Basil-Theo- philus of Alexandria-Gregory of Nyssa-Cyril of Alexandria, 48-Chrysostom, 49-Result of investigation-No Father questions sufficiency of Scriptures- Jeremy Taylor's opinion-Johannes, Damascenes, and Gerson maintain the Protestant rule, 50-As also the Tridentine Bishops Fano and Chioggia, 51— No. VIII.-Tradition, or the Roman Rule of Faith. Milner's definition, 52-His Patristic evidence in support examined- Ignatius, 53-57-πaрádoσic and traditio, the meaning of these words as used by early Christian writers-Irenæus, 57 et seq.-Tradition as to the appoint- ment of the first Bishop of Rome, 61-Tertullian, 64-69-Origen, 69- No. IX.-The Canon of Scripture. The teaching of the Church of England, 73-The Trent Council, 74- Milner's arguments and authorities for establishing the Roman Canon, 75- The tradition of the Church examined before the date of the Council of Car- thage, 75, 76-The Jewish Church, 76-Melito, Origen, Hilary, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, 76-Greg. Nazianzen, Jerome, Council of Laodicea (confirmed by subsequent councils), Epiphanius, 77-Augustine, 78-Expla nation of the term "Canon" of Scripture as used by Augustine, 78-Confirmed by Cajetan, 79-The 74th Canon of the third Council of Carthage proved to be spurious, 80, 81-The tradition of, after the third Council of Carthage, 81 -The Council objected to by Bellarmine, 81-Du Pin, 82-Evidence against the Tridentine decree in each successive century, from the sixth to the six- teenth, 82, 83-The List of Innocent I. examined, 83-Shown to be a forgery, 83, 84-Cajetan's opinion, 83-Milner's argument derived from Augustine, Hooker [175], Lardner, and Luther, 85, 87, 88-Augustine's supposed belief No. X.-REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. Dr. Milner's historical misrepresentations in reference to the marriage of Prince Henry (afterwards Henry VIII.) with his brother's widow, Katharine of Arragon, and his subsequent marriage with Anne Boleyn-The Pope's alleged refusal to the divorce and second marriage stated to be the cause of the king abrogating the Pope's supremacy, 88-102-His further misrepresen- tations with reference to the Duke of Somerset, 102-105-Milner's misrepre- sentations in regard to Elizabeth, 105, 106-Milner's Theory of the causes of the Reformation, 107-The Politics of Princes and Statesmen, 107-The avarice of the Nobility and Gentry, 110-The irreligion and licentiousness of the Milner's lamentation of Protestant slander on the "Church before Luther" -No necessity of employing Protestant testimony-Evidence from the Orations of the Council of Trent of the universal depravity of the Roman Church and Roman Catholic States, 112, 114, 116, 117, 120-Of Caranza-The Theo- logians of Louvain, 113—The like from Gravina—Erasmus' Letters, 114, 117, 121 (notes)-Milner's Protestant evidences, 115-Want of morality among the Roman converts in India, 118-The passage from Calvin's treatise "De Scan- No. XII. THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. On the Temporal and Spiritual Supremacy. Sec. I.-Milner disclaims for the Pope civil and temporal supremacy- Baronius holds the contrary-The decree of Boniface-Bull of Sixtus V. and Pius V. against Queen Elizabeth, 124-The teaching of Trent defined-The appellation of Pope (Papa) and Milner's perversion, 125. Sec. II.-Evidence derived from the New Testament-The points to be proved-Peter's position among the Apostles, 125-Ambrose and Chrysostom on the equal worth of Paul, 127-Milner's Scriptural texts, Matt. x. 2-On placing Peter first when the Apostles were enumerated, 127-Peter first to confess Christ, 127-The first to whom Christ appeared after the Resurrection, 128-The first to preach the Resurrection and to convert the Gentiles, 129- CONTENTS. Issue raised by Milner between Protestants and Romanists, 2-His sophism of a supposed sudden corruption of the Christian Faith to Romanism, 3. The alleged corruption of, and Milner's attempt to weaken the faith in, the Authorized Version, 5, 6-The Rhemish and Authorized Versions compared, 7-And Romish editions cited-Calmet's evidence-Various old versions cited, 12-Jerome's statements, 12, 13-The testimony of Estius, 12—Erasmus, No. III.-Alleged Corruption of the Authorized Version, 1 John v. 7. Milner's statement, 15, 16-Authorized Version vindicated, 16. No. IV. Alleged Inaccuracies in the Authorized Translation. Milner's charge (1 Cor. xi. 27) stated, 17-19-The various Roman editions cited, 19, 20-As to Matt. xix. 11-Milner's case stated, 20-Dr. Lingard agrees with ours-The Authorized Translation vindicated, 21-Alleged obscure No. V.-Protestant Rule of Faith and Private Judgment. Milner's definitions, 24-His perversion exposed, 25-The principle of Private Judgment stated, 25, 29, 34-The Canons of 1571 and 1559, 26— No. VI. The Objection that Christ himself never Wrote. Milner's argument stated, 34, 35-Replied to, 35-And also by Augustine (by anticipation), 35—Milner's preaching and teaching theory examined 36, 37. No. VII.-Alleged limited Scope and insufficiency of the Gospels, and the Canonical Epistles of the New Testament as a Rule of Faith. Milner's preaching theory examined-Milner's statement, 37, 38-The suf ficiency of Scriptures vindicated, 40-Patristic evidence-Irenæus, 42-Ter- tullian, 43—Ambrose-Jerome Augustine, 44-Clement of Alexandria— Origen, 46-Hippolytus-Athanasius-Cyril of Jerusalem, 47-Basil-Theo- philus of Alexandria-Gregory of Nyssa-Cyril of Alexandria, 48-Chrysostom, 49-Result of investigation-No Father questions sufficiency of Scriptures- Jeremy Taylor's opinion-Johannes, Damascenes, and Gerson maintain the Protestant rule, 50-As also the Tridentine Bishops Fano and Chioggia, 51- No. VIII.-Tradition, or the Roman Rule of Faith. Milner's definition, 52-His Patristic evidence in support examined- Ignatius, 53-57-πaрádoσic and traditio, the meaning of these words as used by early Christian writers-Irenæus, 57 et seq.-Tradition as to the appoint- ment of the first Bishop of Rome, 61-Tertullian, 64-69-Origen, 69- |