0
. A AX 1 031

• m ^
A

\

^ ^ w ^'-y^

THE .jlA-

^ TRUE PATH FOR THE TRUE CHURCHMAN

WANDERING IN

THE MAZES OF PROTESTANTISM,

. /

J
EXEMPLIFIED IN

TWO LETTERS IN ANSWER TO THE ENQUIRY

WHY HAVE YOU BECOME A CATHOLIC ?

ft
INCLUDING

A REPLY TO REV. MESSRS. PALMER AND DODSWORTH

BY

RICHARD WALDO SIBTHORP, B. D. OXFORD

LATE PROTESTANT MINISTER, RYDE, ISLE OP WIGHT.

Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc est etenlm vere

proprieque Catholicum.—S. Vtntfcn. Lerimnsis.

FROM LAST REVISED LONDON EDITION.

NEW YORKr

GASSERLY & SONS, 108 NASSAU STREET.

1843.



.
. :

.

.*
; f^-i- ,

• V.

-v'-‘ '

.'-
, f:

.
'

, «-'-.v-.
;''"• ,-.. • .«

.

•V
'

'-m

. .
'•

.; 5
^.-•'i-'.,-.''

. . ...

%lr.,'i'‘

t>K

i-'.s ('w-f 'j-;.* -

'

; =Uih4*>!U%'’,a V-m liv'-u Yli
'.

.r 7 X'’- ,
^

‘ ‘‘

•-,
k'

**
* r

' " .
'7 ^ ,

.

;

•,

‘

:?w (i/j- '>

'.‘t-

^'^ -.
'

\ d'' V- “

V,.'.'.

-' *

; «;-, #‘.Y

,>
=T.'-Y'

*
,

v»**Vr.;:4 Yi.u^lva 'I ';-'.fv.''
'<“"'.1

:

'

•
‘ • •

‘

If- »"#
.

,
.

» ' ' . .^. . •<

^v %- 4 . :*
*•



SOME ANSWER,

My dear Friend,
You enquire of me the reasons of my secession from the Anglican to

the Catholic Church. Your letter is one of so many that have been ad-

dressed to me, with a similar enquiry, that I am almost constrained to re-

sort to the assistance of the press that I may reply to them all. It is by

no means agreeable to one, whose life has for some years been a contin-

uous discharge of unobtrusive ministerial duties, thus to keep himself un-

der public observation, and to anticipate the controversial notices, the

critical remarks, the severe judgment, which the publication of his sen-

timents may possibly call forth. But besides the pressing duty of reply-

ing to many earnest and candid enquirers, and the still more urgent one,

of not permitting any of these, so far as in me lies, to conclude their ques-

tions unanswerable, and their objections to the step I have taken incapa-

ble of a reply
;
the conviction that there is a selfishness in the love of pri-

vacy which must be withstood, whenever the interests of the Saviour’s

Kingdom and the unity of the Church may be promoted by the opposite

conduct, determine me to sacrifice my own feelings to what better judges
than myself deem the call of duty, and to commit to print some of my rea-
sons in answer to the question, “ Why have you become a Catholic ?”

I beg you to observe, that in this letter 1 give you only some of my rea-

sons, though confessedly such as chiefly have weight with me. I give

you them, also, rather in outline, than in full detail
;
as hints for reflec-

tions, which your own religious knowledge and acquaintance with the

controversies of the present day, will supply, rather than elaborate argu-

ments. I give you them in the integrity of my heart, as sentiments I

hold
;
in devout prayer to God for His blessing, as truth profitable for all

;

and in unaffected good will towards those who diflfer from me, as matters

peculiarly claiming to be treated of with courtesy, forbearance, and chari-

ty. Every enquirer, with scarcely an exception, has addressed me with

a kindness of language and sentiment, as creditable to themselves, as con-

siderate towards me. And far, then, be it from me, my dear friend, not to

give utterance to the real sentiments of my own heart, or to allow myself,
while avowing and delineating my separation from these my correspond-
ents, and thereby my disapproval of their opinions, to show any want of

real esteem for* all, of cordial friendship for many, of unaltered affection

for others among them. Besides, “ the servant of the Lord must not

wrangle” under any circumstances. 1 disavow, then, every harsh expres-

sion, if such escape me. If in self-defence I seem to condemn others, I

pre-condemn myself if I do so in other language than the fair statement

of my own views may require. If I fail to exhibit Christian courtesy and

kindness, I humbly ask forgiveness of yourself, and all for whom this let-

ter is penned
;
but especially I ask it of our common Lord and God. May



4

the spirit of truth and of charity ever guide the pens of those who pro-

fess to advocate the cause of both

!

I judge that I shall best consult your wishes, and most satisfactorily

answer the enquiries made of me, if, instead of a formal arrangement of

arguments, or of reasons drawn up both pro and con, I give a kind of

narrative of what has been passing in my own mind, and has issued in my
being now a member of the Catholic Church, in communion with the See

of Rome. You are aware that in early life I sought admission into that

Church, and, but for the interference of the law, being then under age,

should have' joined her. Though upon the closest scrutiny of my own
heart, I am not conscious of insincerity in my past profession of Protes-
tant principles as a clergyman of the Established Church, yet I freely

confess that the remembrance of devotional feelings I then had (almost

the first, meet to be so called which I remember to have had) never en-

tirely quitted me during subsequent years. I never forgot what had forci-

bly impressed me, leading to the effort I then made to join the Catholic

Church, the apparent devotedness to religious duties, the supreme place

which these seemed to have in their regard, the cheerfulness yet earnest-

ness of piety, which marked some members of her communion, whom I
then met with. I had found little of these things among my Protestant

acquaintance—my misfortune, doubtless ; but so it was. Conceiving that
religion, if anything, should be the chief thing with every man

;
knowing

it, on divine authority, declared to be, “ the one thing needful when I

seemed to find it so esteemed by Catholics, and knew it not to be so es-

teemed by most of my Protestant acquaintance, but holding quite a secon-

dary and accidental place in their regard, I not unreasonably judged these

latter wrong, and those right. I sought to connect myself with the former

in the enjoyment of privileges they alone seemed to understand and value.

My after acquaintance with both has shown me how much error there was
in my estimation of them ;—that all Catholics are not in earnest, nor all
Protestants indifferent about their salvation : far otherwise. Still an im-

pression, and, in the main, a correct one, remained on my mind, that there

was among members of the Catholic Church, a dedication to the claims

and duties of Christianity, an admission of the influence of their belief

upon their ordinary life and devotions,—a sort of absorbing interest in
their religion, which sustained in me a lingering affection towards them,

while I openly condemned what I honestly believed to be the errors of

their creed. I often mourned that truth seemed to have less power than

error (for such I long judged the distinctive creeds of Protestants and

Catholics) to make men devoted to their God
;
and I could not but affec-

tionately regard those whose religion appeared to be not a cold profession

of faith, but an influential principle of daily life,—a source of animating
hope, warm charity, lively devotion, and zealous efforts to make others

partakers of the same benefit. How far these sentiments and feelings co-

operated to my present position, God alone could judge.

About five years since, in the course of my ministry at Ryde, I was

led to review the Jewish Economy, or the Church under the Old Testa-

ment Dispensation. The subject came minutely under my notice while

engaged in a series of lectures on the Levitical Law and institutions.

You cannot require proof that these had a typical character. It is uni-

versally admitted, that they were typical of something better
—“of good



5

things to come from Israel, viewed as a nation, down to the smallest

ornaments of the tabernacle, respecting which Jehovah had said, “ See

that thou make all things according to the pattern which was showed thee

in the mount.” Where, then, was to be found this something better, thus

accurately prefigured, thus largely and minutely typified ? Where the

antitype of this typical dispensation 1 I naturally sought it in a careful

comparison of the Christian Dispensation with these types : and I found

one immediate answer to my enquiry, and full of holy and consolatory

instruction. They had an accomplishment in Christ, as is largely shown

by the Apostle to the Hebrews. He is the typified temple, high-priest,

and victim
;
His blood and righteousness, mediation and intercession,

ministry, character, and offices, were prefigured by what went before.

He was the body of good things to come, of which they were the shadow.

But it seemed not less evident to me, nor can seem, I think, to any atten-

tive enquirer, that the types of the Mosaic economy had not their only

accomplishment in the Blessed Saviour, or in Christ personally. He, it

is clear, was not the typified Israel ; nor the Mount Zion, nor the Holy

City
;
nor solely the temple

;
neither did the shewbread, or incense, or

seven-branched candlestick, or Levitical ministry, prefigure Him, or His

work and office only. The types, like most of the prophecies and the

psalms, have, then, a further application than to Christ, personally or offi-

cially. But to whom or what ? To his mystical body, the Church under

the New Testament. None of these interesting portions of Holy Scrip-

ture can be rightly understood without the apprehension of this truth.

The frequent assertion that all the shadows of the old law were accom-

plished in Christ alone, and that it is unnecessary to look for the body or

substance of them elsewhere, is hastily and ignorantly made
;
altogether

untenable, and, indeed, as inconsistent with other allowed views of most

who make it, as with the whole tenor of Scripture. If all the typical

institutions of the old dispensation found their sole and entire accom-

plishment in Christ, why are any continued in the Christian Church cor-

respondent with them ? Why are there any sacraments, any separate or-
dained ministry, any sacrifice, any visible form of the Church, if Christ

alone absorbed, so to speak, the fulfilment of all that was typical of these

in Himself personally ? The Church should be, as some sectarians hold

it, purely spiritual, without distinct ministry, a Christian' circumcision, or

a Christian passover, holy days or ordinances, or visible constitution and

government. Believers, as members of Christ, can then have nothing to

do with these things, but have them all in Him, and need not look beyond.

But, if the Anglican Church is to be heard, there is, under the New Tes-
tament, an ordained ministry, two sacraments, and a corporate character

of the Church, singularly accordant with correspondent Levitical institu-

tions. If the primitive Church is to be heard, such was indisputably

her view of those institutions. And Christ himself undoubtedly gave his

Church a government, a ministry, and at least two holy ordinances of a

peculiar character
;
constituting her an holy kingdom, in the midst of the

world, yet separated from it, by distinctive truths, laws, worship, and in-

stitutions
;

establishing her as his body on earth, in whom was still to be

exhibited the substance of previous shadows
;

still to be accomplished

the Levitical types. In other words, the Church under the Old Testa-

ment, was a close type of the Church under the New, and not of her

Divine Head only.



6

With this guiding truth, I proceeded to consider and connect some of

the principal points in which the correspondence must exist between the

typifying and the typified Church. I found the former to be a compact,

united body, really and visibly united in all its parts
;
combining a num-

ber of provincial and locally separate portions in one religious nation or

people
;
combining them in a most strict

,
perfect, and evident unity of

faith, of worship, of laws, of discipline, of religious ordinances, and even

of minute ceremonies : no variety permitted, no departure from the one-

ness demanded being sanctioned in any individual. Such was the an-

cient Israel and if typical of the Church, such should be the Israel of

God under the New Testament. At the head of this body, nation, or
Church, was one supreme dignitary, of priestly order, invested by God

with singular prerogatives, ruling in perpetual succession over Israel, until

the Lord should come : in his person, offices, and residence, a centre of

unity to the whole nation, far and near,—a representative on earth of the
Divine High Priest in heaven. There was a regularly organized and

consecrated tribe, of two degrees—priests and Levites—separated by pe-
culiar ordinances, and privileges, and duties, from the rest of Israel

;

having every office, every ceremony, every vestment, full of sacred sig-

nificancy
;
continually engaged in sacrifice, and instruction of the people.

The principal sacred rite of the nation was sacrifice
;

in its frequency,

perpetuity, character, and circumstances, directing the worshippers to have

in view a Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.

There was a real, and not merely spiritual, figurative, or imaginary pre-

sence of God himself in his earthly temple ; which was also illumined

with a seven-fold light, perpetually fed by holy oil. Sculptured cherubim

and pourtrayed angels seemed to share in the sacred rites, and mingle in

the worship, at once participating with, and ministering to, the holy na-

tion in their prayers and adorations. There was an impressive and mag-

nificent ritual, every ceremony of which was symbolic and instructive,

—

adapted alike to the present infirmity of man, needing such sensible aid,

and to the glory of the majesty of God, who vouchsafed to receive from

his creatures such homage, as expressive of their sense of his glory and

greatness. Certain seasons were distinguished by peculiar impressive

rites, commemorative of divine mercies, or events in the formation of the

nation. From the Dan to the Beersheba of that land which was this

ancient Church’s appointed heritage, there was not an Israelite that lived

not in fealty and submission to the supremacy of the one high priest ; or

that might lawfully, or without the heaviest anger of God, recognize or

use any other sacred ministry than that of the tribe of Levi, and the

house of Aaron
;
or that might contemn the appointed sacrifices, or live

in wilful neglect of the most trivial sacred ordinances. Wherever an

Israelite journeyed in that land, he found one creed, one faith, one reli-

gious rite, one harmonious agreement, even in the minutest points of cere-

monial worship. He was at home everywhere as to his religion, for the

Church of the Old Testament was purely Catholic, as to the given extent

of its possession ! Such were some of the great typical features of the

ancient Israel, of which I had to seek for a correspondence in the Chris-

tian Church. The Mosaic dispensation led me then to look for a Church

characterized by visible oneness,—by the strictest required holiness,

—

by Catholicity, as to the land of its inheritance (this being, under the



7

Gospel, the whole earth),—by a supreme spiritual Rule, in a succession
of individuals,—by unbroken pastoral descent from its first divinely se-
lected office-bearers, the Apostles,—by continual daily sacrifice, directing
the minds of the worshippers at once back to the great propitiatory offer-

ing of the Lamb of God, and upwards to the perpetual presentation of

that propitiation before the Eternal Throne,—by a real, mysterious pre-
sence of Deity with her,—by a sevenfold channel of sacramental grace,
illumined, and illuminating all within her sacred enclosure,—by angelic
ministrations, and an intercourse intimate, though unseen, with those who

see God,—by an impressive, magnificent, significant, ritual,—by such an
uniformity of doctrine, discipline, worship, and ceremonial, that from the

north to the south, from the east to the west, there should not be a Chris-

tian that differed from another, or should not find, wherever he journeyed

over the wide earth, the same religion he left at home. And what these

typical considerations warranted me to expect, the prayer of the Blessed

Saviour doubly warranted : “ that they all may be one, as thou. Father,

art in me, and I in thee
;
that they also may be one in us

}
that the world

may believe that thou hast sent me.” St. Paul declared at once the same

character of the Church, and the fact of its existence : “ One body and

one spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one

faith, one baptism, one God and father of all, who is above all, and through

all, and in us all.”

Could I find this typified Church on earth ? The truth of God assured

me of its existence. But certainly no Protestant sect presented the

slightest correspondency with it. My own, the Anglican, which pro-
mised fairest, totally failed to prove her claim, if indeed she made it, to

be in the world what the Jewish Church was in the Holy Land. F^cts

were against her, declaring her very limited extent and insulated position

unrecognized by the rest of Christendom. Her present constitution for-

bad her Catholicity. She had totally thrown off the recognition of that

pastoral supremacy which from the sixth to the sixteenth century, she

had admitted. Was the accomplishment of the glorious Levitical shadows
to be found in a patchwork combination of a multitude of sects, as op-

posed in their interests as in their belief and worship ? Could the typi-

fied holy—separated as to others, and as to themselves visibly united

—

nation, the one body of Christ, consist of a mixture of Prussian Luther-

ans, French Calvinists, and Swiss Socinians
;
of Independents, Baptists,

Quakers, Shakers, of Irvingites, and Plymouth Brethren
;
of Methodists

of the old and of the New Connexion
;
of New Jerusalemites, and Pri-

mitive Revivalists 1 Could such disorder be the designed fulfilment of a

type of such holy order ?—such disunion be the rightful substance of a
shadow marked by an entire harmony of its parts, and perfect oneness of

outline ? Ingenuity could not trace a resemblance. But when I looked

back to the primitive apostolic Church of the first six centuries, I found

an exact correspondency with the type :—when I also looked back to the
ancient Church of England, as first formed by St. Augustine, I found the

most entire agreement, and an actual, visible, professed oneness, with that

apostolic Church, as it had existed for six centuries : it was a provincial

limb of that vast Catholic body which was then co-extensive with the

knowledge of Christianity. When I viewed it at any subsequent period
down to the commencement of the sixteenth century, I met with the same



8

unaltered character
;
and though the Catholic body had been lopped of

some of its limbs by the severing strokes of heresy or schism, it still

flourished a vigorous, stately, wide-expanded tree, the same in every es-

sential, almost in every minute particular, which it had been, when the

English branch first grew from out its sustaining, fostering trunk. The

Catholic Church in communion with the see of Rome, stood forth, in my
view, the close and perfect antitype of the Church under the Old Testa-

ment. She had still a branch, unsheltered, yet growing—feeble, yet full
of hidden life—despised, yet fruitful—in my native land

;
and in joining

myself to it, I felt that I should join myself to the Church of the whole

earth,—the Church of twelve centuries in England, and of eighteen
centuries in the world,—the Church of the shadowy dispensation that had
comprehended the tribes of Israel, as they marched out of the land of

Egypt under Moses and Aaron ;—that I should join myself, in short, to
the true Israel of God. All that the ancient types led me to look for in

the Christian Church, I found in her alone. She stood forth, on scriptu-

ral grounds, the sole authorized claimant of God’s favour and heritage.

Separation from her, at any period, of any portion of mankind, did not in-

validate her claims, nor affect her true Catholicity and unity, any more

than the falling of a decayed limb destroys the claim of the trunk, with

its remaining branches, to be the tree.

You will easily perceive, my dear friend, that I might go very much

farther into the particulars of the close agreement of the Catholic Church

with its Old Testament type
;
but I content myself with giving you some

of the leading ideas, as they came before myself, and suggesting to you

outlines, very imperfect indeed, yet, I trust, sufficient for you to fill up in

your own reflections, from your own knowledge of Scripture and eccle-

siastical history. But I have dwelt longer upon this topic of the Leviti-

cal types, because I have seldom found it more than hinted at in modern

theological works
;
and because it became, from the cause I have already

mentioned, that which first influenced my mind, presenting to it what

seemed cogent reasons for regarding the Catholic Church, in communion

with the see of Rome, as claiming my avowed allegiance. The fact

which these last words declare,—the communion of the whole Catholic
Church, in recognition of one supreme see and its possessor,—as it was
one of the chief points of her correspondency with the Jewish type, so

it became a principal one of my present consideration. The necessity of

a centre of unity, for the well-being of the Church, as it had often at pre-

vious times been on my mind, now forcibly recurred. The sanctions of

God to the office and authority of the high-priesthood of the Jews, I knew

to be very solemn. His own institution, I knew that he upheld with

jealousy the office, while he punished with severity the sins of some who

filled it. The nation, 1 remembered, had flourished or decayed, both in

spiritual and temporal matters, much as it respected this divine appoint-

ment, or otherwise.

Every well established kingdom has its central government, acting both

as its effective executive, and as that which combines together, regulates^

and invigorates all the subordinate authorities, and otherwise scattered

parts. It cannot subsist without it, any more than the body without a head.

There is an analogy here between the natural works of the Creator and

the rational institutions of men, which has its counterpart in the gracious



9

dispensations of the Saviour. It would be incredible that he should leave

his kingdom in the world, without any fixed government, or that govern-

ment without an essential to all governments—a supreme executive and
centre of unity. He instituted this for the Jewish Church, and left it not

to accident to set it up or throw it down. The United States of America,

although full of wild notions of independance and equality, and of the

self-governing rights of its difierent parts, admit the existence and power

of one continuing, supreme, central government, essential to the conserva-

tion of the body politic. What would be a body without a head ? and

how often is the Church described as a body of which all the parts are

harmoniously fitted in, for the efficient movement of the whole to its in-

tended end ! Previous then to the revelation of the Gospel, my belief in

the wisdom of the Divine Author of Christianity would lead me to expect

the institution and development of a centre of unity and government in the

Church. The Mosaic type confirms the expectation. Be it observed

that the fundamental principle of Protestantism, under every form, rejects

it
;
setting at defiance the testimony of nature, reason, fact, antiquity, and

Scripture,—I fear, because that combined testimony forbids the anarchy
and self-will on which its results are based, and not solely, as is sometimes

adduced, because the power of rule had been abused.

There is in the New Testament, a remarkable promise given to one of the
twelve apostles,* which we must view in connection with an extraordinary

exhortation afterwards addressed to him,f and a very peculiar position held

by him 4 all which also, from the striking accordance with the Jewish
type which they give the Christian Church, warrant the inference that the

Lord in his kingdom, his body, his family, his household, acts on the same

principle and plan on which he has acted in nature, and guided man to act

in ordinary arrangements of this life. It is not correct that what is al-

low’^ed to have been once appropriated to St. Peter was afterwards made

common to all the apostles. No other apostle shared his office in the
formation of the Church. To no other apostle was such a solemn exhor-

tation given, to feed the flock of God, as to him. And though the Lord

did afterwards give the power of the keys to all the Apostles, that no

more affected the previous distinction of the separate gift to him,^ than the

Lord’s calling all his apostles beloved, affects the claim of St. John to be

pre-eminently “ the beloved disciple.’’^ Briefly, but sufficiently, is the es-

tablishment of a centre of unity for his Church declared by Christ, while

it was left to the providence of God, (not to accident), to develope in time

its design, growth, and prerogatives. The essential value of the rock to

the building fitted into it, was to be shown as the building rose, and the

added weight, and the rising height, and the lofty towers
;
and the power

of the fierce winds, and the beating waves without, and the slow attacks

of wasting time, developed, and so to speak, called into trialand proof, its

solidity and use.

I think that, upon reflection, you will see that the case could not well

have been otherwise, than as I have now hinted it. For the Saviour gave
no intimation of the time of his absence, but left his Church in constant

expectation of his return. What he left her, he expected to find her, so

constituted and so united, whether he delayed his coming for twenty or

two thousand years. Had this event occurred during St. Peter’s lifetime,

no farther development of a primacy and centre of unity in the Church

Matt. xvi. 16-19. t John xxi. 15-17. t Acts ii. iii. iv. x. xii. § Matt. xvi. 16.

2



10

had taken place
;
no successor of the apostle had been needed. But as

it was otherwise, when he,—to whom the special promise and charge
had been given, died, another took his position, to occupy it, and continue

the Church in her divinely arranged and existing constitution, if haply

the Lord should come in his days. And thus another and another have

successively filled the chair of St. Peter for eighteen hundred years, on

the same warrant, with the same design, and in the same darkness as to the

Lord’s time of return : that warrant, Christ’s words to St. Peter ;—that
design the good rule and unity of his Church and kingdom ;—that dark-
ness, the purpose of God ;* herein accomplishing the type of the continu-

ous high-priesthood of the Jews
;
and no more, than that type did, dis-

crediting or displacing the heavenly high-priesthood and rule of Christ

;

neither the one, nor other, entrenching on his prerogatives, or usurping

his power. The development of this most wise and essential institution

for the Church’s well-being, was in the nature of the case gradual. The

strength, properties, and usefulness of a plant, can only be developed as

time permits its growth, and natural influences elicit its generic or speci-

fic characters : these, every added inch, and expanding leaf and swelling

bud will lead the beholder to infer. Thus, it was not to be expected, that

in the second and third centuries there would be found, even had there

been fuller documents, that clear perception of the designed succession

to St. Peter, which the ninth and tenth centuries present
;
because its

continuance was, in a great degree, contemporaneous with the develop-

ment of the perpetuity of the design, and its use, power, and prerogatives,

were tested by the circumstances of the Church. But there is a very

clear and ample recognition of it in the early Fathers ;—the most deci-
sive confirmation of the fact of the existence of the primacy of the chair

of St. Peter, and of its universal estimation as the centre of unity to the

kingdom of the Church. Nor can any one, I conceive, impartially re-

view the history of the world, and not perceive the priceless value of the

institution. Has it operated perfectly, and to unmingled good ? By no

means. The corruption of man has greatly marred the wise design of

God. But, nevertheless, it has operated most beneficially, as far as the

Church, and the condition of society, and social order, and practical be-

nevolence, and the best interests of mankind, are concerned. It has

failed to hold together the whole Christian family in holy harmony and

discipline, such as angels might admire, only because all the members of

that family have not been what they were called of God to be. Still, like

some pilot sent from heaven, it has guided the vessel of the Catholic

Church over the agitated seas and heaving billows of eighteen hundred

years of strife, and tumult, and warfare, and tribulations of every kind ;

presenting her yet a goodly vessel, un wrecked, and cheerily pursuing her

onward appointed course. It has maintained holy order and discipline

among lier motley crew, assimilating them, though gathered from every

tribe under heaven, in duties, hopes, trials, and joys ; it has kept them

one, whom nature had divided, but grace again had united. How fear-

fully different is the fate of those who are separated from the see of Rome!

Do they form an united band 1 Is there communion, or even mutual

intercourse among them ? Is there harmonious discipline, or holy order ?

Surely they are rather like the floating remnants of some disastrous wreck,

driven here and there on the restless waves of private opinion and indi-

• Acts i. 7.



11

vidual interpretation of Scripture. A few indeed, in some little bark,

seem waiting to hail the vessel of the Church, as she steers more in sight,

and to seek on board of her a security they scarcely dare reckon on at

present
;
but the most part—some on boards, and some on broken frag-

ments, and some in solitary effort, struggling for life—present a sad spec-
tacle of the distress, danger, and ruin, which men bring on themselves by

contempt of that order and rule, which God himself has sanctioned.

Many Protestants have owned the want of a centre of unity for the

Church. Bishop Horsley is said to have remarked : “We want a pa-
triarch of the west.” But if of the west, why not of the whole Church ?

The reasons that demand the one, call for the other with manifold greater

urgency. The succession to St. Peter, and to the promise and charge

given to him, seem to me a precisely similar case with that of the apos-

tolic succession or line of bishops. “ Lo, I am with you always'^ (said

Christ to the apostles,) “ even to the consummation of all things” They

to whom these words were spoken died, and then others took their office

to continue their charge, and hand down the promises made, and perpe-

tuate the powers given to them ; that the Church might be ever governed

and managed as the Lord disposed it while on earth
;
so was it with the

Supreme Bishop.

It need hardly be observed, that the permanency of the succession, and

of the powers inherent in those who bear the office, whether of G*hief, or

other bishop, cannot be affected by the misconduct of the individuals

bearing it. The wickedness of the high-priests did not annul the institu-

tion of the office, which continued, notwithstanding many irregularities,

to the end of the Jewish dispensation. Judas was not less an apostle,

because he was a son of perdition : nor did his ministry less demand

regard from those he was sent to, nor does it appear to have been less

owned by God. In the possession, then, of this essential of the Church,

as of every living body, and well-regulated kingdom, a centre of unity,

the Catholic Church stands alone : and in this particular she appeared to

me to have a well-founded right to be regarded as that which she claims to

be, the one true Church. And it is the recognition of this claim, arising

from due consideration of the principle which it involves, which must be

a first step towards the restoration of unity, and to any effectual measures

for remedying the disasters of the sixteenth century, and placing the

Christian family once more in the position Christ left, and desires to find

it. The severed limbs, if such they be, must reunite with the trunk,

through recognition of, and union with, the head.

But there are other reflections upon the unity of the Church, and the

reality, visibility, and permanency of that unity, which, as the more fre-

quently I recur to them, the more sound and weighty they seem, so I now

proceed to lay them before you. They are reflections shared by many in

common with myself, though, for various reasons (some of which I shall

advert to) they seldom issue in the same result, as has taken place in my
case.

The Church is a positive institution of Christ for the diffusion and

maintenance of his religion throughout the whole earth, until his coming

again. That religion is harmonious and immutable truth. There is not

one system or set of truths for one age or part of the world, and a differ-

ent one for another. Nor will there be another revelation of saviiig truthi

The Church, as the Lord instituted it, must be the most wise and suitable



12

appointment for the accomplishment of his gracious purposes towards

mankind. There is not only all absence of proof that He either instituted

or sanctioned different forms of government and modes of worship, and

a variety of discipline, but everything to warrant the certainty of a con-

trary conclusion : every deviation, therefore, from that government or form

of His Church which He gave it, and from that discipline and worship
which He personally, or by His apostles, approved, is a most presumptu-

ous innovation, and a .daring disregard of the Divine will, and fraught

with danger to the souls of men : for if saving truth be one, it is of con-

sequence that all men be kept in an harmonious profession of it. What-

ever has a clear and direct tendency to foster diversity of sentiment and

of action, is hostile to the unity of the spirit. But it is evident that dif-

ference of worship, and Church discipline, as it is called, is destructive

of the bond of peace, and consequently affects the unity of the spirit : it

endangers harmonious profession of truth, and therefore affects truth

itself, by affecting the institution designed to uphold and diffuse it. The

universality and unity of the Church are, therefore, properly inseparable
;

-^in other words, if the Church of Christ was designed to be universal

for the diffusion and perpetuity of a system of saving truth, it was neces-

sarily designed to be one ; variety being opposed to the purpose of its

universality, and so endangering its efficiency.

It is Very generally maintained by Protestants, (except by some who

take another ground, which I shall afterwards notice), that the only unity

designed by Christ for his Church, is spiritual unity,—-a unity in the re-
ception of certain doctrines distinguished fundamental, in holiness of

life, and in certain interior consolations and privileges of true piety. It

is affirmed that the family and household of Christ may properly consist

of a number of different families, varying extremely in government, dis-

cipline, laws, institutions, and worship. A strange idea is this of an uni-
ted people, and not very accordant with St. Paul’s description of the

mystical body of Christ, as given in various parts of his Epistles !

Now is there any intimation of such design laid down by Christ, re-
specting his Church, in either the Old or New Testament ? Is it to be
collected either from the types of the former, or the descriptions and his-

tory of the latter ? There were, of course, different provincial and local

churches, and must be while the family of man is locally divided, but all

these churches were united in government, discipline, worship, and sa-

craments. Rome and Ephesus, Corinth and Philippi, Sardis and Phila-

delphia, were distir^ct Churches only as to their locality ;—their members
differing, indeed, in degree of piety and of consistency of profession, but

the same in every point of doctrine, discipline, and worship. They had

one and the same baptism, altar, apostolic rule, episcopacy, ordained min-

istry, and communion with St. Peter, while he lived, and his successors

in Rome after his death. Ecclesiastical history annihilates altogether the

supposition that in the primitive Church existed various differing denomi-

nations, some having sacraments, some none
;
some governed by bishops,

some rejecting episcopacy
;
some having a form of worship, some abhor-

ring it
;

some baptizing infants, and some refusing to baptize them.

There is not a shadow of ground for such an idea : it is absolutely incom-

patible with the admission of the truth of ecclesiastical history. How
comes it then, that so unscriptural, so preposterous, so untenable,a posi-

tion is maintained, as that the Church of Christ properly comprehends all



13

varying denominations of Christians, or individuals in them all ? Seeing,

too, that in its practical working, it is so subversive of unity, and prejudi-

cial to the universality of the Church, to the spread of truth, and thereby

to the accomplishment of the design of Redemption ?

Is this position so stoutly maintained simply for the sake of consistency

;

and that Protestants may not seem to allow their own foundations to be

overthrown ? It is not well to be consistent to the endangering of the

best interests of man. Or is it because that in most of these existing

bodies of professed Christians, some are found giving much proof of the

reality of their personal piety and of their individual participation of the

grace of God ? I admit the fact, but I deny what it is supposed to prove.

God is a Being of infinite mercy. He has a mind of love towards his

creatures
;
but very specially and undeniably towards the fallen children

of Adam. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son to

redeem it. It is consistent with this fact, and not at all inconsistent with

the maintenance of the supreme divine rights of the Church, and of her

sole claim to the incorporation with her of all the members of Christ and

heirs of eternal life, that there may be out of her, those who yet are not

necessarily to be deemed excluded from the final and most inestimable

blessing of salvation. There may be a unity of the spirit, where there is

not the bond of visible communion. The Church has, so to speak, both a

body and a soul
;
an outward and visible form, and an inward pervading

spirit ;—the former, God’s constitution—the latter, his gift. The power
and operation of the latter may extend beyond the sphere and limits of

the former
;
so as to include within it more than the ibrmer may seem to

do. Some then, or many, may belong to the soul of the Church, who

are not of its body. When we see persons loving truth, and desirous of
embracing it as far as it is known to them, eschewing evil, and doing

good
;
persons pursuing after holiness, and aiming to live in the love of

God and of their neighbours ; devout, benevolent, given to all good works,

—these we may consider as bound to the Church by unity of spirit,
though not attached to her by the bond of visible union. They are per-

vaded by her soul, though not incorporated with her body. She claims

them as her children, prays for their complete and outward union, and

leaves them in the hands of that divine love, which has, she trusts, in-

cluded them in its wide and infinite apprehension, to associate them fully

with her in time, or, if not, in eternity. Their present errors being not

persisted in against the clear perceptions of light or convictions of con-

science, while she seeks, in obedience to the will of God, to give them

that light, she forbids not the hope or belief, that they may receive it

hereafter in the region of perfect light, love, and holiness. It is scriptu-

rally clear that God, however jealous of his own laws, has not cutoff

from his favour, those who, from causes of which He is the perfect judge,

have followed a less excellent rule, as in the case of the polygamy of the

patriarchs and David. Yet who will defend their conduct, or question

the divine law ?* That, therefore, which influences many amiable per-

sons to adopt this notion, of the Church being a large body made up of

numerous discordant bodies, is not a sufficient or just ground for the

opinion.

In truth, Protestants find themselves under a necessity of defending

this notion in some way or other, or else abandoning the maintenance of

• Gen. ii. 24.—Matt. xix. 4-6,



14

their present separation from the Catholic Church, and admitting the duty

of a return to it. The Church, say they, must be allowed to consist of

all denominations, however varying externally, so long as they agree in

fundamental truths, or else we must return whence we came, and whither

we do not choose to return. You, my dear friend, must often have heard,
in substance, this statement. Is it not singular, that no two of these de-

nominations agree in fundamental truths ? for they would not give you

the same list of them. 1 doubt whether t\yo ministers of any one of these

bodies, are prepared to say they entirely agree as to what these funda-

mental truths are, or how many the term comprehends. That is a strange

test of agreement, concerning which all are disagreed.
.
Now, in the

Catholic Church there is no disagreement whatever
;
every priest, from

one end of the earth to the other,—every properly instructed member of
the Church, in all the earth, concurs in the. confession of the same faith.

“ There is one body and one spirit
;
one Lord, one faith, one baptism

whereas, among Protestants, there is not only disagreement, but no agree-

ment among themselves, as to those truths, of which themselves affirm it

necessary to agree in belief, in order to constitute membership in the

Church of God.

There is, however, another, a numerous and highly respectable class

of persons, who admit the necessity of a complete and visible unity of the

Church
;
anathematizing, indeed, that l^x and purely Protestant notion of

an harmonious body made up of discordant parts; of unity in the spirit,

consisting with diversity of interests actively pursued, and with exclu-

siveness as to Church communion
;
of the bond of peace being held

amid exclusion from each other’s altars, and loud condemnation of each

other’s doctrines and worship
;
Of ecclesiastical order without discipline,

and of godly obedience without supreme government. This class is al-

most exclusively found within the Established Church of England.

Their view, on which they (in great part) justify their continuance in their

present position of separation from the Catholic Church in communion

with the See of Rome, is, that the present Anglican Church is identically

one and the same with that which St. Augustine planted in the sixth cen-

tury, over which St. Thomas of Canterbury presided in the twelfth, and

Warham at the commencement of the sixteenth; as properly, therefore,

a part of the Catholic Church under the presidency of Archbishop How-

ley, as she ever was, or as the Church in Rome itself now is. This

asserted unity is surely not of a very obvious kind, but liable to some

serious, if not insuperable, difficulties. For to test its validity and sound-

ness, let us bring together the above-named four distinguished individual^,

and suppose them met in conference. Now will they concur in doctrine,
discipline, or Church government ? Are they in a visible or a real unity

on any of these topics among themselves ? Quite the reverse. There

are three against one, and one against three. And they disagree so much,

that those doctrines which the three former, St. Augustine, St. Thomas,

and Archbishop Warham, teach as Divine truths. Archbishop Howley.

condemns and rejects
;
partly as blasphemous fables and dangerous de-

ceits
;
entirely as unwarranted by Scripture. Can they, worship at the

same altar ? Quite the reverse. If consistent with their avowed princi-

ples, they cannot even be present at the same worship, lest they, sin

against God and His Church. Am I then to believe that here is a real
unity? Am I to be told, there is no occasion for you to be dissatisfied



15

with the Anglican, as not being a true portion of the Catholic Church,

and a loving sister of the Roman Church, because she is identically the

very same Church under Dr. Howley, as she was under Dr. Warham, or

St. Thomas, or St. x^ugustine? I cannot believe what is so palpably un-

true. And to test its truth a little farther, suppose myself, or any presby-

ter of the Anglican Church, coming before these four prelates, and sub-

missively listening to receive Catholic verity from their concordant con-

fession, as knowing that the truth of God cannot vary, and with a real

attachment to Catholic unity ? It is undoubted, that while three of them

would enjoin me, on pain of heavy spiritual penalties, to offer up the

sacrifice of the mass, the inculcation on my flock of the doctrines, for

example, of purgatory, of invocation of the Blessed Virgin and of the

saints,—the last-named. Dr. Howley, would as strongly forbid me to do
the former, or to hold or teach either of the latter. While St. Augustine,

St. Thomas, and Archbishop Warham, would require me to profess an

hearty allegiance to the See of Rome, in matters spiritual and ecclesiasti-

cal, as Divinely constituted to rule and concentrate the Kingdom of Christ

on earth. Archbishop Howley would threaten me with heavy penalties, if

I held the Bishop of Rome to have any jurisdiction at all in England, or

any supremacy beyond his own See. I state.no more than fact. And I

ask again, am I then to be persuaded that there is a real unity between

the Roman and the modern Anglican Church ? Could I obey these dif-

fering prelates ? or serve such opposite masters ? Should 1 receive the

right-hand of fellowship from all ? Would not three of them reject me,

if 1 knelt to receive the blessing of the fourth,—and the fourth, if I sought
the blessing of the three ? Can it be pretended that there is scriptural,

visible unity, or any unity at all in this ? Surely it is an unity, unheard

of in the Church till the sixteenth century
;
tearing a man asunder if he

attempts to embrace it. Can any person, then, seriously maintain that

the Established Church of England is a proper part and parcel of the

Catholic Church in communion with the see of Rome, and that her mem-

bers need not move to join this Church, but may contentedly remain

where they are ? Far more consistent are they who, boldly denouncing

the Roman Church as anti-Christian, separate from her in spirit and in

profession, and account it their peculiar glory to keep as far aloof as pos-

sible from all connexion with, and assimilation to her.

I am aware that some of these learned and excellent persons who up-

hold the startling position that the Roman and the established Anglican

are but branches of the same Church, maintain that the only difference

is, that the latter rejects certain errors which the former has engrafted on

herself : that she is the same Church purified. But I see not how this

removes that objection to the visibility and perfection of the unity,

which must strike every one as arising from the evident opposition of

these tw'o branches, in doctrine as well as discipline. Whether the de-

bated points be truths or errors, the maintenance of them by the one, and

the rejection of them by the other, is destructive not only of the effec-

tiveness and the apparency,—but surely of the reality of their unity.
There is not only no longer co-operation, but avowed opposition

;
and the

unity is no longer such as the body of Christ requires to answer its de-

signed end, as constituted for the diffusion and upholding of truth. It is

no longer such an unity as all the chief figures used in the New Testa-
ment to set it forth suppose

;
for instance, that of a vine, an household, a



16

family, a temple, a bride. If the Catholic Church in England, from St.

Augustine’s days to the Reformation (allowing for practical corruptions

and abuses, which, even in the apostolic age had begun to prevail in dif-

ferent local or provincial Churches) was a sound member of the mystical

body of the Lord,—of his visible Church,—the modern Anglican estab-
lishment is an unsound one ; and if the latter be sound in her present

doctrinal tenets, and her rejection of the supremacy of the see of St.

Peter, the Catholic Church is to be regarded as most unsound. She is

most unsound, whether she be regarded at any time previous or subse-

quent to the sixteenth century; for she is the same now as then, in doc-

trine and discipline. The one or the other must change, to preserve the

proper unity of the whole, according to our Lord’s prayer, and the apos-

tolic descriptions of the Church. But, in truth, while they meet not in

union under and with the same Head, and the one absolutely disclaims

connexion with what the other dogmatically upholds as the supreme

government and centre of unity, by divine appointment, for the whole

body of Christ,—can a real and proper unity be imagined to exist,—es-
pecially when there is also taken into consideration doctrinal differences

;

the one treating as fables, errors, and blasphemies, what the other incul-

cates on mankind as sound and sacred truths ?

But here takes place a division of opinion among those who uphold the

unity of the Roman Catholic Church and the modern Anglican Establish-

ment. Till within the last ten or twelve years, very few were found

among members of the latter who did not, in the strongest terms, repudi-

ate those tenets of the Catholic Church respecting which so great a dis-

sension arose in the sixteenth century. The Catholic Church in commu-

nion with the see of Rome was almost universally denounced as anti-chris-

tian in her doctrines. I enter here upon a part of my answer to your en-

quiry, on which I am obliged to enlarge a little, as it involves some points

of the first importance in my coming to a practical decision, either to abide

where I v;as, or to become a Catholic.

You will readily suppose that those tenets referred to, were matter of

very frequent reflection with me. I had viewed them once as errors,

though in different degrees, dangerous and opposite to the truth of the Gos-

pel. I reluctantly and slowly came to a different conclusion. I knew and

re-examined^ all the popular and chief objections against them. I gave

them their full weight. I read, with as much impartiality as I could, the

Catholic Church’s vindication of her tenets, I examined the canons, and

studied the Catechism of the Council of Trent
;
that most full, most ad-

mirable, and authoritative exposition of her creed. The result was, that

though I found ample ground for the allegation of practical abuses, as ex-

isting both in past and present times
;
though I found arguments brought

forward by various Catholic writers, and some of very high repute, that I

deemed unsatisfactory
;
texts of Scripture alleged in proof of this or that

doctrine, that could not, to my judgment, be brought to bear on it ; still

she had both Scripture and reason decisively on her side. Her own au-

thorised statemerrts were thoroughly satisfactory. When carefully exam-

ined into
;
impartially reflected on

;
viewed distinct from practical abuses,

and essentially springing from them
;
separated, I need hardly say, from

the ignorant calumnies, and railing accusations of many Protestant wri-

ters and speakers against the Catholic Church ; they became, in the best

conclusion I could arrive at, Catholic verities, and wholesome and blessed



17

truths. More than this, they became parts of a beauteous and complete

system of truth, so admirably fitting into it, each in its proper place, leav-

ing such a void, if rejected out of it, as declared that system, in spite of

all which human corruption had done, and still did, to mar and deface it,

the work of God
;
the revelation and provision of infinite wisdom and

love for the happiness and holiness of his creatures. Examining the

ablest works of Protestant controversialists, and comparing them with the

Church’s own authorised declarations of her doctrines, and the solid rea-

sons in support of them which might be adduced, I was left with a sad

impression of the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the former.

I know not a Protestant controversial writer (the authors of the Oxford

Tracts alone excepted) whose works did not leave me more a Catholic

than before
;
while I admit that there were some writings of Catholics,

which, when I read them, threw me back upon Protestantism.

It is foreign to my purpose in this letter, to discuss these disputed

tenets. I must content myself with assuring you, my dear friend, that I
carefully examined them

;
I slowly received them

;
but 1 am convinced of

the soundness of the Catholic doctrine concerning them all. I am satis-

fied that not one of them, nor all of them collectively, viewed even in con-

nexion with the then existing abuses of them, were justifiable ground of

that separation from the Church in communion with the see of Rome, which

took place in the sixteenth century. And I conclude, that if not warranta-

ble grounds for separation then, they afforded not warrantable grounds for

continuing that separation now.

I was once oressed with this principle, that a person was bound to re-

main in that Cnurch in which the providence of God had placed him, by

his birth, baptism, and calling into the ministry. But I do not understand

the words, “ that Church in which,” &lc. nor how there can be properly

more than one Church
;
and if the providence of God has not placed me

within her, the express command of God requires me to give up all con-
siderations and join her. The principle referred to assumes what is to
be proved. Moreover, I profess myself unable to discover, after all the

reflection I can give to it, how the same principle, if sound, does not
oblige a Quaker, or a Baptist, or a Scotch Presbyterian, to remain what

he is. Nay, is even a Socinian minister of the Church of Geneva at lib-

erty to leave the position where the providence of God has placed him by
his birth, baptism, and ministerial calling? The points disputed between
the Catholic Church and the English Establishment are not of a neutral

character, if such could be
; nor matter of indifference, nqr of small mo-

ment
;
neither party owns them such

;
but treats them, as they evidently

are, viewed in themselves, as matters of vital importance, and essential to

sound faith, to hold or to reject. I could not perceive therefore, how the
same principle which would oblige me to remain a member of the English
Establishment, did not also justify one continuing in the Churches of Ge-
neva or of Scotland, among the Baptists or Quakers.

But another ground has within the last few years been taken by individ-
uals, so devout, so learned, and in every respect so estimable, as to make
the novelty of the position they assume yet more startling, from the un-
questioned fact of their own Christian conscientiousness. It is this, that
the doctrines of the Catholic Churchy generally considered as denied hy

Protestants, are not really denied hy the Anglican Establishment, but that



18

in prineiple, or tacitly, she admits them all ; and that their apparent con-’

demnation hy her in* her Thirty-nine Articles, is no condemnation, except

of certain practical abuses of them which existed in the sixteenth centu-

ry. It is, I say, maintained by many, and that publicly,— of whose in-

tegrity and piety, no more than of their learning and talents, can the least

question be raised by all who have the privilege to know them,—that the
Anglican Church is truly Catholic as it respects these doctrines, and that

no one who subscribes the Thirty-nine Articles is called on to reject pur-

gatory, transubstantiation, invocation of the B. Virgin Mary, and of the

saints, the efficacy of the sacrifice of the mass, as defined by the Council

of Trent, &c. In other words, he may be a Tridentine Catholic at heart,

and an Anglican clergyman by profession. This is a startling position,

and, as might be supposed, has startled the Established Church through-

out her length and breadth, from Berwick-upon-Tweed to the Land’s End.

A sound has gone forth from Oxford, which has troubled alike the metro-
politan at Lambeth, and the humble curate in the Welsh mountains. It

has penetrated the British senate
;
(peradvepture it may not be unheard

in another council chamber)
;

it certainly has not been unheard in the

Vatican. That the Anglican Established Church is, in her doctrines,

essentially one with Rome, seems one of the surprising discoveries of this

age of discovery. But such is the purport of the celebrated Tract No. 90.

I am not going to discuss the truth or falsehood of the position maintained

in that tract. I shall content myself with stating that if, after much care-

ful examination of its arguments, and the authorities adduced in support of

them, an individual finds himself incapable of assenting to them, and con-

strained either to reject the disputed doctrines, or to embrace them by

joining the Catholic Church in communion with the see of Rome, it should

justly cause no surprise. To specify upon one point, that of the Sacrifice

of the Mass. Is it easy to bring oneself to believe, that the distinction

between a low or private mass, as celebrated at any period of the Church,

and the public approved worship of the Catholic Church, can be such, as

to constitute the former a blasphemous fable, while the latter remains an

holy and acceptable offering ? Read carefully the Thirty-first Article :
“ The sacrifice of masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the

priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain

or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.” Is it easily

credible that this strong language was directed only against an abuse as to

certain private masses ? Have words any meaning ? Are they to be con-

sidered as designed to communicate distinct ideas or not? What is the

ground here alleged for the condemnation of the sacrifice of masses ?

—

that “ in them it was commonly said the priest did offer Christ,” &c. Why,

this is what ever was, and still is, commonly said
;
and said substantially

in all authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church, of the sacrifice of the

mass : of the mass in general
;
of every mass

;
not of private masses

only. Every priest teaches and commonly says this now. And every in-

structed Catholic knows and believes it to be the proper doctrine of the

mass, and therein it is a propitiatory application of the sacrifice of Christ

for the benefit of the quick and the dead. Does the circumstance of pri-

vacy so alter the essential character of the rite, as to make what is ‘sacred

truth in one case, to become a blasphemous fable in the other ? Compare

the latter and the former parts of the Article together, and can anything

be clearer than that it was the supposition (altogether erroneous indfeed)



19

that the doctrine of the sacrifice of masses interfered with that of the one

sacrifice of Christ upon Calvary, which induced the compilers or the Arti-

cle to introduce this fierce condemnation of a Catholic verity. For the

sacrifice of the mass, if it interfere at all, which assuredly when correct-

ly understood, it does not, with the one sacrifice of Calvary, interferes as

much in a public as in a private mass, in the case of one mass as of

masses. Without uttering a harsh word upon the reasoning of Tract 90

in this case (and it is a fair specimen of its general reasoning), I will only

say, that an individual may well be pardoned, if he cannot assent to its

correctness. It need create no surprise, if, after careful reflection, he

should come to the conclusion, that if Rome be right, the Anglican Church

is thoroughly wrong
;
and that no compromise, as it respects the doctrine

of the former rejected by the latter, can be allowed by one who would

keep a clear conscience ; that he must totally reject those Catholic verities

as errors, or renounce his avowed connexion with the Anglican Church

as now established. No one who calmly reflects can, I think, judge it

improbable, that another should see no such via media as the Tract 90 sug-

gests, for himself to tread with safety. If others take the opposite alter-

native from himself, he will pray God to accept their piety and pardon

their error. If others take neither alternative, but consider the doctrines

of the Catholic Church, as defined at the Council of Trent, reconcilable

with open communion and ministerial connexion with the Established

Church in England, he will admire their learning and piety, firmly believe

their Christian integrity and conscientiousness, but he will not cease to be

astonished at the decision of their judgment. It will probably be his

judgment, that if Rome he right, these persons do not go far enough ; but

if Rome be wrong, that they have gone much too far.

But permit me to ofier you, my dear friend, a farther reflection, in con-
nexion with this subject. Suppose the case to be, as the respected indi-

viduals who approve of the tract referred to, maintain, and that the Thirty-

nine Articles are directed against certain abuses of the Catholic doctrines,

not against the doctrines themselves
;

still I think, it may well, be asked

of them
;

“ Is this the way in which Catholic revealed truth, the truth of

Christ’s holy religion, is to be held and set forth before the world, by his

Church Truth is light : and given to the world to enlighten it : and to

edify and benefit souls by shining forth from the candlestick of the Church.

It is not to be put under a table, a bushel, or a veil. Can it be said that

the Anglican Church so holds out the light of the truth (if these doctrines

be true, which is the case supposed), as that all may see it, whereas it re-

quires the greatest ingenuity to discover that they are not directly denied

by her articles ?—when probably, not one clergyman in ten thousand, who
has subscribed these articles, ever supposed them to admit of such an in-

terpretation ? when even they who now find it in them, found it not till

lately ? when not a single living bishop of that Church recognizes the in-

terpretation, nor will permit it to be publicly held from the pulpit ?—can
this be said to be the holding forth Catholic truth in the Church, as a light

shines in a candlestick ?—is this the way in which the Divine head of the
Church would have her use the talent of saving truth, entrusted to her

keeping, for the instruction and edification of souls 1 A man may not
concur in the outcry against a previous tract, on Reserve in communicat-

ing Religious Truth, but may regard it as being greatly misunderstood,

and cruelly misrepresented
;
but he may apprehend a wide difierence be-



20

tween an holy prudence and a wise caution in unfolding truth to men for

their growth in grace by right and gradual apprehensions of the spiritual

nourishment, which it is to those who receive it, and such concealment of

it, under the most opposite appearances, as is involved in the arguments

of Tract 90. Surely this is a consideration that should have weight. I

add, however, no more on this point : but trust I have said enough to jus-

tify an individual, and to free him from the charge of ignorance, extreme

weakness, or mental aberration, who, regarding as true the doctrines of the

Catholic Church rejected generally by Protestants, should consider it his

duty openly to avow his belief of them by joining her communion. You

may probably deny the premises, that these doctrines are true
;
but if you

allow the premises, I think you will not wonder at the conclusion.

At the commencement of my letter, I alluded to a topic to which I
must briefly revert ;—the fervency as well as punctuality of devotion within
the Catholic Church. It has been most justly remarked, by some who

are not of her communion, that there is a deep devotional feeling, and an

ardour of piety in the present day among many, and these an increasing

number, which find not scope for their exercise, nor sufficient help for

their development, in any form or section of Protestantism : and that the

Catholic Church alone presents a fair field for their exercise.

It seems, indeed, the hope of some, that parts of the Catholic system

may be so engrafted on the Anglican discipline, and connected with its

worship, that this great desideratum may be supplied, without joining the

communion of the Catholic Church. It remains to be seen whether the

attempt will succeed,—:whether it can be tried so as to allow of the pos-
sibility of success; or whether the Anglican discipline and worship are

not too defective in various points, to ensure that obedience to rules, and

that perseverance in religious duties, without which it certainly would be

tried in vain. They who have essayed it can best say, whether they have

found it to succeed in their own individual experience.

I confess, while I utterly repudiate all idea of claiming any degree of

pursuit of piety above others of ray late brethren, that I sought in vain to

satisfy the longings of my soul, hy any combination of Catholic forms with

Protestant doctrines—of Catholic devotion in private with Anglican public
worship. It was like the sewing of new cloth upon an old garment,

w'hereby the rent is made worse. There are those whom the infinite

and rich grace of God has led to desire the knowledge of, and communion

with Him, as their chief and only satisfying joy. They wish, but scarcely

dare say, they aim to live to and for Him alone
;
He has presented

Himself as the admirable and most excellent object of their affections

;

they seek to be holocausts to His glory, in his daily service
;

to keep

their souls like altars, whereon the fire of devotion goes not out; their

bodies like temples, from which the presence of the Spirit departs not

;

to be able to say with truth
—

“ To us, to live is Christ, and to die gain.”

Have such tried and found that the Catholic Church alone, in her daily

and fervent devotions, her hourly offices, her symbolic rites, her ines-

timable practice of confession, with its attendant sacramental privileges,

her soul-engrossing intercourse with the spirits of the just made perfect,

her pious recognition of the less perfect departed faithful, [whose purifi-

cation for bliss is still proceeding,]^ in her inseparable connection with the

glorious company of the apostles, the noble army of martyrs, the ad-

mirable band of confessors, her wholesome and rich and well-connected



21

truths,—have they, I say, tried and found that this Church, alone presents
what can satisfy their high, holy, and heavenly desires and aims ? It

cannot but be, that in this circumstance, they find also, besides other con-

siderations, that which commends her to their regard, their adhesion, their

dutiful and devoted allegiance. They find and admire in her the beauty

of the spouse of Christ
;
they love and serve her, for her own sake, and

for His, whose beloved bride she is. They find her equally, the school

of heavenly wisdom, and godly simplicity
;
of Christian dignity and child-

like humility. She presents, combined, the characters of the serpent and

the dove. In her is conjoined true mortification and self-denial, with that

satisfaction to which the prophet refers; “Ho every one that thirsteth,

come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money
;
come ye, buy and

eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk, without money and without price.”

The fruit of her devotions is the elevation of the soul to God, and the

abasement which keeps it low in the dust of humiliation. Holiness unto

the Lord is written on the bells of her houses. The beauty of holiness is

the character of her worship. The peace of God, passing all under-

standing, is the fruit of communion with her, in all who faithfully walk

according to her rule. As one of these (I speak as a fool,) I must say of

her— of the Catholic Church: “Peace be within thy walls, and plen-

teousness within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions’ sakes,

I will now say. Peace be unto thee. I wish thee good luck in the name of

the Lord.”

I beg you not to suppose that I hastily condemn those who take a dif-

ferent view from my own on the matters of this letter, which I have

written in self-justification, and as some answer to an enquiry now often

made of me ; “ Why are you become a Catholic ?” I trust I shall be
pardoned, if, in vindicating myself, I find it difficult to forbear essaying to

affect others with an apprehension of the good 1 sought, and hitherto have

found.

The considerations which I have in this letter put before you, were the

chief of those, which, some more, some less, some earlier, some later,

influenced me to join the Catholic Church in communion with the See of

Rome. The step was full fraught with trials :—trials, so fearful in pros-
pect, that often did 1 shrink from them, as far beyond my strength to

meet. 1 will not deny that they were great in reality and endurance
;

but I found One perfecting his strength in my weakness, and sustaining

me through them. That word sustaining is a bold one
;

if I were not

speaking of myself, I would use a stronger and truer one.*

A conflict of great principles is apparently coming on. Pdo not mean
of Catholic and Protestant principles, simply as such. But between holy

order on the one hand, and unholy license on the other. Christianity and

infidelity are, in my judgment, mustering their forces for some great bat-

tle. The latter is developing itself under various forms, according to the

country within, the government under, which it is found. In professedly

Catholic countries it is showing itself in the destruction of religious in-

stitutions, desecration of sacred things, seizure of property dedicated to

God, contempt of the profession of piety, political independence, &c.

In this country it developes itself in various projects and schemes, semi-

philosophical and semipolitical, but altogether antichristian, which are

attracting within their vortex unstable, and worldly, and proud minds
;

* Rom. vhi. 37.



22

while the power of human intellect, and the discoveries of science, are

indirectly brought to aid infidelity against Christianity, by self-sufficiency

and self-importance, nay independence of God with which they possess

men. A war against Christ, and therefore against his Church, his now
vulnerable body—(there can be no war against the one that is not against
the other)—is begun by infidel theorizers and political demagogues

;
and

it is more or less manifested as they have or have not opportunity and

power. Christianity, on the other hand, is gathering her strength to with-

stand the battle against her. How ? By repairing her time-honoured
walls

;
strengthening her ancient battlements and defences

;

presenting

her compact, insulated position, as the City of God in the midst of the

earth. She is summoning her citizens out of all the world, the elect peo-

ple of God, to all the duties and privileges to which she calls them
;
she

is resuming her original strength and consolidation, to meet the assaults

of Infidelity, as she formerly met those of Paganism and then these of

Heresy. The ark of God is reparing, against the pouring forth of the de-

solating flood. I speak of repairs, because marks of decay are visible
;

effects of long neglect, laxity of discipline, sloth, timidity, and sin. She

is calling upon all who are on the Lord’s side, to secure themselves

against the coming conflict, by taking refuge within her walls, while, as

the Lord’s soldiers, they aid her against His, her, and their enemies.

“ Abide ye not (she says) where ye now are, in unwalled villages and

scattered places, whereunto ye went out in days of license, of anarchy,

and error, in the days of God’s displeasure against me, and visitation of

human corruption. For therein is no refuge for you against the enemy
j

and you are no aid to me,” Especially to members of the Anglican

Church she says, “You share, in common with myself, in this land (for

you reach no further) the attacks of our common foe. This is for your

honour. But think not you will escape where you are. The city of God

is but one. You are too separate, while you are rejecting my supreme

earthly Head, my long-established discipline, my catholic order to be a

part of that city. Whatever may be your apparent unity, you are really

separate. Your strength is thrown away in attempting to pro^ct what is

indefensible. But join me : aid in repairing my fences against the foe ;
in reviving the courage of my true citizens, recovering ancient discipline,

and reanimating decaying strength. Your return to me will be like health

to the feeble, and strength to the faint
;
like an infusion of young blood

into an aged frame. You will be welcomed with gladness, and rejoiced

over with singing, and the joy of earth will be re-echoed and sustained

by that of heaven
;
the devout thanksgivings of the sixteenth Gregory for

the recovery of the strayed sheep of bis flock, will be taken up by the

first of his name, the Saint in heaven, for the renewal of that conversion

eof England, for which both he on earth so fervently prays, and He in

vhoaven so continually intercedes.”

The present, my dear friend, is a solemn time for the Church of Christ.

It is the pause before the battle
;
a time, as respects every well-disposed

soldier of the Lord, of recollection, of watchfulness and prayer, review

of his heart and life
;
of his aims and purposes

;
and of decision to do

his duty (God enabling him) to his Saviour and his Church. “ If I for-

get thee, O Jerusalem (he will say), let my right-hand forget her cunning.

Yea, if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.”

Will you not concur in that prayer,
—

“ 0 remember not against us for-



23

mer iniquities
;
let thy tender mercies speedily prevent us

;
for we are

brought very low. Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of Thy
name; and deliver us, and purge away our sins, for Thy name’s sake.

Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is their God ?—So we thy
people, and the sheep of thy pasture, will give Thee thanks for ever

:

we will show forth t% praise to all generations.”

I remain, my dear Friend,

Very faithfully yours,

RICHARD WALDO SIBTHORP.

Holmewood, Isle op Wight
;

Feast of the Epiphany.

/



A FURTHER ANSWER,

My dear ,Friend,
When I addressed to you my former Letter, I anticipated, as a possi-

ble consequence of its publication, that it might elicit the controversial

notices of some who differed from me, and who might deem it their duty

to communicate to the world their own opposite sentiments. I inti-

mated, that while I sought to answer your reasonable enquiry, “ Why
have you become a Catholic?” that I gave you only some of my reasons,
though confessedly such as chiefly weighed with me

;
in outline also,

rather than in full detail
;
as hints for your own reflections, rather than

elaborate arguments : thus leaving it open, if yourself, by further friendly

enquiry, or others by their candid objections, made it advisable, either to

add other reasons, or to enforce and enlarge on those previously given.

It is as I had anticipated. Some of my arguments have been assailed,

though with kindness and much courtesy
;
some of my statements been

objected to. and opposite ones rather peremptorily laid down as undenia-

ble
;
conclusions from these have been put forth as decisive against those

I had come to
;
and especially I have been challenged to adduce my rea-

sons for the conviction I avowed myself to have attained of the truth of

those doctrines of the Catholic Church, which Protestants concur to

deny.

If I have hesitated to resume my pen, it has not been because any

thing written in the way of stricture on ray former Letter has made me

doubt the tenableness of the positions therein assumed. However it

may be with others, far different is the result as to my own convictions,

produced by what has appeared in reply to me. The truth and sound-

ness of all the reasons I had advanced stand forth in clearer and bolder

relief by the light brought to discredit them. Some hesitation I certainly

have felt as to the necessity of answering arguments and objections that

seemed so much to carry with them their own confutation. But I truely

affirm, that I shrink from controversy
;
accustomed also for many past years

to the oversight and instruction of a congregation, and now preparing for

the reception of Holy Orders in the Catholic Church, I have been back-

ward to enter upon any engagement that would interfere with prepara-

tion for her ministry. More pleasant, and probably more profitable, had

it been for me, to have given exclusive attention to the contemplation of

the solemn and high duty of serving according to my degree at the altar

of God, and at this season of Lent especially, to have addicted myself to

sacred study, meditation, and prayer. Yet I trust I have not erred in de-

ciding now to vindicate what I had before advanced. Truth, though great,

unhappily does not prevail at once, even with candid enquirers. Argu-

ments, however futile, have often much force, where there is a previous dis-

posedness to hesitation, and when many motives are working against ad-

mission of the opposite truth. Assertions, however unfounded, when per-



25

emptorily made by individuals in repute for learning, are apt to be taken

for granted as solid reasons. The number of those who can apprehend the

true point and soundness of an argument is comparatively small, and less

still of those who want industry to test its soundness, and honesty of

mind to allow the result its just weight in their own case. The opinions

of the many are carried off by a few remarks that lie on the surface, and

what is weighty overpowered by what is plausible. Moreover, the bias

of the public mind in this country is still (though happily every year less

so) in favour of that side of the great question between us, taken by my

opponents. The force of education, of early prejudices, and worldly interest

is with them. One of them has examined my “ Answer ” to your enquiry

with a sort of assumption of easy victory, which, considering his reputa-

tion as a writer, will pass with many for decisive truth. I feel called

upon then, satisfied as I am that the ground I have taken is good and de-

fensible, to essay its defence. The cause I have ventured to advocate is

a very sacred and high one : it is that of Christ’s Holy Church, and of

her proper Unity
;
of sound and deep devotion, of active and large char-

ity, of the best interests of my country and of the human race. I am

aware of the feebleness of my own advocacy. But circumstances at first

called me tc/*undertake it : and having once undertaken it, knowing it good,

and perceiving it the more so by the endeavours made to prove it other-

wise, I will, with God’s help, resume it, and having affixed, so to speak,

my consecrated colours to the Cross of my Lord, and praying Him to
arise and maintain the right, who is the Giver of all victory, I shall set

before you some confirmation of my former Answer to your enquiry,
“ Why have you become a Catholic ?” And having done this, and, as
I hope, without offending against the Apostle’s admonition. Let all your

works be with charity^ I shall, [unless circumstances force me to another

course, turn away from controversy to the sweeter, better, and holier avo-

cations of that ministry I shall have entered upon ere this Letter reaches

you.

1. I shall advert, to the argument in support of the Catholic Church

from the Levitical types. It is principally objected to this, that it is con-

trary to the nature of a type, which must always be as different from its

antitype as a shadow from the real body. It is distinctly asserted that

“ the types of the Old Testament were always of a different nature (that

is, they differed as much as a shadow from the substance,) from the things

which they prefigured.”* I affirm this objection to be incorrect, as an ar-

gument
;
untrue in point of fact, being confuted by the Holy Scriptures

;

and contradicted by the testimony of the Holy Fathers, as adduced by the

objector himself.

I deny the foundation of the objection to be sound. There is an evi-

dent mistake in it as to the true meaning of the word “ shadow” when

applied to types, and to the types of the Old Testament. By keeping

loo strictly in view the ordinary sense of the word “ shadow,” it is

strained to a conclusion it will not sustain. A shadow and its substance,
in the common usage of those terms, are necessarily in nature different

from each other, because the one is essentially immaterial, and the other

material. But it is otherwise when these words are used to express such

things as the types and antitypes. The type and antitype may both be

earthly, material, and substantial
;
and in every respect similar, except

• Palmer’s Examination, &c., p. II.

4



26

the greater excellency and dignity of the latter. One man may be a type

of another man
;
the afflictions of one man, of the similar circumstances

of another man
;
one nation, of another nation

;
one material thing ap-

plied to a sacred use, of another, or even of the same material thing

applied to a sacred use. Schleusner thus explains the word rendered

shadow,”* “ Metaphorice notat omnem levem adurnbrationem, symholicam

expressionem, imagmem levem ac obscuram alicujus rei, et opponitur, acapaTt,

corpori, seu rei hac imagine adumbratae.” To the same purport, Calmet
observes : “ A type is properly an example^ pattern of, or general simili-
tude to a person, event or thing to come, and hence differing from a repre-

sentation, memorial, or commemoration of an event, &c., which is past.”

And this larger sense of the word “ shadow” is taken by a great many

theologians
;
some of whom very correctly express the meaning of

“ shadow,” by a faint outline or sketch : in truth the Jewish Church bore

to the Evangelical the relation of a sketch to a finished portrait, as the

latter bears to the Heavenly Church, that of the portrait to the living ori-

ginal. The term “ shadow” is not used because in all its properties, it is

applicable to a type, but in some only. A divinely designed resemblance
there must always be between the type and antitype, and an inferiority of

the one to the other in some important respects, but necessarily no dif-

ference in nature. A type is therefore a shadow, as an example, pattern,
or similitude is a shadow of, represents, or resembles another person,

office, &c., not as a shadow in nature differs from the body. A type is
virtually a prediction of the antitype, contained in things not in words,

and as numerous prophecies of the Old Testament have a twofold or

even threefold application, so a type may properly have more than one

antitype, herein again differing from a shadow, in the strictest sense.!

The blood of one creature shed before God on earth, was the type of

the blood of another creature, far more dignified, and to nobler ends, shed

before God on earth. The sacrifice of the paschal lamb was a shadow

of another more excellent sacrifice. The water of the flood prefigured,

or was a type of the water of baptism. This has ever been the Church’s

view of the types and shadows of the Old Testament
;
and thus in that

beautiful hymn of the Church, composed by St. Thomas, we read

;

In hac mensa novi Regis,
'

Novum Pascha novae legis,
Phase vetus terminat.

Vetustatem novitas,

Umbrarn fugat veritas,

Noctem lux elirainat.

The objection, I repeat it, is based upon an overstrained and mistaken

interpretation of the word “ shadow,” and the conclusion drawn from it,

is therefore faulty.

I affirm the objection to be not only unsupported, but contradicted by

clear instances from Holy Scripture, of a very close agreement in nature

of the type and antitype. Was not the man Isaac bearing the wood of

his offering, a type of the man Christ Jesus bearing his cross ? Was
there here such a difference in nature as between the shadow and the

substance ? Was not Joseph in his affliction a type of the “ man of sor-

* In Coloss. ii. 17 ; and Heb. xi. 1—the passages cited in support of the objection,
t As a proof of the absurdity of straining or restraining the sense of a word, by too strict a regard

to its literal or common meaning, I may adduce the reasoning of a Canterbury clergyman, who en-
deavouring to conclude, that because I have admitted the application of the types to Christ, they

cannot have another application, asks, “ Can the shadow of Westminster Abbey be that of St.

Paul’s ?” No. But one Church may be the model of two others, differing from it and each other
only in materials, size, locality, and dignity.



27

ROWS V* Were not the cloud and the sea types of Christian baptism ?

And, without adducing any other instances in confutation, I need scarcely

ask you now, what you think of the assertion, “ the types of the Old Tes-

tament were always of a different nature from the things which they

prefigured.”

But the objection is at variance with the views of the types of the Old

Testament, taken generally by the Holy Fathers. I need not go further

in proof of this, than to the testimony from them adduced by the objector.

“ The Fathers,” he says, “ always speak of bishops, priests, and deacons

as holding offices corresponding to those of Aaron, the priests, and Le-

vites.”* That is, they regarded the sacred priesthood and holy offices of

the Old Testament Church, as prefiguring those of the New. True
;
but

then there is a direct and manifest opposition between this opinion and

the assertion that “ the Jewish High Priest could not have typified any

similar visible functionary in the Church of Christ, nor could the priests

and Levites, with their offices, &c., have been types of any similar in-

stitutions in the Church.” Why not ? If Christian priests and deacons
could correspond with Jewish priests and Levites, why might not the

Christian Pontiff have had something for him to correspond with in office

in the Jewish hierarchy? In the opinion of Tertullian, Optatus, St. Je-

rome, St. Leo, and many other among the Fathers, there was not such a

difference in nature between type and antitype but that a priest and priest-

hood might typify a priest and priesthood
;
why might not then an High

Priest as properly typify an High Priest ? Observe, that I am now only

called upon to combat the objection against my argument from the Leviti-
cal types, founded on the assertion that it is contrary to the nature of a

type, which it is said must always be as different from the antitype as the

shadow from the real body. I have, I think, proved the objection erro-

neous, and call upon you to wonder with me at this grave assertion of the
objector : “ Now, this being the case, and I cannot think that any reason-

able mind can fail to see it immediately, Mr. Sibthorp’s leading argument

is at once disposed of” !!!

I proceed to consider two other objections made to disprove the gene-
ral force of the argument drawn from the types of the Mosaic dispensa-

tion, in support of the Catholic Church against her adversaries.

First. It is said, that I “ make a very untenable assumption in saying,
that all from Israel viewed as a nation down to the smallest ornaments of
the tabernacle, was typical. There is no warrant for such a belief in
Scripture.” I may be wrong in having used the word “ all ;” for I con-
fess myself unprepared to point out the typical or figurative application of

every ornament. But my inability to do this, or that of others who have
directed their attention more particularly to this branch of Scriptural in-
terpretation, is no proof of the error. Neither, if I or others have been

guilty of extravagance in the interpretation of types, does such extrava-

gance disprove in the slightest degree the design of God to instruct the
Church by them in her evangelical blessings and institutions. The ap-
plication of types, like that of prophecies, assuredly requires a very sound
judgment, and great sobriety and caution. It may be, that the extreme
minuteness with which all the parts, furniture, and ornaments of the
tabernacle are laid down, had only a design to teach the Church the im-
portance of order in all her services, or some other great general lesson.

• Palmer, page 12, n. a.



28

Yet, let these facts be well considered : that God himself gare most pre^

cise directions to Moses respecting each of these things, descending so

to speak into the minutise of embroidery, pattern, colours, forms, and

materials of nearly every article used in the Levitical worship,—that the
delivery of his instructions on these m.atters, was with this solemn ad-

monition :
—

“ See that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed

theeP To any profane imitation of some of these things, death, by im-

mediate infliction of God, was threatened. Above all, we know nearly

to certainty, that the typical character did apply to almost all the parts

and furniture of the tabernacle, and that very many of these had their ful-

filment not in Christ, or in Him personally alone, but in his mystical

body, the Church
;
as for instance, the veil and its rending. It is surely,

then, no very great assumption, that the typical character extended through-

out the whole of that wonderful appointment of Divine mercy and wis-

dom, the Levitical dispensation. Let any candid person say where the

probability lies. Surely, if the typical character embraced so very many

minute points, it would not exclude such leading ones, as the real and

visible unity of the holy nation, and the important office of the high priest.

It is a most unfounded, and, indeed, unscriptural assertion, that “ the unity

of the Jewish people must have typified something of a different nature

from its own : and could not typify the visible unity of the Church.’^*

Is not the Church called “ the Israel of God ?”—“ the commonwealth of
Israel —“ one fold under one Shepherd ?” Is the 122nd Psalm, in which
the Church is spoken of as the tribes of the Lord, a prediction only of an

invisible union ? Can it be denied that a visible unity was designed by

Christ
;
or that it did once exist ? or that some of the strongest exhorta-

tions and admonitions of the Apostles are directed against the breach of

it ? If the New Testament inculcates, as certainly it does, a visible
unity of the evangelical Israel, why is it impossible, that it could have

been typified by a visible unity of the legal Israel ? Throughout the

Epistles and the writings of the Fathers generally, the prefiguring of the

Christian Church on earth by the ancient Israel, the connection of the

one with the other, in that sense which the word shadow properly in-

cludes, is maintained. The most wild and loose dissenting notion of

unity only in the spirit, has scarcely gone so far as this astonishing objec-

tion, and which, I must say, seems taken up chiefly to avoid the conclu-

sion in support of the Catholic Church, if a visible unity be shown to be

according to the Divine will. And if, as before observed, many of the

types had an application not to Christ only but to his mystical body, if

Divine gifts under the Law had a fulfilment in Divine gifts of a more ex-

cellent kind under the Gospel
;

institutions in institutions of a more exal-

ted value, and offices in offices of higher prerogatives and greater dig-

nity
;
then you will, I think, consider my assumption as not so clearly

untenable, that “ all from Israel, viewed as a nation down to the smallest

ornaments of the tabernacle, was typical.”

It is asserted, that “ the feast days of Israel could not prefigure the

same things, (that is, festivals under the Gospel, oi;) in Christianity.”*

Is this the fact ? Quite the reverse. One of the earliest institutions in

the Christian Church, was the observance of the festival of. Easter ; one

of the earliest disputes related to the time of its observance : and we have

the fullest testimony, that the connection of it and the Jewish Pasch with

• Palmer’s Examin,, p. 12.



29

each other, was regarded in the decision of the question. St. Cyril, of

Alexandria,* says :
—

“ This is the time of the first month of the Hebrews :

in which is celebrated the paschal festival, formerly of the typical and

figurative, now of the true.” Further, “ All those things,” writes St. Leo

the Great,! “ which Moses by Divine institution ordained, concerning the

immolation of the (paschal) lamb, were prophetic of Christ, and strictly

announced the putting to death of Christ. When, therefore, shadows

gave place to the substance, and figures ceased at the presence of the

reality, the ancient observance is taken away by a new sacrament, host

gives place to host, blood to blood, and the legal festival is at once

changed and fulfilled.” Again, the same writer, in his first Sermon,J

says :
—

“ For, as of old, at the time of the liberation of the Hebrews

from Egypt, the law was given on Mount Zion, on the fiftieth day after

the killing of the lamb, so after the passion of Christ, wherein the true

Lamb of God was slain, on the fiftieth day after his resurrection, the Holy

Ghost descended on the Apostles and faithful, that the attentive Christian

may easily perceive’ how the commencements of the Old Testament sub-

served those of the Gospel, and the second covenant was established by

the same Holy Ghost who instituted the first and he begins this dis-

course a few lines before, thus :
—

“ The hearts of all Catholics acknow-

ledge that this day’s solemnity, (that of Pentecost,) is to be venerated

among our principal festivals.” Is not my assumption respecting the

Leritical types, supported, then, by good authority 1 Is not the oppo-

nent’s assertion, that “ the feast days of Israel could not prefigure the

same things in Christianity,” not only unsupported, but contradicted ? By'

the admission of the primitive Church, and by the testimony of the

Fathers, the festivals of the Jewish prefigured those of the Christian

Church : a further proof, also, of the error of the assertion respecting

the invariable difference in nature the type and antitype.

Secondly. As my position respecting the presence of God in the
temple, the sevenfold light, and the sculptured and pourtrayed angels, as

typical of the real presence of Christ with and in his Church, of the

seven sacraments, and of the intercourse with angels and saints, has been

met by a simple supposition of other meanings, I might forbear to insist

on what is not attempted to be disproved. But I remark again, that as

several types had more than one antitype, so may it be in the case of

these. The sevenfold light may correctly be understood of the gifts of

the Holy Ghost, and yet be not less applicable to the sacramental chan-

nels of his communication.
§ The sculptured cherubim, and pourtrayed

angels, may fitly refer to the ministration of angels round the throne of

God, and yet not at all less fitly to their services to the Church Militant

;

for are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister to the heirs of

salvation 1 And surely their presence amid and connection with the wor-

shipping Church on earth in the type is more evidently appropriate to that

* Catechesis liv, de Christi Resur. t Sermon vii. De pass. Domini. t De Pentecost.

0 And is not this the view which Ven. Bede takes of it ? Mr. Palmer is correct when he quote#
him as saying, in his explanation of the candelabrum, “ The seven lights are the gifts of the Holy
Spirit yet Bede closes it with these words, “ The pattern of the candelabrum, which he was to
make, was shown to Moses in the Mount, because in the height of interior contemplation, he learnt
clearly the manifold sacraments of Christ and of the Church (multifaria Christi et Ecclesiae sacra-
menta,) which yet it was not his will should be set forth openly to the people whom he instructed,
but rather typically signified through the figure and work of the candelabrum and its vessels, until
the Lord himself, our Redeemer, should come in the flesh, who would unfold the interior sense of
the same figure to his Church, the gr*:e of the Holy Ghost being given to it.” And he elsewhere
distinctly speaks of the oil of the candelabrum, or lamp, as prefiguring the grace of the Holy Spirit.



30

presence of them in Christian assemblies, intimated by St. Paul* and

that ministry to the help and succour of the people of the Lord, which

constitutes one of their blessed employments, and is so beautifully ex-

pressed by Spenser in these lines :

O ! th’ exceeding grace
Of Highest God that loves His creatures so,

And all his works with mercy doth embrace,

That blessed Angels He sends to and fro,
To serve to wicked man, to serve his wicked foe.
How oft do they their silver bowers leave

j

To come to succour us that succour want !
How oft do they, with golden pinions cleave
The flitting skies, like flying pursuivant.
Against foul fiends to aid us militant

!

They for us fight, they watch and duly ward.
And their bright squadrons round about us plant

;
1 .

And all for love, and nothing for reward

;

Oh, why should heav’nly God to men have such regard

!

Fairy Queen.

It is not needful to add more in confirmation of my argument in support

of the Catholic Church from the exact accomplishment of the Levitical

types by her alone. Nothing solid has been brought to disprove what I

stated:— that she exhibits the closest and clearest accomplishment of

them in her discipline and government, in her sacraments and holy ser-

vices, in her visible, exact, and continued unity. She stands forth, alone

of all bodies of professed Christians, (to adopt a current phrase,) the

best and only fair claimant to be any proper antitype of the Old Tes-

tament Israel. My positions, then, which I still maintain, are these :
That the Levitical institution was typical throughout, (so largely and

minutely as to warrant this expression,) not only of Christ in the flesh,

nor now in heaven, nor of His Church triumphant, but of Christ in his

mystical body, the Church militant, a position in which I am by no means

singular, Protestant as well as Catholic commentators having held

it :—That this is especially true, in respect of such leading types as the
visible and complete unity of the people of God, in doctrine, discipline,

and religious rites, and in their connection with one supreme spiritual

head, and centre of unity :—That the Catholic Church, by which I mean
the Church in communion with the See of Rome, exhibits the accomplish-

ment of the type
;
and no abuses of power, no temporary disputes and

contentions among her obedient children, no struggles between two or

more contending pontiffs, no differences of opinion on points on which

Gatholics may differ, such as may have been between Franciscans and

Dominicans, any more affect the real and observable and continuous unity

of the Church, than like things did the like unity of the Jewish Church :

While the separation of Protestants, including the Anglican Established

Church, since it relates to the above leading typified points, and affects

doctrine, discipline, sacraments, and religious rites, and is a rejection of

an earthly centre of unity,—is inconsistent with unity
;
such as it was

in the Jewish and the Primitive Church, and as it ought still to be ac-

cording to the revelation of the will of God, made by Scripture, Tradition,

and Providence.

II. I advert secondly to my argument in favour of the Catholic Church,

drawn from her entire agreement in all points of doctrine and essential

discipline as we find her at this day existing in England, with the Church

as established in it by the blessing of God on the mission of St. Augustine.

It is said that I have quietly assumed what constitutes a real question

• 1 Cor. xi. 10.



31

at issue between the Church in communion with Rome, and the present

Established Church.* I have sought in vain for my opponents’ proofs to

the contrary of this assumption, and since it is on both sides admitted that

the Church in England, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, was

the same as she had been for some centuries preceding, and that the pre-

sent Establishment is different in several great points of doctrine and dis-

cipline, it properly rested with them to show my assumption of the con-

tinuity of that sameness from the sixth century to be unwarranted. For

when the existence of facts and customs from a very remote period is

unquestionable, the claims and rights resulting therefrom are not to be

disturbed without proof. Those then who deny my assumption, should

prove the change of religion, affix the period of it, and the natures thereof,

at least with sufficient accuracy to justify their denial. By wa\|ing this,

I will make use of such hints of their objections as they have furnished

me with, reminding you that “ if the Romish Church is the same now as

in the sixth century, my reasoning is allowed to be most conclusive, and

that there are multitudes among the Anglican clergy who will spare no effort

\

to effect a reconciliation and reunion of the Church\ with the Church

I

of Rome^'i This intimation is cheering to a labour in itself most

I satisfactory, though well I know how new doublings and question-

ings spring up, how little difficulties become great, and small evils are

magnified into serious objections, when circumstances seem to be bringing

us to the point of acting out our intentions, and taking a decisive but (to

many) an inconvenient step.

I am told, that if I fix the sixth century as the time for a conference

between St. Augustine and Archbishop Howley, 1 shall find the latter on

I

the side of the former in communion with the occupant of St. Peter’s chair,
“ to which he will then find no impediment !” This is a very strong as-

sumption, and if it means, as alone it can, that the view in which St.

Augustine and the English Church then regarded the Bishop of Rome

was one in which Archbishop Howley would concur, or that the then

Bishop of Rome claimed and exercised no other power in England than

I Archbishop Howley would willingly grant him, I much doubt its correct-

ness. But let us to the proof. We have ample documents in the works

I

of St. Gregory Bishop of Rome at the period referred to, from which a few

extracts will suffice. Let us first observe what authority he claimed and

exercised as to the Church in general. We find him thus writing res-
pecting the Church and Bishops of Numidia.^ “We concede that the
usage, which yet is acknowledged to usurp nothing against the Catholic

faith, shall remain unaltered, whether it relates to the appointment of

Primates or other Chapters
;
those excepted, who from among the Dona-

tists have come to be bishops, whom we altogether prohibit being raised
to the digiiity of Primate.” To Natalis, Bishop of Salona in Dalmatia,||
he complains of “ the decision {sententia) of himself and his predecessors,

concerning the Archdeacon Honoratus having been contemned, and adds,

that if this had been done by any one of the four patriarchs, such contuma-

cy could on no account have been overlooked
;
but since the bishop had

returned to his duty in this particular, he would not further bear in mind

the injury done to himself and his predecessors.” To Virgilius, Bishop
of Arles in France, he writes,!! “ We, according to the ancient custom of

* Dodsworth’s Letter p. 10; &c. Palmer’s Exam., p. 23, &c. t Of England.
t Dodswortb, p. 11. ^ Lib. i. Ep. 77. U Lib. u. Ep. 52. 1 Lib. v. Ep. 53.



33

Divine authority, appoint your Fraternity our Vicar in the Churches under

the dominion of our renowned son Childeric, reserving always the honour

due according to ancient usage to the several metropolitans. We have
also transmitted to you the Pallium, which your Fraternity may use within

the Church during mass only.” He proceeds to give him authority over

other bishops, to assemble synods, to decide inquiries as to the sound

faith of any, or on other points, and adds, “ if the matter cannot thus be

settled, having ascertained the truth, (or facts,) let it be referred to our

judgment.” I could multiply similar extracts, but the above will satisfy

you as to what the Roman Pontiff of the sixth century claimed and ex-

ercised. The supreme authority of the Roman Bishop ;—the previous

exercise of it from lime immemorial,—the foundation of it, possession of

the Apostolic chair of St. Peter,—the extent of it over the whole Chris-
tian kingdom, pervade the letters of this great man. And now I ask, if

Dr. Howley would concur with St. Augustin to regard the Pope in the

light in which all bishops, metropolitans, and primates then regarded him ?

What would Dr. Howley say if the Pope sent him the Pallium ? or if he

was advised to ask the Pope’s leave to exercise the privileges of his pre-

decessors
;
or to be allowed to assemble a synod of twelve bishops at

Lambeth, to sit in judgment on the Oxford Tracts and their writers, to hold

(to use St. Gregory’s words,) an inquisitio de fide? Peradventure it might

be better for some of the Tracts and their writers, if permission from

Rome was as needful now as it was in St. Gregory’s days : or, if the

matter being too knotty for decision at Lambeth, it had to be referred to

the Apostolic See. I cannot forbear adding one more extract from St.

Gregory’s letter to John Bishop of Syracuse, relating to some minute

points of discipline.* “ Who can doubt the subjection of the Church of

Constantinople to the Apostolic See ? which our most religious emperor,

and our brother the bishop of the same city constantly profess.” If St.

Gregory condemned the assumption of the title of Universal Bishop, he

was not unwilling to exercise the authority.

It is a reasonable conclusion, that when this great man thus exercised

his authority over Numidia, Greece, France, &c., in fact over the rest of

Christendom, England alone, the object of his special care, would not be

exempt. Let us come to the proof as to this. He sent St. Augustine on

this mission,! appointed him abbot
;
decided a great number of questions

respecting the discipline and rule of the Anglican Church, which we find

St. Augustine referring to him
;
and the directions are given by St.

Gregory, authoritatively, precisely in the same style as he uses in all his

epistles
;
such expressions as “ we permit,” “ we will,” “ we grant,” oc-

curring. We find the Pope granting him the use of the Pallium ap-
pointing him suffragans, especially permitting to the Bishop of London

the distinction of the Pallium by virtue of the authority of the Apos-

tolic See, (query, would Dr. Blomfield concur with St. Augustine in his

respect for Rome, or with his predecessor Mellitus in acceptance of the

Pallium 1) The Pope further subjects to him, not only all the other

bishops, but all the clergy of Britain.
§ In fact,

he exercised towards the

infant Anglican Church the authority which the Roman Pontiff has since

exercised over most part of Catholic Christendom, and exercised it, be-

cause he occupied “ the Apostolic See.” It is not correct that, in St.

Augustine’s time, bishops were elected and ordained without any refer-

* Lib. ix. Ep. 12. t Tome ii. p. 829. t Ibid. p. 1162. (> Ibid.



33

ence to the Pope, and that all the important affairs of the Church were

regulated by its own synods
;

for the Saint’s letters are full of evidence

to the contrary. Judge then, ray dear friend, whether I was not justified

as it respects union with, and submission to, the Roman See, in affirming

the Catholic Church now in England to be identical with the Anglican

Church of the sixth century : and on the other hand, whether the asser-

tion is not wholly unjustified and gratuitous, that if that century be fixed

as the time of the conference between St. Augustine and Archbishop

Howley, the latter v'ould he found on the side of the former. The vener-

able prelate, if he did any one of many acts of St. Augustine, with

reference to Rome, might remain Dr. Howley, but he would cease to be

Primate of all England. He might find no impediment to communion

with St. Peter’s chair, but he would be ejected for good from the throne of

Canterbury.

It is not true that “ the saints have,” at any period of the Church, “ been

commonly worshipped with divine honours still less the inference

designed that the Church has sanctioned the rendering such honours ; but

if it be true, as admitted, that in the days of St. Augustine, “ the saints

were addressed as creatures,!” that affords another proof of the identity

of the Catholic Church of the sixth century with that of our own time,

and of the contrary case of the modern Anglican Establishment. The

history of the Venerable Bede is an invaluable record of the identity of

the Catholicity of the nineteenth century with that of his own period.

The doctrine of the intercession of the saints, dependence on the efficacy

of their prayers and merits, veneration for their relics, esteem for the

monastic and conventual life, the custom of pilgrimages to the shrines of

saints, and to the chair and tomb of St. Peter, the practice of religious

processions, the use of holy water, the doctrine of the sacrifice of the

mass, and its availableness both to the living and the dead, prayers for the

repose of the souls of the deceased faithful, and consequently the true

and essential doctrines of purgatory, private confession, penance, and

absolution, were all, like recognition of the supremacy of the See of St.

Peter, parts of the doctrine and discipline of the early Anglican Church.

Need I say that none of them are maintained in the faith and practice of

the modern Establishment 1 Confession, indeed, and absolution are in her

Prayer Book, but are like the practice and value of fasting,—almost a
dead letter. The very use of one of them has been lately made a ground

of complaint against at least one clergyman. The form of absolution in

the Service for the Visitation of the Sick was publicly condemned, by a

celebrated clerical Lecturer, as a kind of unhappy excrescence on the

Liturgy. And where are all the ancient usages connected with the points

of doctrine and discipline above-mentioned,—memorials of past piety, serv-
ing to kindle, or at least sustain it, in days of increasing worldliness and

degeneracy ? knitting together past and present generations in an identity

of habits, customs, and feelings, that seemed to survive the grave ? They

are gone : like the smoke that vanisheth away
;
or lingering only in the

mournful mementoes of them which the sacred edifices of our land pre-

sent. Yet, stay: I had forgotten: they exist still; but it is in a body

of the people of England, permitted the privilege of Englishmen only

within the last few years
;
though conscientious even to extreme suffer-

ing, for conscience’ sake
;
loyal, even unto death, for a sovereign murdered

• Palmer’s Examin., p. 27. t Ibid-

5



34

by the spirit of Protestantism
;
patient to extremity of endurance, under

revilings and calumnies
;
devout, upright, and charitable, they are rather

indebted to latitudinarianism of principle in others, than to the just merit

of their ovirn virtues, for equality of rights with their fellow-countrymen.

The religion and the religious discipline, the religious institutions and the

pious practices of the Anglo-Saxons, are found proper and unmutilated in

the Catholics of England alone
;
for they remain, alone of England’s people,

identified with the Catholics of the days of Bede and of St. Augustine.

“ There is nqthing,” I am told, “ to prevent the Archbishop” (Howley)
“ from uniting in public worship with St. Augustine and Thomas a

Becket.*” Good
;
but let us examine the truth of it. The archbishop, I

need not say, is a conscientious man
;
and firmly holds the truth of the

Thirty-nine Articles. One of these teaches that the sacrifice of the mass

is, on account of the doctrine it involves, a blasphemous fable. Now, if

it be proved that in the days of St. Augustine, (for I may leave Thomas k

Becket out of the question,) it was commonly said and believed, that the

priest did offer Christ for the quick and dead, to have remission of pain or

guilt, then either Archbishop Howley attends as a sincere and devout

worshipper, for that is what is meant by “ uniting in public worship,” at

what he believes and protests to be a blasphemous fable, or the assumption

of his presence is incorrect.

There is abundant testimony as to the view of the mass received in St.

Augustine’s days, and previously. I adduce two instances out of many

now before me. The first is from St. Gregory.! “ It is related, that not

long before our own times a certain man had been carried captive by ene-

mies to a great distance, and being long detained in bondage his wife

considered him dead. For whom, as now dead, she provided to have the

sacrifice offered every weekP After mentioning the miraculous result that

followed, he adds in conclusion
;

“ Hence, therefore, dear brethren, by

certain reflection, conclude how much the holy sacrifice offered by us is

available to loose the bondage of the heart, if offered by another it had

power to loose the chains of the body.” Here the sacrifice, or rather

sacrifices, of the mass, are spoken of as customarily offered for quick and

dead, and for remission of pain and guilt, and in, or previous to, the sixth

century. The second, also, from St. Gregory, is still more to the point.|;

He is mentioning the case of a certain monk, whose death had greatly

afflicted his brethren. “ When thirty days had passed since his decease,

my mind (for St. Gregory was personally concerned,) began to sympa-

thize with my deceased brother, and with extreme grief to reflect on his

punishments, and to seek if there was any remedy of deliverance for him.

Having called the prefect of the monastery, I said sorrowfully to him.

Our deceased brother has been now a long time suffering in fire, {frater

ille, qui defunctus est, in igne cruciatur,) we ought to show him our

charity, and to help, as we can, to deliver him. Come, therefore, and let

us fix thirty days from this very day, to offer for him successively the

holy sacrifice, so that not a single day may be passed over in which the

saving victim, {salutaris hostia,) shall not be immolated [immoletur) for

his absolution.” Need I add more to “ show the incorrectness of the as-

sertion,” that “ there was nothing to prevent Archbishop Howley from

uniting in public worship with St. Augustine?” Indeed, one great

purport of the Fourth Book of St. Gregory’s Dialogues, is to support the

* Palmer’s Examin., p. 24. t In Evang. Lib. ii. Homil. xxxvii. t Dialog. Lib.



35

truth of a purgatory, and the efficacy of the mass to benefit and relieve

those who are in it. I appeal then to every candid reader, whether the

Catholic Church is not identical, as it respects purgatory, and the doctrine

of the mass, and prayers for the dead, with the Christianity of the sixth

century, and whether there is any foundation for the assumption of the

conformity with her of the present Anglican Primate, or the special plead-

ing of one of my opponents about the 31st Article.*

Respecting transubstantiation, I have been reminded that it was un-

known in the sixth century.t If the term is meant, this is true ; if the

definition, it is partially correct ; for both terms and definitions are conse-

quences of heretical denials of true doctrine, but if the helief of the

Catholic Church be meant, it is not true. I give you two or three extracts

from earlier or contemporary writers. “ The invisible Priest by his se-

cret power converts the visible creatures into the substance of his own

body and blood, by his word ; saying, Take and eat, this is my body ; and

the sanctification being repeated. Take and drink, this is my blood.”|

Again, the same Father : “ When the creatures about to be blessed by

heavenly words are placed on the holy altars, before they are consecrated

by invocation of the holy Name, the substance there is that of bread and

wine, but after the words it is the body of Christ, and the blood of Christy

“ This victim, (says St. Gregory
,§)

singularly preserves the soul from

eternal death, which renews for us that death by the mystery of the Only

Begotten, who rising from the dead dieth now no more, neither shall death

any more have dominion over Him : but although being in Himself

immutable and incorrupt, is immolated again for us in this mystery of the

sacred oblation. For there his body is received, his flesh is divided for

the salvation of the people, his blood is shed not over the hands of infidels,

but in the mouths of the faithful. Let us hence conceive how great is

this sacrifice for us, which ever immolates for our absolution the passion

of the only begotten Son. For who of the faithful can entertain any

doubt that the heavens are opened at the voice of the Priest, in the very

hour of immolation, that the choir of angels are present in this mystery

of Jesus Christ, that heaven and earth are associated, earthly and divine

things commingled, and visible and invisible made one.” What a mag-

nificent description of the great sacrifice of Catholic worship ! What an

affecting thought that the Church on earth never ceases presenting before

God in her temples, on her altars, that same Victim, under the forms of

bread and wine, which for the same purpose of propitiatory application,

presents Himself in the heavenly temple before the throne of the eternal

Father, “ a lamb, standing as it were slain’’ I add one testimony more,

from St. Cyril of Alexandria, 11 “ Wherefore have regard to the bread and

wine of the eucharist, not as to naked and common elements
;

for they

are the body and blood of Christ, according to our Lord’s own assertion

;

for if some should suggest the former to you, yet faith would confirm and

certify you. Judge not therefore the matter by the sense of taste, but by

faith, be sure, beyond all doubting, that you have vouchsafed to you the

body and blood of Christ.”

As they who objected to my assertion of the identity of the Church of
the sixth century with the Catholic Church of our day, have adduced no

• Dodsworth’s Letter, page 36, 2nd edit. t Palmer’s Exam., p. 27.

t Euseb. Emiss. Homil. Pasch. § Dialog. Lib. iv.

II Catechesis xxii. De Corporis et Sang. Dorn,



36

proofs of their objection, I might, after the above sufficient references in

justification of my assertion, pass on to another topic. I must adhere to

my judgment, that if we would find Anglican Catholics, of the doctrines,
and discipline, and observances of the days of England’s conversion to

Christianity by St. Augustine, we must go, not to the members of her

modern Establishment, but to those who are in communion with the suc-

cessor (and namesake) of St. Gregory in the Apostolic chair of St. Peter.

But an observation has been made in connection with this topic which

requires some notice. It is asserted that there is such an agreement be-

tween the Catholic Church and Anglican Establishment, on very many im-

portant points, as to prove a real and substantial unity between them
;
that

the differences there would be on some points between St. Augustine, St.

Thomas, Primate Warham, and Archbishop Howley, is not destructive of

the essential oneness of the Church. “ Is this (it is asked, after the enu-

meration of several points of agreement,) nothing like unity ?” Yes, I

reply, it is something like unity, but it is not unity,- not a proper Scriptural

unity
;

it is not such unity as Christ prayed his Church might maintain,*

nor such as St. Paul describes her as possessing : There is one body and

one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling : one Lord, one

faith, (as one, as the Lord is one,) one baptism, (one sacramental unity, as

the Lord and the faith are one
;)

and the oneness is, as there is one God

and Father ofall, who is above all and through all, and in you all. It is not

possible to conceive words expressive of stricter, simpler, more perfect

unity, visible and invisible, than this of the Church
;
in doctrine, {one

faith,) sacraments, {one baptism,) visibility, {one body,) spirituality, {one

spirit.) It does not prove that there can be no hypocrites in the Church,

for all are not Israel who are of Israel

;

but it does prove, that such a visi-

ble disunion from the body, and such divisions as to faith professed, and

sacraments observed, as would essentially and manifestly be inconsistent

with its counterpart, one God, one Lord, one Father above all, in all, over

all, and with such a oneness as Christ expressed in that prayer. One, as

we also are one, is subversive of the proper unity with the Church of those

unhappily so situated : and this is all that I have asserted. If agreement

on many very important points proves what it is brought to prove, the pro-

per and true unity of the Anglican Establishment with the Catholic Church,

it would be hard to disprove many of the ancient heretical sects from be-

ing a part and parcel of that Church. For many of them agreed with the

Church, on far more points of doctrine and discipline, and differed on

fewer than the Anglican Church does. Yet none of them were allowed

to be in the unity of the Church, but were regarded by her as separatists.

To say that they disagreed on points more important than the Anglican

Church does, is to beg the question at issue. «Why should the Donatists,

Nestorians, Arians, or Novatians, have been ^excluded from the unity of

the Church, if the Anglican Protestants who reject more Articles of her

faith than anj^ one of these denominations, are to be included in it, because

it can be demonstrated, that they maintain a real and absolute unity with

the Church on a vast number of most important points of religion ? Th©

same thing could have been demonstrated quite as clearly respecting those

early separatists. And with what consistency is the following assertion

made: “We [Anglicans] readily admit, or rather most firmly maintain
with the Church of England, that all sects and denominations, even sup-

*
John xvii. 20-23.



37

posing them to hold what are called fundamental doctrines, are not included

in the Church of Christ 1” Why, this is monstrous ! So the Presbyte-

rians, and Independents, and Methodists, are shut out without pity from

the Church, and handed over to the uncovenanted mercies of God, be-

cause, although agreeing, on points allowed by all to be essential, both with

the Catholic Church and the English Establishment, they differ from the

latter as to the Apostolic succession and the rite of confirmation ! ! This

is indeed to deal out a very different measure to others, from what the

Anglican Protestants claim for themselves.

Nor is this the only remark that may fitly be made on this extraordi-

nary arrangement of the positions of Unity. The Presbyterian Kirk of

Scotland differs from the Anglican Establishment, chiefly, as far as I am

aware, in not admitting episcopal succession and ordination. For as to

the rejection of a Liturgy, that will hardly be pleaded as a fundamental

difference. Now is episcopacy, I would ask, a material or immaterial
point

;
essential to be maintained, or of minor consequence ? If the latter,

then why, in the name of charity and common sense, shut out from the

Church of Christ those who differ only from you on an immaterial point, on

a matter of minor consequence ? Be not so harsh and uncharitable ! To

talk of all error not being heresy, to apologize for “ variations that inter-

fere not with the substance and vitality of religion,” to make a long plead-

ing for “ a man who changes his creed, and adopts widely different views

and practices from those of his former life, (perhaps twice a year,) and

yet notwithstanding may be a true believer throughout them all,” to argue

for a kind of chamelion property of the spouse of Christ, and yet to shut

out from the pale of the Church and from salvation your northern neigh-

bours, because they reject episcopacy ! the Apostolic succession ! ! though

they believe every article of the Apostles’ Creed as firmly as you do, are

as holy in practice as yourself, and give as clear proof of the fruits of the

Spirit as you do ! Surely this is uncharitableness ! this is inconsistency !

What say ye to this decision of your neighbours of the Anglican Estab-

lishment, ye Presbyterians ? and ye who glory in the name of Orthodox

Dissenters and Wesleyan Methodists, what think ye of these words :

“We readily admit, or rather most firmly maintain, with the Church of
England, that all sects or denominations, even supposing them to hold

what are called fundamental doctrines, are not included in the Church of

Christ ?” Are ye not ready to say : “ Judge not, that ye be not judged
;

for with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again V
Or, on the other hand, is episcopacy a matter of essential and vital

importance 1 Then in the name of consistency and fairness, let me ask,
“ Why blame you the Catholic Church for excluding you from the unity
of the Church of Christ, who deny what she holds to be the supreme

episcopate ?” If episcopacy is of importance, surely the chief episco-

pacy may well be allowed to be held so by those who regard both equally

of Divine appointment. And you are excluded, even though holding

many of her important truths, fairly by your own judgment from that fold,

out of which you so mercilessly shut out Dissenters of all denominations,

even though holding what are called fundamental doctrines.

I proceed, in the third and next place, to notice some observations made

with a view to overthrow my argument in favour of the Catholic Church,
from the perpetuity and perfectness of her unity. It was never meant

by those terras to exclude all existence of different opinions on any reli-



38

gious topic, or all breakings out of the corruptions of the heart on account

of these differences ; to affirm that all Catholics always and everywhere

have thought, spoke, and acted alike on every conceivable point of theo-

logical discussion, or to assert a perfection of unity, inconsistent with the

imperfection of all earthly institutions, in the present condition of man.

The true and entire harmony of a family, household, or kingdom, ex-

cludes not all differences of opinion from their several members. It is

obvious to common sense that there is a real distinction between such

differences as consist with agreement in duty, substantial peace, and visi-

ble fellowship
;
and such quarrels as destroy fellowship, and interfere

with duty to their superior, and practical benevolence towards each other.

It is one thing for fellow-servants to fall out, and another to contend so

as to break up the discipline of the family. Parties and contentions and

rivalries may exist among fellow-citizens, without a single act of rebel-

lion or failure of duty to their government, or to each other. This has

been the case at various times in the Catholic Church, and though to be

deplored, is not subversive of her unity, for each contending party and in-

dividual has faithfully held her whole doctrine, submitted to her entire disci-

pline, obeyed all her laws, observed all her usages

;

they may have been

defective in Christian love and grace, but sound in Catholic faith and

duty. Rival Pontiffs have divided her communion, but only (and for a

time,) as to their own individual claim to the chair of St. Peter
;
but none

questioned the claim of that chair to the obedience of all. Jesuits and

Dominicans may have disputed on matters that are not of faith, but they

agreed on every article of the Catholic Church’s Creed. There may be

advocates and opponents of any point of belief, but while each submit to

the decision of the Church, her unity is not broken. The case of the

Old Testament Church is in point. There were occasionally grievous

dissensions in it
;
contests for the high priesthood, and divisions of opin-

ion on divers points, but none destructive of her proper unity. I am

asked, “ Are households, families, and kingdoms never divided, nor sepa-

rated into different parties ?” I reply, as soon as a household is so divi-

ded as to destroy discipline, no master will permit its continuance in that

state, nor of the offenders in the family. When a kingdom is broken up

into absolute rebellion, so that there is open warfare and violation of its

laws, no sovereign that is not deficient in power, wisdom, or sense of his

duty, but will exclude the rebels. Surely I have insisted then with rea-

son on the position of the different bodies separate from the Catholic

Church, including the Anglican Establishment, as inconsistent with the

proper and Scriptural unity of the one body, household, and kingdom of

Christ. Whatever consists not with a due submission to that lawful au-

thority to whom it appertains to govern and regulate the household, con-

sists not with the proper unity of the household. I defy any proof to be

adduced, that at any period there have been any differences among mem-

bers or portions of the Catholic Church, that have not consisted with such

submission to her rule. And Protestants are hard set to find any case to

warrant their charge of want of unity in the Church, when they fix upon

such matters as the disputes of Jesuits with Dominicans, and the contra-

riety of opinions that has existed between the Cisalpine and Ultra-mon-

tane parties, and “ the contentions at this moment !” What contentions ?

and where ? I affirm that they exist only in the imagination of the writer.

But no proof need be brought beyond their own admission with respect



39

to those who, since the sixteenth century, separated from the Catholic

Church, that they refuse submission to her rule, reject many of her doc-

trines, and rebel against her constitutional authorities.

This leads me to notice the following extraordinary paragraph, which

seems introduced to justify what is elsewhere not allowed, the difference

of the existing Anglican Establishment from the Church of the sixth cen-

tury. “ The case of a Church is analogous to that of an individual Chris-

tian. Consisting of a great number of individuals, it is subject to the

same variations in different ages, which an individual may experience in

his own life time, and yet the continuity of its faith, the substantial iden-

tity of its religion, may be always preserved.*” The writer of this sin-

gular sentiment should have clearly defined what he meant by “ varia-

tions.” He says, indeed, a little further, “ that difference of doctrines

does not always prove difference of faith,” w'hich he illustrates by this

assumption ;
—

“ If the Church did not lose her continuity by innovations,

during the middle ages, neither did she lose it by removing those innova-

tions ;”—thus begging the whole question. But does not difference of
doctrines prove difference of faith ? If, by doctrines, he means matters

purely of opinion, theological subtilties, or minute applications of unful-

filled prophecy, no one will differ from him. But if he means doctrines

in the usual and Scriptural sense of the word, it is a statement that re-

quires the clearest explanation, or is fraught with danger as well as error :

the manifest error being the best preventive of the danger. May the

Church, then, like an individual, hold at various times erroneous doc-

trines, and teach them, of course, for truth, and that universally ? Does

this consist with the promise of Christ, of his perpetual presence with

her, in her rulers and teachers, “ Lo, I am with you always, even to the

consummation of 'all things or with the assurance of the guidance of

the Spirit of truth : “ He shall guide you into all truth, and convince the

world of sin, and righteousness, and judgment, abiding with youfor ever

or with the golden rule of Vincentius ? Does it not tend to shake the

faith and peace of individuals, for what Anglican can be certain, if this

position be true, that the Establishment is not at this time under one of

those variations, which individuals often experience in their life time ?

And who shall decide that it is not? Shall the Fathers be referred to ?

They may have written under the influence of one of those epidemical

variations. Shall it be left to every man’s private judgment ? This is to

admit the fatal principle of all error, the supremacy of individual opinion-

Shall the golden rule of Vincentius be applied to ? But the whole Church

may have rejected a true doctrine, and many true doctrines, and that fre-

quently. The reasoning also on which it is built is not very satisfactory

to a sound Catholic, viz :—that since an individual may err, the Church be-
ing composed of individuals, each of whom, of course, is in the predicament

of the first, all may err, and so the Church may err. Undoubtedly
;
upon

the supposition that every body in the Church may be holding erroneous

doctrines. But not to say where is Christ’s presence, where the Spirit

of truth all the while, where is the truth of that promise to the Church,
“ The gates of hell shall not prevail against her ?”—it is the faith and
comfort of Catholics, built on God’s word, that though individuals may
err, her Heavenly Head will maintain a suflicient superiority of the faith-
ful, to prevent the torch of truth in the hand of the Church that lights to

heaven, being turned into a link of error.

* Palmer’s Exam, page 27.



40 .

But if by doctrines, the writer meant matters, confessedly, of opinion

and non-essential, what does he gain by the statement, as to the real

question at issue between us ? Nothing. Till the point be decided,

whether the doctrines of the Catholic Church rejected by the Anglican

Establishment are indifferent things, it is no better than a truism, that

there may he differences on things indifferent to be agreed on. The blame

of the Anglican Establishment is, not that she differs in immaterial points,

but that she has thrown out of her creed and her discipline, truths ever

held as such, and usages ever regarded as sacred : and has become in

faith and practice essentially different from what she was at the first pe-

riod of her existence, in the sixth century.

I now pass, fourthly, to notice briefly the objection to the supremacy of

St. Peter’s successors on the ground of the promise made to him. I have

already brought decisive proofs of this supremacy in the sixth century.

I will only add a summary of a few points relative to this supremacy,

set forth in one volume of the works of St. Gregory. The Roman Pon-

tiff is the Ministerial Head of the whole Church, and the centre of ecclesi-

astical unity* The Head of the Faith.] Called CEcumenical in the

Council of Chalcedon.X Has jurisdiction over all other Bishops.l^ To

have recourse to St. Peter, is the same as to have recourse to the Roman

Pontiff.
\\

St. Gregory speaks of the primacy of his see as a thing established,

of long usage, and ever admitted, language inconsistent with the supposi-

tion of its being a new claim
;
multitudes could and would have convicted

him of falsehood and usurpation had it been a novelty. And he ever

connects the supremacy of Rome with St. Peter. I omit the testimony

of St. Irenseus, St. Cyprian, St. Leo, and other earlier writers than St.

Gregory
;
partly, for brevity

;
partly, because they are cited so frequent-

ly
;
partly, because I am not now proving the supremacy of the Roman

see, but disproving the assertion, that St. Peter’s prerogatives, whatever

they were, conferred on him by Christ, were strictly personal, and ceased

with himself.

The unquestionable fact stands thus : that from St. Irenseus down to

St. Bernard, there is a continual recognition in the writings of the Fathers

and others, of certain distinctions (no matter now what these were) which

attached to the Roman see, because it was the see of St. Peter : and that

certain privileges belonged exclusively to the Roman bishops, because

they were St. Peter’s successors. Judge then of the following asser-

tion :
—

“ There is not a shadow of presumption that the special privileges

of St. Peter could have extended beyond himself, or been transmitted to

any of his successors.” If the writer of this sentence is correct, the

Fathers are wrong
: for they again and again recognise (as St. Gregory

plainly does), a special privilege of St. Peter transmitted to his successors

the bishops of Rome. Which then is right ? the holy Fathers, or my op-

ponent ? for they are in direct opposition. But if the Fathers and the

ancient Church are right, on what is there belief grounded ? Certainly,

on the Scriptures, as alleged in my first Letter ;—confirmed by Apostoli-
cal tradition ;—and manifested by a continual recognition in the Church.
St. Gregory reasons thus almost in so many words : and the substance of

their belief may be thus described : That a supremacy of authority, and

a peculiarity of official power, connected with being the centre of unity,

was vested in St. Peter’s successors. Here then is what the Catholic

* Tom. iii. pp. 507 et infra. t Ibid p. 1244. t p. 743, 746. U p. 763, &c.^ p. 668, et infra.



41

Church holds respecting the Pope, but which the Anglican Establishment

rejects, and differs so greatly hereupon from the Fathers, the Primitive

Church, and the Anglican Church from her foundation in the sixth to the

sixteenth century, as to trample under foot with scorn the authority they

recognized, to revile with bitterness what they honoured, and to have per-

secuted unto cruel death, multitudes whose only offence it was, to concur

in this matter with the Fathers, the Primitive Church, and their own an-

cestors. Certainly it is necessary to assume “ the variations” of the

Church, if the Catholicity of the Establishment is to be saved.

As to ray observation, that “ the promise to St. Peter, like that made to

the Apostles, implied a perpetual succession to the office he was called

to surely, the objector to it forgets that there was a perpetuity annexed

in the case of the one promise, as much as of the other. If Christ said

to thejn “ Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world,'’ he

said to St. Peter, in direct connection with, “ Thou art the Rock,

“ The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”
“

I place you, (as if he

had said,) in a peculiar position with regard to my Church, and never

shall the adversary prevail against what I now establish.”* The perpe-

tuity of the Rock is essential to that of the Church built on it
;
and Christ

could not mean, the Church shall stand, but the Rock into which it is

fitted shall be taken away. But had there not been this promise, that

made to the Apostles, inclusive of St. Peter, would not have abrogated

his previous distinctions. They stood before him, each in his proper

office. They as Apostles, St. Peter as the distinguished one of them, on

whom a special grace and office had been conferred
;

to whom a special

promise and charge had been given. He did not throw aside this inves-

titure, while receiving with them the Divine Master’s benediction, “ Lo,

I am with you always,” conveyed to each a confirmation of all he had

previously, or then called him to. How much, indeed, must I differ from
my opponent’s opinion as to the benefits that have resulted from the su-
premacy of Rome ! I cannot forget that England and the world owe

their Christianity to it. Unmingled with evils, its development and con-

tinuancy have not been
;
but one of the greatest evils the world has

known, has been the contempt and rejection of the authority of the Ro-

man see. Its highest prerogative, the settlement of disputes between

nations, and salutary interference in checking the ambition, cruelty, and

crime of those whom other earthly tribunals cannot reach, [although on
some occasions exercised hastily—perhaps immoderately,] appears to
me one of the wisest appointments of God, and to have been in the main
really exerted for opposing an effectual barrier against tyranny, oppres-

sion, and vice, and for the prosperity and peace of the mass of the peo-

ple, and the good of the Christian commonwealth. There cannot be a

finer conception, or one more analogous to the figures of it under the Pa-

triarchal and Mosaic dispensations, or to the Divine government itself, or

more consistent with the relation of God himself to his people, and with
the great Scriptural descriptions of the Church, than that which presents

* This precise sentiment is frequently expressed, in the strongest language, by Pope St. Leo I.,
A.D. 440

; and who preceded thd conversion of England by St. Augustine, by nearly a century and a
half. I have forborne to quote from him, to avoid prolixity, and because his testimony to the doctrine
of the supremacy of the successors of St. Peter in the see of Rome, has never, 1 believe, been
questioned. It may well excite astonishment, however, that any one acquainted with St Leo’s wri-
tings, should even hint at the probability of the Anglican Church under St. Augustine, or of the Ca-
tholic Church generally, at that later time regarding the supremacy of the Roman see in the same
light in which Archbishop Howley must regard it, in consistency with the 37th Article. One can
hardly suppose a person serious in asserting that the archbishop could find no difficulty in concurring
With St, Augustine in regard to the chair of St. Peter.

6



43

the whole of Christendom as one family, over which presides a delegate,

vicar, and representative of its Divine Head, with parternal sway extend-

ing his care over the remotest and humblest, but maintaining authority

and control over the noblest
;
avenging the injuries of the lowest and pro-

viding for his wants, and at the same time checking the insolence of the

most exalted in the household, even though it be his eldest son. The

Church occupies her proper place, when, instead of being subjected

to the caprices of earthly potentates, they are subjected to her holy rule
;

when she is seen and experienced to be that (as every created thing is

subordinated to her benefit, and to the glory of God, by and through her,)

by which the whole fabric of society is sustained, and kept in harmoni-

ous order and peace. Her predicted militant character was no intimation

that man ought to oppose her, but that through their own corruption they

would. If some arrogant or zealous pontiffs have lorded it to a very un-

justifiable excess over some monarchs, Protestantism would make the

Church herself—and here I except not the English Establishment—a base
and servile drudge to the state. In fine, as the Jewish Church prefigured

the Catholic, so this precedes a more exalted dispensation, the heavenly

antitype, designed possibly by that declaration, “ Behold the tabernacle of

God is with men, and He will dwell with themP Revel, xxi. 3.

V. I have been charged with “ employing such soft and gentle terms,

when dwelling on any doctrine peculiarly Romish, as almost to smother

the commonly-received doctrines of Rome
;
with using language so dif-

ferent from hers, as to warrant the hope that I am only half a Romanist,

and the prediction that I shall be compelled to speak 'more broadly and

explicitly.” I am called upon to speak out, give an answer on certain

points, and explain and vindicate my Catholicity.* I am ready to do so.

First, then, as to the sacrifice of the mass. I repeat that the Catholic

doctrine is, that therein is a propitiatory application of the sacrifice of

Christ, for the benefit of the quick and dead. . The Catechism of Trent

declares no other than this : “ the sacrifice of the mass is not only a

sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a mere commemoration of the

sacrifice of the cross, but is truly a propitiatory sacrifice, whereby God

is rendered appeased and propitious to us that is, we have by it, ap-

plied to us, the benefit of the sacrifice of the cross, the favour of God,

and consequent blessings. “ God (it is afterwards explained) is so well

pleased with the odour of this victim, that, imparting to us the gifts of

grace and penitence, he forgives our sins.” “ The fruits of that bloody

sacrifice flow to us through this unbloody one.” Can words more plainly

say, that the unbloody sacrifice of the mass brings or applies to us, the

blessed result of the sacrifice of Calvary ? What is this but a propitia-

tory application 1 Delahogue, in his Tract, de Sacram., in answer to the

question respecting the value of the mass, says, “ The infinite price which

Christ paid on the cross, and whereby the whole world might be saved,

is not applied to us (applicatur), but at a certain time, in a certain man-

ner, and by certain and various instruments of grace.” In the Summa of

St. Thomas, these differences of the sacrifice of the mass from that of

Calvary are stated :
—

“ 3rdly, Christ was there offered bloodily, here un-

bloodily. 4thly, On the cross the price of our redemption was paid, here

(in the mass) it is communicated to us.” Again he says ; “ This sacri-

fice of the altar is subordinate to that of the cross, inasmuch as it is com-

* Dodsworth’s Letter, p. 14, &c.



43

memorative of that, and applicative of its virtue'^ (illius virtutis applica-

tivum). Surely, then, I have spoken as a Catholic oi the propitiatory ap-

plication of the sacrifice of Christ in the mass. Could I speak more cor-

rectly ? The Canon of Trent says : “ The fruits of which oblation, the

bloody one, are most largely received through this unbloody one.” Bel-

larmine, who is usually considered a tolerably sound Catholic, and more

than half a Romanist^ observes on those words of St. Paul, We are sanc-

tified through the offering of the body of Christ once for all

:

“ The caso

is this : by the one death of Christ we are sanctified
;
yea, we are per-

fected
;
having obtained not only remission of sins, but also the ornaments

of justice and blessedness itself, and this for ever
;

that is, for every age

and generation, so that we want not Christ to redeem us by his death, or

that the same Christ should often die for us, or for others.” “ But, (he

says, answering those who denied the mass to be propitiatory,) two things

are required, in order to the remission of sins
;
that the satisfaction be

just and adequate to the Divine justice
;
2ndly, that there be 3. particular

application of it to men. As it respects the first, the sacrifice of the

cross has remitted all sins, past, present, and future
;
as to the second,

(the particular application,) the remission of sins is not yet made
;
for

there are as yet, and will be to the end of the world, those to whom the
price of the ransom has to be applied, and their sins forgiven

;
and, there-

fore, there remains an offering for sin, namely, the sacrifice of the mass.”

Once more, Veron* says, “ The sacrifice of the mass is very far from

being propitiatory as the sacrifice of the cross
;

for this was meritorious

of redemption or forgiveness of sins, and of all graces conferred on us
;

and in it the merit of Christ was consummated, and was, in this sense,

propitiatory : but that Christ willed to be as an instrument, whereby the

merit of his own passion might be applied to us, as it is applied through

sacraments, through faith, and through good works, and is, in this sense,

propitiatory, as faith also is propitiatory.” I hope I stand acquitted both

by Protestants and Catholics, of having “ smoothed down the commonly

received Romish doctrines.”

Secondly. As to purgatory, which I have spoken of as “ the Church’s

pious recognition of the less perfect departed faithful, whose purification

for bliss is still proceeding ;” “ Is this doctrine of Rome?” I am asked. Yes

it is, I reply. First, I observe, that the doctrine of purgatorial suffering is

not a novelty in the Catholic Church, but as old as the days of St. Gre-

gory, who uses the identical expression of the Catechism of Trent, “ Fra-

ter, qui defunctus est, in igne crueiatur.^’f How incorrect the allegation, that
the doctrine of purgatory, even as set forth in the sixteenth century, is a

modern innovation on the purer faith of the sixth century ! But what is

the real doctrine of the Church on this point ? The decree of the Coun-

cil of Trent, which is drawn up very carefully to prevent abuses, simply

says : “ There is a purgatory, and the -souls therein detained are helped

by the suffrages of the faithful, but especially by the sacrifice of the

altar.” Less could not well have been said
;
and this silence, this absence

of definiteness, is itself an argument against the assumption, that the

Church authoritatively requires a belief in the souls that are in purgatory

being tortured in flames. In the 22nd Session, the sacrifice of the mass

is spoken of as “ oflfered for the dead in Christ, not as yet fully purified,”

(ad plenum purgatis.) I have spoken then, (if I may presume to say so,)

* Regula Fidei. t Vide, supra.



44

as the Tridentine Fathers spake
;
but the Catechism of Trent certain!/

has stronger words : “ There is a purgatorial fire, wherein the sduls of

the pious, being tormented or afflicted (cruciatae) for a time, are expiated,

in order that access, &c.” The question is, as to the sense in which the

word ignis and crucAatcB may properly be understood. I know not where

we can better apply for that sense than to the Church’s offices for the

souls in purgatory
;
since, as their authority is of the highest kind, so the

ground for expecting light from them upon the question, the strongest.

Now, 1 am not aware, that in the Missal, or Breriary, or in any office

book of the Church, or of her services for the dead, there is a single

word properly expressive of what may be called the grosser sense of

purgatorial pain. On the contrary, the chief ideas conveyed by the terms

used, are those of absence of rest, grief of soul, purification of the spirit.

I think this argument should have much weight with candid minds, for,

however ancient these services may be, the discription of purgatory by

words as strong as those of the Tridentine Catechism was as ancient as

they, as I have shown
;

and the Council, after careful review, sanc-

tioned these services, so that they speak the language of the Triden-

tine Church, as it has been termed, and she speaks that of the primitive.

In the Missa0 pro Defunctis occur these prayers ; “ Absolve, O Lord, the
souls of all the faithful departed from every bond of sin, and thy grace

succouring them, may they become meet to escape the judgment of thy an-

ger, and to enjoy the blessedness of eternal light.” Again ; “ Mercifully ac-

cept, O Lord, these offerings which we now present, for the soul of thy ser-
vant N., that being purified by heavenly remedies, he may rest in thy good-

ness.” “ Grant that whatsoever stains of earthly contagion have adher-

ed to him, may be wiped out by thy merciful forgiveness.” I am open to

correction, if wrong in stating, that no priest, nor Catholic, is called upon

in any exercise of the functions of the ministry, or discharge of religious

duties, to use one expression that necessarily implies any torment of the

souls in purgatory hy fire, or anything beyond mental sufferings or the sorrows

of the soul for the now percieved consequences of its past neglects. Why
then is one almost insulated strong expression to be continually dwelt

upon, and the innumerable milder terms used respecting the state of the

faithful departed, to be kept out of view ? The many in this case should

unfold the sense of the one. Calvin, in his Institutes, speaking on the

state of the dead, has this expression : “ Many torment (torquentur) them-

selves exceedingly with disputes about the place, &c.” Here is an in-

stance of a very strong word, (and for which Facciolali gives as the first

synonym, cruciare,) used to express mental anguish. Surely then I have

not used smoother words than the Church herself warrants, in describing

purgatory as “ the purification for bliss still proceeding of the less perfect

departed faithful.” Her doctrine and teaching seem to me eminently ex-

cellent on this point
;
where Scripture says little, she speaks cautiously ;

but when what it does say, warrants just and reasonable inferences, she

presents them, teaching alike for the benefit of departed believers, and the

comfort of surviving ones, that the communion of love, and help, and mu-

tual interest, has not ceased in death, but triumphs as one of the greatest

privileges of the Christian family over that enemy.

Thirdly, as respects the invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the doc-

trine of the Church is essentially the same, as with respect to other saints :

that she is a creature
;
possesses no divine attribute more than any other



45

creature
;

is as much the redeemed of her Son, and partaker of his sal-

vation by grace, as any one of the Church triumphant. At the same time,

considering that she was the individual chosen of God to carry God him-

self in her womb ; to be the vessel of mercy to mankind ; to have the re-

lation to the Lord of Hosts, not figuratively, but really, of a mother to her

child
;

that the angel, in announcing to her the divine selection, address-

ed her in terms expressive of special veneration on his part, and honour

on hers, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee ;— that
she herself, speaking by the spirit of prophecy, was instructed to declare,

that henceforth all generations should call her blessed ;—that the relation be-
tween her and her Son has not ceased because he is exalted, and sits in

our nature at the right hand of the Father; the Church, I say, for these

and other solid reasons, does in a special manner invoke her, and encour-

ages the faithful to believe that one so near and dear to Christ, so singu-

larly honoured of God, and, by his command, to be singularly honoured

by all Christians, does not forbear in her Son’s presence that office of love

for his mystical Body yet in the tribulations of this life, which assuredly

she did not omit while herself in the fleph. The Church does teach her

children to believe that death has not extinguished stronger love, nor stop-

ped that most excellent and blessed result of it, intercession for others in

any saint, especially in her who was the mother of Divine Love itself.

She does warrant us to conclude, that if the prayers of a righteous man

on earth, encompassed with infirmity, and absent from the Lord, availed

for others, and were no interference with the intercession of Christ, then

the intercessions of his own mother, now in heaven, most perfect and most

pure, in the very vision and presence of her Son, will be signally availa-

ble, and interfere not with his great office of Advocate, of which she im-

bibes the spirit, and imitates the duty. Mediator in one sense, that of

atonement and his special ofices, applies to Christ alone
;
but, in another

sense, that of intercession, it is applicable to any one who pleads for

others
;
and in this sense only is the Blessed Virgin Mary called, and

that truly indeed, a mediatrix.

The Council of Trent is almost altogether silent respecting the invo-

cation of the Blessed Virgin. The Tridentine Catechism says nothing

beyond what the following words express : “ The Church of God doth

rightly implore the intercession of the holy mother of God.” Be it

granted that some have carried their devotion in this matter to an excess,

and used expressions unadvised, and taken by themselves unjustifiable,

and in their zeal for a privilege (a zeal heightened by the denial and un-

merited reproach of it) have said and written what had far better have

been omitted
;
a true Catholic will judge, as piety and sound sense dic-

tate to him, of such expressions, by the true doctrine of the Church, as

laid down in her authoritative and catechetical instructions, and not of the

doctrine by those expressions
;
for not individual opinion, but the Church,

is his guide in all matters of faith.

Some passages have been adduced as instances of “ the fearful practice

of the Romish Church, of addressing to creatures language, which we
dare not address to any but God.”* I assume their correctness as quota-

tions, for I have not been able to find them, but I must avow I do not

perceive their impropriety. I have only space to notice the first. Sup-

pose a number of afflicted and needy people, widows, orphans, beggars,

* Dodsworth’s Letter, p. 17.



46

&c., who had a kind and sympathizing friend in the house of one on

whose help they were dependent, and v/ho was their advocate with him

on their behalf (for the fact of intercession of course is assumed in the

present case), surely they might fitly address her in these words . “ Thou

art the sure hope of the miserable, truly the mother of the parentless

:

thou art the relief of the oppressed, the medicine of the weak,” I pro-

test that I find not an expression here that is necessarily improper. Why
is it wrong to say of a benevolent creature on earth. Thou art all things

to all, when St. Paul says of himself, I am made all things to all men

and when holy Job says, I delivered the poor andfatherless, I comforted

the widow, I was an eye to the blind, and a foot to the lame, .1 was father to

the poor? (Ch. xxix.) There is poetical license in these words, but not

at all inconsistent with truth, sobriety, or Scripture.

It is the unhappy consequence of the position of those who are sepa-

rated from the Catholic Church, that they are led to view everything in

a spirit of objection. Like persons going against a stream, the smallest

twig or substance that floats on its surface, though but accidentally there,

meets them objectively, strikes, annoys, and frets them, and makes them

quarrel with the quality of the stream itself, as if turbid and unclean
;

whereas he who goes with it, carried on in the strength of its clear deep

waters, though he sees these offensive things, even more plainly, because

he looks at them more calmly than the other, perceives how little they

really have to do with the true character of those waters, the value of

which to himself he is proving and, while they float off on either side, he

passes onward in peace. In other words, it is by looking quietly and

steadily at the solid truth of the Catholic Church, that corruptions and

abuses which have attached to the profession of her, the crimes of some

of her rulers and advocates, the sins of her members, become what they

really are, ground of humiliation in her, but not of separation from her
;

of increasing effort to maintain her in sanctity, but not of division and

violation of her unity.

When I am asked, then, by an opponent, though a very kind one and

an early friend, why I became a Romanist? I reply; because I have

perceived that I could be a Catholic : that is, that I could be a member

of the Catholic Church, in communion with the see of Rome, and not be

a Romanist, in the sense in which he uses that term. When I am asked

how I have discovered those tenets and practices which I thought once

to be corrupt, to be no corruptions, I reply
;
because I went to the proper

source of information respecting them, the Church’s own authoritative in-

struction, and not to the opinions of this or that of her members, nor the

objection of this or the other of her adversaries. Cleared of the false

disguises with which controversial opponents had dressed them out, and

from some defilements, which true but not always right-judging friends

had mingled them, what had once seemed errors, became vvholesome and

blessed truths, and I embraced them and returned ipto her fold. I applied

to the fountain head, and finding the water as salutary and refreshing, as

it was deep and clear, I drank, was healed, now give God humble and

hearty thanks, and invite others to imitate my example, and share my

blessing.

And now, sixthly, I must advert to what I said in my former letter, re-

specting a celebrated Tract. One of my opponents has, (unintentionally

1 am sure,) misrepresented my words.* You will observe, that though in

* Palmer’s Examin., p. 31.



47

one sentence I used the word Rome, the tenor of what I said, as well as

the precise expressions I used, show clearly that I never meant to inti-

mate that the principle of Tract 90 was to reconcile the Thirty-nine Ar-

ticles with Romanism, but with the Tridentine doctrine. For aware of the

distinction attempted to be made between these things, I was careful to

state the true interpretation of the design of that Tract, viz., to show that

no one who subscribes the Thirty-nine Articles is called to reject the doc-

trines of the Catholic Church “ as defined by the Council of Trent.”

The plainest language I used, was this, “ He may be a Tridentine Catho-

lic at heart, and an Anglican clergyman by profession.”

I find not the slightest reason to alter this judgment. One of my oppo-

nents declines to give any opinion of the Tract, but the other condemns

mine in very strong terms.* Yet, what has he brought forward to prove

it erroneous ? Really nothing. The protestations against Rome which

preface the Tract cannot be allowed to weigh against the distinct language

in favour of Tridentine Catholicity which follows. There is an endea-

vour throughout it, to establish the assumption that there is a Roman doc-

trine distinct from the Tridentine. Suppose this granted, my assertion,

which was that the Tract sought to reconcile the Thirty-nine Articles

with the latter, is not affected by any protestation against, or condemna-

tion of the former. Besides, if there is a real inconsistency in the Tract,

of the one part with the other, I am not chargeable with misstatement,

because I declare its plain meaning in this other part. Observe such

passages as these : on the 22nd Article, the Tract says, “ The Homily,

and therefore the Article does not speak of the Tridentine purgatory.”

So respecting the invocation of saints, “ The Article gains a witness and

concurrence from the Council of Trent.” And the main purport of the

reasoning upon this Article is directly to show that it condemned the Ro-

mish, but might be held in accordance with the Tridentine doctrine. It

is quite the same, upon the 25th and 28th Articles. In the 31st the

Tract says, “ Nothing can show more clearly than the passage, (from the

Article itself,) that the Articles are not written against the creed of the

Roman Church, but against actual existing errors in it.” And further on :
“ It is conceived that the Article before us neither speaks against the

mass in itself, nor against its being an offering for the quick and the dead

for the remission of sin.” Need I add any comment to prove what I had

asserted, that the tendency of the Tract is to show that a person may

subscribe at once the Thirty-nine Articles and the Tridentine Creed.

As it respects the 31st Article, I shall content myself with stating the

following facts : the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning the

sacrifice of the mass, is that which the Article condemns
;
namely, that

therein Christ is offered for the quick and the dead, to have remission of

sins. It condemns this doctrine because it misapprehended it, as dero-

gating from, and interfering with the one offering of Christ on the Cross.

This doctrine is the same as to every mass
;
whether it be public or

solitary
;
said once or fifty times in a day : there is not, and never was

any other thing said in or respecting the mass or masses, than that which

the Article finds fault with, as a blasphemous fable, whether it stands out

more prominently in one.mass than in another, or not. In every mass

there is a propitiatory application of Christ both to the quick and the dead.

And this, and no more than this, said commonly every priest in the sacri-
*
Dodsworth’s Letter, p, 19, &e.



48

fice or sacrifices of masses, and says every priest now. No one surely
would “ torture the Article into a condemnation of the Christian sacrifice

offered in the Holy Eucharist,” according to the doctrine of the Estab-

lished Church, which is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and noth-

ing more, but it does require “ some ingenuity^’’ as is ingenuously con-

fessed, to show that it does not condemn the doctrine of the sacrifice of

the mass even as defined by the Council of Trent'''* Let me rather say it

requires the greatest ingenuity to torture the Article, into anything less

than a condemnation of the Catholic doctrine of the mass
;
and which is

by no means “ a matter of little importance being the very essence of

the whole question in dispute between my opponent and myself as to this
point. For, if the Article condemns the Tridentine doctrine of the mass,

then all reasoning to show that a person may subscribe it, and yet hold

the Tridentine Creed must be more subtile than sound. 1 repeat what I

have said before again and again, that the writers of this and other Tracts,

are as truly conscientious as they are deeply learned men. I have the

highest regard for them personally. I venerate their piety
;

I admire

their zeal and devotion to the cause of what they consider truth and unity.

No man can know them, and not value them. But I cannot conceal
that I judge them thoroughly erroneous in the endeavour to reconcile the

Thirty-nine Articles, and the creed of the Catholic Church as laid down

at the Council of Trent. I felt, that I could not, in answering your en-

quiry, but advert to that Tract, for 1 had to show why I had quitted the

Anglican Establishment, not as she has been and is still commonly un-

derstood to be, a mere section of Protestantism, (whether correctly or

not, I stop not now to enquire,) but as some of her emii||nt members are

endeavouring to represent her, as the Anglo-Catholic Church, which I

cannot concede her to be. My wish and endeavours were, in defending
myself, not to wound others. It was perhaps an effort that required more

skill in controversial language than I possessed. But while I willingly

apologise, if I have said aught to grieve any one of those excellent men,

I am too thoroughly convinced of the correctness of my. statements re-

specting the tendency of Tract 90, not to repeat it. Yes, I repeat, it is

a wonderful discovery that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are not

really denied by the Anglican Establishment. The Metropolitan of Lam-

beth, if not startled by the sound of it, is certainly roused to take it into

his immediate consideration
;
and that it has not been unheard in another

council chamber than that of St. Stephen, may be concluded, if common

opinion is correct, by a recent appointment to the episcopal bench
;
both

which circumstances may well awaken all curates, and not Welsh only,

as being not at all unlikely to produce a move among many of them.

The Thirty-nine Articles may not be designed as a text to preach from,

but they are a compendium of doctrines, to be held by the Members of

the Establishment, and therefore, surely to be insisted upon by her teach-

ers. But, be this so or not, since the doctrines more particularly in ques-

tion were points disputed between the Catholic Church and the Anglican

Establishment, the latter was called upon by her duty ta God and her

members to hold out a clear light respecting them. She was bound to

utter no uncertain sound, where so much doubt existed as to what was,

or what was not truth. To state the truth and condemn the error in

terras so ambiguous and obscure, that it requires the utmost ingenuity to

* Dodsworth’s Letter, p. 28.



49

discover what is the truth stated and the error condemned is, 1 repeat,

inconsistent with the Church’s duty as the guide of enquirers, and the

pillar and ground of truth.

Lastly. To some remarks that have been made of a personal nature,

I might fitly forbear a reply. But respecting one, I briefly remark that

the distance of my residence from my church was, in my opinion, and I

think I may say, would be in that of my most esteemed late diocesan,

“ a reasonable hindrance” to the having daily afternoon service. You,

my dear friend, know enough of me to decide, whether I was disposed

to shun any extent of public duty, that might have been required of me.

Respecting another, I must notice a great misunderstanding of what I

said respecting my trials in joining the Catholic Church. I am supposed

to refer to persecution, whereas 1 said not a word to warrant such infer-

ence. For is it nothing to be sensible of the deep affliction of those we

love, though borne almost in silence, and never breaking out into upbraid-

ing ? To a mind of any feeling, sorrow is made doubly grievous, when

accompanied with tenderness and affection towards him who has una-

voidably caused it. Is it nothing to be henceforth separated from earliest

friends 1 And yet there is no persecution on their part. To exchange

the warm greeting, for a cold recognition, if even that ; and to feel that

there is no more the communion that once, and for many years, was be-

tween us ? that, too probably, we meet not again as brethren or intimates,

on this side the grave ? And yet there is no persecution on their part.

But, oh ! there is trial on mine
;

for surely I am not void of affectionate

and kind emotions. Is it nothing to quit for ever my beloved and vene-

rable college, where every spot and stone and tree is fraught with memo-

ry’s pleasures, and where all tells of Catholic devotion and Catholic mu-

nificence
;
to be, because a Catholic, the only one that must bid it fare-

well, though the only one among her members prepared to obey all the

statutes and injunctions of her founder, and the only one whom he would

own to be, and recognize as, a Catholic ? And yet there is no persecu-

tion
;
but an expressed kindness, that does honour to those who are but

obeying the laws of the realm. There is one within that college, to

whom I might more especially allude, but that I should only increase a
trouble on my account I would rather allay

;
but though there is no per-

secution on his part, for that is impossible even to suppose of him, whose

natural warmth of kindliness many years have not chilled, yet there is

disapprobation of the step I have taken. And is that no trial, where

sanctity, learning, and goodness concur with many benefits received for

many years to enforce his claims to my deference ? But I forbear. Suf-
fcient unto the day is the evil thereof. I am cheered by a precious pro-

mise of the holy word of God : They that wait on the Lord^ shall renevx

their strength : they .shall mount up with wings as eagles : they shall run

and not he weary : they shall walk and not faint. May I endure as ever
seeing Him that is invisible, and who knows, for He searches the heart,
my motives and my aims

;
and measuring out ray trials by drops, makes

my cup overflow with mercies.
I hasten to conclude. And this I do, not by advising those to whom

these pages may come, to avoid reading the most able and most devo-
tional works of Catholic writers, or to shun enquiry into her doctrines,

and refuse to hear what she will say in her own plea. Still less can I

7

•



60

join in the recommendation to those who are seeking the ministry of the

Establishment, to enter into it, and solemnly subscribe, in, the sight of

God, to a condemnation of the Catholic Church, and many of her doc-

trines and practices, while in actual ignorance of what those doctrines

and practices are : to pledge themselves to defend that as truth, and op-

pose that as error, into which they have made either no inquiry, or a par-

tial one. Is it fair, is it honest, is it wise, is it becoming to subscribe to

Articles of Religion, in order that you may teach and impress them on

others, which ,have not been proved sound on examination of what can

be said for and against them ? to become a guide to others before you

are satisfied from investigation and reflection that you yourself are in the

right way ?

No : I advise such especially, and all to acquaint yourselves with the

Canons and the Catechism of the Council of Trent, not by reading select-

ed passages, but the vyhole of those admirable expositions of Catholic

faith discipline and piety. I urge you to study the Church’s Office Books,

her Missal, Breviary, Ritual, and Pontifical. They are easily obtained,

and will show you her spirit towards God and his people. I recommend

you to acquaint yourselves with the spiritual and devotional works of her

saints and confessors : such as the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius

Loyola, (that much-misunderstood and calumniated servant of Christ,) the

writings of St. Francis of Sales, of Louis of Granada, of Alphonso

Rodrigues, of St. Teresa, and others too numerous to name. These wri-

tings will give you an insight into the force of that great allegation, that

Rome is Antichrist
;
into that question, whether God is in the midst of

her or not ? And, peradventure, if you find reason to conclude with me,

that the spiritual and devotional writings of Protestants come not near

those of the Catholic Church, in the knowledge and love of God, in in-

sight into the human heart and its mazes, in unfolding the infinite trea-

sures of Divine grace, as laid open to those who truly and rightly seek

them
;
in wise guidance to the man of God, how he may be perfect,

throughly furnished unto all good works, you may go on to consider the

Catholic Church in her proper effects and beneficial influences on the

household of her Lord, and on the whole family of the human race.

This is a vast subject, into which I may not allow myself to enter.

But this I will say, as capable of entire confirmation : the Catholic Church

is the friend of the human race. With one hand she points to heaven,

and with the other strews largely the charities of God on the earth.

None can attend on her steps and not perceive it to be her daily office, to

remind the children of men of the vanity of this life, of judgment, of

eternity, of the evil of vice and the beauty of piety, of God and his

works and laws, and above all, of the inestimable price paid on the Cross

for human redemption. Her special lesson to the great and rich is, pov-

erty of spirit as to themselves, humility as to God, beneficence to their

fellow-creatures,—to the poor and mean she opens out the riches that are
of faith, and the nobility of the sons of God. The patroness of- the fine

arts, they wither where she comes not. The nurse of science, she leads

it forward, while she restrains its natural tendency to go alone, and forget

God. The spouse of Christ, she seems alone to understand how to keep

his earthly dwelling in discipline and due order
;
and how to deck the

chamber of his presence with the adorning meet for his Majesty. Her

feasts, her festivals, her sublime and holy services gladden the most op-

•

«



51

pressed, while her vigils and fasts subdue the proudest heart. While her

large and liberal almsdeeds approve her the friend of the poor, not in

name only, but in deed, her advice in the privacy of the confessional as-

sures her to be the wise and holy guide of every character and in every

class of life. Her religious houses afford to aged piety a retreat from the

world, and a lodging at the very gate of heaven ere they are called to

enter
;

to mature zeal, and early singleness of dedication to God to fe-

male virtue, shrinking from the contagion of a frivolous and vicious age,

they give scope for the most ardent love of God to be exercised, in union

with every charity that the wants and woes of man require at the hand of

the gentle and the good.

Oh, land of our fathers, torn with political strife, yet lifted up into proud

confidence of thy own strength
;
impatient of any restraints, yet ready to

interfere with all other nations
;
burdened with an excessive, unemploy-

ed, dissatisfied population, where ignorance almost heathenish pervades

the rural districts, and infidelity, disloyalty, and vice lurk in the crowded

cities and manufacturing towns : what shall preserve thee safe and un-

seathed in these times of change and trouble,—of distress of nations with
perplexity

;
what restore thy beauty among the people of the earth, and

give peace, plenty, cheerfulness, and contentment to thy own people ?

That Church, still upheld amid thee, it may be for thy final, as it was

given thee for thy earliest blessing. Thy best laws, thy free constitution,,

thy splendid though restricted monarchy, thy noblest fame for deeds of

arms, thy most splendid edifices, thy most hospitable usages, thy thickly-

strewed churches,—all, all, thou owest to her. What shall restrain the bold
license of anarchy mingled with infidelity, that threatens, like a flood, to

lay thee waste, and thy children within thee ? What shall stay the decay

of thy strength, which to many seems advancing, or if in the divine ap-

pointment it comes, enable thee to sustain the humiliation and the trial ?

What shall remove from thy labouring population the thickening gloom of

discontent ? or shut up the haunts of drunkenness and low vice, and open

instead thereof, all day long, the houses of God ? What shall rear again

the Cross and the Crucified through thy length and breadth, triumphant

over revilers ? What and who but she, who first raised them upon thy

soil
;
through whom God of old lime smiled on thee

;
she whose devo-

tions made hill and valley vocal with His praise, and with whose well

being He has connected all his choicest favours ? Let England become
again a portion of the Lord’s own heritage, be knit again in sincere god-
liness into the Catholic family, and He will bless us ! He will exchange

for us the garment of praise for the spirit of grief; when they shall huild

the places that have been waste from of old, and shall raise up ancient ruins,

and shall repair the desolate cities that were destroyed for generation and

generation.

I remain, my dear Friend,

Yours, very faithfully,

RICHARD WALDO SIBTHORP.

St. Mary’s College, Oscott;

Ash WedTiesda/y,