M'Gavin on "The end of controversy" : being strictures on Dr. Milner's work in support of Popish errors, entitled, "The end of religious controversy"

Front matter

LIBRARY | Cheological Seminary, |.

PRINCETON, Nw J

M* Gavin on "The end of controversy"

Contents

Page BRE iw wm) aed pie ire a] 8 E CT IO N I, e ° e ® ° ® a q

II, e « e a ° ° ry 2 1 BIT ae et eh ag cee at Oe . Ty. e e 2 o e ry e 53

SECTION XVIII.

Preface

ee

‘Tue following strictures on the work of Dr. Milner, entitled “The End of Religious Controversy,” were written by W. M‘Gavin, Esq. and circulated by him, in 1822, in a weekly paper, which he then was engaged in publishing, against Popery. They are here reprinted, with permission, and without alteration, and with only some verbal corrections, and the omission of a few sentences or expressions of a personal nature, or which had reference to temporary circumstances of the day.

Valais } bd tt P as if rai hi

TY hi t fe 7 fa § ie ik yn pl f P he ; by, : x .

“THE END OF CONTROVERSY.”

=e eee =

Section I

Wuen I first saw the title of Dr. Milner’s great work, “ The End of Religious Controversy,” I understood him to mean the “ final end” or design of the thing; which is, or should be, the discovery of truth, and the exposure ‘of error. But I had not read many sentences till I discovered that he meant the actual conclusion, or termination, of all controversy qn religious subjects. Yes; this foreign bishop, and vicar apostolic, has actually the vanity and presumption to tell the world, that this work of his settles all controversies, and puts an end to all disputes about religion! He tells us that Christianity is the religion of Rome, and submission to the pope; and this must end all disputes; for ‘he has said it, and that is enough. Had there been no disputes before, this work would have been properly called the degznning of religious controversy; for it suggests innumerable subjects of debate; but as things are, and have been, I think it eught not to have been called either the “ beginning,” or the ‘“end,” but the ‘ middle;” for there was religious controversy before, and there has been since, and there will be yet more; and this same work of Dr. Milner is calculated to — produce more controversy than any other publication by the Papists of the present day. The Rev. Mr. Grier has added a large volume to “ the end,” or termination; and “ The Protestant”* is about to add to it something more; so that the vicar apostolic will find that he has not done up his subject so completely as he imagined.

The work is preceded by an address to the lord bishop of St. David’s,+ and followed by an appendix relative to the writings of the same prelate; in both which the writer displays a spirit of rancorous hostility, too strong for even the cunning of Jesuitism to conceal.

The introductory address and the appendix are both in the same style, only there is more venom in the Jatter than in the former. In both there is more than common petulance, and an impudent disregard of historical truth; and, upon the whole, he discovers nothing of a superior, or well cultivated

* These strictures first appeared in a weekly paper so eailed, written by Mr. M‘Gavin, and printed at Glasgow. + Dr. Burgess.

“ THE END OF CONTROVERSY.” ¥y mind. Considering the rank and learning of the person whom he addresses, his style partakes as much of insolence as petulance ; _and I| do not know any thing to which it can be so justly compared, as to the rudeness of ill-bred boys and girls in the streets, who delight in throwing dirt on the clothes of such passengers as show by their dress that they are superior to themselves.

This “ End of Religious Controversy” bears one of the most prominent marks of the Beast in its very front; that is, downright lying and imposition. Of the bishop of St. David’s the author writes as follows:—“ He comes forward in his episcopal mitre, bearing in his hands a new Protestant catechism, _ to be learned by Protestants of every description, which teaches them, to hate and persecute their elder brethren, the authors of their Christianity and civilization,” p. 7. In this short sentence there are several things which require animadversion; but the first and most prominent is the impudent misrepresentation, that this catechism teaches Protestants to hate and persecute their brethren. T have read i: over again and again, and can assure the reader that it teaches no such thing: nor does it contain a syllable that, by fair construction, can be made to imply that it is right to hate and persecute any man, of any sect whatever. With as much truth Dr. Milner might. have said, that this catechism teaches treason, and that it recommends the confiscation of the revenues of the church, of which its author is a distinguished ornament and zealous defender. My present business, however, is not to defend the doctrine of the Catechism, but merely to expose the falsehood of the vicar apostolic, and the unblushing effrontery that could make such an assertion, when he must have known that any child could detect it. '

It is but fair, however, to state the ground on which Dr. Milner makes such an assertion; and we have it in the following words :—* In fact, this Christian bishop begins and ends his Protestant Catechism with a quotation from a Puritan regicide, declaring, that ‘Popery is not to be tolerated, either in public or in private, and that it must be thought how to remove it, and hinder the growth thereof ;’ adding, ‘If they say, that by removing their idols we violate their consciences, we have no warrant to regard conscience which is not grounded on Scripture.” ” This is a quotation from the great poet Milton, which his lordship gives, in the introduction, and at the conclusion of his Catechism. It is because he has quoted these words, that Dr. Milner makes the monstrous assertion above noticed, that the bishop’s Catechism teaches Protestants to hate and persecute their brethren. The question is not, whether Milton perfectly

“THE END OF CONTROVERSY.” Il understood the subject of liberty of conscience. Perhaps he did not; as few men of his day understood it so well as it 1s generally understood now; but taking his words in the strongest and most exceptionable sense that they will bear, they imply nothing like that which Dr. Milner affects to find in them. They cannot without gross violence be made to imply, that it is right to hate and persecute Papists. The sum and substance of them is that “ Popery is not to be tolerated, either in public or in private.” : Now, though I have always been an advocate for liberty of conscience, and an enemy of persecution for conscience’ sake, and hope to continue so to the end of my life, I cannot but express my agreement with the great poet, that “‘ Popery is not to be tolerated,” because I believe it is quite intolerable to every man whose religion is derived from the Bible; and that it ought to be opposed, and put down, and extirpated by every means by which it is lawful and possible to oppose and extirpate error. Toleration is not a mere negative; it is so far a positive thing, that if we say a thing is tolerable, it implies acquiescence; it is to say, it may be suffered, or endured; it is not necessary to oppose it. Now, I say, with Milton, that Popery is not to be tolerated; that no Christian can tolerate it without compromising his Christianity, and becoming a traitor to his Saviour. It ought to be opposed in every way by which error can be success- — fully opposed: that is, by instruction, by argument, by manifestation of the truth, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left ; and by prayer to God, night and day, that he would maintain his own cause, and bless the labours of his servants in the ministry of the gospel. Those who know that Popery, as well as every other system of error, is intolerable, will labour in this way for its extirpation; and I know of — no other way by which it can be extirpated.

Now, I know well there are men of such perverse minds, that they will apply what I have said of principles to persons—of errors to the individuals who hold them; and what I have said of extirpation by means of truth and argument, to extirpation by fire and sword. I must, therefore, tell them again, though I cannot give them a mind to understand it, that the things are quite different and distinct; and that what applies to the ‘ne cannot be made available with regard to the other. It is as impossible to convince a man by force as to kill him by an argument. To attempt, therefore, to extirpate heresy or error by fire and sword, is as absurd as to ;unish a murderer by a syllogism. I would never appiy force of any kind to extirpate error, while yet I hold that error in general, and Popery in particular, ought not to be

Olerated, but extirpated, by the only means which can reach error, which has its seat in the mind, and can be affected only by rational and spiritual weapons.

With regard to persons, I do not say that

Papists ought not to be tolerated; neither _ does Milton in the obnoxious passage under consideration. A Papist may be as tolerable in civil society as another man. Many of them, no doubt, are so, and ought not to be _ punished on account of their errors. They ought not to have power over Protestants, for their principles would compel them to use such power, not for the extirpation of heresy merely, but of heretics; for they have not learned to make the distinction between

rinciples and persons which I have here aid down. But as members of civil society, without power to injure others, they are tolerable, ought to be tolerated, and are _ tolerated, in this country as much as other _ dissenters. I hope shall never see it otherwise; but as for their errors, idolatries, and superstitions, I hold these to be quite intolerable and insufferable ; and wherever they are obtruded, they ought instantly to be put down by truth and argument. If they ‘practise their idolatries in private, they must - answer for this, and their other secret sins, to God; we have nothing to do with them, for toleration does not apply to that which is ‘unseen and unknown. But if they were te erect their idols in our streets, and worship them there, I would say, they ought to be put down by the magistrates as insulting to public decorum, and as tending to a breach of the peace; and though they should plead conscience in such a case, I would say with Milton, it ought not to be regarded ; not only because the thing is contrary to the word of God, but because the streets do not belong to them, but to the public; and they have no right to prostitute public property for idolatrous purposes.

It is true the Bishop of St. David’s prefixes to his Catechism a quotation from Mr. Locke, which may imply that Papists, as well as Popery, ought not to be tolerated. Papists are not specially mentioned, but they may take the passage to themselves if they please ;

and if they find it excludes them from toleration, it is for areason which they themselves | must approve. The words are—‘“ These have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of religion.” Locke was the great advocate of toleration in the seventeenth century; and I have no doubt his Letters on the subject had no small influence in preparing the minds of men for | the tolerant laws established by king William 11. Indeed, except Dr. Owen, I do not recollect any other writer of that age who | £0 explicitly maintains the principle of tolera- | tion, now so universally admitted. It was his very zeal for the “toleration of all men in matters of religion,” that led him to exclude Papists from the general rule; because, seeing they would not tolerate others, he thought they could not safely be tolerated. His remark applies to a state of society resembling that of civil warfare, in which the natural principle of self-defence requires and admits of certain rigours not necessary or lawful in other circumstances.

But let the very worst be made of these words of Locke, and of the rest that are quoted from him, they cannot imply that it is our duty to hate and persecute any sect, or any individual. To refuse toleration to those who will not tolerate others, is not persecution, but a just exercise of civil power, like the punishment of other evil doers. But this scarcely applies to the state of things in England and Scotland in the present day, where

Papists do practise toleration, because they are without power, and few in number; and _ the rule of their church, as laid down by Bel-

Jarmine, is, that in such circumstances they _ ought to be tolerant, and that they ought not

to attempt to extirpate heresy by force, except where it may safely be done. Thus we tole- Yate Papists for the very reason why they _ would not tolerate us, that is, we have power, and they have not.

But there is more objectionable matter in this sentence of Dr. Milner’s than the misrepresentation which I have pointed out. He speaks as if it were granted that Popery was genuine, ancient Christianity—as if it were indisputable and admitted that Papists were the authors of our Christianity and our civilization. It would not have occurred to any man of right thinking or feeling, that any creature, angelic or human, was the author of his religion. We know that Jesus Christ himself is the Author as well as the Finisher of our faith; but Papists seldom, if ever, think of looking so high. They cannot trace their religion to a higher source than some fellow creature of a saint; or, perhaps, rather a sinner of their own rank; and here Dr. Milner roundly asserts, that the authors of our Christianity are the Papists who happened to live in England prior to the Reformation !

There is nothing in which the Bishop of St. David’s is more successful, and nothing in which any author could desire to be more successful, so far as the evidence of anciem history goes, than his lordship is, in proving that the original Christianity of Britam was not Popery, and that the British Christians oi the first six centuries had no more to do with Rome than they had with Jerusalem, or Aptioch, or Alexandria, or with the man in the - moon, so far as regarded authority on the one hand, and subjection on the other. But Dr.

‘¢ THE END OF CONTROVERSY.” iy

Milner, in his introductory address, without invalidating the overwhelming © evidence adduced by his lordship on these points, shortly contents himself with re-asserting what has been asserted and disproved a thousand times, that Popery is“ the ancient religion,” and that Papists were “the authors of our Christianity and civilization.” Here again we have something like the impudence of a petulant boy, who having been reproved for a lie which he had told, after having its falsehood demonstrated, holds up an unblushing face, and tells it over again. Parents and tutors have been subjected to the painful necessity of witnessing such depravity, and so must every man who shall enter into controversy with Papists. It has been proved a thousand times that their errors are mere novelties, unknown to the Christians of the apostolic age; and yet I suppose no Papist ever wrote a hundred lines on the subject, without asserting that his religion isas old as the era of Christianity. They hope by this incessant repetition of their lie, to exhaust the patience of Protestants, and so get them to believe it for the sake of peace and quietness; and such is the simplicity of Protestants in general, that there is a probability of their being successful, as they have been with, regard to their designation. It was by sheer impudence and perseverance that they got Protestants to drop the term Papists, and call b"G B them Catholics, though they have no more right to that name than the Episcopalians of England, the Presbyterians of Scotland, or the Independents of both kingdoms. fn his postscript, Dr.

Milner has a little nibbling at the bishop’s authorities with regard to the religion of the ancient British ; but he has not adduced a particle of evidence to show that Popery, as it is now, and has been for twelve hundred years in Italy, was professed in this island during the first six centuries. The following statement by Judge Blackstone, prefixed to the Protestant Catechism, remains uncontroverted; and it will readily be admitted that few men were better acquainted with our nationa] history :—“ The ancient British church, by whomsoever planted, was a stranger to the bishop of Rome, and his pretended authority. But the pagan Saxon invaders, having driven the professors of Christianity to the remotest corners of our island, their own conversion was afterwards effected by Augustine the monk, and other missionaries from the court of Rome. This naturally introduced some few of the Papal corruptions in point of faith and doc- | trine; but we read of no civil authority claimed by the Pope in these kingdoms till | ‘the era of the Norman conquest.”—Comm, | b. rv. ch. viii. | It is equally true with regard to Ireland, — that Popery is a mere novelty, so far, at least, _ as regards subjection to the pope, and paying him tribute. Ireland is said to have been an island of saints fourteen centuries ago; but certainly they were not Papists for many hundred years thereafter. For this we have no less than Papal authority, contained in a bull of Adrian rv., inserted in the postscript to the Protestant Catechism; on which the right reverend author writes as follows :— “The bull of Adrian tv., in which he gives his consent to Henry the Second’s conquest of Ireland, on condition of his paying Peterpence, is a curious and important historical document, and contains indisputable evidence that Popery was not the ancient religion of the Irish—anot the religion of Ireland hefore the middle of the twelfth century. If this fact, the modern introduction of Popery into Ireland, were more generally known in that country, it might tend not a little to break that spell which blinds the eyes of the Irish Papists to the errors of the church of Rome.” Then follows a quotation from Archbishop Ussher, strongly expressive of the same sentiment. The archbishop had paid particular attention to the state and history of the ancient Trish, and he writes thus :—“ As far as I can _collect by such records of the former ages as have come into my hands, either manuscript - or printed, the religion professed by the ancient bishops, priests, monks, and other Christians in this land, as in substance the 32 very same with that which now, by public authority, is maintained therein against the foreign doctrine brought thither in latter times by the bishop of Rome’s followers.”

This is perfectly consistent with the fact of missionaries being sent from Rome to Ireland in the fourth and fifth centuries, supposing that to be a fact; for Romeitself was not then thoroughly papified ; and the fact of receiving the gospel by the preaching of missionaries from Rome, did not then imply subjection to the see of Rome, any more than the fact of America receiving the gospel from England implies subjection to the see of Canterbury.

Now, the fact is, pope Adrian tv. knew that Henry 1. of England had a great liking to Ireland, and wished to have it annexed to his dominions. Adrian accordingly issued a bull, authorizing the king to invade and take forcible possession of that island, which he justified and commended by the followinz reason :—“ Your highness’s desire of extending the glory of your name on earth, and of | obtaining the reward of eternal happiness in heaven, is laudable and beneficial ; inasmuch as your intent is, as a Catholic prince, to enlarge the limits of the church, to declare — the truth of the Christian faith to untaught and rude nations, and to eradicate vice from | the field of the Lord.” Nothing can be more conclusive than this. Ireland did not then | belong to the church of Rome, else the con- — quest of it could not have tended to enlarge the ehurch. Ireland had not then received the religion of Rome, else the Pope would uot have called it an untaught and rude uation. This conclusion is confirmed by several other expressions in the bull for which I have not room. His lordship gives this curious document in the original Latin, with a translation; and for its authenticity he refers to a host of great and well-known authors, such as Giraldus Cambrensis; Matt. Paris, etc. ; and there is a translation of it in Rapin's History of England ; Collyer's Eccles, Hist. Great Britain; Leland’s Hist. Ireland; Lord Littleton’s Hist. Henry ., etc. ete.

Section II

My last number was occupied chiefly by an exposure of the misrepresentations contained in one single sentence of the introductory address to Dr. Milner’s “End of Religious Controversy.” Were I to do equal justice _ to every sentence—were I to expose in detail every misstatement, misrepresentation, quibble, and sophistry, which this book contains, it would occupy the remainder of my life; and the vicar apostolic himself would probably not live to see an “end” of the controversy which his “End of Religious Controversy” had created. It is not my design to go so much into detail, but rather to apply my attention to a few leading principles, which may be called pillars of the great Romish temple; and if J can subvert these, the whole fabric must fall—I mean, in argument, not in reality, for I believe ‘the final fall of antichrist is not just yet.*

I have introduced Dr. Milner as asserting that Popery was the Christianity of ancient times, and that to it England was indebted for her Christianity as well as her civilization. This is a main pillar of Popery; yet it cannot stand a breath of such writers as the late archbishop Ussher, and the present bishop of St. David’s. It is, in fact, demolished by every Protestant writer who attacks it; yet Dr. Milner writes as if it never had been touched; and he seems to think he obtains a great triumph when he detects the following paradox in the Protestant Catechism :—“‘The great and fundamental paradox of the right reverend catechist is, that Protestantism subsisted many hundred years before Popery; at the same time that he makes its essence consist in a renunciation of, and opposition to Popery!” p. xiii. In descending to answer such a contemptible quibble, I feel as if I had returned to “The Catholic Vindicator,”}+ and his “ endless contradictions;” for, no doubt, Dr. Milner here insinuates that he has detected a contradic-

* Written in January, 1822. + A popish periodical of that day.

tion, though it is evident he has performed no such achievement. Allowing the thing to be a paradox, as he states it, it is nota contradiction; for the Protestant religion, though as old as Christianity, in substance, has not existed more than three hundred years under the name of Protestant. The _ essence of Christianity is, to believe and confess that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and rose again, according to the Scriptures; yet the apostle Paul said the truth, when he told _his hearers that he taught no other thing than what the prophets had written hundreds of years before Christ came into the world. Christianity is the old religion of the patriarchs and prophets, under a new dispensation, and a new name: so Protestantism is the religion of the primitive Christians, reformed and emancipated from the errors and the bondage of Rome. It takes its present name from the circumstance of protesting against Romish corruption and idolatry; yet it is essentially the same religion, which, under the name Christianity, spread over a great part of the world before there was an _ organized church in Rome; and far longer before any bishop of Rome had the effrontery to put himself forward as universal bishop, and head of the Catholic church. As an example of the summary manner in _which Dr. Milner disposes of some fundamental points of the controversy, take the following. He is speaking of the propriety of Papists defending themselves against the attacks of adversaries; and he says :—‘“ It is not only lawful, but also a duty which we owe to our fellow subjects and ourselves, to repel these charges, by proving that there was reason, and religion, and loyalty, and good faith among Christians, before Luther quarrelled with Leo x., and Henry viii. fell in love with Ann Bulleyn,” p. v. Here he undertakes to prove what nobody denies, that good principles and good conduct were always to be found among Christzans, though he knows quite well that the question is about Papists; and if he means to use the terms as convertible, he is guilty of the logical vice of begging the question. But what I wish the reader particularly to attend to here, is, the impudent assumption that the Protestant religion originated from the passions of two men. There is not a word of argument to prove that such was its origin. The vicar apostolic merely mentions the thing ex passant, as a thing which all the world knows, and which requires no proof; and yet this very thing, which he tries to pass over as indisputable, is what all the world knows to be a downright falsehood. Luther had no quarrel with the pope when he began to preach against indulgences, which was the commencement of his reformation

It was the pope that first quarrelled with him, because he would not forbear exposing the wickedness of the system of indulgences, which had become a scandal to all Europe. It is equally certain that whatever might be the wickedness of Henry vu. with regard to Ann Bulleyn, or any other woman, the reformation in England did not originate with him. For more than a century, that is, from the time of Wickliffe, the minds of the people had been gradually opening to perceive the abominable superstitions of Popery. They were quite ready to throw off the yoke before the king was ready to allow them. Had this not been the case, much as the pope thwarted his designs, he would not have been able to throw the yoke off his own shoulder. He did ultimately effect this; but so far as the reformation of religion was concerned, he was rather a hinderer than a promoter of it. It is not denied that he abolished certain superstitions, and removed many abominations from the established religion ; but he retained enough of the “dead fly” of Popery to give a stinking savour to the whole mass of his ecclesiastical system, when his people would have delighted in a more thorough reformation, and cleansing of the church from her filthiness and her idols. If our Papists had a particle of candour, they would take the model of the reformation in England from the reign of Edward v1., against whose moral character they can find no exception ; or, at least, from that of Elizabeth, when the church was established nearly as she is now: for I suppose there are none of her sons that defend the procedure of Henry vitt. in toto, or maintain the purity of the church as modelled by him. I have adverted to this subject merely to exhibit an example of the manner in which Popish writers disregard historical truth, and the impudence with which they can obtrude falsehood on the world.

But leaving the introductory address, let us attend to the matter and design of the work itself. Dr. Milner, in order to put an end to all controversy about religion, conjures up a society of Protestants, all very candid and open to conviction, and willing to be convinced by such arguments as he is able to adduce; and as he had the making of the society, as well as of the arguments, he found no difficulty in fitting the one to the other. The following is the manner in which he makes his principal creature, “ James Brown, Esq., of New Cottage,’ introduce the subject. It is in a letter to Dr. Milner himself :—

‘REVEREND S1R,—] should need an ample apology for the liberty I take in thus addressing you, without having the honour of your acquaintance, and still more for the heavy task 1 am endeavouring to impose upon you, if [ did not consider your public character as a pastor of your religion, and as a writer in _defenee of it, and likewise your personal character for benevolence, which has been described to me bya gentleman of your com-