A reply to the Rev. Dr. Turton's "Roman Catholic doctrine of the eucharist considered," : Philalethes Cantabrigiensis, the Britisch critic, and the Church of England Quarterly review

Front matter

School of Theology at Claremont

“abi

-_

Chapter I

ON THE STYLE AND MANNER OF DR. TURTON’S CONTROVERSY.

DurRinG my residence in England in 1836, I published three distinct Courses of Lectures: one of more general interest, ““On the Connexion between Science and Revealed Religion,” and two of a controversial character: I had no intention, at least, for that time, of giving either of these to the public : circumstances, over which I had no control, compelled me todo so. These are sufficiently stated in their respective Prefaces. One reason why I naturally desired to delay the publication of the “Lectures on the principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church,” as well as those “On the Real Presence,” was a fear of involving myself in controversy at such disadvantage as distance from the scene of action must necessarily cause. I was about to return to Rome, where I could not expect to see or know much of what is published in England, and where moreover the B calm of other pursuits would greatly deaden that excitement of stirring and immediate interest which so generally forms the stimulus to controversial warfare. It was, therefore, my firm resolution, when I published those Lectures, to let them take their own position, and to suffer in silence any attacks that might be directed against them. Accordingly, I allowed to pass unnoticed several pamphlets, which appeared against me, while still in England, from the pens of different writers.

““ Men,” says the prince of Persian poets, “ do not throw stones at a tree, on which there is no fruit ;” and the activity and violence with which a controversial work is assailed, may generally be considered an adequate test of the estimate which the party opposed to its sentiments, make of its effect. If this rule be correct, I have no reason to be dissatisfied with the reception my humble lucubrations have met with. The Lectures delivered in Moorfields were soon honoured by the notice of the Rev. Mr. Pemble, of the Vicar of Blackburne, of the Rev. Mr. Hough, of the British Critic, of the Protestant Journal, and, since, of the Congregational Magazine. The Rey. M. O’Sullivan and others commented upon some particular points. The “Lectures on the Real Presence” have attracted the attention of the Regius Professor of Theology at Cambridge, Dr. Turton, of the Church of England Quarterly, which dedicated the first article of its first Number to them; of the British Critic, ina distinct article from that already alluded to; and of Philalethes Cantabrigiensis ; first in the British Magazine, and then in a separate book ; under the disguise of which name, I understand I must respect the abilities and learning of a member of the episcopal bench.

To reply to so many opponents was certainly out of my power; I have neither time nor. inclination to do so; nor, so far as I have seen of the publications enumerated, do I think a case made out why I should suspend other occupations to engage ina contest in England. The high standing, however, in their Church, of somewho have thought it worth while to descend into the lists, the character they bear for theological learning, the bulk of their works, and the tone of triumph assumed in them, seemed to warrant an exception in their favour; and I have followed the suggestion of those friends who have forwarded me their works, that I should reply to their objections. As the authors of this class have chiefly attacked my “ Lectures on the Eucharist,” and as this work seems most to have attracted the attention of learned Protestants, I now beg the indulgence of my readers, if I enter upon a vindication of it against the objections of the four writers (whereof three are anonymous) enumerated upon my title-page. I moreover entreat them to have much patience with me, if I shall appear too prolix, or too inclined

B 2 to dwell upon minute details: for, whatever portion of the blame may have to be cast upon my’ unskilfulness, no small share must be laid at the door of those whose steps I unwillingly follow, and whose arts it is as necessary to expose, as it is to confute their objections.

I will premise, in the two first chapters, a few observations upon the manner in which the different attacks of my adversaries have been conducted, that so I may be at once disengaged from the most disagreeable part of the burthen imposed upon me-

It had long been my desire—one which I had warmly cherished—to see controversial discussions: freed from asperity of language and acrimony of feeling, and conducted either with that calm dig-- nity which consciousness of truth inspires, or at any rate with that simple earnestness which generally characterizes the support of scientific opinions. In delivering theological instruction, in proclaiming Catholic dogma from the pulpit, in private conferences, I had unaffectedly avoided all harsh expressions, as well as rancour of mind; and this long before I presented myself as a controversial writer before the English public. This tone. I naturally preserved in the works which I published in London. With, I believe, one exception, where I was repelling a personal attack built upon a tissue of most palpable misrepresentations of my stated opinions, I avoided all personal allusions, and certainly refrained from all imputation of

‘anworthy motives, all insinuation of moral depravity against any one whose arguments I was called upon to combat. My sentiments upon this matter coincided with those since expressed by the Dublin Review in the following passage :—“ It is ever our desire to treat religious subjects with becoming seriousness, and to meet all controversial antagonists in a meek, and consequently in a courteous SIME. cohort. We have no desire to triumph over the men whose principles we are about to examine; we shall regret it if a word escape us that could reach their feelings with pain; and we shall even endeavour to harden our own against the ruffling impressions which allusions, phrases, and charges, wherein they occasionally indulge, are apt to make upon them.”’ Or, as the excellent Frederick Schlegel had before expressed it, I had thought it “not only possible, but very desirable, that theology, in its application or treatment, should ever be conformable with reason, so as not merely to avoid a pernicious confusion of words, and every sort of fanatical misunderstanding, but likewise to eschew all manner of useless contention, and uncharitable hate, to keep ever alive the spirit of love and perfect accord; and whenever this should happen to be attacked or hurt, to bring it once more into remembrance.”

. Vol, iii. pp. 43, 44. 2 Philosophische Vorlesungen, p. 265

If, however, I flattered myself, that conduct based upon such principles was to generate reciprocation of feeling, I have now surely reason to pronounce myself deceived. Shall I say more ? I have, perhaps, received a degree of harsh language exactly proportioned to the care with which I studied to avoid its use. The Protestant Journal, one of my first opponents, unhesitatingly, if I remember right, charged me with hypocrisy, in assuming a character of forbearance which did not belong to my Church. And, in a more detailed review of my Lectures, of which the three first numbers were transmitted to me in Rome, I find expressions applied to me, such as display, to say the least, an excessive degree of controversial irritability. The writer weeps at my wickedness, and, after quoting a passage regarding the proofs of inspiration, comments upon it in the following terms : “There is no mistaking the infernal spirit of these passages, for assuredly he endeavours to remove every argument for the inspiration of the Scripture; and having attempted thus to perform the ‘work that has for ages employed all the subtlety, and wit, and malice, of the devil to accomplish, he proposes that it should be based altogether on tradition! Thus with those who, not being yet so stultified as to receive his traditionary evidence as sufficient, have relied on other proofs, this professed minister of Christ avows his resolve to strip

Z them of those proofs, and transubstantiate them into infidels !”' And after several pages written in a spirit of equal meekness, we come to the following appropriate summary, that through the lecture in question, “ there is a spirit, we cannot style it by any gentler epithet—an infernal spirit, which struggles with every effort of which the man was capable, to make sceptics or infidels, since he could not make them Romanists.’* I know not when spiritual wrath more closely resembled angry passion, or whether coarser weapons have been often used in beating off the profanest infidelity from its attacks on religion, than are here employed. But I should not have stooped so low as to transcribe such expressions, the contact of which might have been almost sufficient to soil the purity of truth, had it existed in the same pages, were it not that they utter in plainer language, what the principal of my present adversaries has preferred to convey by artful insinuation and inuendos.

I. The argument which provoked such unchristian language in the Protestant Journal was this, that in the Protestant system there is no sufficient proof of the inspiration of Scripture; and that consequently, that system, which assumes the all-sufficiency of Scripture as a basis, is void of foundation. What is there in this argument that transgresses the admitted bounds of controversial reasoning ?

Is it not in fact the term to which, in all such discussions, every sincere disputant desires to drive his adversary, the conviction, that is, that truth is exclusively on his own side? But because the alternative in this case necessarily was, “there is no medium or resting-place in Protestantism between admitting the Catholic foundation of inspiration, tradition, or renouncing that inspiration,” no gentler epithet than znfernal can be found to characterize the spirit of him who uses it! Throughout Dr. Turton’s book, which I have placed first on my list, because it bears the author’s name, and is most voluminous, a similar form of objection prevails. Whenever, in commenting upon any text of Scripture, I endeavour to show that a departure from a given interpretation produces contradiction, inconsequence, or any other defect not to be imagined of God’s holy word, and thus prove that the interpretation, which is clear of such difficulties, must be the true one, the learned professor launches forth into declamation—calculated indeed to mislead vulgar minds, but utterly unworthy of his character—against the impiety of such reasoning, as though the very imputation were made against Holy Scripture, which the argument is intended to ward off, and into expressions of compassion: or astonishment at the character of the person employing it. The following is an instance of this imgenious though not ingenuous process.

“2. With regard to the second sentence of the preceding extract, I remark, that the consciousness of being liable to error ought to have restrained any man, when approaching that subject, from the use of such expressions as we there find. If a prize were to be awarded to that writer, who should employ the most gross and offensive terms, in describing our Lord’s discourses, Dr. Wiseman’s second sentence could scarcely fail to ensure success..... 3. On the third sentence, I shall say but little. In what way, ‘teaching the doctrine of the real presence,’ can avert the force of Dr. Wiseman’s reproaches, more effectually than ‘teaching the doctrine of faith,’ does not appear. There is something quite shocking in the attempt to make a man’s own interpretation—an interpretation founded on notions which have been actually shown to be incontrovertibly erroneous—the only means of removing reproaches of such a nature from our Lord’s character as is displayed in his method of announcing the kingdom of heaven. 4. The fourth sentence is justly liable to similar animadversions. In affirming that ‘we cannot allow our Redeemer, if a sincere teacher, to have used such images for consoling and cheering doctrines, —and describing him as under ‘ an absolute necessity of recurring to’ the language so strongly reprobated, if his intention was to inculcate the doctrine of the real presence—Dr. Wiseman manifests a style of thinking and writing in the highest degree presumptuous on the part of mortal man—with regard to his Lord and Saviour. Does he, moreover, mean to say that the doctrine of the Eucharist, as held by himself, is not ‘ consoling and cheering ;’ or does he mean to contend that the spiritual views of the discourse taken by Protestants, although ‘consoling and cheering,’ are not at the same time among the most grave and affecting that can be conceived? Upon that discourse, especially the latter part of it, there is impressed a character of peculiar solemnity. When our Lord spoke of his flesh, as what he would give for the life of the world, he undoubtedly alluded to his passion; and this portion of the discourse appears to involve considerations so awful, that the writer of such comments as we are now reviewing, might justly have recoiled with alarm, at the sight of what had escaped his pen.”—(pp. 111, 112, 113.)

This extract is a fair specimen of this favourite mode of arguing followed by Dr. Turton; and as it isa common one with other Protestants of his order, I shall be pardoned for having extracted it at length, and commenting upon it. The Catholic is sure that he has an infallible authority for what | he believes, and consequently does not assert opinions but truths. This is a principle which calls forth peculiar indignation from Dr. Turton at the conclusion of his work. But whoever holds it, as I, with the holy Catholic Church, sincerely do, must feel a confidence, such as perhaps a Protestant divine cannot, in conclusions which accord with the decisions of God’s Church, even where those conclusions are worked out by reasoning and research. But, in any case, it is evident that whoever so far insists upon a text, as to say that any other interpretation appears to involve contradiction or absurdity, intends only to make a reductio ad impossibile, as the schoolmen call it ; that is to propose an only alternative which no one can for a moment chuse. In every instance where such an argument occurs, the learned Professor takes the second alternative as a direct indignity

~~ ll aimed at the words or person of Christ. For instance, in pp. 175, 194, and in several other passages, some of which may be more properly noticed later, this mode of viewing an argument is made the ground for much abusive and insulting language. The following are the words of p. 194 :— “* Now the author has, in this place, once more indulged in the most offensive language with regard to our Lord’s conduct—supposing him not to have acted on the principles laid down im the Lectures on the Eucharist. The consequence is, that I shrink from the page that is defiled with such impropriety of language.” My only answer to this rhetorical display is simply this :—Let any unprejudiced reader, Protestant or Catholic, turn to the paragraph to which it refers, and say sincerely if he remember its having shocked his feelings, when he first read it, as being defiled with language of an offensive character regarding our Lord’s conduct.

In the controversies of the Fathers we find this form of argument often used, nor are we aware that it has ever been reprehended. For instance, St. Augustine, writing against the Donatists, makes use of these words: ‘ Verumtamen si alia est aqua Christi, et alia est aqua traditoris, quia non fuit traditor Christus: cur non alia sit aqua Christi, et alia sit aqua raptoris, quia nec raptor utique fuit Christus.”! And later he applies this strong ex- Tee eee es

‘ Contra. Lit. Petiliani. Lib. 2.

pression to the consequences deducible from the argument of his adversary: “Vis ut habeatur Christus mendax, tu autem verax.”—‘ You would have Christ held a liar and yourself true.” St. Jerom makes no scruple of using similar language in arguing against the Pelagians. “ Accusa ergo Deum mendacii, quare dixit per Jonam, &e. ;”’ and again, against the Luciferians, he speaks of some whose application of a text from the Psalms, “ crucem Christi evacuat, Dei Filium subjugat Diabolo, &ec.”? Surely the virtuous indignation of the Regius Professor ought to be aroused by such blasphemous ideas being even hypothetically connected with the name of Christ. For if it be so very irreverent, and so shocking to his feelings, to have it said that it is inconsistent with our Lord’s character as a kind teacher to have used certain phrases in a peculiar manner, or to have acted in a certain way, it is far more repugnant to our feelings to have it said that such an argument of our adversaries makes Christ a liar, or subjects him to the evil one. Indeed, if the reader dispassionately consider such texts as 1 John, i. 10, and v.10, he perhaps will not consider the form of reasoning either so modern or so disrespectful.

But neither is this a new controversial art which Dr. Turton has employed, as the following account will prove. In the British Critic for J anuary,

1 Adv. Pelagianos lib. iii. tom, i. col. 883, par. 1609. ? Adv. Diciten ib. col. 619.

1828,’ we have the following passage: “In the notes to the Charge, the right reverend author (Dr. Elrington) has cited, from the class-book used at Maynooth by the students of theology, the blasphemous defence which a Roman Catholic, if in error, is directed to plead fearlessly to his Judge at the great Day of Trial. We give it here :—

‘O Lord, if that be an error which we have followed, thou thyself hast deceived us by thy command, that we should hear the Church as thyself. Thou thyself hast deceived us by thy apostles, by the pastors and doctors thou hast appointed in thy Church. Fearlessly we say, O Lord, if it be an error which we have followed, thou thyself hast deceived us, and we stand excused.’

“* Human presumption cannot go beyond this, for such a declaration maintains, that it is more probable that a meaning affixed by the Church of Rome to certain disputed passages of the Scriptures is true, than that the Son of God should not have led it into error! In truth, the absurdity of the passage is equal to its impiety; for it sets up the authority of the Church, on which the meaning affixed to those passages depends for support, against the truth of Him from whom only that authority could have been received.”

Here we have precisely the same method of attack as Dr. T. pursues. The author quoted reasons, as I do, why, in a certain case, we should appear to be led into error by our Saviour’s words, if our interpretation of them were incorrect; and this is immediately denounced, in indignant language, as blasphemous, impious, and absurd. Now compare the passage so severely reproved, with the following: “O Gregory! O Augustine! O Hierome!....O Paul! O Curist! if we be deceived herein, ye are they that have decewed us. You have taught us these schisms and dwisions, you have taught us these heresies.” Is not here the same argument; only that in the Catholic theologians’ writings, it is merely suggested as one which might be used, whereas here it is rampantly and boldly made? And whose then is this greater blasphemy, this grosser impiety ? Bishop Jewell’s, in his celebrated sermon at Paul’s Cross!' Did the critic know this when he wrote his commentary on the first quotation? I doubt it. But yet farther, he was probably ignorant that the reasoning is still more ancient, as will be seen by the following passage of Richard of St. Victor: “ Domine, si error est, a teipso decepti sumus. Nam ista in nobis tantis signis et prodigiis confirmata sunt et talibus, que non nisi per te fieri possunt.”””

Dr. Turton is professor of theology, and a learned

' Tracts for the Times, vol. iv. p. 4. * Ric. S. Vict. De Trinit. lib. i.e, 2, par. 1513.

man, and consequently is, or ought to be, conversant with the writings of the Fathers ; he must have been familiar with these forms of argument so frequent in them, and other divines. Has he acted justly or wisely in forgetting them, on such an occasion ?

II. There is a second characteristic in Dr. Turton’s peculiar style of controversy, which cannot fail to strike an attentive reader. It is a practice of unlimited exaggeration, in reprobating whatever he does not like. His wonder, his displeasure, his grief, his horror, are ever superlative; or rather they rise a degree higher; for the word or sentiment, which, for the moment, is the single object _ of any of these feelings, is exalted above all others of the same class, and receives the honour of peerless reprobation. Where this is the case, surely a cautious reader will suspect, to say the least, the cool judgment of the writer, and be led to conclude, either that his terms of comparison are very scanty, or that a peculiar state of irritable feelings has increased, to his imagination, what a more dispassionate eye would have pronounced much less— if indeed it would have at all discerned it. The smaller the lens, the stronger its magnifying power, —and the narrower the mind, the greater its amplifying faculty on objects it dislikes. Nor does anything contract its dimensions like religious prejudice and controversial antipathies. The following instances will illustrate this principle of Dr. Turton’s peculiar method :—

P. 30. “The fact, however, happens to be, that of all the instances of parallelism which have been imagined to exist in the New Testament, this proposed by Dr. Wiseman, is, so far as my knowledge extends, beyond expression the most wretched.”

P. 31. ‘The design, when committed to writing, strikes me as so utterly absurd,” &c.

P. 42. “I here venture to pronounce Kuinoel’s conjecture to be the result of as strange an hallucination as ever took possession of any man’s mind.”

P. 45. ‘To declare without reserve, my decided opinion of the lecture which relates to Kuinoel, Rosenmiiller and Bloomfield—I must say that [ have seldom found so large a mass of error compressed into so small a space. No ordinary power must have been at work for such an achievement.”

P. 47. “ Let me also observe, that an edition of the original, or a version, or a commentary showing that Dr. Wiseman’s division of the discourse, after v. 47 had been anticipated, would be a greater curiosity than can well be imagined.”

P. 49. “That a more erroneous view of the general character of the multitude cannot possibly be entertained, must be acknowledged by every one.”

P.91. % There is in all this a disregard of tradition as well as of Scripture, not easy to be found in any other volume than that of Dr. Wiseman.”

P. 114. “The conclusions drawn by Dr. W. from the premises contained in the first sentence of the preceding paragraph, are amongst the most rash and irreverent that are to be found in theological controversy.”

Ler)

P. 115. “To maintain with Dr. W. &c. . . . indicates to my mind, and I write under the sense of duty both to God and man, a determination to use language, which I verily believe is unparalleled, except among those who are labouring to throw contempt upon every thing sacred.”

P. 129. “He (Dr. W.) is still farther intruding upon ground interdicted to human foot, upon which I scarcely recollect a single individual who has before had the hardihood to take his stand.”

Ibid. My argument is called “ a series of misrepresentations, to which in the whole range of theological literature it would not be easy to find a parallel.”

P. 139. “Those cases indeed form a series of the most wretched arguments I ever recollect to have seen employed by a man of talent and information.”

P. 147. “The effect of these inaccuracies, smal] as well as great, of Dr. Wiseman, is, an utter want of confidence in anything that is asserted—without the most vigilant inquiry into the matter.”

P. 149. * Such is Dr. Wiseman’s infatuation with regard to passages intended to support his hypothesis—that there is scarcely one of them which is not sufficient to overthrow it entirely.”

P. 150. “ Anything less to the purpose than this can scarcely be imagined. It tends, however, to prove, by another example, that, from some motive or other, Dr. W., in drawing up his lectures, must have intended never to quote correctly.”

P. 154. “ To suppose besides, with Dr. Wiseman, &c.... is not perhaps the strangest fancy that distinguishes the Lectures under review; but certainly a more absurd notion than could easily be discovered in the writings of other men.”

~P. 156. “ There is something truly wonderful in the C recapitulation of Dr. Wiseman’s achievements, which is presented in the following paragraph from his own pen.”

Ibid. “* After many years’ attention to the inductive. method of ascertaining principles, I honestly declare that Dr. Wiseman’s present attempt in that way is, in my estimation, by far the most complete failure I ever witnessed.”

P. 170. ‘*The note which I am about to transcribe I deem one of the most curious specimens of exemplification, to be found, even in the ‘ Lectures on the Eucharist.’”

P. 194. “ I have already pointed out in Dr. Wiseman’s volume as grievous misrepresentations as can be imagined to exist in any work whatever.”

P. 312. “It is scarcely possible to conceive less to be made of a passage of Scripture.... than has been made by Dr. Wiseman,” &c.

P. 317. “ The next paragraph which I shall notice, and which I really think, may, in magnitude of misrepresentation, compete with anything to be found in any volume save that of Dr. Wiseman.” &ec.

An author who writes in this manner runs the risk of greatly overshooting his mark. It may be possible to fix upon a work a reproach of some sort, even in a strong degree, but to persuade any reader with ordinary sense that in one volume of less than three hundred pages are accumulated every possible order and class of disreputable sentiments, feelings, and words, in the highest imaginable degree of intensity, must surely be beyond the powers of Dr. Turton’s vituperation. He has drawn his bow with too little regard for its strength, and it may break in his hand. I am sure that many of his readers, and some of his friends, will have. felt regret, for his own sake, that his conclusions have not been more moderated, and his style less disfigured by hyperbole. Moreover, one cannot be but doubly suspicious of the accuracy of a critic, who carries his exaggerating propensity so far, as to throw the same superlative blame, upon those whom his adversary quotes, as upon himself. For who does not see that the learned Kuinoel must have been particularly fortunate to have hit, without previously consulting the Regius Professor, upon as “ strange an hallucination as ever took possession of any man’s mind,” precisely in the very place where I should happen to quote him? But of this more hereafter. Farther, it must be observed, that the gentleman, who writes thus, displays a particular horror for exaggeration in any form, even the most innocent. For instance, I had observed, according to a form of speech usual both in common conversation (and these Lectures were originally orally deli- _ vered), and in every writer from Moses downwards, that Our Saviour had used an expression twenty times, meaning, of course, as every one not engaged in controversy would have understood, often.’ This draws down a severe reproof, as an exaggera-

' J would recommend to Dr. Turton’s perusal the chapter De Synecdoche Species in Glassius’s Philologia Sacra, p. 1257, in Dothe’s edition upon this use of numbers in Scripture. I must also observe to my readers that in its proper place I had accurately stated the number of times the phrase was used, while here the subject came in indirectly. |

C 2 tion, and my imagination is said to be somewhat of a romantic cast (p. 212). What shall we say of Dr. Turton’s?

III. The next incumbrance of the learned Professor’s pages, I know not how to characterise by any term more appropriate than that of scurrility. For it comes within the terms of the definition given by an eminent lexicographer, as a form of speech, which “ neque temporis, neque loci, neque personarum respectum habit.” It is often couched in low metaphor; at one time, appearances are ridiculous, because I am like a man who has built his buttresses on the wrong side of a wall (p. 102); another time I resemble a man “rowing by himself in his own small boat” (p.104), and on some other occasion (p. 243) the author speaks of my using hermeneutical spectacles. All this might have passed for wit in the pages of some Protestant reviews; it is surely not the tone to be expected on such an occasion from such a man. But the following specimens belong to a more unworthy class: for in most of them, the learned Professor allows himself the liberty of indulging in personalities that do him, I think, but little honour.

P. 98. “ Dr. Wiseman, with a dexterity which cannot be too much admired, and a disingenuousness which cannot be too severely reprobated,” &c.

P. 106. “In truth it maketh the heart sick to think that any one —least of all a minister of Christ’s religion— should have so fur forgotten his own character, as to have thus ventured, &c. To myself there is something melancholy in what appears to be too commonly the effect of a determined resolution to maintain a set of theological opinions—J mean a certain hardness of disposition, and an insensibility to the propriety or impropriety of the methods adopted for that end.”