5787

EDITOR'S PREFACE.

In the mass of literature that has been called forth by
the controversy between Rome and England, Bishop
Milner's End of Religious Controversy must always hold
a prominent place. No one is likely to question its
ability; and Dr. Salmon, its latest opponent, indicates
an additional excellence when he says, 'I do not think
'their case can be stated in a more taking way' (1). Bishop
Milner's style, although not quite that of the present day,
is in some respects superior; it is always masterful and
dignified, and sometimes positively eloquent. It has
been said that, up to a certain date, his book had effected
more conversions than all the rest of the controversial
literature on the same subject put together.

Bishop Milner, however, writing in the beginning of
this century and not enjoying the advantage of such a
library as that of the British Museum, very often had to
rely on others for his references, and it must be owned
that they are on the whole deficient in accuracy.
In
most cases the quotations are correct, so that the argu-
ment is not affected; but they do not always occur
where the reference in the footnotes would lead one to
expect them. I have therefore verified and corrected
the references from end to end, except in the case of
Luther's writings. Wherever I have been able to verify
the references to these, I have found the quotations
substantially correct; but I have in some cases shrunk
from wading through that arch-heretic's works to find
some single sentence. There is also one quotation from

(1) Infallibility of the Church, by G. Salmon, D.D., 2nd ed., 1890, p. 79.

270.9

M6

Melancthon which I have been unable to find, but as I came across it in Grotius, quoted by him in the same words and with admiration, I feel satisfied that it is correct. The toil of verification in other instances (which, as a glance will show, has had to range over a wide expanse of literature) would have seemed waste of time, if I had not been persuaded that the book has a future before it in that turning of the hearts of the children to their fathers which is so conspicuously occurring in this country just now-I mean in the movement going on towards communion with the Holy See.

There is, however, one objection which may be urged against the republication of Milner's End of Religious Controversy, namely, that it is in parts ninety-four years old (1), and therefore much that was said of the Church of England is not true of it now. There is no doubt of this fact; and I have accordingly pointed out in short notes where it seemed.especially the case. But the changes are only in details, and the framework of Milner's argument is so strong that it would not be affected by the removal of a few such points. It must be remembered that in treating of the Church of England we have to do with a heterogeneous mass of teachers, sharply divided on important points, some of whose actual teaching differs little from that described by Bishop Milner, whilst some differs much; but the whole mass still adheres to a rule of faith in direct contradiction to that which Bishop Milner shows to be the true one. Consequently all that concerns the establishment of the true rule of faith applies now, as much as ever, to the Church of England as a whole. Keble's account of Tradition, in his celebrated sermon on the subject, does not bring the theory of the High Church within measurable distance of the Catholic Rule of Faith; for it disclaims the existence of an unerring, living judge (ie.,

(1) It was first written in 1801-2, and at length published for the first time in 1818. Five editions were published in the Author's lifetime.