CHICAGO CATHOLIC LIBRARY SOCIETY.
Tlie Library will be kept open from 4 to 5 o'clock on |
i the afternoon of every Sunday. ;
No member will be allowed to draw more than one I
' volume at a time, nor for a longer time than one week, v
> Any person who shall keep a book longer than the time '
specified above, shall forfeit and pay 1cents for eachj
. and every week's detention thereafter.
] Any person who shall deface, mutilate, or neglect tot
) return any book belonging to the society, shall pay such |
; sum as the Librarian may assess for such damage.
no
Robert W. Woodruff
Library
Boles Collection
special collections
emory university
SEVENTEEN SETTERS
BY
B. C.
IN REPLY TO FIVE ESSAYS,,
WHICH APPEARED IN THE GOSPEL MESSENGER AND
SOUTHERN EPISCOPAL REGISTER :
controverting several statements made
BY
A
B. C,
IN HIS THIRTEEN LETTERS,
to the
RIGHT REV. BISHOP BO WEN.
corrected and revised from the united states
catholic miscellany,
« Slander smil'd horribly to view
How wide her conquests daily grew ;
Around the crowded levees wait,
Like oriental slaves of state ;
Of either sex whole armies prest,
But chiefly of the fair and best."
Cotton.
CHARLESTON
printed by jeremiah dennehy, at the office of the
seminary, and published at friend-street, north-east
of broad-street.
1829.
PREFACE TO THE READER.
It can scarcely be necessary to say more than is expressed
by the Title-page and is found in the following letters, to
explain their cause.
A little libel on the Catholic religion, miscalled a Cate¬
chism, was published in Charleston. 6. C, undertook to
shew that it was a misrepresentation, and requested of
Bishop Bo wen to have it withdrawn: that prelate, probably
felt as did several other highly respectable Protestants, that
it was a scandalous little book which did not express their
convictions or feelings. The book was withdrawn. Here
all might have rested in Charity: but a writer, " Protes¬
tant Catholic" undertook to prove the truth of the little li¬
bel, B. C. felt this to be an aggression on himself, as well
as on truth, and in the midst of many heavy duties, found
himself called upon for a defence, for which purpose he
wrote the following letters. They are necessarily imperfect.
He had no leisure to look to style or ornament. But he is
certain they contain no untruth, and he hopes they are
not offensive.
CONTENTS.
PAGE.
Letter I. It was neither indelicate nor unkind to Bishop
Bowen, to publish a vindication of Catholic
doctrines and practices, from the misrepresen¬
tations of the little Protestant Catechism.
Curious absurdity of the name, Protestant
Catholic! Upon principle, the Protestant
Episcopal church cannot be called Catholic :
neither could the union of all the Protestant
churches ; because they are a minority of
Christendom. The same result will follow,
even if the Eastern separatists be united to
them. .The church, in communion with the
Pope, is Catholic. Upon the testimony of her
adversaries, her tenets will be found correct
and Catholic. Extraordinary assertion of the
Book of Homilies, that the Catholic church of
Christepdom was idolatrous during upwards
of eight hundred years. Some consequences
of this very strange assertion. 1
Letter II. Different opportunities of Catholic and Pro¬
testant knowing the doctrines of each other in
America. Confidence of " Protestant Catho¬
lic." His attack on B. C.: his denial that
Catholics were misrepresented in the little
Catechism. Exact statement of the question
and cause of the present Letters. Captious
sensitiveness of " Protestant Catholic." His
unwarranted additions to B. C.'s expressions.
His misrepresentations of a petition in the lita¬
ny. Unfounded conclusion respecting the call
for mercy to Angels and Saints. Festivals
and Collects of Angels and Saints in the Pro¬
testant Episcopal churches of America and of
England. Inconsistency of members of those
churches, in charging the honor of those bles¬
sed Saints as a crime in Catholics. Presbyte¬
rians, Baptists, and Catholics more consistent. 11
Letter III. Charge against Catholics, that they pray to
Angels and Saints to save them by their me¬
rits. Division of the charge. Prayer to a
creature, if considered as divine homage, is
idolatry. Catholics do not pay such homage.
Prayer might be made to al'ellow creature, as
an intreaty for such help as that creature can
bestow. Catholics make this distinction.
Equivocation of " Protestant Catholic." Ca¬
tholics do not adore the blessed Virgin or bles¬
sed Spirits, but do invoke them to adore God.
Mistranslation of a Prayer, and false sugges-
1*
vi
CONTENTS.
tion and interpolation of " Protestant Catho¬
lic," to represent the Catholics as placing
Christ and the Saints upon an equality as in¬
tercessors. Upon his principles, Protestants
who ask others to pray for them must be idola¬
ters. St. Paul asked the prayers of persons
who were at a great distance, and invisible to
him. What idolatry is. No evidence that
Catholics ask to be saved through the merits
of Angels, nor is it a fact Catholics consider
it a heresy to assert that a person is saved by
the merits of Saints, or by their own merits.
Doctrines of the Council of Trent upon this
subject. Man is saved only through the merits'
and grace of Jesus Christ. Collects of the
Missal explained. Dishonesty of" Protestant
Catholic" exhibited. 22
Letter IV. Explanation of the Doctrine of Merit. How
man, after justification through Christ, be¬
comes meritorious. Merit of man very differ¬
ent from that of Christ. What is required
that a man should be meritorious. Chapter
of the Council of Trent thereon. Decree
concerning the invocation of Saints. Doc¬
trine concerning sacrifice in honor of Saints,
misrepresentation by " Protestant Catholic"
on these topics. Extraordinary assertions of
Bishop Hoadly, regarding Catholics. Cause
of much prejudice in America against Catho¬
lics, her having been a British colony. Hoadly's
opinion concerning the grounds, pardon and
salvation. His vindication of Man's merits :
does not strip God of his honour. His testi¬
mony for works of superogation. Yet he at¬
tacks Catholics 36
Letter V. Correct View of Catholic Doctrine, respect¬
ing prayer to Angels and Saints. Christ alone
the mediator of atonement. What is meant
by merits of Saints They are not mediators
of atonement, though they are intercessors.
Farther misrepresentation by " Protestant Ca¬
tholic." His sophistry in confounding media¬
tion with intercession. His pain regarding the
supposed idolatry of worshipping the blessed
Virgin. The Laity's Directory no authority.
His various garblings and misrepresentatation
of us meaning. It does not prove or encourage
idolatry. His vain attempts to prove it by the
Missal. He misrepresents the invocation by
calling it adoration Collyridians, who adored
the blessed Virgin, condemned as heretics on
that account by Catholics. Absurdity of as¬
suming that invocation supposes omnipre¬
sence and omniscience in those invoked. At¬
tributes of bodies after tlie resurrection de¬
clared by Christ to be similar to that of an¬
gelic substances. 4S
CONTENTS.
vii
Letter VI. Worship of images. Differences of Protes¬
tants upon the subject. Admissions of" Pro¬
testant Catholic" favourable to Catholics. His
opinion of a passage in the Southern Review.
YVhy the article containing that passage was
obnoxious. More garbling. Twelve points
of agreement between " Protestant Catholic"
and B. C. Veneration of images not obliga¬
tory upon a Catholic. What his obligation is.
Value of father Paul's history of the Council
of Trent. Decree of the Council regarding
images. Garbling thereof by " Protestant Ca¬
tholic," who did not follow either father Paul
or the original. 61
Letter VII. Five distinct untruths in a short state¬
ment regarding the doctrines of St Thomas.
Grounds of the statement of the angelic Doc¬
tor. Attempt to show Bellarmine in contra¬
diction to St. Thomas. Bellarmine's doctrine.
His assent to the doctrine of St. Thomas. Ca¬
tholic mode of worshipping images explained
by a statute of North Carolina, to prevent dis¬
respect to the statue of General Washington.
Exact statement of Catholic doctrine. More
garbling. Palpable shifting, so as dishonestly
to substitue one class of images for another.
False imputation that the Catholics adore ima¬
ges of the Virgin and other Saints. Distinction
made by the Council of Trent and Catholics,
between the images of Christ and those of
Saints. Dishonest process of argument from
affecting to destroy this distinction. Contra¬
dictions of " Protestant Catholic." 73
Letter VIII. Nature of Pagan idolatry. Statement of
St. Thomas, of Aquin. Competency of St.
Augustine as a witness. Mistake of consider¬
ing Mythology as the only criterion by which
to learn the nature pf Pagan idolatry. Testi¬
mony of St. Augustine. Historical view of
Polytheism and idolatry. Distinction between
idol and image. Origin of Mythology. Pla¬
tonic system. Evidences of the difference be¬
tween idol and image. True nature of Pagan
worship. 85
Letter IX. The Pagans did not adore the eternal God,
the Creator ; proved from Ovid, from Hesiod.
They worshipped the prince of devils *, proved
from Scripture. Their gods were equally in¬
dependent. They were Polytheists ; proved
from Scripture, and from Pagan writers. They
believed some divinity to reside in their idols ;
proved from several authors. 99
Letter X. Criminal characteristics of Pagan idolatry.
Meaning of the word worship. Various kinds
thereof Meaning of the word adoration. Va¬
rious kinds thereof. Every species of worship
viii
contents.
is not divine worship. Meaning of the word
religious. There is religious worship which is
not divine worship Such worship has been
paid by God's servants to angels, and to pro¬
phets, and to holy persons It has reference to
God, and is homage paid to him. Religious
honour was paid by God's servants in Israel
to holy places, and images, and other things
connected with God. Peculiar situation of the
Israelites when they received the Decalogue.
What is the meaning of the first five verses of
the twentieth chapter of Exodus, containing
the first commandment, which some Protes¬
tants split into two. Incorrectness of the Pro¬
testant translation of the fourth verse. Ill
Letter XI. Catholic doctrine regarding worship. Im¬
perfection of languages, especially of ancient
dialects. Origin of words expressive of wor¬
ship. Dearth of a word to signify, appropri¬
ately and exclusively, spiritual or mental ado¬
ration or worship. Distinction adopted in
Christianity. What its foundation. School
terms. Present meaning of the expressions.
Blunders of" Protestant Catholic." His fears
for the ignorant multitude of Catholics. Ca¬
tholic doctrine Soothing offered to his anxie¬
ty. Lie of the Bible-men in the sixth ward of
New-York. Offer of one hundred dollars for
the discovery'of an idolatrous Catholic. Ca¬
tholics have not one set of doctrines for the
rich and another for the poor. Poor Catho¬
lics, generally, better informed in their doc¬
trines than the rich. Upon the principle of
" Protestant Catholic." What he calls the se¬
cond commandment is not violated in the Ca¬
tholic church. Yet he asserts that is. His
error as to the obligation of image worship.
Great mistakes regarding the meaning of Le¬
viticus xxvi. 1. Difference between lawful and
religious erection of pillars and remarkable
stones, and the unlawful and idolatrous prac- .
tice. Description of each. Unfair mode of
quoting Deuteronomy iv. 15, 16. It means
no more than Exodus xx. and is but a more
special enumeration. American Protestants
have in their churches more graven images
than American Catholics ; yet are not idola-
tors. 125
Lettee XII. Recapitulation of what has been shewn.
Contradictions of "Protestant Catholic " Sup¬
pression of a note in its proper place, and
garbling it when produced. More contradic¬
tions. Catholics do not suppress what is called
by Protestants the second commandment. Nei¬
ther God not Moses made any division of them.
The division arbitrary. Catholics follow the
CONTENTS.
ix
most ancient mode of dividing, and the most
natural. Protestants introduced Iheir mode
for a special purpose. Curious effort of " Pro¬
testant Catholic" to charge this mode of di¬
vision as a crime upon Catholics, when he a-
vows that the Jews and early Christians did so
divide the law. Recapitulation of the propo.
sitions vindicated. Catholics charged with
praying to the cross, and adoring it. St. Tho¬
mas, of Aquin, again misrepresented. " Pro¬
testant Catholic" quotes as proof from the
Pontifical a passage which B. C. cannot find
in that book. His argument from the Missal
is founded upon a wilful misrepresentation
against an explanatory note, to weaken whose
force he mutilates it. Protestants of the Epis¬
copal church fairly charged with gross idola¬
try upon his principles. 140
Letter XIII. Under pretence of proving Catholics idola-
tors, " Protestant Catholic" attacks Transub-
stantiation. All who hold the real presence
equally chargeable as Catholics. Five-sixths
of Christendom then are idolaters. They pro¬
fess and intend to adore Jesus Christ, and not
bread. Though they should err in doctrine,
they would not be idolaters. Untrue state¬
ment that Catholics do not deny that they
worship the elements. Gross Misrepresenta¬
tion of a decree of th.e Council of Trent on this
head. Not warranted even by father Paul.
Denial of the Doctrine by Protestants does
not render the Catholic criminal. His argu¬
ments retorted in the case of the Unitarian.
His miserably defective metaphysics, and de¬
fective theology, exhibited in the answer of the
Unitarian. His wretched juggling with words,
and gross mistake as to the nature and extent
of the testimony of the senses. He confounds
the province of the senses with that of the judg¬
ment. He begs the question throughout. Fu- •
tile attempt to draw a distinction between the
doctrines of the Eucharist and other mysteri¬
ous doctrines. Tillotson's phrase as empty as
his, and contradicted by the fact of Josue and
others. Christ's declaration that he is the door,
the vine, the shepherd, are to be taken in their
plain and literal meaning, as expressed by
himself and recorded by the Evangelists. The
suppositions of Archbishop Synge would des¬
troy any mystery in the Eucharist; whereas
all antiquity testified that the doctrine was
mysterious. Value of Elfric's pastoral homi¬
ly. Gross misrepresentation of Bellarmine,
and untrue assertion of what learned Catholics
admit. Not true that Protestant writers have
proved that the early fathers held the doctrine
X
CONTENTT.
of the Eucharist without real bodily presence.
Not historical truth that such real presence
was not asserted before the eighth century .
nor that the Council of Lateran introduced the
doctrine of transubstantiation, though they
established the word, as the Council of Nice
established consnbstantiation. Curious effort
regarding an expression of Bossuet. Com¬
plaint of B. C. that his expressions are mis¬
represented by " Protestant Catholic." Dis¬
tinction between " a supernatural and immor¬
tal body," and a body in a supernatural state.
A witticism is no argument. Remarks on some
properties of a spiritualized body. " Protes¬
tant Catholic" asks to reconcile Lutheran doc¬
trine with a Catholic creed, &c. 154
Letter XIV. Meaning of the word penance. The Coun¬
cil of Trent did not teach that contrition, con¬
fession and satisfaction were equally parts of
the sacrament of penance, as " Protestant Ca¬
tholic" asserts it did. Nor that confession and
satisfaction were inseparably allied in order to
the end of penance. Nor did father Paul as¬
sert any such thing of the Council. Doctrine
of the Council regarding the effects of contri¬
tion. Unfortunate garbling and blunders of
" Protestant Catholic," and of father Paul on
on this subject. Doctrine of the Council re¬
specting sin and its consequences, and respec¬
ting the consequences of repentance. What
Doctor Whitaker says of Protestant forgeries.
Mistake of " Protestant Catholic" in stating
that statisfaction is an essential part of the sa¬
crament of Penance. Curious notion of his
that we teach that temporal punishment must
be indispensably undergone by every sinner
unless an indulgence be interposed. Extrava¬
gant blunder concerning who are condemned
to Purgatory. Catholic doctrine accurately
stated. " Protestant Catholic's" dishonest and
ridiculous mode of judging Catholic tenets, not
from the declarations of public authorities of
the church, nor of the virtuous and enlighten¬
ed members, but from the conduct of those
whom he calls knaves, fools and hypocrites.
Value of the testimony of Protestants who visit
Catholic countries. Reason of their incom¬
petency to understand and to testify. An in¬
stance adduced by himself, examined. A no¬
torious fact under the eyes of the American
people upsets his theory and shows the ground
of Catholics' title to their ancient family name,
and the folly of his endeavour to filch it.
Wretched quibbling of Mendham's note. Fool¬
ish dishonesty of " Protestaut Catholic," in
giving the character of the Catholic church.
Why was he not prudent. 16S
CONTENTS,
Let teh XV. Kindness of "Protestant Catholic." Pro¬
positions respecting indulgences, of which B.
C. complained as misrepresentations. Catho¬
lic doctrine. Council of Trent did enact re¬
medial means against the abuse of indulgen¬
ces. Statements of Moshiem incorrect. " Pro¬
testant Catholic" garbles Fleury in two places,
and improperly joins several parts. Palpable
untruth respecting the sale of indulgences at
present. Testimony of the Bishop of Charles¬
ton. Curious blunders of some Protestant ob¬
server in Italy. A second accumulation of
blunders, worse and more ridiculous than the
first. Protestant doctrine more like a license
to sin, than the Catholic. The whole imputa¬
tion the work of fancy.
Letter XVI. Extraordinary change of a word. The ne¬
gative arguments against the Pope's suprema¬
cy ought to be compared with the positive ar¬
guments in its favour. Bishop Hobart's mis¬
takes. The question begged. Denial that the
Papal authority was created by secular power.
Curious mistake of Bishop Hobart, respec¬
ting the value of the reproof given to John,
the Almoner. Value of Protestant refusal of
assent. Doctor, Barrow not unanswered. Cu¬
rious and arbitrary misrepresentation of Ca¬
tholic value of tradition. Tradition not un¬
written though called unwritten, and why.
Misrepresentation of Bellarraine's doctrines.
Extract from the decree of the Council of
Trent. Whence tradition derived, and how
established. Seven reasons of"Protestant Ca¬
tholic" valueless. Catholic doctrine of church
authority proved fully by Bishop White's
principle. Reasons for believing in a Divine
influence existing to preserve the true doctrine
in the Church. Benefit thereof. Difficulty to
Protestants, comfort and assurance to Catho¬
lics. What is meant by the use of the Scripture
Index, no general law. Leo XII. only did as
a good pastor ought. English and American
Protestant Episcopal Churches act upon the
same principle. Evils of abuse of the scrip¬
tures. Catholic mode of ascertaining their
meaning. Inconsistency of Prot. Episcopa¬
lians Bible well known amongst Catholics.
Difference between Catholics who have inter¬
course with Protestants, and those who have
not. Reason why the latter could not learn
Protestant tenets from the Bible.
LETTER XVII. Infallibility the only natural remedy for
the abuse of Scripture. Church damns no
one, but declares thy law of God. Catholic
church has no law enacting temporal penal¬
ties for departure from Faith. Catholic and
CONTENTS.
Protestant nations have. Catholics first in¬
troduced freedom of conscience to America.
A few cannot usurp power and force a meaning'
upon scripture. Difference between Catholic
and Protestant infallibility a shadow. Why
Catholics cannot be conditional conformists to
what might be erroneous. Foily of asking what
ought to be done, when general councils con¬
tradict each other in docirinal decisions. Why
Catholics adhere to transubstantiation. No
doctrine of the church that the Pope can ab-
solve from the oath of allegiance ; nor that the
faith is not to be kept with heretics. Case of
Pius V. explained. Sovereigns are church
members, and subject to discipline like others.
" Protestant Catholic" does not appear to
know what the false decretals are. He ad¬
duces a note from the Doway bible. I dissent
from the reasoning of the note. It is as illo¬
gical as many of his own arguments. B. C.'s
answer to its compiler would be short. An
argument of analogy in cases of positive
law is worth nothing. Besides, there is
here no foundation for the analogy. This
is one of the best pretexts for argument that
.he had, but it is only a pretext Catholics
of Charleston claim no superiority over other
Catholics or Protestants : but do not like to
be called vile names, especially by enlightened
Carolinians ; nor do they deserve such insult.
Why Popes and councils cannot be expected
to deny the truth of calumnious imputations.
Concluding passage. 204
From the Gospel Messenger for February 1829.
WORSHIP OF ANGELS AND SAINTS.
TO THE EDITORS OF THE GOSPEL MESSENGER.
1. I shall offer for your insertion in the Messenger, a
few numbers relative to Roman Catholic doctrines
and pretensions. Myself one of those to whom re¬
ligious controversy is distasteful, it is not my wish to
involve you in any, with the members of that com¬
munion ; and I presume such needs not, and cannot
be the effect of your admitting what I shall offer into
your pages. I shall write with no intention to offend
Roman Catholics, and with no view but that of plac¬
ing truth, with its proper and sufficient evidence, be¬
fore the readers of the Messenger. The statements
which I shall offer, and the authorities in their favor,
will scarcely admit of dispute. If disputed, I at
least shall leave them to the defence which they will
have obviously carried with them. I am anxious not
to take up too great a space in your work, and shall
confine myself to that only which is necessary to
substantiate the claim of Protestants to be acquitted
of the reproach of palpable and wilful misrepresen¬
tation of the religion of Roman Catholics.
2. Roman Catholics complain of Protestants for
alleging and teaching that they " pray to angels and
saints to save them by their merits ; making those
Angels and Saints mediators with Christ, or in his
stead ; that thus they dishonour Christ the only me¬
diator : that they give to creatures the worship due
to God alone, and thus are guilty of direct idolatry."
The imputation of these things is rejected as unfoun¬
ded as well as malicious. The following will per¬
haps seem sufficient evidence, that on the contrary,
it is at least not ill-founded.
3. A Manual of Devotions, for the use of Roman
Catholics, was printed in 1802, in London, and as¬
cribed by the printer in his catalogue, to Dr. Challo-
ner. It was published with the sanction of some
having authority, and has been in great esteem and
use, at least among English Roman Catholics. It
is entitled " the Christian's Guide to Heaven."*—
In this Manual there is the following prayer.
* Bishop of Gloucester's Charge, in 1810.
[ » 3
4. " O Holy Angel, whom by the effect of his
goodness and tender regard for my welfare, G»d
hath charged with the care of iny conduct ; who
doest assist me in all my wants, and comfort me in
all my afflictions ; who supportest me when 1 am
discouraged, and continually obtained for me new
favours ; I return thee profound thanks ; and con¬
jure thee, most amiable protector, to continue thy
most charitable care and defence of me against the
malignant attacks of all my enemies. Keep me at a
distance from all occasions to sin. Obtar forme
the grace of hearkening attentively to thy holy inspi¬
rations, and of faithfully reducing them to practice.
Protect me under all the temptations and trials of
this life but more especially at the hour of death ;
and do not quit me till thou hast conducted me into
the presence of my Creator, in the mansions of ever¬
lasting happiness."
5. From the translation of the Roman Missal,
printed in New-York in 1822, and which is now in
authorised use, I have selected, without much trou¬
ble of search, the following instances of prayer made
to Saints. "Holy Mary, Holy mother of God, St.
Michael, St Gabriel, St. Raphael, all ye Holy An¬
gels and Arch Angels, all ye Holy orders of blessed
spirits, St. John Baptist, St. Joseph, all ye Patri¬
archs and Prophets, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. An¬
drew, St. James, St. John, St. Thomas, St James,
St. Philip, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, St. Si¬
mon, St. Thaddeus, St. Matthias, St. Barnaby, St.
Luke, St. Mark, all ye Holy Apostles and Evangel¬
ists, all ye Holy Disciples of the Lord, all ye Holy
Innocents, St. Stephen, St. Lawrence, St. Vincent,
St. Fabian and St. Sebastian, St. John, and St. Paul,
St. Cosmas and St. Damian, St. Gervaise and St.
Protese, all ye holy Martyrs, St. Sylvester, St. Gre¬
gory, St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, St. Jerom,St.
Martin, St. Nicholas, St. Patrick, all ye Holy Bish¬
ops and Confessors, all ye Holy Doctors, St. Antho¬
ny and St. Bennet, St. Bernard, St. Dominick, St.
Francis, all ye Holy Priests and Levites, all ye Holy
Monks and Hermits, St. Mary Magdalen, St, Aga¬
tha, St. Lucy, St. Agnes, St. Cecily, St. Catharine,
St. Anastasia, St. Bridget, all ye Holy Virgins and
Widows—Pray for us. All ye men and women
[ iii ]
Saints of God, make intercession for us. Be merci¬
ful unto us." pp. 263—4.
6. Here, after the invocation of God the Father,
God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, the Holy Trini¬
ty. prayer is offered to Angels and Saints, to pray
for those thus praying to them, to intercede for
them, and be merciful to them. How, but by their
merits, are they to be understood to be prevailing
intercessors with God ? Is prayer addressed to
them, without regard to their merits ? Or is prayer
addressed to them for less than an intercession that
shall be available to the remission of sin ? If not,
then prayer is made to Angels and Saints to save by
their merits.
7. But the following collects show that the merits of
Saints are relied upon for the efficacy of their inter¬
cession, and that, of course, when they are direct-
edly prayed to, it is by their merits, that they are in-
treated to intercede for their supplicants. " Gra¬
ciously receive, O Lord, we beseech the, our offer¬
ings, and grant by the merits of the blessed Anasta-
sia the martyr, that they may avail to our salvation.
Thro." Missal translated, p. 26. " O God, the
bestower of all good gifts, who in thy servant Bibia-
na, joinedst the palm of martyrdom with the flower
of virginity, grant, that through her intercession,
our hearts, &c. Thro." p. 423. " O God, who to
recommend to us innocence of life, wast pleased to
let the soul of thy blessed virgin Scholastica, ascend
to heaven in the shape of a dove, grant by her mer¬
its, &c. Thro." p. 453. " O God, who didst
grant thy servant John, being inflamed with the fire
of thy love, to walk without hurt through the midst
of flames, and by him institute a new order in thy
Church, grant by his merits, &c." p. 456. " O
God, who was pleased to send blessed Partrick, thy
Bishop and Confessor, to preach thy Glory to the
Gentiles, grant that by his merits and intercession
we may through thy grace, &c." p. 459.
8. It is then a fact, that " the Roman Catholics do
pray to Angels and Saints, to save them by their
merits," making those Angels and Saints Mediators
with Christ, or in his stead. It is not unreasonable
or unfair, to presume the Saint to be even substitu¬
ted as mediator for Christ, where,as is sometimes the
[ Jv 7
case, the" collect does not name Christ, contaia
or end with any reference to him in the character ot
intercessor.
9. Do Catholics then thus dishonor Christ,the only
mediator, and by giving to creatures the worship
due to God alone, make themselves guilty of direct
idolatry ? To Protestants, it cannot but appear that
they do : for if Christ has enjoined prayer in his
name, (John xiv. 13. 14; xv. 16,) and his Apos¬
tles have taught that there is no other name (Acts
iv. 12.) given under heaven whereby men can be
saved, but his, and that there is but one mediator
for man with God, " the man Christ Jesus,"
[Tim. ii. 5.] then must the honour due to Christ be
impaired by any Christian worship that supplicates
blessing or mercy through any mediation or interces¬
sion, either besides, or to the exclusion of his. That
they who use such worship as that of which I have
adduced the several specimens selected, give to the
creatures the worship due to God alone, will not at
first view, admit of question ; nor is it easy, even on
a closer consideration of the matter, to separate the
reproach of direct idolatry from prayer addressed
in the same Litany to God, and to the many canon¬
ized Saints, arbitrarily determined to be capable of
hearing and answering prayer ; and as arbitrarily
pronounced to be the blessed attendants of the di¬
vine presence.
10. But Roman Catholics, do not, they say, com¬
mit idolatry in praying to Saints ; for they offer
them only an inferior worship, and not that which is
due to God—they only invoke them, and ask their
help in obtaining the benefits which God alone can
confer. Surely the ora pro nobis, with a view to
benefits which God alone can confer, addressed to an
invisible being, and in the same office of devotion in
which God is directly supplicated, is, to all intents
and purposes, prayer ; and what is prayer offered to
a creature, whether visible or invisible, if not idola¬
try ? But do not Protestants ask each others pray¬
ers 1 They do. Protestants ask the prayers of the
faithful, or those they consider so on earth, in the
body, that God will comfort them in sorrow, sustain
them in trial, and save them in danger. Roman
Catholics pray to departed and canonized Saints, as.
[ v ]
being in Heaven, of some of whom at least, we may
reasonably doubt, whether they be there, and as to
any of whom we know not, that they are thus acces¬
sible, to pray for, and help them. Are the two
things the same ? Do they resemble each other ?
11. But Roman Catholics also complain of Protest¬
ants for asserting of them, that " they worship the
blessed Virgin, mother of our Lord, in such a way
as to commit downright idolatry." It is painful to
look at the proof, of which, this error of the Roman
Catholics, so abundantly admits. The whole, or
even much of it, needs not be stated ; a little will
suffice. The following is the language which the
Roman Catholics hold respecting the Virgin Mary.
The Catholic Church invokes Mary in every part
of the divine office, and more especially in the obla¬
tion of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Besides she has
instituted almost as many Feasts in her honour, as she
celebrates in honour of her Divine Son. It is the du¬
ty of every Christian to join in this devotion of the
Church, and celebrate worthily all these feasts."*
12. " Mary was born for great purposes*&c. by
giving us a Redeemer, she gave us every thing. We
must beg her to preserve in us, by her prayers, what
she has obtained for us from heaven."
13. " Let us never cease soliciting the protec¬
tion of the mother ofGod."
14. " This feast (the Visitation] was instituted in
remembrance of the wonders wrought by Mary,
when she visited St. Elizabeth." " It was thus Je¬
sus Christ began to avail himself of his holy mother,
to distribute his graces"
15. " This (on the compassion of the blessed
Virgin,) is also a feast of the second order, but
which is of great devotion to the faithful servants of
Mary." " The sacrifice of her own son, which she
there (at the foot of the cross,) offers to the Eternal
Father."
16. " Mary was carried up thither (to heaven,)
by the Ministry of Angels, and presented by her own
Son to the Eternal Father, who placed upon her
head the most brilliant crown of glory, that was ever
conferred upon a pure creature, and created her
* Laity's Directory, for 1822. New-York. W. H. Creagh,
Publisher.
i vi ]
queen of both Angels and men. The high dignity
of mother of God, and her super-eminent sanctity,
giVe her a right to the homages of heaven and earth."
" Let us be assured that this powerful queen of hea¬
ven, who recognizes all of us for her children, will
cause us to experience the effects of her maternal
tenderness."*
17. It has been already shown that prayer in the
Litany of Saints, is addressed to Mary, where she is
styled Holy Mary, Holy Mother of God, and Holy
Virgin of Virgins. In the office for the nativity of
Blessed Virgin Mary, we also find prayer addressed
to her thus, 0 Mother of God intercede for us. Mis¬
sal, p. 549.
18. In the "Christian's Guide to Heaven," al¬
ready referred to as an authorized book of Roman
Catholic Devotions, there is the following : " O
Holy Virgin ! Mother of God, my advocate and pa¬
troness, pray for thy poor servant ; prove thyself a
mother to me."
19. Similar evidence might be adduced from oth¬
er manflals and books of Catholic worship. Now
such language of adoration and prayer is addressed
to the Virgin Mary, who is still said to be but " a
creature," and she is said to " recognize all" Roman
Catholics who honour her in the homages of the
Church, " as her children," and to be ready to
" cause them to experience the effects of her mater¬
nal tenderness ;" in order to which, it is obvious
that though only a creature, she must possess the
Divine attributes of omniscience and omnipresence;
she must know the necessities of all who address
her, from all parts of the earth alike, and must be
able to be present as the hearer of their prayer to all
alike, who supplicate her favour and intercession.—
Is this, then, worshipping the blessed Virgin Mother
of our Lord, in such a way as to commit downright
idolatry ? Alas! there are millions of Christian
people who not only will not see and confess the
monstrous error, but who, while they persist in its
delusion, will reject the imputation of rendering un¬
due honour to the undeniably worthy object of their
* Laity's Directory; pp. 63, 64, et. sen-
[ vii ]
fervent meditation, as a false and malignant misre¬
presentation of their religious conduct!
20. Now to close up the evidence of the fact,
that " Roman Catholics pray to Angels and Saints
to save them by their merits, making those Angels
and Saints mediators with Christ, or in his stead ;
that they thus dishonour Christ the only mediator,
and give to creatures the worship due to God alone,
and are thus guilty of direct idolatry." I will ad¬
duce but one passage more. It occurs in the most
solemn and important of all their offices—that of the
Mass. " Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation,
which we make to the memory of the passion, re¬
surrection, and ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and in honour of the blessed Mary, ever a Virgin, of
blessed John Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter and
Paul, and of all the Saints ; that it (the sacrifice of
the Mass,) may be available to their honour and our
salvation ; and may they (Jesus, &c.) vouchsafe to
intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we cele¬
brate on earth ; through the same Christ our Lord.
Amen." By the way, we may here remark the dif¬
ference between Roman Catholic prayers and those
of Protestants, in this respect; that while the latter
conclude theirs as offered through their only media¬
tor and advocate, Jesus Christ, the former, encum¬
bered with the difficulty of the multiplied interces¬
sion they supplicate, carefully avoid any such lan¬
guage. " Through the same Christ our Lord," as
above, can only imply, through Christ as one media¬
tor of many, and of them perhaps the chief.
A PROTESTANT CATHOLIC.
From the Gospel Messenger for March 18211.
WORSHIP OF IMAGES.
No. 2.
TO THE EDITORS OF THE GOSPEL MESSENGER.
21. Having shown that Protestants are not guilty
of the perverse and groundless misrepresentation of
of the religion of Roman Catholics, with which they
have been boldly charged, on the subject of their
worship of Angels and Saints, and of the Virgin Ma¬
ry, let us consider whether the same accusation as
to the Roman Catholic worship of Images should be
[ viii ]
made, in the face of such evidence as induces, on
the part of Protestants, the persuasion, that Roman
Catholics are chargeable with this lamentable error.
22. It has been called a misrepresentation of the
religion of Roman Catholics, to say that " they
worship the images, or pictures of the Virgin Mary,
and other Saints ; that they violate the second of
God's commandments, (as relating to image and
idol worship) without scruple ; that sensible, not¬
withstanding, that their practice is contrary to the
said second commandment, they have, in several of
their Catechisms, left out the second commandment,
and split the tenth into two ; the Roman Catholics
in excusing themselves from idolatry in their image
tyorship, say no more for their exculpation, than the
heathens said for themselves, and that, therefore,
Catholics are equally idolatrous as the heathens are,
or were."*
23. Here the impression which generally obtains,
among Protestants on this subject, is stated rather
more strongly than it needs be ; and as if to give it the
character of the utmost possible offence against cha¬
rity, other language than their own is added to
that, which they correctly enough, in general, are
represented to have used. It may be true, that
some Protestants, in an intemperate zeal of dissent
from Popery, have considered Roman Catholics e-
qually as idolatrous as the heathens either are or
were. I believe, however, that a wide distinction is
generally considered due in favor of Christian wor¬
shippers of the one only God, however incumbered
their worship may be with erroneous appendages,
from those, who, with no knowledge or belief of the
one Jehovah, may worship infinitely various ficti¬
tious deities, in idols, in which they may be suppos¬
ed to reside. The author of an article in the fourth
number of the " Southern Review," has with need¬
less elaborateness of detail, given the literary and
* I quota as before, although it was forgotten to say so, a
work recently published, which, a few week6 since, fell acci¬
dentally in my way, and which thus states the " misrepre¬
sentationswhich Protestants had published of the religion
of the Roman Catholics. It is written with better temper
than usually characterizes Roman Catholic controversial
writings; and is as plausible as subtle.
[ ix ]
political community, for whom that work is intended,
reasons to believe, that the idolatry of the aborigin¬
es ol America, is a very different thing from the Ro¬
man Catholic reverence or adoration of images.—
Voltaire, it is true, thought the heathens were no
more idolaters than Roman Catholics. I would not,
however, take his authority as good, against the in¬
dustrious author of the essay, in the Review.—
There is a difference, and we should admit that it is
important. The poor Indian, either honoured his
idols with a worship terminating in them, or,through
them, worshipped the unknown God. Christians un¬
der the denomination of Roman Catholics, like oth¬
er Christians, worship the one true God ofthe scrip¬
tures. But their Church has authorised a use of
images in their places of worship, that would make
a certain kind of worship paid to them, consistent
with the purer and exclusive homage which Jeho¬
vah demands for himself. The creed of Pius IVth,
so called, " a succinct and explicit summary of the
canons of the Council of Trent," which Mr. Butler
says " is received throughout the Roman Catholic
Church, and to which every Catholic who is admit¬
ted into the Catholic Church, after publicly reading
it, professes his assent," has the following clause :
" I most firmly assert, that the images of Christ and
of the Mother of God. ever Virgin, and also ofthe
Other Saints, are to be had and retained ; and that
due honour and veneration, are to be given to them."
This was the result to which the long unsettled doc¬
trine of the Church of Rome, or the Roman Catho¬
lic Church, if that appellation more acceptably signi¬
fies the body of Christian people meant, was brought,
by the last General Council so called. The opposi¬
tions of councils on this point, and the conflicts of
zealots, in which even Emperors and Empresses
bore their part, were to be no more the disgrace of
Christendom. It is reasonable to regret that the
same authority which thus settled the disputes which
had agitated the Church on the worship of images,
had not put the reproach utterly away. It, on the
other hand, determined, as we have seen, that ima¬
ges should be had and retained, and due honour and
veneration given to them. The words ofthe decree
of the Council of Trent, enacted at its 25th session
[ X ]
on which this article of the symbol of Pius IVth is
founded, are—" Christi, Mariae Virginis, et sancto¬
rum imagines, in teinplis retinendas, eisque debilum
honoremf impetiendum, non quod in iis insit divinitas,
vel, virtus, sed quoniam honos, qui eis exhibetur re-
fertur ad prototypa : ita ut per imagines, Christum
adoremus et sanctos,^ quorum similitudinem gerunt
veneremur :* or, that the images of Christ, the Virgin
Mary, and the Saints, should be kept in the Churches,
and due honour be given to them; not as if there
were in them either divinity or power, but because
the honour which is shown to them, is referred to their
originals, so that through the images, we may adore
Christ and venerate the Saints, whose similitude they
beard'' Now the honour and veneration of the ima¬
ges of Christ, &c. thus provided for by the highest
authority of the Roman Catholic Church, as indis¬
pensably obligatory, we know to be held and taught
in that Church, to be not such as is due to God.—
The second Council of Nice, A. D. 786, which is
referred to by the Council of Trent, on this subject,
did assert the direct worship of images ; declaring
* In stating the language of the decrees of the Council
of Trent, Father Paul's history of that Council, it is proper
to mention, is our authority. Mr. Butler, it is true, calls
him a. disguised Calvinist—and the author of the little work
to which I have referred, calls his history a libel, rather than
a history. Neither the one nor the other of these impug-
ners of the correctness of Father Paul in reporting the pro¬
ceedings of the Council of Trent, can make good what he
insinuates. They must both be aware that there is abund¬
ant testimony extant, in corroboration, in general, of that in
this historian's narrative, with which Roman Catholics are
offended. Be this, however, as it may, it cannot be shown
that Father Paul has not correctly reported the decrees
passed by this Council. It is several years since the writer
looked over them in Pallavicini's work ; but he believes
that in this respect, there is no maten .1 difference. As to
the history of proceedings, if Father Paul was biassed on
om side, who will saj' that Pailavicini was not biasst d on
the other? Tn confirmation of the confidence with which
the first is now referred to, as good authority for the decrees
of the Council, the writer has found his language to be pre¬
cisely that of an attested copy of the original acts ot that
Council, quoted by Dr.Marsh, in his comp .rati ve view,as pre
served in the public Library of the University of Cambridge.
t Meant for impertiendam.—B. C.
J This is not printed as in the original of the council: but
copied from the Messenger.—B. C.
[ XX j
at the same time, that it should not be Latria, which
is due only to God, but a merely honorary adora¬
tion. Now whether it be Latria, or any thing else,
does not the sense of the Roman Catholic Church
Seem plainly to be, that religious honour should "be
paid to images ? Thomas Aquinas, who wroie se¬
veral centuries after the second Nicene Council, as¬
serted for the images of Ci.rist, &,c. placed in the
Churches, the direct worship ol Latria ; alleging
that the same acts and degrees of wor-hip, w hich
were due to the original, were also due to the image;
on the giound, that to worship the image with any
other act than that by which the original was wor¬
shipped, was to worship it on its own account, which,
is id datry. On the other hand, Ita utipsas termin-
ent venerationen, ut in se considerantur et non so¬
lum ut vicem gerunt exemplaris," the language of
Bellarmine.* places this matter in a different, but
still a very perplexing light. His object is to vindi¬
cate the Chu-ch from the reproach of worshipping
images, with the worship given to God. He assigns
them, therefore, an inferior worship which might be
all their own. The difficulty is not thus removed.
His dulia might be an inferior worship ; but if it is
worship at all, it was idolatry. There was only this
unsatisfactory way (to say the least of it) of keeping
away from the worship of images, such a construc¬
tion. The Latria could not be idolatry, because it
was the worship due to God alone. The object of
such worship given to images, (in the intention of
the worshipper) was God through the images, " per
imagines" (the very language of the Council of
Trent) and it could not therefore be idolatry.
24. But to come at once to the vindication of
Protestants in this particular. Whatever be its char¬
acter and degree, it cannot but appear to all ac¬
quainted with the religion of Roman Catholics and
its history, that they render a veneration very much
like worship, if it be not actually intended by their
Church that it should be so considered, to " the
images or pictures of the Virgin Mary, and other
Saints." They are required to give them in their
Churches, " due honour and veneration and the
religious honour due to them, is considered by some
* Bellarm. De Imag, 1. 2. c. 21.
L xii ]
of tbeir own writers, to be Latria. honor sive cuuub
soli Deo exhibendus," the worship or honour to be
given to God alone ; by others dulia, or the honour,
or worship, or service, which is paid to man by rea¬
son of some dignity, holiness, virtue or goodness : or,
as the words of Aquinas thus literally rendered, de¬
fine it, " honor, vel cultus, vel servitus quas exhibe-
tur homini, ratione alicujus dignitatis, sanctitatis,
virtutis, vel bonitatis."
25. In this adoration then, this u due honour and
veneration given to the images of the Virgin Moth¬
er of God, and the saints," in their Churches, do
Roman Catholics " violate the second of God's
commandments ?" The words of the command¬
ments are, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven
image, nor the likeness of any thing in heaven above,
or in ths earth beneath—thou shalt not bow down to
them nor worship them ;* For I the Lord thy God am
a jealous God, and visit the sins of the fathers, fyc.—
Now this second of the ten commandments, we
know that the Church of Rome, has sometimes con¬
founded with the first.t The first being a prohihi-
* At the 4th verse of the £0th chapter of Exodus, the
Douay Bible has the following note—it is worthy of atten¬
tion. " All such images or likenesses are forbidden by this
commandment as are made to be adored and served, accor¬
ding to that which immediately follows : Thou shalt not
adore them nor serve them, that is, all such as are designed
for idols or image Gods, or are worshipped with Divine
honour. But otherwise, images, pictures, or representations
even in the House of God, and in the very sanctuary, so far
from being forbidden, are expressly authorized by the word
of God. See Exodus xxv. 5. &c. chap, iii, 8.7. : Numbers
xxi. 8. 9.; Chronicles xxiii, 18.19.; 2 Chronicles iii. 10."—
The reader, it is hoped, will turn to these passages, and see
if they authorize any thing like the Roman Catholic use of
images in their Churches. Venite adoremus is the express
language of the Roman Missal: Come let us adore. Thou
shall not adore nor serve them, is the language of their trans¬
lation of Scripture. Roman Catholics willsay they are not
served ; will they say that they are not adored ? The lan¬
guage of the passage, as quoted by themselves, is, adore nor
serve ; not adore and serve.
t It is not denied that others had done so before, both in
the Jewish,and early Christian Churches. Their authority
however, was not paramount; nor was their purpose sinis¬
ter. Philo, the Jew, is said to have made the first two com
mandments one. The preface—I am the Lord thy God
i xiii ]
tion of polytheism—the second was treated as a con
tinuation of its subject, prohibiting the worshipping
of image Gods ; and as images were not worshipped
as Gods by the Church, the sense of the command¬
ment, considered as part of the first, being confined
to the one object of preserving the unity of God un-
obtruded upon, there would be no violation of its
precept, in the use of images, according to the view
which had been taken on its expediency. I will not,
however, suppose, that Roman Catholics, in com
plaining that they are accused of violating the se¬
cond commandment, mean any other commandment
than that which Protestants consider so. The
question, then, simply is, does the practice ofRorfian
Catholics violate the commandment ? Let its
terms be read again, and let the reader determine
for himself what opinion to entertain. Let him, at
the same time, advert to the import of the following
passage : " Ye shall make no idols nor graven image,
■neither rear ye up a standing image of stone in your
land, (to bow down to it) for I am the Lord your
God. (Leviticus xxvi. 1.) Also this, " Take ye
good heed to yourselves (for ye saw no manner of si¬
militude on the day that the Lord spoke to you in
Horeb,) lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a
graven image, the similitude of any figure, the like¬
ness of male or female." (Deut. iv. 15. 16.) That
all Roman Catholics intentionally violate this com-
Szc. being taken for the first; the second with the first^ were
together made the second. Athanasius did the same, as al¬
so Jerom and Hesychius, Clemens Alexandrinus and St.
Austin. On the other hand, the Chaldee Paraphrast and
Josephus, whose authority is so much more important than
that of Philo, make the two first commandments to be dis¬
tinctly— 1. Thou shalt have none other Gods but me. 2.—
Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, &c.—
They are followed by Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysos-
tom, and others. By this division, the sense of Divine pre¬
cept is, first, against all obtrusion of other or humanly con¬
stituted Gods, upon the one Jehovah ; and then, against
even the worship of him, by images, designed for a simili¬
tude of Deity—or of any thing else whatever, which the in¬
genuity, or folly, or perverseness of men might invent for
objects of religious adoration; either in subordination to
God, or in lieu of him, or as representative of him. See Bi¬
shop Taylor's Duct. Dub. l.ii. c. 2.
B
[ x»v ]
mandment, in rendering the due honour and veneru
Hon, which their Church requires, to the images
of the Virgin Mary, &c. should not be asserted.—
We should not hesitate to admit that there are a-
mong them many who are capable of the elevated
abstraction of enlightened piety, whieb saves them
from any necessity or danger of rendering in their
hearts, any honour which is due to God, to the im¬
age of his creature. But we must be permitted to
doubt whether the multitude of Roman Catholic
worshippers are not thus subjected to a temjptation
of having their spiritual conversation more on earth
thap in heaven. While, however, this may be, we
may confidently ask, is not the commandment vio¬
lated by Roman Catholics, as a body, by the fact of
their erecting images in their Churches, to which it
is obligatory to render honour and veneration ?—
And if, as a body, they conscientiously obey, in this
particular, the authority of their Church, must they
not, as a body, violate the second commandment
" without scruple ?" I see not how it can be oth¬
erwise.
26. But Protestants are further said to misrepre¬
sent the religious conduct of Roman Catholics, by
alleging that " sensible that their practice is contra¬
ry to the second commandment, they have, in sever¬
al of their Catechisms, left out the second com¬
mandment, and split the tenth into two." Now it
may be offensive to Roman Catholics, that Protes¬
tants should say they make this omission, because
they are sensible that it is called for in aid of the au¬
thority of their Church, in ordering such adorations
as they are required to pay to images ; and Protes¬
tants may possibly err, in assigning this motive for
the omission : tut as they can see no other, and
hold the fact of the omission to be indisputable,they
surely are not justly censurable, either for the asser¬
tion of the fact, or their manner, so reasonable, of
accounting for it. At a distance from libraries, to
which other readers of the Messenger may have ac¬
cess, I cannot cite the Catechisms of the Church of
Rome, or, (ooce for all) the Church of which the
See of Rome is the head and centre, in evidence of
this omission. Bishop Stillingfleet,* whom I can-
* Defence of the charge of Idolatry.
[ XV ]
not be reproved by any Protestant, at least, for con¬
sidering good and true authority, says that th e se¬
cond commandment, (I mean that so considered by
Protestants, and as it is printed in the Septuagint,
the Vulgate, and the Douay Bible, as well as our
English version, and in the French and others,) is
omitted not only in the Manuals, and short Cate¬
chisms of the Roman Church, but in an office of
the Blessed Virgin, printed at Salamanca in 1552j
and published by authority of Pius the Vth, (who
was made Saint Pius,) and also in the office for the
use of the English Catholics, at Antwerp, in 1653.—
Archbishop Seeker also says that k< the Church of
Rome has judged it the wisest way, so leave the se¬
cond commandment, which too plainly forbids the
worship of images, out of their smaller books of de¬
votion." The Archbishop must be presumed to have
been familar with the facts which he asserts. Of
the smaller books of devotion, &c. in use among the
Roman Catholics, I have only one by me. It waa
printed at Poictiers, (the date not given) by the
printer of the King and the University, cum appro¬
bation.—It is entitled, " Cura Clericalis-hoc est sa-
cramentorum, Breve Memoriale." I copy from it
the following, as to the first, second, and tenth
commandments. Q. Quid prohibet primum precep-
tum ? What doth the first commandment forbid ?—
A. Non habebis Deos alienos coram me. Thou shalt
not have strange Gods before me. Q. Quod vetat
secundum preceptum ? What doth the second com¬
mandment forbid 1 A. Non assumes nomen Dei tui
in vanum. Thou shalt not take the name of thy God
in vain. Then the other commandments being pas¬
sed over—the fourth for the third—the fifth for the
fourth, &ci the question occurs, Qwi'eZ postrema
duo precepta vetant ? What do the two last com¬
mandments forbid ? To which the answer is, Non
concupisces, &rc. Thou shalt not covet, fyc.
27. It is useless to say any thing more on this sub¬
ject of complaint. The next is, that Protestants
say, Roman Catholics exculpate themselves from the
charge of idolatry, not otherwise than as the heathens
did." The Council of Trent, it is true, will not al¬
low the heathen to have even pretended to worship
any thing above their idols. It may, on the contra-
[ XVI J
jy, be safely asserted, that there is abundant evi¬
dence that they did—and that the per imagines of
the Trentine decree, puts the matter, as to the use
of images, very much on the same footing, in the
one case as in the other. The testimony of several
of the fathers might be given to this effect. I have,
however, taken up too much of this number of your
work already, and must content myself with the per¬
suasion, that a great many besides those who have
read the Iliad or .Eneid, or even the school-boy's
Pantheon, are familiar with the fact, that the pres¬
ence of Jupiter, Juno, Apollo, Diana, and others,
at least of classic mythology, was not supposed to
be confined to the images, by which it was intended
to represent them, and before which sacrifices were
offered. Their simulacra were not the Gods them¬
selves. Even the multitude were aware of this.—
And as to the more enlightened, "'"■quistam coecus,
(says Cicero,)in contemplandis rebus, unquam fuit,
ut non videret species istas hominum collatas in De-
os, aut consilib quodam sapientum, quo facilius am¬
inos imperitorum, ad Deorum cuitum, a vitae pravi-
tate converterent : aut superstitione, ut essent si¬
mulacra quae venerantes Deos ipsos se adire erede-
rent." De. Nat, Deo. lib. i. c. 27. The following,
if not literally, is substantially the sense of the pas¬
sage : Who could ever he so blind to things as they
truly are, as not to see, that the similitude of men,
was g-iven to the Gods, either through the wise inten¬
tion of thus the more easily turning the ignorant from
their wickedness, to the worship of the Gods, or that in
their superstition they might believe, that they drew
nigh to the very Gods themselves, as they did to the
images they were adoring.
28. As the distance at which I am from you, ren¬
ders the regular transmission of what I write not
practicable, I will forward to you all I have to say,
in farther vindication of Protestants against the ac¬
cusation of Roman Catholics—and you may put it
in abstract, all at once into your pages, or any part
efit; or none at all, as may seem to you expedient.
A PROTESTANT CATHOLIC.
E Avu j
lli'rom the Gospel Messenger, for April 1829.]
NO. 3.
ROMAN CATHOLIC WORSHIP OF THE
CRUCIFIX.
And the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist ; and
Transubstantiation
29. Roman Catholics complain that Protestants
say that they "worship the Crucifix or figure of
Christ upon the cross ; which is idolatrous ; that
they adore and pray to the Cross ; which of all the
corruptions of the Roman Catholic worship, is the
most gross and intolerable ; that they worship the
Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, and by such wor¬
ship are betrayed into the grossest idolatry."*
Here, both; in the assertion of what they consider
facts, and in the expression of opinions founded on
those facts. Protestants are charged with doing in¬
justice to the religion of Roman Catholics. The
facts are " that Roman Catholics worship the Cruci¬
fix or figure of Christ, upon the Cross ; adoring and
praying to the Cross—and that they worship Bread
and Wine in the Eucharist." The opinions founded
on those facts are, that the worship of the Crucifix
or figure of Christ upon the Cross, as used by Ro¬
man Catholics, is " idolatrous"—and their adora¬
tion and prayer addressed to the Cross, is " of all
the corruptions of the Roman Catholic worship, the
most gross and intolerable and that " by the wor¬
ship of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, Roman Ca¬
tholics are betrayed into the grossest idolatry."
30. Let us first dispose of the matter of fact, in re¬
lation to which, Protestants are said so shockingly
to misrepresent the religion of Roman Catholics—
Almain, a scholastic divine, and professor of divini¬
ty of great celebrity, in the latter part of the sixteenth
century, is quoted by Bishop Taylor and others, as
saying—■" Eundem honorem deberi imagini et ex-
emplari: ac proinde imagines S. Trinitatis, Christi,
et Crucis, cultu Latria adorandas esse." The ima¬
ges of the Trinity, of Christ, and of the Cross, are to
be adored with divine worship. And to the same
purpose, is the following from the Pontifical publish-
* Items taken as before, in the order in which they are
found.
[ xviii ]
ed by the authority of Clement the VIHth. " Crux
legati quia debetur ei Latria, erit a Dextris." The
Legate's Cross must be on the right hand, because
Latria or divine honour is due to it. And Aquinas
says, '* that in which we place thehope of our salva¬
tion, to that we exhibit the worship o £ Latria, or di¬
vine worship : but in the Cross we place the hope
of our salvation, for so the Church says—
O Crux, ave, spes Unica,
Hoc passionis tempore ;
Auge piis justitiam,
Reisque dona veniam."
31.These authorities may in some measure make it
appear, that, of course, the crucifix must be wor¬
shipped by Roman Catholics. But do their offices
of worship show any such fact 1 The Roman Mis¬
sal, at the form of solemn service appointed for Good
Friday, has the following rubric : Postea, Sacerdos
solus portat crucem ad Locum ante altare prgepara-
tum, et genuflexus ibidem earn local,: mox deposi¬
ts calceamentis, accedit ad adorandum crucem, ter
genua flectens, antequam earn deosculetur. Hoc
facto revertitur, et accipit calceamenta, et casulam.
Postmodum ministri altaris, deinde alii Clerici et
Laici, bini et bini, tergenibus flexis, ui dictum est,
Crucem adorant." Of this Rubric I do not find any
exact translation in the American English version
of the Missal to which I have refered in a previous
number. There is, however, the following : " The
Priest takes down the Cross, and uncovering the top
of it, says, Ant. Behold the wood of the Cross, on
which hung the salvation of the world.
" Then the Clergy, and all the people on their
bended knees, answer :
ft. Come let us venerate.* Venite Adoremus.
" This Ant. and R. being repeated twice more,
* " The intention of the Church in exposing the Cross to
our veneration on this day, is, that we might the more effec¬
tually raise up our hearts to him, who expired thereon for
our redemption. Whenever, therefore, we kneel or pros¬
trate ourselves, before a Crucifix, it is Jesus Christ whom we
adore, and in whom alone our respects terminate." This
note seems to have been suggested by the obvious apprehen¬
sion, that the people thus called upon to venerate, would
naturally understand the call, to mean, come let us worship.
[ xix ]
till the whole cross is uncovered, the Priest lays it
down in a proper place, and all kneeling thrice on
both knees, reverently approach to, and devoutly
kiss the feet of the Crucifix." Missal, pp. 228—9.
Again, p. 231, we find an Anthem beginning thus :
" We adore thy Cross, O Lord," &c. and then, a
Hymn in English, thus:
" O faithful Cross—O noblest Tree,
In all our woods there's none like thee," &c.
32. In the Laity's Directory also, p. 53, we find
the following expression, amidst instructions relat¬
ing to the celebration of Good Friday—" And after
the adoration of the Cross, that is to say, of Jesus
crucified," &-c. Thus, then, it is plain that adora¬
tion is given to the Crucifix—as implying (Roman
Catholics say,) the adoration of Jesus crucified, pre¬
sent to the mind of the worshipper language of
adoration being, however, directly addressed to the
image itself. In reference to this, the opinion which
Protestants have been found to express, is, that it is
idolatrous. It is painful to entertain such an opin¬
ion, and Protestants, it is presumed, entertain it
with the persuasion, that while the error of idolatry
cannot but in point of fact attach to the scene which
in this feature of it, the worship of still so numerous a
part of the Holy Catholic Church, constitutes, there
are very many, who even when on their knees they
adore the Crucifix, are in their hearts, rendering their
homage to Christ, at the same time that they bow
themselves down to the stock of a tree. It cannot rea¬
sonably offend Roman Catholics, however, if Pro¬
testants still cannot but believe that they worship and
pray to the Crucifix or figure of Christ upon the Cross:
and that such worship and prayer are idolatrous,"—r
A3 to the opinion that this worship of the Crucifix,
is of all the corruptions of the Roman Catholic wor¬
ship the most gross and abominable, by some, it
may honestly, although erroneously be held—and it
is scarcely worth disputing. The amount of the
matter is no more than this : Some Protestants in¬
nocently and perhaps ignorantly think some particu¬
lars of the worship of Roman Catholics, more incon¬
sistent with Scripture, primitive Christianity and
reason, than others. I sincerely wish I could thirjk
that none of them were at all so.
I XXII J
Roman Cotholics say that this interpretation will
not answer, and that Christ meant his disciples to
believe, that the Bread which he had in his hand
was his body literally—for it was so then as well as
now, if the words admit now of no other than the li¬
teral interpretation—that is, Christ required his dis¬
ciples to believe against the testimony of their sens¬
es, that the Bread in his hand was not Bread. Now
did he, we may ask, on ony other occasion, require
them to believe him against the evidence of their
senses ? When he says I am the door, I am the
good shepherd, I am the vine. &c. did he require
them to believe him to be actually a door, or a shep¬
herd, or a vine 1* And did he not, on the other
hand, continually require them to judge by the evi¬
dence of their own senses, as to the works he
wrought and the miraculous interposition of heaven
otherwise, whether he were not the Messiah, the
Son of God.
34. The evidence of Scripture, however, is by
learned and candid Roman Catholicsf themselves,
admitted insufficient for the faith which the doctrine
of Transubstantiation implies, if the Church does
not make this literal interpretation the true one ;
and the only one to be received. I really see not
how the interpretation of the Church, can make the
matter plainer. To the Church we reverently sub¬
mit our judgment, as to that on which it is its pro¬
vince to decide, and of which it is more competent
to judge than we are. But the church is not better
authority than my own ears, for what I hear, or
than my own eyes, for what I see ; therefore the
Bread is still Bread to my senses, when the Church
* Some things are spoken of Christ literally, othersJigura-
tively< Thus, when he is called Bread, a Lamb, or a Lion,
the language is emblematical, for he is no one of these
things. Upon this principle the Eucharistic elements are
naturally corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine, but God
might render them spiritually though not naturally,the body
and blood of Christ See Elfric's Pastoral Homily, as preser¬
ved in Foxe and in Collier's Ecclesiastical History. It was
late in the 10th century that such sentiments were uttered
in the High places of the Church. Elfric gives the sense of
the Church in England, as it then was. It differs considera¬
bly from Roman Catholic Transubstantiation.
t Bellurm. de Sac. Euch, lib. 3. c. 23.
[ xxiii. ]
lias decreed that the words of Christ mean that it is
not But can it be shown that from the Apostles'
time, the literal was the received and authorized
sense of our Saviour's words, this is my body—this
is my blood ? It is confidently asserted that it can¬
not. Protestant writers have again and again abun¬
dantly shown from the writings of the early fathers,
that they held the doctrine of the Eucharist without
that of the real bodily presence ;* and it may be
seen as matter of variously attested historical fact,
that it was not until the close of the 8th century,
that the real bodily presence of Christ was asserted
—nor until the 13th that the manner of the
change in the Eucharist was accounted an article of
faith : when Innocent III. in the Council of Late¬
ral!, established Transubstantiation, both as to the
doctrine, and the word.f
35. Returning, then, to the complaint against
Protestants, I see not now how they can be censur¬
ed, either for saying that Roman Catholics worship
Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, or for entertain¬
ing the opinion that in such worship they are betrayed
into idolatry. That Latria is due to the consecrated
elements, is the established faith of the Roman Ca¬
tholic Church. According to the decree passed on
this subject, in the thirteenth session of the Council
of Trent, Latria or divine worship is not denied to
be rendered to them. Unless, then, (hose elements
can be made to appear to Protestants, Christ himself >
" truly, really, and substantially, body and blood, soul
and divinity"^—and not mere Bread and Wine, as
they see them to be, how can it appear to them, to
be any thing less than gross idolatry, to render them
* See particularly Tillotson's Sermon onTransubstantion,
and Stillingfleet's rational account of the grounds of Pro¬
testant Religion ; and BisbopWhite's able and learned Dis¬
sertation on Transubstantiation, annexed to his Lectures on
the Catechism.
+ See in addition to the various authors generally fami¬
liar, an Historical account of Transubstantiation, in the
third volume of Soames excellent History of the Reforma¬
tion. The very learned Dr. Wharton also has conclusive¬
ly and unanswerably shown that this doctrine was not the
established faith of the Church of Rome until the 12th cen¬
tury. Reply lo Archbishop Carroll, pp. 44. and seq.
£ Creed ofPius IVth.
£ xxiv ]
such worship ? It has been affected to show, that
the transubstantiation of Bread and Wine, into the
body and blood of Christ, may be believed on the
saipe principle as that on which we rest our faith in
the Holy Trinity and other mysterious doctrines of
Christianity. The answer is^obvious. These doc¬
trines relate to the invisible and incomprehensible
nature of operations of Deity. No man hath seen
God at any time, and as the windbloweth where it lis-
teth, and we hear the sound thereof j but cannot tell
whence it cometh or whither it goeth—so is every one
that is born of the spirit. The Eucharis tic elements
are matter of sensible observation and act. We
know them not to be God, because we see that they
are Bread and Wine, and " if we cannot be certain
of what we see, [says Tillotson,) we can be certain
of nothing."
36 Much paper might be filled with the evidence
and argument by which Protestants justify ihem-
selves in rejecting the doctrine of Transubstantia¬
tion—as much has been by Roman Catholies to
show that they ought not to consider Roman Catho¬
lics betrayed by it into idolatry—but I cannot con¬
ceive it to be necessary, and will trouble you with
nothing further on the subject
37. Roman Catholics in repelling the imputation
of error in their sentiments and conduct, in relation
to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, have thought
it not amiss to reproach the Protestant Episcopali¬
ans of England and America, with using in their
Liturgy respecting the same Sacrament, language
which is " unintelligible.^ As my object is not so
much to show that Protestants are faultlessly right
in their doctrines and phrases, as that they are not
so shockingly wrong as they have been said to be
in their representation of the religion of Roman Ca¬
tholics, I shall leave the very sufficient answer
which this reproach admits, to any to whom it may
appear necessary to give it. Bossuet himself may
be found on examination to admit that the term
spiritually applied to the Eucharistie eating and
drinking, is not absolutely to be rejected.
A PROTESTANT CATHOLIC,
[ XXV ]
[From, the Gospel Messenger, for May 1829.1
NO. 4.
PURGATORY, PENANCE, INDULGENCES,
FASTING AND MASSES FOR THE DEAD.
38. Roman Catholics complain that Protestants
say of them, " that they suppose that every sinner,
by way of satisfaction to God for his sins, must suf¬
fer some temporal punishment, both in this world by
Penance, and the next by Purgatory, even though he
has sincerely repented and forsaken his sins, and re¬
ceived absolution ; and that they found the doc¬
trine of Penance upon this supposition." They fur¬
ther accuse Protestants of misrepresentation, in say¬
ing that the Church of Rome " teaches that the de¬
parted souls of the faithful, in order to be cleansed
of their sins, before they can enter into heaven,
must suffer in a place which they call Purgatory ;
and that the suffering in Purgatory is by the torment
of fire."
39. It is alleged, also, as an untrue account of
things in the Roman Cotholic Church, to say, as
Protestants have said, in some of their publications,
and especially in a catechism which I find prefixed
to the little work, from which I have taken the par¬
ticulars of alleged misrepresentation, " that the cor¬
rection of the sinner, and the admonition of others,
although the true end of Penance, is not answered
by the practice of the Church of Rome ; that by
the practice of Roman Catholics, the sinner is allow¬
ed to get another person to do the Penance for him;
that the Pope grants indulgences, whereby he some¬
times remits all Penances of such sins as shall be
committed for a great number of years to come ;
that the Pope grants indulgences, whereby he some¬
times remits all Penances of such sins as shall be
committed during a man's whole life ; that those in¬
dulgences ajre considered by many Roman Catholics
as licences to commit sin; that the public sale of
these licenses (as some Catholics consider them)
to commit sin, is practiced by the authority of the
Roman Catholic Church, or of the Pope ; that the
practice of observing days of abstinence, as the Ro¬
man Catholics do, hath in fact destroyed the moral
use of fasting ; that Roman Catholics teach that
c
[ xxvi J
luxury and drunkeness are consistent with fasting
provided particular meats be abstained from ; ant*
that according to the teaching of the Church of
Rome, the prayers of the Church, by which souls in
Purgatory may be delivered, may be lawfully sold
for money."
40. Misrepresentation, here, on the part of Pro¬
testants, consists, I presume, in the sense of the E-O-
man Catholics who bring the charge of it against
them, in stating that to be the doctrine of their
Church, which is in fact not its doctrine ; and that
to, be its legalized practice, which either is not
known to them as part of the system of their institu¬
tions, or is known to them only as it can be to Pro¬
testants, as abuse and perversion, and abomination.
To the first class of these inaccuracies in statement,
by which such injustice is said to be done to the reli¬
gion of Roman Cotholics, belongs the assertion,
that " they suppose that every sinner, by nay of sat¬
isfaction to God, for his sins, must suffer some tempo¬
ral punishment, both in this world by Penance, arid in
the next by Purgatory i although he has sincerely re¬
pented and forsaken his sins, and received absolution;
and that they found their doctrine of .Penance upon
this supposition." The history of the Roman Catho¬
lic doctrine of Penance, and the particular examina¬
tion of its grounds and principles, may be waived, as
that, which our present business does not require.—
An answer to the charge of misrepresentation, which
is all that it does require, may be very briefly given.
41. Protestants find, from the highest authority
of the Roman Catholic Church, with respect to its
doctrines, (the Council of Trent) that " contrition,
confession, and satisfaction, are equally parts of the
Sacrament of Penanfte, and together make the mat¬
ter of itthat" the thing signified by it, and which
is the effect of it, is reconciliation with God." The
express language of the second decree of the thir¬
teenth session of the Council of Trent, is precisely of
this tenor. It exhibits confession and satisfaction
as inseparable allied, in order to that end or effect
of Penance, which is reconciliation with God; and
as to satisfaction, the same decree declares, in ano¬
ther clause of it, " that sin being pardoned by God,
the punishment is not altogether remitted ; it being
[ xxvii ]
not consistent with divine justice, that they who sin af¬
ter Baptism, should so easily and so soon be received
to grace, as those who through ignorance, sinned be¬
fore Baptism." De satisfactione dcnique synodum
declarare, culpa a Deo remissa, non etiam pcenam
universam condonari ; neque consentaneum esse di-
divince justifies ut in gratiam tam facile ac cito reci-
piantur, qui, post Baptismum, peccaverunt, $-c. Thus
we are shown, that although the confession of sin is
made, and on the presumption of the sufficiency of
the contrition of the offender, with God, he is pro¬
nounced by the Priest to be pardoned, with the
Ego te absolvo, &c. yet the temporal penalty inflict¬
ed by the Church, as the satisfaction which is an es¬
sential part of the Sacrament of Penance, remaine
to be undergone. It matters not how light this pe¬
nalty be; if it be at all indispensably (unless an in¬
dulgence be interposed) to be undergone, Protes¬
tants are justified in saying that Roman Catholics
suppose that every sinner, by way of satisfaction to
God for his sins, must undergo some temporal pun¬
ishment. Reconciliation to God, we have seen, is
the end of the Sacrament of Penance ; and some
temporal punishment, under the name of satisfaction,
is inseparable from that Sacrament. Whether, then,
Roman Catholics found the doctrine of Penance upon
the supposed necessity of some temporal punishment,
necessary in all cases to be undergone or not, yet it is
apparent that the temporal punishment, or penance,
must ire all coses be inflicted ; and that, even although
on the presumption of the sincerity of repentance
by the sinner, of the sin or sins confessed, his abso¬
lution has been pronounced. But it is equally truie'
that Roman Catholics consider some temporal pun¬
ishment to await the sinner in Purgatory, by way of
satisfaction to God for his sins. Protestants may,
perhaps, err in saying that every sinner in order to
make satisfaction to God for his sins, must suffer some
temporal .punishment in Purgatory. Sinners only,
whose offences are venial, may, perhaps, by the Ro¬
manist doctrine of Purgatory, be doomed to its tor¬
ments ; while those, whose sins are mortal, may be
thoroughly absolved and pardoned before they die.—
As to the doctrine itself, of a Purgatory, where the
Buffering endured is by fire, we learn from the creed
[ xxviii ]
of Pius lVth, already several times referred to,that it
is an essential item of the system of Roman Catholic
doctrine. " I constantly hold that there is a Purga¬
tory," (is the language of the article in Mr. Butler's
translation) " and that the souls detained therein,
are helped by the suffrages of the faithful." The
most authentic catechism, also, of the Roman Ca¬
tholic Church, published under the sanction of the
Pope, for the instruction of Parish Priests, as to
that which they were to teach, has a passage, which,
correctly rendered, is as follows : " There is a Pur¬
gatory ; that is to say, a Purgatory fire, by which
the souls of the pious, being for a determinate time
tormented, are expiated and purged, that an entrance
into their eternal kingdom, may be opened to
them."
42. The defence of Protestants against the accu¬
sation of misrepresenting the Roman Catholic
Church, as to its doctrines of Penance and Purga¬
tory, may thus briefly be disposed of. In relation to
the practical perversion and corruption, which are
alleged by Protestants to exist among Roman Ca¬
tholics, in connexion with such doctrines, and of
which respectable men among them indignantly dis¬
claim the imputation, in behalf of their Church and
its authorized teaching, candour does not demand
of us more than the concession, that such things
are, indeed, unknown to many Catholics, and as
hateful to many among them, to whom they are
known, as they can be to Protestants. Under all
institutions, human and divine, men will pervert or
misconceive their duty and their privileges ; and
crime and vice claim for their protection from the
consequences they merit, the very principles and
laws which are for their prevention and punishment,
in all religious communities there ever have been,
and there ever will be, some, through wickedness,
playing the hypocrite ; and through hypocrisy the
knave ; and others, through hypocrisy apd ignore
ance together, at once both knave anthfooll • Un¬
der Roman Catholic institutions, much of the abom¬
inable abuses which have abounded, will fairly admit
of being thus explained. Candour can neither re¬
quire the Protestants to concede more, nor permit
the Roman Catholic to demand more to be cpnced-
[ xxix 1
ed than this. That many of those abuses have exis¬
ted and do exist, under the alleged warrant of the
Church's teaching, and the Pope's permitting, will
scarcely be disputed by any who have had opportu¬
nity to know the fact. The fact, indeed, to the ob¬
servation of any who have visited Roman Catholic
countries, (and there are Protestants who have done
so as well as others,) speaks indisputably for itself.—
That they exist every where among Roman Catho¬
lics, Protestants do not pretend. That many virtu¬
ous and enlightened Roman Catholics, especially in
England and the United States, indignantly refuse to
recognize in them any thing belonging to the systenf
of their institutions, we are well enough aware :
and we know that pious, faithful, pure and learned
ministers of the altar of the mass, may every where
now be found, as in other periods they have been,
deploring the fact of such abuses, and heartily de¬
precating the evil and the shame of them. In Pro¬
testant countries, it is particularly natural that Pope¬
ry, or Catholicity, if the term be preferred, should
derive no trivial modification of its character, from
the moral and civil state of things about it. "Po¬
pery," (said a respectable individual, whose speech
at a public meeting was given in the Dublin Even¬
ing Mail, two years ago) " is little understood in
England." It is certainly very little understood in
America. We know it yet by another and less of¬
fensive and revolting aspect than that which it wears
in countries where it is either the prevailing or estab¬
lished system. In those countries the corruptions and
superstitions, the Priestcraft and holy immorality,
with which the circumstances in which it finds itself
in others, will not permit it to appear, are still known
to exist, without at least the exertion of any con¬
ventional authority to suppress and remove them.—
When Protestants, therefore, speak in general terms
of the teaching and practices of Roman Catholics,
of which the good, and the upright and the pious, or
the merely politic among them, chuse not to admit
the reproach, however it might become these to dis¬
claim for themselves and their friends and associates,
the following of such teaching, and the recognition
of such practices, as any part of that which their
sense of the obligations which the Church imposes,
[ XXX ]
will permit them to do, yet it is as vain as disingenu¬
ous to say that such things are not the-reproach of
Roman Catholicism, and may not, any where, be
permitted by the ministry of the Roman Catholic
Church, without punishable offence against provi¬
sions of its established discipline, and the dogmas*
of its infallible authority.
43. Recurring, then, to the particulars of misre¬
presentation complained of by Roman Catholics,
which are stated in the beginning of this paper, it is
not our intention to admit that there is here any
thing asserted, which is not true of Roman Catho¬
des, and of their doctrine and practice. We say
not of their doctrine and practice as they are requir¬
ed by the highest authority of their Church to be
taught and inculcated, nor as they, every where,
are taught and inculcated ; but as they are known
and observed to be, in some portions of the Roman
Catholic communion ; and as they admit of being
given to prevail any where within its limits. Who
will pretend to say, that the end of Roman Catholic
penance, which is " the correction of the sinner and
the admonition of others," is answered by confession
to the Priest, and the prayers, alms and fasting
which he sets and imposes as the adequate satisfac-
" * A great delusion has long been and is now hanging
over the minds of men, respecting the character of the church
of Rome, and her adherents. It becomes important to re¬
mind them, that this is not to be sought in the declarations
of individuals of that communion, however respectable,
which are worth nothing, absolutely nothing. The subjects
of the Papacy have taken the utmost possible pains to dis¬
qualify themselves from having any opinion, or being able to
give any exposition on the subject of their religion, which
shall be independently and personally their own.—The Ro¬
man, beyond .any other professedly Christian sect, is bounfl
to its peculiar faith and discipline, by original engagements
the most sacret, the most precise, the most exterided, the
most vigorous : and it is there that we are to look for its
true and genuine character. No greater mercy of the kind
was ever vouchsafed to the Christian world by a compas¬
sionate Providence, than the Council of Trent. However
cautious the managers of it, they were obliged by many mo¬
tives to speak out and declare themselves in canons, decrees,
anathemas, and above all in a creed, which can none of them
be recalled or. cancelled."—Mendhani's Account of the Index¬
es, kc. of the Church of Rome. p. 6.
[ , xxxi ]
tion of the confessing sinner t* Or what candid and
well-informed Roman Catholic will assert, that in
Roman Catholic countries, it is never permitted to
the sinner to " get another to do the satisfaction for
him, which the discipline of the Church had requir¬
ed ?" On the subject of indulgences, it is indis¬
creet in Roman Catholics to say much. It is too
plain, and universally known an instance of the cor¬
ruption of the Church, which even the Council of
Trent, left very imperfectly remedied. " The
Court of Rome became, (says an historian whose
authority is here, at least, indisputable,] the gener¬
al magazine of indulgences : and the Pontiffs, when,,
either the wants of the Church, the emptiness of their
coffers, or the demon of avarice, prompted them t(j
look out for new subsidies, published, not only a
universal, but also a complete, or what they called a
plenary remission of all the temporal pains and pe¬
nalties, which the Church had annexed to certain
transgressions. They went still further, and not
only remitted the Penalties which the civil and ec¬
clesiastical laws had enacted against transgressors,
but audaciously usurped the authority which belongs
to God alone, and impiously pretended to abolish
even the punishments which are reserved in a future
state for the workers of iniquity." " The Pontiffs
first employed this pretended prerogative in promo¬
ting the holy water, and shed abroad their indulgen¬
ces, though with a certain degree of moderation, in
order to encourage the European Princes to form
pew expeditions for the conquest of Palestine ; but,
in process of time, the charm of indulgences was
practised upon various occasions of much less con¬
sequence, and merely with a view to filthy lucre."—
Such proceedings stood much in need of a plausi¬
ble defence, but this was impossible. To justify,
therefore, these scandalous measures of the Pontiffs,
a most monstrous and absurd doctrine was invented,
* " The uses of conscience were at an end, [says Southey,
speaking of the institution of Auricular Confession) when it
was delivered into the keeping of a Confessor." " The inevi¬
table effect was that the fear of human laws became the on¬
ly restraint upon evil propensities, when men were taught
to believe that the account with divine justice, might easily
be settled."—Book of the Church, chap. 10,
J* xxxii , ]
which contained among others, the following enor¬
mities : that there actually existed an immense trea¬
sure of merit, composed of the pious deeds, and vir¬
tuous actions, which the Saints had performed, be¬
yond what was necessary for their own salvation ;
and which were, therefore, applicable to the benefit
of others ; that the guardian and dispenser of this
precious treasure was the Roman Pontiff; and
that of consequence he was empowered to assign to
such as thought proper, a portion of this inexhausti¬
ble source of merit, suitable to their respective guilt,
and sufficient to deliver them from the punishment
due to their critics. It is a most deplorable mark
of the power of superstition, that a doctrine, so ab¬
surd in its nature, and so pernicious in its effects,
should yet be retained and defended in the Church
of Rome."* This, however, is but a Protestant
representation. Perhaps they who, for that reason,
would affect to discredit it, would listen to that of
the amiable and ingenuous Fleury. " The multitude
of indulgences," says he, " and the facility of grant¬
ing them, became a great obstacle to the zeal of the
more judicious confessors. Hard was the task to
persuade a sinner to fasting, and to other discipline,
jvho could buy it off, by a few alms, or by paying a
visit to a Church. For the Bishops of the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries, granted indulgences for all
sorts of pious works." " Give me leave to propose
to you a parallel instance. A Prince, by a false cle¬
mency, offers to all criminals some easy method to
avoid punishment ; as moderate fines ; a formal ap¬
pearance at his paiace ; a petition for pardon ; or if
the crimes have been very heinous, an obligation
laid upon the offender to list himself for a soldier,
and to serve for some years in the army. What
think you of this 1 Would his kingdom be wel
governed? Would innocence of manners, and in¬
tegrity in commerce flourish there ? Would the
high-ways be safe for travellers, and the public tran¬
quillity maintained ? Would not vice of every kind,*
and an unbounded licentiousness prevail, together
with all the fatal consequences of such impropriety ?
? Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. 3d vol, 8vo, 12th Cent.
f xxxiii 1
The application is obvious."* " To tmng it [the
Croisade] into execution, (says the same author, in
his discourse on that wonderful enterprise of avarice
and superstition, folly and fanaticism together,) and
to put the people in motion, the grand resort was a
plenary indulgence, which was, then, first introduc¬
ed. The Church in all times had left a discretion¬
ary power to the Bishops,to remit part of the Canoni¬
cal Penance, according to the fervour ot the peni¬
tent, or to other circumstances ; but till now it had
never been seen, that in favour of one single work,
the sinner was discharged from all temporary pun¬
ishments which were due to divine justice." " For
more than two hundred years, the Bishops had found
it very difficult to make sinners submit to the Ca¬
nonical Penances, which, indeed, had been rendered
impracticable, by multiplying them according to the"'
number of transgressions ; whence came the inven¬
tion of commutations, and of buying off ike Penances
of many years in a few days." The age, however,
it may be said, to which these representations are
applicable, has long since passed away ; and none
of its absurdities, errors and corruptions, remain, to
deform and disgrace Christianity. So, indeed, it
may be pretended ; and so we should devoutly wish
it were. But the fact is unhappily otherwise. By
what authority adequate to a matter of so great im¬
portance, has the so corrupt doctrine and use of in¬
dulgences, been done away ? The Council of Trent
was summoned much for the sake of evils which the
copious source had produced.! But the Council of
Trent enacted nothing on the subject, which could,
wear the character to any mind, of a serious design
to remove this corruption from the Church ; and,
notwithstanding some faint and feeble general deter¬
mination]; of the duty of Bishops in relation to indul-
* Fourth Discourse on Eccl. History,
t Nothing need be said of this subject in its relation to the
Reformation in Germany. It is sufficiently known to all.—
The curious reader may, however, be referred to a collection
of indulgences in Roman Catholic English offices, given by
Burnet in his collection of records, appended to the History
of the Reformation.
jf. The variety and confusion of opinions among leading
theologians of the Roman Catholic Church, on the subject
[ xxtfiv ]
gences found among the proceedings of its last ses¬
sion, and an inhibition of the corrupt gain which
had been made from them, couched in terms which
could not but be variously construed, according to
the discretion and integrity of individuals, the evil of
their dispensation, with reference more to the bene¬
fit of earthly treasures, than of immortal souls, more
to magnify the power of the Church, to promote the
interest, soothe the fears, humour and confirm the
superstition, or win the favour of men, than to pro¬
mote the honour of God, and fulfil the purposes of
his peace and mercy towards the violators of his law,
continues to be the merited reproach of Romanism.
Will any pretend to question this ? Or can it be un¬
known to any, claiming a right to question it, that
indulgences are still to be had in the Roman Catholic
Church, under the authority and at the discretion in
general of the Pope, for money applicable to the
uses of the Church ? But I am trespassing too far
upon your pages, and must bring your paper to a
t close.
44. In relation to the Roman Catholic Purgatory
and prayers for the dead in Purgatory, as well as in¬
dulgences, I quote from a very respectable author,
of our own times, the following statement, the truth
of which there can be no reason whatever to ques¬
tion. " That I may not be thought to slander the
Church of Rome, I place before my reader a copy of
a notice, which I saw publicly affixed to a pillar in a
Church in the Campo Vaccina at Rome, for the infor¬
mation of its different frequenters. Being struck
.with such a public notice, I took it down on the
spot, and in a free translation, it runs thus : " An
easy method of providing prayers for the soul when
alive, without waiting till after death. Whoever will
be enrolled in the number of benefactors to this
Church, and would receive the prayers of the mas¬
ses, &c. must address himself to the Priest of the
Church for the proper form, &c. Whosoever will
give the benefaction of one giulio every month, dur-
of indulgences, would admit of nothing being determined
about them,but that they should be continued, and that cor¬
rupt traffic in them should be abolished; no definite pro¬
vision being, however, made for the reform in this part
of the Church's discipline, which was seen to be so seriously
required.
[ XXXV ]
ing his life, shall receive the prayers of eighty low-
Masses, and two Cantatas. Whoever will give yn
grosso a month, shall receive the prayers of forty
Masses and pne Cantata/ The reader is then given
to understand,' that whoever shall have omitted to
have done this, supposing he shall be arrived at the
age of sixty, he may purchase the whole benefit of
the Masses at once, upon the following terms.—
' Ten scudi for eighty low Masses, and two Canta¬
tas. Moreover, those who are.enrolledj shall be
partakers of the Masses and Cantatas, which are
each year celebrated in every day of the Octave of
the death in common, for the benefactors who shall
have departed this life. JCet every one, therefore,
think of his soul, while he is yet alive, without wait¬
ing in the flames of Purgatory, the discretion of ano¬
ther , whilst he is crying out: Have mercy on me !
have mercy on me! at least you my friends, since
my own relations have forgotten me.'
45. "It is the usage of the Church of Rome,that the
host, or consecrated wafer, should be in actual ex¬
hibition in one Church or another. There is, there¬
fore, for the information of the public, a rotation
list published every six months, of the Churches,
with the date of the month and days when the host
is to be exhibited for forty-eight hours, which is
thence called the Service of Quarante Ore. On
this occasion the Church in question is richly de-
*coi ated, and the altar most splendidly illuminated ;
whilst in some conspicuous part of the Church, the
following information is put for the satisfaction of
all who may think fit to attend the ceremony.—
i Whosoever shall visit each (or anyone) of the a-
bove named Churches, during the service of the
Quarante Ore, and shall stay there so long as die
may find it convenient, or of advantage, \md having
confessed and communicated, he shall acquire a ple¬
nary indulgence, and his professed confession being
confirmed, he shall acquire ten years, and moreover
forty indulgences for each time : as appears in the
Breviary, put forth by Paul Vth, May 10, 1606.' "*
46. It is not questioned, that indulgences are giv¬
en where the Pope may deem it suitable that they
* Daubeny's Protestant Companion Lond. 1824. chap. 6.
[ xxxvi ]
should be, in free exercise of, sovereign clemency
and goodness. The following is an instance.—
Pius Yllth, by divine Providence, Pope, grants
unto each, and every one of the faithful of Christ,
who after assisting, at least eight times at the holy
exercise of the mission, (in the new Cathedral of
Cork) shall confess his or her sins, with true con¬
trition, and approach the Holy Communion; shall
devoutly visit the said Cathedral Chapel, and there
offer up to God, for some space of time, pious and
fervent prayers for the propagation of the Holy Ca¬
tholic faith, and to the intention of our holy father,
a plenary indulgence applicable to the souls in Purga¬
tory, by way of suffrage, and this in the form of a Ju¬
bilee." See Fletcher's Lectures on the Roman
Catholic Religion, p. 390.
47. With respect, now, to the alleged misrepre¬
sentation by Protestants of the religion of Roman
Catholics, in relation to Penance and its effects, I
will only ask, if it is credible in itself, or at all pro¬
bable in point of fact, that the moral use of its satis¬
faction^ of which sort soever, should be .generally
answered ; whether by the teaching and practice of
Roman Catholics, as they are known under some
circumstances of their Church to obtain, and as they
may, if the character of the ministry permit, any
where obtain, indulgences, by which the confessing
penitent may buy himself off from the necessity of
that which is imposed to satisfy the divine Justice,
or be gratuitously discharged from it, must not indi¬
rectly operate as licenses to commit sin, and yield
without restraint to the temptations of immorality
and vice ? We should charge upon the religion of
Roman Catholics nothing of error, or of evil, which
is not legitimately its own ; nor set down aught
against it in prejudice or malice. The discipline of
all Churches is more or less deficient in its provi¬
sions, liable to evasion or abuse, inapplicable to the
deeply seated disease of human sinfulness, and of
less practical efficiency than is desired. Let not
Protestants, however, be reproached with wilful
misrepresentation, when they point out to each oth¬
er the faults of that of the Roman Catholic Church,
as especially, and conspicuously, and scandalously
great.
A PROTESTANT CATHOLIC.
[ xxx vii ]
[frrom the Gospel Messenger for June 1829.]
NO. 5.
AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE POPE
AND THE CHURCH—SCRIPTURE, TRA
DITION, AND THE PERSECUTION OF
HERETICS.
48. Grievous misrepresentation is charged upon
Protestants, as to that which Roman Catholics
teach and practice, in relation to the subjects which
are named at the head of this number. The speci¬
fications under which the accusation shall be taken
up, and as briefly as possible disposed of, are the
following. " That Roman Catholics acknowledge
the Pope to be supreme head of the Church : that
the Pope claims to be supreme head of the Church
on the pretence that he is successor to St. Peter,
whom Roman Catholics assert to have been Bishop
of Rome : that Roman Catholics do not allow the
Scriptures to be the entire rule of faith, except as
explained by their unwritten traditions and the au¬
thority of the Church : that Roman Catholics teach
that besides the Scriptures, they are bound to be¬
lieve as the rule of faith, and as a rule of practice,
whatever the Church of Rome directs : that the Ro¬
man Catholic Church does not allow the free use of
the Scriptures to the people': that the pretence un¬
der which the scriptures are withheld is the incom¬
petency of the people to understand them : that the
effect is, that the Roman Catholic people do not dis¬
cover how contrary their religion is to the word of
God : that the object of the Roman Catholic Church
is, to keep the people in this state of ignorance :
that Popes have maintained the position, that faith
is not to be kept with heretics : that the Pope can
absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance to Pro¬
testant Princes : and that the Roman Catholic reli¬
gion countenances and commands persecution, mas¬
sacre and murder."
49. Proceeding, then, to remark on these topics of
complaint, in the order in which they are placed, I
admit that Protestants have been found at fault, at
least as to the first 'ofthem ; for Roman Catholics
do not " acknowledge the Pope to be supreme head
D
[ xxxviii ]
of the Churchthey hold Jesus Christ to be su¬
preme head of the Church, and the Pope only to be
supreme head of it on earth Great sagacity and
dignity are shown in exposing this misrepresentation!
and there is an admirably sensitive and conscientious
regard for truth, in not permitting so defective a
statement to be considered in any other light than
that of wilful, wicked misrepresentation ! As to
the claim of the Pope to be supreme head of the
Church, on the pretence that he is the successor of
St. Peter, Protestants again shamefully misrepresent
matters, in not stating, in any account they have giv¬
en of this thing, that it is the supreme head of the
Church on earth otily, that the Pope claims to be,
by virtue of his being the successor to St. Peter 1 !—
That he is, as the successor of St. Peter, the su¬
preme head of the Church on earth, Roman Catho¬
lics are always ready and willing to show, not as
that which has only pretence to rest upon, but the
broad and solid basis of sacred truth, and divine au¬
thority.* I will say but little on what Protestants
consider the mistake of the Roman Catholics on
this point, although " the one point, according to
Bellarmine,t upon which the very sum and sub¬
stance of Christianity depends."
50. It cannot be shown that Christ created Peter
the Prince of the Apostles, and as such, the supreme
head and sovereign upon earth of his Church. The
passages quoted from the Evangelists, as containing
his words to such an effect, show no such thing.—
" Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my
Church."^ Whatever be the import of this declara¬
tion, with which St. Peter was honoured by our
Lord, when he had boldly and explicitly confessed
him, we can find no difficulty in understanding the
* It is a fundamental article of the Roman Catholic
faith, that the Pope, or Bishop of Rome, as successor to St.
Peter, Prince of the Apostles, in that See, enjoys by divine
right, a spiritual and celestial primacy, not only of honour
and rank, but of real jurisdiction and authority, in the uni¬
versal Church."—A Pastoral Instruction, addressed to the
Roman Catholics of the Archdiocess of Dublin, Bv J, T.
Troy, D, D.
t Proof. De Rom.'Pontif.
t Matthew, 16,18, 19, 20,
"[ xxxix ]
language of an Apostle, who, we must presume, not
meaning to contradict his master, said, to the Ephe-
sians who fiad embraced Christianity, " Ye are built
upon the foundation of the Apostles."* '• I will
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven :
and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth, shall be
bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose
on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This surely
needs not be understood as conveying a sovereign
distinction to St. Peter, or as addressed to him any
otherwise than as one of the twelve, when we find,
that Christ, subsequently, in imparting the power
which he thus signified beforehand his intention to
bestow, said to them all alike, and equally, " Who¬
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them, and
whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained and
before his final interview with them, as recorded in
the 12th chapter of St. Matthew, " Verily I say un¬
to you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be
bound in heaven : and whatsoever ye shall loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven." The injunction
of Christ to Peter, " Feed my sheep," Romanists
have also understood to imply, supreme authority
given to him to instruct the Church. But are not
•all ministers alike considered as obliged by the
command of Christ, to " Feed the flock of Christ ;"f
and what plausible reason can be given for under¬
standing his words to Peter, as any thing more than
an incidental urging upon him individually, this evi¬
dence of the reality of the love which he had so fer¬
vently professed ?
51. But no where do we find Peter himself claim¬
ing this supremacy, nor his brethren admitting him
to be invested with it. " Are we not struck, (says
Bishop Hobart) with the remarkable fact, so sub¬
versive of the alleged supremacy of St. Peter, that in
the first council that settled the disputes of the in¬
fant Church, St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, even
in the presence of Peter, enjoyed that precedence,
and exercised that power, which are claimed as of
divine origin for him ?"J
* Eph. ii. 20.
t Acts, xx. 23
% Acts, 15.
[ *1 ]
52. " But admitting that St. Peter, as the re¬
ward of his zealous confession, was distinguished by
his master with some marks of superiority over the
rest of the Apostles ; where is the evidence that this
superiority did not cease with his person ? Where
is the proof that it descended to the Bishop of Rome?
Where the warrant for the lofty titles, involving
equally lofly prerogatives, assumed by the Papal
Pontiff, of ' Vicar of Jesus Christ, and universal
Bishop ?' Of these lofty titles and these lofty pre¬
rogatives, we have no record set forth in the Apostol¬
ic history recorded in the Acts. Clement, Bishop
of Rome, next but one in succession to that See
from the Apostles, in his celebrated Epistle, advan¬
ces no such claims. The venerable martyr, Ignati¬
us, the disciple of St. John, delineating with the
greatest minuteness, the Christian hierarchy, and
enforcing the duty of submission to it. utters not a
word of this supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.—
And before that deference which, in all ecclesiastical
concerns, was naturally paid to the Bishop of the
Imperial City, emboldened him to receive from the
corrupt hand of secular power, the title and the pre¬
rogatives of Universal Bishop, the spiritual head of
a rival city, received a rebuke for the assumption of
this title, from a predecessor of those who make this
title, and the powers involved in it, a divine warrant
for supreme dominion over the Christian world."*—
I will leave the subject, of the Pope, or Bishop of
Rome, with the remark, that Protestants have never
admitted the sufficiency of the evidence either from
Scripture or tradition, or the decisions of general
councils, on which Roman Catholics rest the asser¬
tion, either that St. Peter was invested by Christ,
with supremacy over the Church, that St. Peter,
whether so invested or not with supremacy, was the
Bishop of Rome, or that the Bishop of Rome, wheth¬
er the successor of St. Peter in that See or not, was
admitted by the rest of the Bishops of the first ages,
to have the supreme universal right to rule and go¬
vern the Church on earth. Dr. Barrow's Essay on
the supremacy of the Pope, to which any may have
* Corruptions of the Church of Rome contrasted, &c,—~
Charge to the Clergy of New-York, 1827.
[ *U ]
'access^ will set . the question in either of such
points oT»view, with all candid inquirers, perfectly
at rest.
53. The next item of alleged misrepresentation
•to be notieed, is, " that Roman Catholics do not al¬
low the Scriptures to be the entire rule of faith, ex¬
cept as explained by their unwritten traditions, and
the authority of the Church." It must be admitted
that this, although evidently not designed misre¬
presentation, is an inaccurate manner of stating fact.
Roman Catholics do not consider the Scriptures as
the entire rule offaiih, but as only part of the rule of
faith for Christsans. With or without explanation
by unwritten tradition, and the authority of the
Church, it is not the whole word of God—the
whole of his revelation ; that being to be found,
say they, in both the written Scripture, and the di¬
vine and apostolical traditions. The traditions may
explain and settle the sense of the Scripture, but
they do not thus make it the complete Christian re¬
velation. Protestants may, then, freely confess
themselves to have used an inaccurate mode of ex¬
pression, when they have said that Roman Catho¬
lics do not allow the scriptures to be the entire rule
of faith, except as explained, &c. When explained
by tradition and the authority of the Church, they
are still, according to the Roman Catholic'doctrine,
only one half, and that not the most important half
of the word of God. The traditions that explain
them, remain the more important part of divine
revelation. And in this lies the difference between
Roman Catholics and Protestants on this subject.
The latter make the Scriptures, with the light de¬
rived from apostolical traditions, as collected from
the writings of the earliest fathers, and the earliest
history of the Church, next to the age of the Apos¬
tles, to explain and illustrate them, their entire and
sufficient divinely given rule, of faith and practice.—
The former will not own their sufficiency in any
sense, but make the traditions, which, while they
explain and illustrate them, are the depository of
other and more important revelations than they con¬
tain, equally with them, their divinely given rule of
faith and practice. In this statement we are justi¬
fied by the following authorities. " We assert that
[ xlii ]
the necessary doctrine, whether relating to faith or
morals, is not all expressly contained in Scripture ;
and, therefore, that beside the written word of God,
there is a necessity for an unwritten word, that is,
the divine and apostolical traditions.'' " The tctaT
rule of faith, is the word of God, or his revelation
to his Church ; which is divided into two partial
rules, Scripture and tradition. Since Scripture is
not a total, but a partial rule, the consequence is,
that it does not comprise all things ; and, therefore,
that there are some things relating to faith which
are not contained in it. Bossuet, in his exposi¬
tion of the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in mat¬
ters of controversy, conveys the sense of the Church
to the sapae effect. But the Council of Trent, and
the Roman Catechism founded on its decrees, and
published according to a decree of that Council, by
the command of Pope Pius the Vth declare the
same thing, at once in the most authentic manner,
and in the plainest terms. In 1546, the Council
enacted, " that the traditions should beheld as of
equal authority with the Scriptures.1' The sub¬
stance of the decree, as given in Paul's history of
the Council, is as follows, and is perfectly in con¬
formity with the whole express letter of it, as given
in the collection of the canons and decrees of the
Council published at Rome, in 1569. " The synod,
aiming to preserve the purity of the Gospel promis¬
ed by the Prophets, published by Christ, and
preached by the Apostles, as the fountain of all
truth and discipline of manners, (which truth and
discipline are contained in the books and unwritten
traditions, received by the Apostles from the mouth
of Christ, and dictated to them by the Holy Ghost,
and passed from one to another, doth according to
the example of the fathers, receive with equal re¬
verence, all the books of the Old and New Testa¬
ment, and the traditions belonging to faith and man¬
ners, as proceeding from the mouth of Christ, as
dictated by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the
Catholic Church." The decree proceeds to ana¬
thematize all who should not receive the Scriptures
as declared by them sacred and canonical, and pub-
Bellarmine's Treatise oil the word of Gad. lib. iv, e. 12.
[ xliii ] (
lished by their authority, or should " wrongly and
wilfully despise the traditions." In the preface to
the Roman Catechism, also, the sense of the Church
is stated thus : " Omnis doctrinse ratio, qu» fideli-
bus tradenda est, verbo Dei continetur, quod in
scripturam, traditionesque distributum est." I
will onl, refer, as one more authority, to the little
work which conveys the alleged Protestant misre¬
presentations, briefly remarked on these numbers.
It says, (p. 81.) " that the Scripture itself, as well
as the most ancient witnesses, testify, that the prin¬
cipal revelations of our Saviour were made in the
interval between his resurrection and his ascension,
of which revelations we have no record in the
Scriptures." Now in this view of things Protest¬
ants find it impossible to concur; because, in the
first place, they cannot conceive, that the Apostles
received from Christ any thing during the inter¬
views with him, with which they were favoured
between his resurrection and ascension, more impor¬
tant than what they delivered to the Churches in their
Epistles—or that they would have committed such
more important matters of revelation to the less cer¬
tainly safe deposit of oral tradition, while that of in¬
ferior importance was committed to writing with
an anxious view to its effectual conveyance to the
minds of those to whose eternal interest they deem¬
ed the knowledge of it necessary.* Secondly, be¬
cause they find no allusion in the writings of the
Apostles,to other important revelations from Christ,
necessary to be embraced within the articles of
their belief, which they had the knowledge of
among themselves, but did not think good or expe¬
dient publicly to impart to his disciples. Thirdly,
because nothing important enough to be believed
in, as essential to the doctrine of Christ, is specifi¬
ed to be traditionary revelation, which cannot be
satisfactorily shown, by the evidence of Scripture, to
appertain to it. Fourthly, because oral traditions
are subject to too much variation to be comparative-
* Much stress has been always laid by Roman Catholics,
on the words of St. Paul, in 2d Thessalonians, ii. 15, as an
argument for their doctrine of tradition. The reader will
find it satisfactorily confuted by Dr. Marsh, in the 4th chap¬
ter of his comparative View.
[ xliv ]
ly confided in : and they can find nothing with res¬
pect to which the testimony of tradition was uni¬
form, and universal, except that'which had the tes¬
timony of the Evangelists and Apostles to author¬
ize and sustain it. Fifthly, because " such tradi¬
tions as were not founded on Scripture, we know,
were easily corrupted, and on that account, were
laid aside by the succeeding ages; such were the
opinion of Christ's reign on earth for a thousand
years ; the Saints not seeing God till the resurrec¬
tion ; the necessity of giving infants the Eucharist;
the divine inspiration of the seventy interprefers,
besides some more important matters, which in res¬
pect to these times are not to be too much descanted
upon."f Sixthly, because the Scriptures of the
Evangelists and Apostles, are constantly referred to
and quoted by the earliest writers of th" Church,
when his real doctrine was to be defended or estab¬
lished ; .and no determination of the Church, inde¬
pendent of the authority of those writings, can be
shown to have taken place in the first ages of the
Church; and, lastly, because what has been held to
be necessary Christian doctrine aud practice, by
tradition only, has in all periods, varied and fluctua¬
ted ; as might be shown in many particulars.
54. The following cannot but be satisfactory, and
will supersede the necessity of anything further on
the subject. It is from a dissertation of Bishop
White, where the reader may find the whole sub¬
ject of Roman Catholic tradition very sufficiently
treated.| " It might easily be proved concerning
the human race, in all the varieties of their situa¬
tion, that their frailties incline them to creature
wdrship, in one shape or in another; that the only
counteracting cause is divine revelation; and that
the effect of this can be perpetuated, only by its be¬
ing brought before the popular mind from written,
records. It seems generally agreed, that during
the later periods of the history of the Israelites,
their preservation from idolatry, was in a great
measure owing to the institution of the worship of
the synagogues, in which the Scriptures were read
t Burnet on the Articles,
t See Lectures on the Catechism.
t xlv ]
to the people : were read in the Hebrew language
for the preservation of their purity, but rendered in
the prevalent language of the times the Syriack."
" Even independently on the unhappy propensity
referred to; there is another, inducing to put hu¬
man institution on a level with the divine. Ths is
illustrated in the conduct of the Pharisees ; whom
our saviour accused of making the word of God of
none effect, by their tradition.* His whole treat¬
ment of such addition to the old law, is very unfa¬
vourable to. the supposition, that he designedtto
leave a door open, for the like addition to the new
law of the Gospel."
55. " There can hardly be a more decisive argu¬
ment against what the Roman Church contends for
on the subject of tradition, than that the fathers,
whose opinion must be looked back to, in order to
determine what tradition says on any particular
point of controversy, hold up the Scriptures as the
paramount directory."
56. The Bishop having quoted Irenaeus, Clement
of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chry-
sostome and Austin, in passages which most une¬
quivocally speak to the point of the foregoing para¬
graph, remarks very happily, that as to the testimo¬
ny of tradition to the authority of the Scriptures, [an
argument to which the advocates of its divine au¬
thority attach much importance) the evidence is
precisely the same, with that which attaches to the
testimony of the legislature of any country, and of
its courts, in reference to the laws which they have
acted under, and which have influenced the man¬
ners of successive generations. There is no spe¬
cies of evidence more generally acted on, less liable
to be deceptive."! I
* Math. xv. 6.
t Protestants must not be supposed to be unaware of the
importance of tradition, in its proper use. Of the religious
duties, usages and rites, which the Apostles and the first
Christians observed, of the sense in which the first held the
words of Christ in relation to his mission offices and nature,
and the other, the words of those Apostles, as to such and
other points spoken of or referred to, in their writings, the
account furnished by tradition, they regard as of high and
inestimable importance. There is no need of considering
this tradition to have jjeen kept right among the great body
[ xlvi ]
57. The next particular of Protestant misrepre¬
sentation to be noticed, is that which makes " Ro¬
man Catholics teach, that besides the Scriptures,
they are bound to receive, as the rule of faith and as
the rule of practice, whatever the Church of Rome
directs." There is no misrepresentation pretended
here, except as to the unfortunate assumption by
Protestants, of the Church of Rome, to have the au¬
thority which belongs no more to her than to any
other district or portion of the Catholic Church.—
It^is the Roman Catholic Church, as spread over the
earth, and not the Roman Catholic Church in the lit¬
tle See of Rome alone, whose directions are to be re¬
ceived. besides the Scriptures, as the rule of faith
-and the rule of practice. It is not denied by Roman
Catholics, that the Roman Catholic Church has the
authority so ascribed to it, as to matters of faith and
morals ; although some exception is taken by them
•to the term directs, as implying some thing different
from teaches or enjoins, or decrees. The distinc¬
tion is unimportant. The word directs, fairly un¬
derstood, can imply nothing as to the Roman Ca¬
tholic sense of the authority of the Church, which is
not true. If it has no authority to direct any thing
but in conformity with its own interpretations, or
ecclesiastical traditions, or decrees, as now existing,
who will say that it may not by other canons, in oth¬
er councils, direct observances additional to, or in
substitution of, those already instituted, and declared
to be in conformity with its unvarying principles ?
With respect to practice, Protestants do not mean
to say, that the authority of the Church descends in
detail to all the minutiae of individual conduct, either
moral, in the ordinary sense of the term, or social.—
But is it not indisputably true, that it extends to all,
that in a religious or ecclesiastical sense, is the prac¬
tice of its members ?
58. We pass to another point,in which Protestants
are charged with misrepresentation ; viz. that the
Roman Catholic Church does deny the free use of the
Scriptures to the people, under the pretence of theirs
of the faithful, by an extraordinary divine influence over the
mind. The supposition of such an influence is attended
with insuperable difficulties.
[ xlvii ]
incompetency to understand them ; the effect of which
is, that the Roman Catholic people do not discover
flow contrary their religion is to the word of God ;
an effect which it is the object of the Roman Catholic
Church to perpetuate.
59. In relation to this matter, I will but state facts
and authorities, and leave them to speak for them¬
selves. The Roman Catholic Church settles, by its
authority, the whole tenor and interpretation of the
Scriptures ; and denies its members the use ofthemv
according to any other. It will, moreover, allow the
use of them only in such editions and translations as
its authority sanctions. The Council of Trent, in
its fourth session, decreed, that the Vulgate should
be the authorized Bible of the Roman Catholic
Church ; reasons having been given, why the criti¬
cism of the text, except by the Church herself, by
comparison of versions and reference to the origin¬
als, was inexpedient. In conformity with such
views, the Creed founded on the decrees of that
Council, in its second article, is as follows. 'k I
admit, also, the Sacred Scriptures, according to
that sense which Holy Mother Church, to whom it
appertains to judge of the true meaning and inter¬
pretation of the sacred Scriptures, hath holden and
still holds ; nor will I ever receive or interpret them
otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of
the fathers." In the fourth rule of the Index Libro-
rura prohibitorum, it is thus enacted : " Inasmuch
as it is manifest from experience, that if the Holy
Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, Indiscrim¬
inately allowed to every one, the temerity of men
will cause more evil than good to arise from it, the
Bishops and inquisitors may, by the advice of the
Priest or Confessor, permit the reading of the Bible
translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic auth¬
ors, to those persons, whosefaith and piety, they ap¬
prehend will be thereby augmented and not injured ;
and this permission they must have in writing.*—
But if any shall have the presumption to read or
* Much of the rigor of this rule has of late yedVs been dis¬
pensed with. Roman Catholic Bibles and Testaments have
been, for obvious reasons, more freely distributed among the
people than formerly.
[ xlviu ~J
possess it, without such written permission, he shall
not receive absolution until he has first delivered
up such Bible to the Ordinary." Perfectly in uni¬
son with this, is the Enclyclical letter of Leo VIIth,
dated May 3, 18*14, and addressed to all patriarchs,
primates, archbishops, and bishops. " We also,
venerable brethren, conformably to our apostolical
duty, exhort you diligently to occupy yourselves, by-
all means, to turn away your flock from those poiso¬
nous pastures (lethiferis hisce pascuis—the Scrip¬
tures translated into the vulgar tongue, and circula¬
ted by Protestants.) Reprove, beseech, be instant
in season and out of'season, in all patience and doc¬
trine, that the faithful intrusted to you, adhering
strictly to the rules ofour congregation of the index,
be persuaded that if the sacred Scriptures be every
where indiscriminately published, more evil than ad¬
vantage will arise thence on account of the rashness
of men." (Edit. Paris, 1825.) The little book,
too, of letters, in which Protestant misrepresenta¬
tions are complained of, admits that "■ the Roman
Catholic Church forbids her children to take, keep,
or use copies, or versions upon private or insufficient
authority ; and also forbids them to make any new
interpretations which would contradict those tradi¬
tional interpretations from the same source, [viz.
divine inspiration ! !] as the book itself, and, as tes¬
tified by the voice of ages and nations."
60. The result then is, that the Roman Catholic
Church does allow the free use of the Scriptures
to its members, without liberty to use them otherwise
than she shall choose; or understand them other¬
wise than as she explains them ; the use of the
Scriptures, that is, with full liberty to read and un¬
derstand them—provided they will read and un¬
derstand them, only as the Church directs; in
short, that the members of the Roman Catholic
Church are fr e to use the Scriptures, but not their
understanding, in order to know what they teach
and require. Can any Roman Catholic on earth
deny this to be the true, and the only true account
of the matter ? As to the effect of this restriction, to
which the use of the Scriptures is subject, to keep
the members of the Roman Catholic Church " ig¬
norant how contrary their religion is to the word of
[ xlix ]
God," it is the opinion of Protestants generally, that
such is its effect. They express the opinion with
the confidence with which they think they may
reasonably entertain it. That it is the design of
the Church to keep its members in such ignorance,
admits not of being proved, but by the tenor of its
conduct on the subject. .With none but their own
versions and interpretations, and glosses, in their
hands, and the infallible authority of the Church
continually asserted, to keep them unwavering in
their faith and sentiments, as founded in such ver¬
sions, interpretations and glosses, together with the
tradition that, independently of Scripture, may teach
them most that the Scripture does, are they likely
ever to become informed of the contrariety of any
thing in their system, to what Protestants hold to
be the pure evidence of the word of God ?
61. The alternative is, lam aware, on the one
hand, this restriction, amounting, to say the ,least,
to the denial of the free use of the judgment in con¬
sidering the sense of Scripture ; and on the other,
the freedom which Protestants undeniably have
abused and are always, it must be conceded, likely
more or less to abuse, to the adoption of erroneous,
fanciful, and utterly unwarrantable construction of
the sacred text, as the foundation of schismatical
variations. In the first, the evil is that of the ab¬
solute and unchangeable determination of the sense
of Scripture, by a few, multiplied by their own will,
into the Catholic, or Universal Church. In the
other side of the alternative, no reasonable Protes¬
tant will pretend that there is not also evil. It is
evil, however, of the same kind as that which from
the beginning has been inseparable from the free¬
dom of moral agency, to which in divine wisdom,
men were left; a freedom which, however, admit¬
ting of modification by that moral influence which
is the result of individual prudence and humility,
with respect to the authority of those who are in¬
vested with the right to instruct yet cannot be re¬
strained within limits arbitrarily prescribed, and on
pain of temporal and eternal penalties, forbidden to
be transgressed, without reducing the religion of
man to a mere mechanism with which the idea of
responsibility cannot with any shadow of reason be
E
[ 1 J
associated. Indeed so utterly unreasonable is this
imposition upon the human mind, of the authority
of the Church, in the interpretation of Scripture,
with anathemas and compulsion for its enforcement,
that it could not be reasonably sustained, without
the doctrine of infallibility inseparably accompany¬
ing it. The Church is infallible in its doctrines,
and infallible as to the sense which it affixes to the
Scripture, in any of its language in which doctrine
is alleged to be founded ; and therefore dissent
from its authority, cannot but be on any terms inad¬
missible. It were vain, perhaps to expect in the
present day, to secure the attention of any intelli¬
gent reader to an argument, either for or against the
Roman Catholic doctrine of the Church's infallibili¬
ty. I will not detain any of yours with the subject,
further than to remark, that together with other in¬
stances in which the Roman Catholic doctrine has
accommodated itself to the invincible aversion to
its pretensions, strengthening more and more, in
the mind of a progressively enlightened age, dated
from the reformation, the infallibility of the Church
may become resolved into that convenient sense,
according to which it may imply only a paramount
authority, from which there can be no appeal—an
authority which must in all its determinations be
right, because from them there can be no admissi¬
ble dissent—an infallibility dejure, whatever it may
be de facto. This modification of the doctrine, may
save a great deal of trouble to the defenders Of the
faith of the " mother and mistress of all Churches"
—and instead of the contrivances of ingenuity, such
as that which has been resorted to, on the subject
of transubstantiation, to make it less absolutely in¬
conceivable and inadmissible, may change the ne¬
cessity of asserting the truth of absurd, unscriptural
and odious dogmas, which councils had establish¬
ed, into the assertion only of the indispensable ne¬
cessity of conformity to them, until the Church, by
other councils, shall qualify or renounce them.—
Probably the only reason why transubstantiation is
not renounced by Roman Catholics of the present
day, is to be found in this yetunrenounced infalli¬
bility. It has been so decreed by councils ; and
the decrees of councils confirmed and ratified by the
T " ]
Pope, are th§ infallible authority of the Church.—
But why may not another council infallibly deter¬
mine the light in which preceding ones viewed this
matter, to have been wrong ?
62. With respect to the pretensions of Popes,
there is happily less difficulty than arises out ot the
decrees and canons of the Church. Many of these,
Roman Catholics, in behalf of the Church, disclaim.
" Popes have undeniably maintained the position,
that faith is not to be kept with heretics and it
has undeniably been the established sense of the Ro¬
man Catholic Church, " that the Pope can absolve
subjects from their oath of allegiance to Protestant
Princes." These things are matter of historical
fact, too well known to be disputed. The Pope, it
is true, is not the Church. The right of excommu¬
nicating kings, is, however, expressly claimed for
the Church, by the Council of Trent, thus recogni¬
zing and confirming the similar power which had
been asserted, on no better grounds than the.false
decretals, and the arrogance of the execrable Hilde-
brand, bytheLateran Council. It masters not that
very respectable and powerful portions of the Ro¬
man Catholic Church, have always refused to re¬
cognize the temporal supremacy of the 'Pope, and
the dangerous pretensions connected with it. It
matters not that virtuous and patriotic individual
members* of the Roman Catholic Church, in Eng¬
land, in 1789, publicly disclaimed for themselves
and their brethren, the.authority of the Pope and of
the Church, as to all the monstrous features which,
in relation to civil, and in some points, to religious
* Much has been sometimes said of the fact of the high
moral excellence of which a zealous profession of the Ro¬
man Catholic faith has admitted—as in the case of Fenelon,
Pascal, Bossuet and others, of former clays, and the benevo¬
lent and devoted Cheverus of the present—and the eloquent
Dr. Channing has been quoted, to show, that a cause cannot
be odious with which such names are identified. To any
such list of Roman Catholic writers, I would add the excel¬
lent Archbishop Carroll, the amiable successor of Cheverus,
in the Roman Catholic See of Boston, and some other emi¬
nent Roman Catholics in England, Ireland and America,
bothin the Priesthood and out ofit, and then ask of any one
who would think for a moment on the subject, what is the
amount of such an argument? What can thus be proved
[ "f»~T
obligations and interests, it had assumed. It mat¬
ters not that all British Roman Catholics of the
more enlightened and enlarged character, now equal¬
ly disown Popery, as it has formerly been known ;
or that Roman Catholics in the United States, and -
in your city especially, are good citizens, and faith¬
ful subjects ; upright, industrious, peaceable and
patriotic ; it still is true that the Roman Catholic
Church claims a spiritual authority in all sovereign
states in Christendom, utterly inconsistent, were it
to be exercised, with civil tranquillity and the liber¬
ties of the subject. The right to excommunicate
kings, claimed by the CounciUof Trent, has never
been renounced ; and the right to absolve subjects
from their allegiance,* actually exercised (to notice
no other instance) by Pius the Vth, in the case of
Elizabeth of England ; and the power of the Church
over heretics, wherever they are,t has never been
disclaimed otherwise than by Roman Catholic
* Roman Catholics must know that if Protestants say,
" Popes have maintained the position, that faith is not to be
kept with heretics," they do not thereby mean, that Roman
Catholics " hold that they are not bound by the same mora!
obligation to fulfil contracts, or adhere to their promises
with persons who differ from them in their religion, as with
those who were members of their own Church."- They
know that the allusion is to the invalidity of oaths of civil
allegiance, as it has unquestionably been asserted and pro¬
claimed, and as they know how to justify the assertion and
proclamation of it, when for heresy or schism, the Pope
thought it good to absolve subjects from their obligation.—
The application of the principle to the ordinary engagements
of moral obligation in common life, Protestants have not
meant to charge to the account of the Roman Catholic reli¬
gion, as among its prevailing corruptions.
t The Roman Catechism, published by order of Pius Vth,
and founded on the decrees of the Trentine Council,declares,
that heretics and schismatics, though no longer members of
the Church of Rome, are still " in the power of the Church,
as persons to bo called by it to judgment, punished, and
doomed by anathema to damnation."—Roman Catechism,
p. 78, 1587. And this claim, thus officially made in the Ro¬
man Catechism, is urged at this very day in the theological
lectures, which are given in the College of Maynooth. For
in the treatise do Ecclesia Christi, which contains the sum
and substance of these lectures, it is positively asserted,
that " the Church retains its jurisdiction over all Apostates,
Heretics and Schismatics, though they no longer belong to
its body."—Marsh's Comp. View, chap. 9.
[ liii }
individuals. Roman C&tholics say that their re¬
ligion is wrongly charged with " countenancing and
commanding persecution, massacre and murder."—
That persecution, massacre and murder, have come
of the principles with respect to the power and au¬
thority ofth,e Church, which Roman Catholics hold,
is all that 1 can collect from the language cf Protes¬
tants on this subject. it is a subject, on which I
had rather leave the reader to collect his own infor¬
mation from authentic documents of history, (by
which, f, of course, do not mean, only what Roman
Catholics will call so) than state for him the horrid
items of which it must consist. " Persecution, mas¬
sacre and murder," for the sake, or under the pre¬
tence of the interest of religion, have crimsoned
some pages of Protestant history, as well as many
of Roman Catholic. The comparison the reader
can easily make for himself. We trust that they are
no more forever to be the disgrace of Christians, un¬
der any name. The distinction, however, remains
important, that canons and decrees, and dogmas
of Popery, yet unrepealed and unrenounced, embo¬
dy the power and right to punish temporally for reli¬
gion's sake, and pursue heresy and schism with spir¬
itual denunciations and temporal inflictions.* Pro¬
testantism knows nothing of the kind.
63. I have now, Mr. Editor, gone over most of
what are called misrepresentations of the religion of
Roman Catholics, as contained! in the little Cate¬
chism, published in your citv, by a Female Tract
Society.! I confess myself at a loss to see any thing
* The following1 note in the margin of the Doway Bible,
at the 8th verse of the 17th chapter of Deuteronemy, will
throw some light on the subject. " Here we see what au¬
thority God was pleased to give to the Church Guides of
the Old Testament, in deciding without appeal, all contro¬
versies relating to the law ; promising that they should not
err therein, and punishing with death, such as proudly refus¬
ed to obey their decisions. And surely he has not done less
for the Church Guides of the New Testament!!"
t Of Bishop Bowen's responsibility for its being put a-
mong the Tracts distributed by this Society, I say nothing ;
because authorized to say nothing. It is probable the matter
came not under his cognizance, but that of other advisers
during his absence. Or he may have doubted the propriety
of taking upon him to reject that which so many had anprw-
-V *
[ ^ ]
in the publication which could rea30nably make its
. appearance among you, so much more an outrage
upon truth and charity, and good feeling, than its ap¬
pearance again and again in Great Britain, and in
other places in America, was ever undertaken to be
represented. It seems not to me to contain any ac¬
tual misrepresentation of the religion of Roman Ca¬
tholics ; although it may be admitted to teach in
some particulars, that which some portions of the
Roman Catholic Church, do not hold, and that which
very many Roman Catholic individuals, Priests as
well as Laymen, will not admit legitimately to ap¬
pertain td their institutions. Of the necessity of its
publication in your city, I should have doubted, and
am not sorry to be informed that it is not now ex¬
posed for sale. There are, undoubtedly, parts of it,
which, however they might be suited to other cir¬
cumstances, could not be called for, perhaps, by any,
which are known practically to characterize the
Roman Catholic religion in America.
64. You will readily, I know, excuse me from no¬
ticing many other points, which, in the work con¬
taining the accusations, briefly answered in these
numbers, are treated with a great parade of logic,
as well as expostulation ; but on the whole, with
much more sophistry than argument, more plausibili¬
ty than fairness, more confidence than correctness.
The gauntlet of controversy is thrown, as to many
questions irp dispute between Roman Catholics and
Protestants, with respect to which, it might, without
fear be taken up. Let it lie ; or be taken up by
any who can expect any good, in our community, to
come of a controversy, which is useless except to
prove, (and to whom but Roman Catholics would
any, however hard the task, now essay to prove it,)
that the Roman is not truly the Catholic Church ;
and that the Roman Catholic Church, so called, is
ved ; among whom had been the venerable Dr. White, in
whose diocess it had been reprinted from an English edition,
distributed by u the Society for promoting Christian know¬
ledge," and published and circulated by a Society similar in
its constitution and design, to the Charleston Protestant
Episcopal Female Tract Society. He seems to meratl,eastf
to have been somewhat indelicately held up to tho communi¬
ty as responsible for the offence thus given toRomanCatholiCs.
[ It ]
not " the mother and mistress of all Churches-;
out of whose communion, there is no communion
with Christ ; whose authority is infallible, and all
whose determinations, with regard to what men are
to believe or do, are therefore entitled to an obser¬
vance as sacred as any thing which was taught by
Christ and his Apostles.
A PROTESTANT CATHOLIC.
NOTICE.
In the translation of those Doctrinal Chapters,
the words justice and righteousness are synonimous,
and are given as the translation of the Latin word
justitia.
DOCTRINAL CHAPTERS.
Of the Council of Trent, concerning justifica¬
tion; adopted in the sixth session, celebrated the 13th
of January, M. D. XLVII.
Chapter 1.
Concerning the inability of nature and the law to
justify men.
As the first thing, the Holy Synod declares that in
order to understand correctly and sincerely the doc¬
trine of justification ; it is fit, that every one should
acknowledge and confess, that since all men had lost
their innocence in the prevarication of Adam, \a]
being made unclean, [i] and as the Apostle says,
[c] by nature children of wrath, as it exhibited in
the decree concerning original sin ; they were the
servants of sin, [d] and under the power of the Devil
and of death : [e] so that not only the Gentiles could
not by the force of nature ; but not even could the
Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses, [f] be
freed therefrom, or arise ; although free-will was by
no means destroyed in them, though its force was
diminished andlnclined.
a. I. Cor. xv. 21. Rom. v. 12 &c. to 19. b. Isaias Ixiv. 6.
c Ephes. ii. 3. d Rom. vi. 17. e Heb. ii. 14. / Rom. iii. 9.
&c. 19 &c.
t Ivi ]
Chapter IT.
Concerning the dispensation, and mystery of the com-
ing of Christ.
. Whence it was effected, that the heavenly Father,
[a] the Father of mercies, and God of all consola¬
tion, when that blessed fulness of time [6] was come,
sent to men, Ghrist Jesus, his son, declared and
promised to many holy fathers, [c] both before the
law and in the time of the law ; as well that he
might redeem the Jews who were under the law ; as
that the Gentiles[J] who did not follow after justice,
might lay hold upon justice : and that all might re¬
ceive the adoption of children ; Him hath God set
forth, to be one making propitiation [e] through faith
in his blood for our sins, and [/J not for ours only,
but also those of the whole world.
a. I. Cor. i. 3. b Galat iv. 45. c Genes, xxii. 18. xlix.
.10. &c. &c. &c. d Rom. ix. 30. e Rom. iii. 25, v. passim.
Colloss. ii. 2,12,13,14. I Tim. ii. 5,6. II Tim. i. 9, 10. /
I John ii. 1, 2.
Chapter III.
Who are justified through Christ.
But although he hath died for all, [a] yet all do
not receive the benefit of his death, but they only, to
whom the merit of his passion is communicated.—
For as, in truth, men would not be born unjust, ex¬
cept they were born, propagated from the seed of
Adam ; since whilst they are conceived through it,
they, by that propagation, contract its proper injus¬
tice ; so, unless they should be born again in Christ,
kthey never would be justified, since the grace by
which they become just, is bestowed upon them by
that regeneration, through the merit of his passion.
For this benefit, the Apostle exhorts us [6] always
to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us
worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in
light : and delivered us from the powers of darkness,
and hath translated us into the kingdom of the son
of his love, in whom we have redemption, and the
remission of sins.
a ii. Cor. v. 15. b Coloss. i. 12, &c.'
[ lvii ]
Chapter IV.
Fhere is introduced a description of the justified*
tion of the impious, and his condition in the state
of grace.
By .which words, is introduced a description of the
justification of the impious, so that it is a translation
from that state in which man is born [a] a son of
the first Adam, to the state of grace and adoption of
the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus
Christ, our Saviour ; which translation cannot in¬
deed happen after the promulgation of the Gospel,
without [6j the laver of regeneration, or the desire
thereof, as it is written ; [c] Unless a person shall
have been born again of water and of the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into.the kingdom of God.
a. Galat. iv. b Tit. iii. 5. c John iii. 5.
Chapter V.
Of the necessity:, in adults, of a preparation to he
justified, whence it comes.
It moreover declares, that the beginning of justifi¬
cation itself, in adults, is to be derived from the pre¬
venting grace of God through Christ Jesus ; that is
from his vocation, by which they are called at a
time when there existed no merits of their own, who
being by their sins, turned from God, may be dispos¬
ed by his exciting and helping grace, to turn them¬
selves to their own justification, by freely assenting
to that same grace and co-operating therewith ; so
that when God toucheth the heart of man by the iL
lumination of the Holy Ghost ; it doth not happen
that man does nothing by any means,because he is able
to cast that away, nor however can he without tho
grace of God move himself to do justice in God's
presence by his own free will. Whence in the sa¬
cred letters ; when it is said, [a] Be ye converted
to me and I will turn to you ; we are admonished of
our liberty, and when we answer : [6] Convert us,
O Lord, and we shall be converted to thee ; we ac¬
knowledge, that we must be prevented by the grace
of God.
a Zachar. i. 3. Joel ii. 12, &c. b Lament v. 21. Jerem,
xxxi. 13.
L Wit j
Chapter VI.
The manner of preparation.
Bat they are disposed to righteousness itself; whilst
roused and helped by divine grace; [ajconceiving faith
by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, be¬
lieving to be true, those things which are divinely re¬
vealed and promised ; and amongst the first, that the
wicked man is justified by God through his grace
by the redemption [6] which is in Christ Jesus :
and whilst understanding themselves to be sinners;
by turning from the fear of divine justice, by which
they are usefully shaken, to the consideration of the
mercy of God, they are raised to hope, trusting that
God will be merciful to them for the sake of Christ,
and they begin to love him as the fountain of all jus¬
tice, and therefore they are moved against sin with
some hatred and detestation, that is by that penance
which ought to be done before Baptism : finally
whilst they propose to receive Baptism, to begin a
new life and to keep the divine commandments. Con¬
cerning this disposition it is written [c] that he that
cometh to God must believe that he exists, and that he
is a rewarder of them that seek him. And,[d] Son,be
of good heart; thy sins are forgiven thee. And, [e]
The fear of the Lord driveth out sin. And,[/] Do pe¬
nance, and be baptized every one of you in the name
of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins ; and
you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And[g]
going, therefore teach all nations; baptizing them in
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever, I have commanded you. And, finally,
[/i] Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.
a Rom. x. 17. b Rom. v. 9. See. &e_ c Heb. xi. 6. d
Matt. ix. 2. e Ecclesias i. 27. f Acts ii. 38 g Matt, xxviii.
19. 20. h Kings vii. 3. Prot version I Samuel.
Chapter VII.
What is the justification of the wicked, and what
are its causes.
Justification itself follows this disposition or pre¬
paration ; it is not only a remission of sins, but is
L i« ]
also a sanctification and renewal of the interior man
by the voluntary taking up of grace and gifts.—
Whence a man becomes just, from unjust, and from
an enemy a friend, so that he might become (a) an
heir according to life everlasting. The causes of
this justification are ; the final indeed, the glory of
God and of Christ, and eternal life: but the efficient,
the merciful God, who gratuitously (6) washethand
sanctifieth, sealing and anointing (c) with the holy
spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inherit¬
ance ; the meritorious cause, is his most beloved
only begotten son (d) our Lord Jesus Christ ; who
when" we were enemies, (e) by reason of his ex¬
ceedingly great charity with which he loved us, me¬
rited our justification (/) through his most holy suf¬
fering upon the wood of the cross, and made satis¬
faction on our account to God his Father : the in¬
strumental cause indeed is, the sacrament of Bap¬
tism ; which is the sacrament of Faith, without
which faith,justification was not ever conferred on any
one ; and finally the only formal cause thereof is the
justice of God, not that by which he is himself right¬
eous, but that by which he makes us righteous ; be¬
ing gifted with which, by him, we are renewed in
the spirit of our mind, and not only are reputed, but
we truly are called; and are just; receiving righteous¬
ness into ourselves, each one according to his own
measure which the Holy Ghost (g) divideth to every
one according as he wills, and according to the pro¬
per disposition and co-operation of each. For al¬
though no one can be righteous,except he to whom the
merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ(k)
are communicated ; nevertheless, that takes place
in this justification of the wicked, whilst the(f) char¬
ity of God is poured out into the hearts of those who
are justified by the Holy Ghost, through the merits
of the same most holy passion ; and it inheres in
them, whence in the very justification itself together
with the remission of sins, a man receives through
Jesus Christ upon whom he engrafted, all these
infused gifts, faith, hope and charity : for faith unless
hope and charity come thereto, neither perfectly
unites with Christ, nor makes to be a living member
[ 1* ]
of his body. Wherefore it is most truly said(i), that
faith without works is dead and useless, and (/) that
in Christ Jesus, neither cirhumcision availeth any
-thing, nor incircumcision, but faith which vvorketh
by charity. This faith, from Apostolic tradition, the
Catechumens ask of the Church, before the sacra¬
ment of Baptism, when they ask faith available to
eternal life ; which life, faith without hope and charity-
can not procure. Whence they immediately hear
the Words of Christ(mj If thou wift enter into life,
keep the commandments. Therefore receiving true
and Christian righteousness,as that first(rc) robe bes¬
towed upon them by Christ Jesus, in place of that
which Adam lost for himself and for us, through his
disobedience, they, upon being regenerated, are com¬
manded to carry it white and unstained, before the
judgment seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, that tLey
may have eternal life.
a Tit. iii. 7. b I Cor. vi, II. c II. Cor. i. 21. 22. and
.Ephes. i. 13. 14. d Ephe. i. 5. 6. 7. e Ephe. ii. and v.
pass. Rom. v. 6. 8. 9.10. &c. f Ephe. i. and ii. Rom. iv. 25.
&c. g I Cor. xii. 11. and pass. Ephe. iv. 7, &c. h Philip,
iii. 9. &c. i Rom. v. 5. k James ii. 17. 26. I Galat.
v. 6. Sic. m Matt. six. 17. n Luke xv. 22.
Chapter VIII.
How it is to be understood, that the wicked is justi¬
fied by faitk, and justified gratuitously.
But since the Apostle says that man is justified by
(a)faith and gratis, (b) these words are to be un¬
derstood in that sense, which the perpetual consent
of the Catholic Church hath held, and expressed ;
to wit, that we are so said to be justified by faith, be¬
cause faith is the beginning of human salvation, and
the root of all justification, (c) without which it is
impossible to please God, and to arrive to the fellow¬
ship of his sons : but we are so said to be justified
gratis, because nothing of those things which precede
justification, whether faith or works deserves the
grace itself of justification ; for (d) if it is by grace,
it is not now by works; otherwise, as the same
Apostle says, grace is no more grace.
a Rom. iv. 3.9. 13. &e. b Rom. iii. 24. c Heb. xi. 6.
d Rom. xi. 6. Ephes. ii. 8. Tit. iii. 5. and Epl.es. ii. 8.
[ Ixi !]
Chapter IX*.
Against the vain trusting of heretics.
But although it be necessary to believe, that sins
neither fcre remitted, nor ever were remitted unless
(a.) gratuitously by the divine mercy, for the sake of
Christ ; it is not to be said that sins are remitted or
wefe remitted to any person boasting of a trust and
certainty of the forgiveness of his sins, and resting
upon that alone, since this vain trust which is remote
from all piety, might exist amongst heretics and
schismatics, and does, in fact, exist in our times, and
is preached with great contention against the Catho¬
lic Church. But neither ought this to be asserted,
that they whouare truly justified, ought without any
doubt whatever to determine with themselves that
they are made righteous, and that no one can be ab¬
solved from sins and justified, save that person who
might certainly believe that, he is absolved and justi¬
fied ; and that absolution and justification are made
perfect by this faith alone ; as if the person who does
not believe this, doubted of the promises of God,
and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of
Christ. For® as no pious person ought to doubt
concerning the mercy of God, the merit of Christ,
and the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments: so eve¬
ry person, might fear concerning his own grace
when he considers himself and his own infirmity and
want of disposition ; since no person can know with
that certainty of faith which is not liable to error,
that he has obtained the grace of God.
a. Tit. iii-
Chapter X.
Concerning the increase of received justification.
Therefore they who are thus justified, and made
the friends and domestics of God (a) proceeding
from virtue to virtue ; are renewed, as the Apostle
says, (6) day by day, that is, by mortifying the mem¬
bers (c) of their flesh, and exhibiting those arms of
justice unto sanctification. by observing the com¬
mandments of God and of the Church, they make in¬
crease in that very righteousness which has been re-
f
I Ixiv ]
Chapter XII.
*That the rash presumption of Predestination is to be,
guarded against.
No one, either, so long as he liveth in this mortal
state, ought so far presume concerning the dark mys¬
tery of divine predestination, as that he would with
certainty declare that he is in the number of the predes¬
tined ; as if it was true1 that the righteous («) could
not sin any more, or if he should have sinned ought
to promise himself undoubted repentance : because
he can no't know except from special revelation those
whom God hath chosen unto himself.
n. Ezeck. xviii,24 &c. Galat. iii, 1, 2, 3 &c.
Chapter XIII.
Concerning the gift of perseverance.
In like manner, concerning the gift of perseverance ;
respecting which it is written : (a) he that shall per¬
severe unto the end, he shall be saved ; which indeed
cannot be had from any other source except from
him who is able (6) to make firm him who standeth
that he might perseveringly stand, and to restore him
who falleth ; let no person promise himself any thing
with absolute certainty; nevertheless, all persons
ought to place and repose a most firm hope in the
help of God. For God, unless they shall fall off" from
his grace, as he (c) began a good work, will perfect
it, working both (d) that they should will and ac¬
complish. Wherefore, (e) let them that seem to
stand, take heed lest they fall, and (f.) with fear and
trembling, work out their salvation, in labours, in
watchings (g) in alms deeds, in prayers and oblations',
in fasting and in chastity : because they ought to
fear, knowing that they are regenerated (h) to the
hope of glory, but not as yet, to glory itself,from that
contest which remains with the flesh, with the world,
with the devil, in which they can not be conquerors
unless by the grace of God, they obey the Apostle
saying 0'] We are not debtors to the flesh, to live ac-
t Ixv ]
cording to the flesh : for if you live according to the
flesh you shall die : but if by the spirit you mortify
.the deeds of the flesh, you shall live.
a. Matt. x. 22. b. Rom. xix, 4. I Cor. i. 6. Philip ii. 1?.
c. I. Cor. x. 12. /. Philip ii, 12. g. IL Cor. vi. 4 &c. h.
I Peter i. 3. i. Rom. viii. 12» 13.
Chapter XIV.
Concerning those who have fallen, and their repara¬
tion.
But they who having received the grace of justifi¬
cation, have fallen there-from by sin, can be again
made righteous, when by the exciting of God they
shall have succeeded in recovering,through the merit
of Christ, their lost grace, by means of the sacrament
of Penance. This mode of justification is a repara¬
tion for the fallen ; which the holy fathers have pror
perly called, the second plank of. lost grace, after the
shipwreck. For indeed Christ Jesus instituted the
Sacrament of Penance for those who fall into sins af¬
ter Baptism, when he said : [a] Receive you the
Holy Ghost whose sins you shall forgive, they are
forgiven them: and whose you shall retain, they are
retained. Whence it is to be taught that the penance
of a Christian man, after his fall is very different from
that for Baptism : and that therein is contained, not
only a desisting from sins, and their detestation, or a
contrite (b) and humbled heart; but moreover, a sa¬
cramental confession thereof, at least in desire, and
to be made at its proper time, and the absolution of
the priest; and also satisfaction by fasting, by alms
deeds, prayers and other exercises of a spiritual life,
not indeed for the eternal punishment which is remov¬
ed together with the guilt, by the sacrament, or the
desire of the sacrament ; but for the temporal pun¬
ishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, i^ not
always as happens in Baptism, entirely remitted to
those who ungrateful to the grace of God which they
have received, have grieved (c) the Holy Ghost, and
feared not to violate [d] the temple of God. Con¬
cerning which penance it is written : [e] be mindful
From whence thou hast fallen : and do penance, and
[ lxviii }
seerits. And because (p) we all offend him in many
things, so each one of us ought to have severity and
judgment before his eyes, as he has mercy and good¬
ness ; nor ought any one judge himself (q) even
though he should not be conscious to himself of any
thing : for all the life of man is to be examined not
only by human judgment, but by that of God : (r)
who will bring to light the hidden' things of darkness
and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts:
and then shall every man have praise from God ; who
as it is written will render to every man according to
his works, (s)
a. I. Cor. xv. b. Heb. vi. c. Heb. x. d. Matt. x. and
xxiv. e. Ps. cii. f. Rom. v. g, I. Tim. iv. h. John xv.
i. Apocal. xiv. k John iv. I Rom. x. m Matt. x. Mark
ix, &c. n. II. Cor. iv, o. I. Cor. i, II. Cor. x, &c. p. James
iii. q. I, Cor. iv. r. I Cor. iv. s. Rom. ii. &"c.
LETTER I.
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and Sou-
them Episcopal Register, &c.
" Nec sum adeo informis: nuper me in litore vidi,
Cum placidum ventis staret mare, non ego Daphnin
Judice te metuam, si numquam fallit imago."
Virg. Eclog. II.
" Nor am I so deform'd ; for late I stood
Upon the margin of the briny flood:
The winds were still, and if the glass be true,
With Daphnis I may vie, though judged by you."
Dryden's translation."
Gentlemen. I have ventured, though perhaps, as
as a correspondent of your's asserts, indelicately ,*
to expostulate with Bishop Bowen regarding the
publication of a libel upon my religion, which was
put forth as a " Protestant Catechism," under the
indirect sanction of his respectable name- I in¬
tended to write to that Prelate inoffensively yet firm¬
ly, plainly but courteously, ih such a manner as
that whilst I should vindicate my own wounded feel¬
ings, I would subject his to the least possible inflic¬
tion. How far I have succeeded it is not for me to
say. They who have read my letters will judge me.
I not only declared that. I would avoid entering into
any polemical disquisition to prove the Catholics
right and the Protestants wrong, but still farther as¬
serted that it was neither my object nor intention
to insult or to vilify the Protestant Church, nor any
of its institutions or members.! To adhere to the
" *Of Bishop Bowen's responsibility for its being put among
the Tracts distributed by this Society, I say nothing; be¬
cause authorized to say nothing, .ft is probable the matter
came not under his cognizance, but that of other advisers
during his absence. Or he may have doubted the propriety
of taking upon him to reject that which so many had ap¬
proved ; among whom had been the venerable Dr. White, in
whose diocess it had been reprinted from an English edition,
distributed by " the Society for promoting Christian know¬
ledge," and published and circulated, by a Society similar in
its constitution and design, to the Charleston Protestant
Episcopal Female Tract Society. He seems to me, at least,
to have been somewfiat indelicately held up to the commu¬
nity as responsible for the offence thus given to Roman Ca¬
tholics."
Note to communication No. 5, p. 178, in the Gospel Mes¬
senger for June, 1829.
t Letter I. p. 20.
1
[ 4 ]
And even for poets he gives the principle which
must never be swerved from.
M Aut famam sequere, aut sibi convenientia finge
Scriptor."
" Or follow fame, or in the invented tale
Let seeming, well united truth prevail."
What then, gentlemen, must have been your feel¬
ings at the approach of a champion whose herald
at throwing down the gauntlet proclaimed that
he was not even a poet, but a sedate man who
came to support truth and to confound error :
what must have been your feelings, when his motto
was self-contradiction ; and the enunciation of his
title Protestant Catholic, astounded the vulgar ?
Whilst Olympus became convulsed from the anties
of Momus, and the whole earth was silent in as'to-
tonishment, a rare scene was exhibited in the re¬
gions below. There stood a thin visaged ghost who
was said in his mortal days to have eaten abundantly
whilst he declaimed against the superstition of fast¬
ing, and to have used good libations of generous
wines, whilst he resolved that the less affluent should
not even taste brandy ; and who after consuming as
much as would have sufficed for three plump Francis¬
can friars or five good lookingCarthusian monks,seem¬
ed as if he had been starved to death : this was a true
ghost of the Hudibrastic school who mistook words
for things and evasion for argument: mistakes more
congenial to the shades than to the regions of day I
This ghostly being stood with a most seriously meta¬
physical aspect declaiming and distinguishing to prove
that a contradiction was no contradiction, an in¬
compatibility was no incompatability that modern
jargon was better than ancient history, and that what
were originally instituted as terms of opposition by
no means designated opposed qualities. The unfor¬
tunate Aristotle endeavoured to break away from the
place where he was held writhing in the agony of in¬
dignation by two ghosts of very opposite characters:
the cynic Diogenes with both his arms detained the
Stagyrite on the oneside: with his earstheowner of the
tub drank in the declamation of the shadow of the new
light, his mofith moderately open shewed his tongue
pressed gently against the appearance of his lower
teeth, and his eyes were fLy.ed with a sort of malig-
[ 5 ]
nan! satisfaction upon his prisoner. Democritus
outrageously, and perhaps for a ghost indelicately,
convulsed with laughter, confined Aristotle on the
other side in his locked arm, after the manner of the
locking of ghosts, and pointed with the index of the
other hand to the self satisfied and inexhaustible
evangelizer, whilst the satyrical shade of Lucian
complained that the nobody of his own Cyclops had
now been overshadowed, by this modern Christian
invention.
All this might have been borne with in becoming
silence, since it would be only the sneer of the un¬
enlightened Heathen : yea, though the " Papists"
might have united in the laugh still even that need
not have provoked to disquietude, nor ruffled the
temper because it would only be the union of idola¬
ters as your correspondent very charitably describes
Roman Catholics to be. But good gentlemen, you
have yourselves in last December adopted a principle
which was rather unfortunate for your correspond¬
ent with the incompatible name.—I shall take the
liberty of giving the article, copied by you.
From the Episcopal Watchman.
"THINGS BY THEIR RIGHT NAMES."
" There are some words, which people will persist in using
improperly, Catholic is one ofthem. We profess to believe
" in the holy Catholic Church and pray that we may be
gathered unto our fathers" in the communion of the Catho¬
lic Church." At the same time we hear people talking about
the Catholic Church, and the Catholics, and Catholic eman¬
cipation; when it is only of the Papists, and the Church of
Rome, that they would be understood tospeak. In an abridg¬
ment of Church History, where at least we should look for a
correct theological nomenclature, I observe the spiritual sub¬
jects of the Pope familiarly termed Catholics ; and in the po¬
pular Geography of Mr. Woodridge, those countries, in
which the supremacy of the Pope is acknowledged, are
marked C, on the maps, to denote that the established reli¬
gion is Catholic, as the key gives us to' understand. The
word, we know, means universal, nothing riiore. Do those,
who apply it to the papal commuuion expect us to acknow¬
ledge, that the Church of Rome is the universal Church ?
Then it must be the true Church—it has been unworthily
slandered—our separation from it was causeless and schis-
matical; and we ought to renounce our protestantism, and
hasten instanter to kiss the Pope's toe. But if, by the Ca¬
tholic Church, they intend only the Church of Rome, why
will they persist in using a name which is inapplicable—a
name, which the papists have always been eager to appro-
f 6 ]
priate, and which we ought to be the last to yield ? Again, I
affirm, that it is high time to dismiss the word from our own
religious formularies ; or to designate the papists, when we
have occasion to speak of them, by some appellative which
>.does not convict us of schism. Besides, there is an absurdi¬
ty in calling them Catholics. The Church of Rome is not
the Catholic ; (f. e. the universal Church.) Its communion
is rejected by the greater part of Christendom, and is there¬
fore far from being universal. But if it is meant, that the
true faith exists in that Church only ; and that it is, on that
account, entitled to the appellation which so many are rea¬
dy to yield—I repeat it, the sooner we hasten back into her
maternal bosom, the better. Let things be called by their
right names. The members of a Church, of which the Pope
is the head, may with propriety be termed papists ; and the
papal Church, or the Church of Rome, is the proper designa¬
tion of that communion. TRUTH-TELLER."
Gospel Messenger for December 1828. p. p. 373, 374.
Now the principle laid,down here, and adopted
by you as it seems, is that the papal church is the
proper name of the Roman Catholic church, and
that she ought not to be called the Catholic church,
because she is not the universal church; and that she
is not the universal church, because her communion
is rejected by the greater part of Christendom; that
to call papists, Catholics, would therefore be an ab¬
surdity. I shall not just now touch the fact. I shall
merely admit and apply the principle. By admitting
I do not mean that I allow your adoption in its full
extent to be correct, but I shall use it as admitted by
you.
No church can claim the name Catholic, if its
commuuion be rejected by the greater part of Chris¬
tendom. Now, good gentlemen, suppose the papal
church in whose communion some of the Protestant
authors count up one hundred millions ; others, one
hundred and twenty, and others, one hundred and
forty millions ; and we ourselves upwards of one hun¬
dred and eighty millions of souls, cannot claim the
name of Catholic because of the paucity of her num¬
bers, and her communion being rejected by the
greater part of Christendom : how can your corres¬
pondent claim it for a church in whose communion,
there are not ten millions ?
An American Protestant Episcopalian'is not a
memher of the English Protestant Church, but I
here allow all persons in all parts of the Globe who fol¬
low the general outline of the doctrine and Liturgy and
[ V ]
government of the English or American Protestant
Episcopalian Churches to be members of the same
Church, and they will not constitute an aggregate of
ten millions of souls. If it be an absurdity to call
a church of one hundred and eighty millions, Catho¬
lic, because of the paucity of numbers, will it not be
eighteen absurdities in you to admit the incompati¬
ble name of your correspondent and my reviewer ?
" But the word Protestant is not confined to Pro¬
testant Episcopalians only : and if you take all the
Protestant Churches the numbers will be more than
ten millions." Gentlemen, you shall not have any
reason to complain I shall be most accommodat¬
ing. I give you the greatest numerical strength
claimed by any of your advocates, I give you fifty
millions as the number of all the professors of the va¬
rious denominations of Protestants ; and I .will not
raise a question as to how many thousand doctrinal
contradictions upon what you call fundamental and
essential points will be found in this assemblage ;
neither shall I ask by how many hundred names the
jarring elements of this collection will choose to be
designated. Nor shall I amuse my readers by even
hinting at the ludicrous yet melancholy result of en¬
deavouring to procure their unanimous assent to a
single tenet beyond the two following, " I believe in
God." " I believe in the Bible." This then must
be the whole and entire dogma of this " Protes¬
tant Catholic" Church. But upon your own principle
this Church is not Catholic, because it is even
in its aggregate, a minority of Christendom. The
Greeks, the Muscovites, and all the Eastern separa¬
tists to the amount of between thirty and forty mil¬
lions besides the Roman Catholics,—I beg pardon,
the papists,—will give a majority of seven to two at
least against it, and therefore it. is not Catholic.
I shall now go farther and give you all the persons
in the universe separated from Rome in communion,
but professing to be Christians, and I will give you
their numbers at the highest estimate, an estimate far
beyond the fact. I state them to be nearly one hundred
millions. To increase your advantage, I strike off
one-third from what I believe to be the lowest fair
estimate of those who are in the communion of the
Pope : I shall still have left one hundred and twenty
[ 8 ]
millions of papists : then upon your own principle even
in this case it would be absurd to call the whole
body of separatists from the communion of the Holy
See, Catholic,even if they were as united as they are
opposed to each other in doctrine. What a pity,
good gentlemen, that upon the receipt of the first
communication of your correspondent, you did not
teach him the propriety of calling things by their
right names ? You see upon your own principle that
his very name is an absurdity !
Let me come now to the facts. The papal
Church is rejected from the communion of the
greater part of Christendom ! ! ! Does the papal
Church reject her own children from their own com¬
munion ? Her children form the greater portion of
the Christian people ; her clergy form the greater
portion of the christian ministry ; her altars are
reared in every Christian nation ; every division of
Christians has gone out from her bosom ; every
Christian nation has been converted by her missiona¬
ries. All who have been separated from hei com¬
plain of her cruelty because she will not admit them
to her communion. Luther in his pamphlet "against
the execrable Bull of Antichrist," gives us a speci¬
men of their mode of rejecting the Pope's communi¬
on. In the same manner that they excommunicate
me. I also excommunicate them. In fact the grearer
part of Christendom is in the communion of the pa¬
pal Church, and therefore according to your own
adopted principle that church whose head resides in
Rome is the Catholic Church.
I shall apply another test to shew the folly of your
correspondent. I will assemble all those various sects
which I have even against their own will ranged un¬
der the name of Protestants. I shall leave to their
joint decision the several doctrines on which they are
divided amongst themselves, and will take the votes of
this portion of Christendom only without, permitting
a Roman Catholic to have a voice in the assembly.
Let the universal vote testify the Catholic doctrines.
From this assembly of contradiction and chaos I will
infallibly upon each single poi-• t on which they differ,
get from the majority, evidence of the truth of the
tenets of the papal Church. Allow me to exhibit
Hut one or two instances, they shall be multiplied at
[ 9 }
your desire. Let the question be put whether Epis¬
copacy is a divine or an ecclesiastical institution*
Your church votes with all the Eastern divisions,
that it is of divine origin and essential and unaltera¬
ble by ecclesiastical institution, i Thus without a sin¬
gle papal vote, we have the majority in favour of the
papal doctrine. Add the papists to this majority; and
if this vote be correct,what becomes of the authority of
those who form the minority ? On the other hand; ifthe
vote be erroneous what becomes of the Catholicity of
the Church of Christ ? I next put the question of
the real presence of the body of Christ in the Eucha¬
rist. I have all those who in the West believe the
real presence by consubstantiation, and they who in
the East believe the same presence by transubstantia-
tion,without taking into account numerous instances
of individuals who following their private judgment
believe the doctrine; I have a majority of the sepera-
tists from the papal church believing in the real pre¬
sence. Whoever will take the trouble carefully and
candidly and patiently to examine into details and
particulars, will find that although each separate divi¬
sion of Christians differs in some one peculiar article
from the Roman Catholic Church, and is by that pecu¬
liarity distinguished from other Shcts also,yet when the
common joint vote of all is taken upon each of
those special articles, the testimony of the majority
will in e'ach particular instance be in support of the
Roman Catholic doctrine. To this general rule there
must obviously be two exceptions: regarding the su¬
premacy ofRome, and the infallibility of the Church;
for the admission of either of those would be evidc ntly
the condemnation in every instance of the very body
that gave the vote. Thus it will necessarily follow
that by the votes of those separated from the papal
Church, that church herself teaches what the ma¬
jority of even those Christians who oppose her avow
to be the doctrine of Christ; and thus by their testi¬
mony she is Catholic. Arid in like manner it will be
found that each separate cfoulPfcfa will be condemned
upon its peculiar points ofcMdtrinaJLdifference with
» Rome, by the vote of the universal body of the co-se¬
paratists themselves. Hence it must necessarily
follow that not only the Papal is the Catholic
[ 10 ]
Church, but also that any division opposed thereto is
not Catholic.
1 have hitherto allowed your correspondent lati¬
tude enough as to the meaning of the word Protes¬
tant. it is time that i should be more exact—The
name was first given to the Lutherans,who protested
against the decree of the imperial Diet of Spires, in
Germany in 1529. The other western separatists
from the papal church came subsequently undfer the
appellation. Previously to this period the great
bulk of Christendom was in the papal communion
so much so, and so universally so. that your book of
Homilies most pathetically laments.*
" So that laity and clergy, learned and unlearned,
" all ages, sects, and degrees of men, women, and
" children of whole Christendom fan horrible &most
" dreadful thing to think] have been at once drowned
" in abominable idolatry, of all other vices mostde;
<( tested of God, and most damnable to man, and
" that by the space of eight hundred years and
<s more." Thus the Catholic or Universal Church
is during the,eight centuries previous to the appear¬
ance of Protestants buried in the error of idolatry.'
Your Catechisms all ^ell us that a Protestant is one
who protests againsf those errors, which existed in
this Roman Catholic Church, Roman because her
visible head was Bishop of the See of Rome ; Ca¬
tholic because she was universal, that is, in'all parts
of Christendom, and forming at all limes the great
bulk of Christendom. By what species of common
sense will your correspondent make us understand
that they who protest against the errors of the catholic
church and form ahody apart and separate therefrom,
are yet a portion of that body from which they have
separated and which they denounce ? And by what
still more strange process will you undertake to shew
thai the Church which was Catholic, because of its
universality before the existence of the Protestant
Church, has lost this title though it has been always
since then, the most numerous and most extensively,
indeed universally diffused ? And that the title has
been properly transferred to a body which is of conL
* Third part of the sermon against the peril ef Idolatry*
p. 201. New York Edit. 1815.
I 11 ]
\
paratively recent origin, has always been a disunited
and conflicting minority, and is comparatively res¬
tricted in the extent of country over which it has
been spread ?
Thus, gentlemen, your correspondent has been
most unfortunate in his selection of a nom du guerre,
by assuming a ridiculous contradiction. But the
consequences might prove worse than he anticipat¬
ed ; for in those cases there is frequently more than
a laugh to be endured : a name has frequently done
mischief to him by whom it has been unluckily borne.
We are informed in the Mercurius Rusticus, No. 16,
p. 196. that the Mayor of Colchester in the year
1643, banished one of the townsmen who was ge¬
nerally looked upon as a good puritan, yet was he
treated as a Malignant and a Cavalier for rejoicing
in the name of Parsons ! his Worship the Mayor
very wisely deciding that whatever the man him¬
self might be, the name was ominous. I could give
many like instances, but I doubt me, good gentle¬
men, this one will at the present suffice.
I shall next proceed to examine some of the good
qualities of our friend with the incompatible and
ominous name : and am, gentlemen,
Your obedient humble servant,
B. C.
Charleston, (5. C.) June 1, 1829.
LETTER II.
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and Sou¬
thern Episcopal Register, &c.
In other men we faults can spy,
And blame the4 moat that dims their eye ;
Each little speck and blemish find ;
To our own stronger errors blind.
* * * ' * * * * *
Ere you remark another's sin,
Bid thy own conscience look within;
Controul thy more voracious bill,
Nor for a breakfast nations kill.
Gay, fab. xxxviii.
Gentlemen—I have requested the Editors of the
U. S. Catholic Miscellany tojrrint in their paper the
five essays of your correspondent with the contra¬
dictory name ; so that their readers at least, might
have both sides of the case fully before them. This
[ 12 ]
is probably the more necessary as you are aware of
the great efforts that are made by their clergy, to
keep the papists in total ignorance of what Protes¬
tants urge against their errors and corruptions. I
. should suppose that it is because of the extensive
knowledge possessed by Protestants,of Catholic doc¬
trines and practices, that it is generally .thought pro¬
per, even in this country, to avoid publishing the re¬
plies of Catholics in your papers. Be that as it may;
at all events I have ensured for the papists the full
benefit of the five precious essays, which I intend to
examine. And I have numbered the paragraphs for
reference.
The gentleman or lady, for which the writer saith
not, with the contradictory name, sets out with a
promise to give something regarding Roman Catho¬
lic doctrines and pretensions. Of doctrines we have
something, but what Roman Catholic pretensions
mean the writer vouchsafes not to say. He, for I
must suppose the more worthy gender as old gram¬
marians most ungallantly write, informs us that to
him religious controversy is distasteful, yet he gives
it to others in abundance ; probably because it was
so unpleasant to himself. Will it not be poetical
justice to treat him plentifully with what he so ge¬
nerously bestows 1 Whether such shall be the effect
in the present case, a little consideration will decide.
He does not wish to involve you in controversy with
Roman Catholics. But how be could insure you
against this result, when he prevailed on you to pub¬
lish a series of controversial attacks upon Roman
Catholic doctrines, might be intelligible to himself,
but to no one else. It seems however that in two
or three lines below, the mystery is solved, for he is
In school divinity as able
As he that hight Irrefragable.
" The statements which I shall offer, and the authorities
*' in their favour will scarcely admit of dispute. If disputed,
'' I at least shall leave them to the defence they will have
u obviously carried with them."
Thus his authorities and statements being obvious¬
ly true, and not admitting any dispute, must be irre¬
fragable, and no one can be sufficiently rash to un¬
dertake controversy with him upon the subject.
To his essay No. 2, published in your Messenger
for March, is the following note at p. 73.
[ 13 ]
'' I quoth as before, although it was forgotten to say so, a
work recently published, which a few weeks Since, fell acci¬
dentally in my way, and which thus states the " misrepresen¬
tations" which Protestants had published of the religion of
the Roman Catholics."
The quotations are from my letters to Bishop Bow-
en. The object of the essays appears to be, first to
styew that I wrote what was not true, in asserting
that the Catechism of which I complained was a mis¬
representation of our tenets : and next, to try and
prove in several instances that our tenets are erro¬
neous.
He says in his introductory paragraph,
" I shall confine myself to that only which is necessary to
substantiate the claim of Protestants to be acquitted of the
reproach of palpable and wilful misrepresentation of the reli¬
gion of Roman Catholics."
In the next paragraph, after quoting the four first
propositions which in my first letter I ranged under
head of misrepresentations, he adds,
" The imputation of these things is rejected as unfounded,
as well as malicious."
In the penultimate paragraph of this same article,
No. 1, is the following passage, we are said to
" Reject the imputation of rendering undue honour to thte
undeniably worthy object of their fervent meditation as a
false and malignant misrepresentation of our religious con¬
duct."
In the first paragraph of the essay, No. 2, in the
Messenger for March, p. 72, the writer states,
" Having shown that Protestants are not guilty of the per-
verse and groundless misrepresentation of the religion of Ro¬
man Catholics with which they have been boldly charged."
In the Messenger for April, essay No. 3, the wri¬
ter states respecting Protestants, p. 109.
" Roman Catholics must admit, that they do not wilfully
misrepresent them in saying that that they worship bread and
wine in the Eucharist."
Again in the last paragraph of the same .essay, in
p. 112. we read,
" As my object is not so much to shew that Protestants
are faultlessly right in their doctrines and phrases, as that
they are not so shockingly wrong as they are said to be in
their representation of the religion of Roman Catholics, &c."
In the essay, No. 4, contained in the Messenger
for May, we read in the first paragraph, p. 143;
2
L 14 j
41 Let,not Protestants, however, be reproached with wil/ui
misrepresentation, when they point out to each other the
faults of that of the Roman Catholic Church, as especially
and conspicuously, and scandalously great."
In the fifth essay in the Messenger for June, p. 167.
we read,
" There is an admirably sensitive and conscientious re¬
gard for truth in not permitting so defective a statement to
be considered in any other light than that of wilful wicked
misrepresentation! * * * * Protestants
shamefully misrepresent matters."
The first point to which I will draw your attention,
gentlemen, is the true state of the question between
your correspondent and myself. 1 wrote a series of
letters in which 1 asserted that the doctrine of the
Roman Catholic Church was misrepresented in a lit¬
tle Catechism. I made my complaint to the proper
officer, stating that uiy religion was misrepresented
by the compilers and publishers of that Catechism.
Your correspondent charges me for reproaching
Protestants with what I stated as applicable only to
the compilers of this book and it's publishers. 1 com¬
plain of this charge, for I did not assume as a fact
what I knew to be untrue, viz. that the great body
of Protestants were identified with the compilers
and publishers: I had and still have the testimony of
many of the most respectable Protestant Episcopa¬
lians of the South, and of several highly respectable
members of other Protestant Churches, to shew that
not only they, but the larger number of their friends
and acquaintances of the same Churches disapproved
and disavowed the book. I believe then it is clear
that the Protestant Catholic!!! has been himself
guilty of misrepresenting me when he exhibited me
as charging Bishop Bowen with offending and insult¬
ing Roman Catholics ; and again when he exhibits
me'as accusing the Protestant body of being guilty
of the faults of the compilers and publishers of the
Catechism,
Now, good gentlemen, I acknowledge that a mis¬
representation must of its own nature be groundless,
and I acknowledge that sometimes it will be palpa¬
ble : although I am not aware of having used either
of those expressions regarding the statements of the
Catechism, still I should not complain of your cor¬
respondent fpr imputing them to me ; though he, of
[ 15 ]
all other writers that ever gave their productions to
a printer, has least claim to be allowed any latitude
of expression : and he was altogether unjustifiable
in extending in the least degree the meaning of my
expressions. A man who complains of another,
should not commit the fault which he censures.
Mark how he has treated me.
In the second essay, Messenger for March, p. 73,
is the following passage.
" It has been called a misrepresentation of the religion of
Roman Catholics, to say that ' they worship the images, or
pictures of the Virgin Mary, and other Saints ; that they vio¬
late the second of God's commandments, (as relating to
image and idol worship) without scruple ; that sensible, not¬
withstanding, that their practice is contrary to said second
command inent they have, i:t several of their Catechisms, left
out the second commandment, and split the tenth into two ;
that Roman Catholics in excusing themselves from idolatry
in their image worship, say no more for their exculpation,
than the heathens said for themselves, and that, therefore,
Catholics are equally idolatrous as the heathens are, or
were.'
" Here the impression which generally obtains among Pro¬
testants on this subject, is stated more strongly than it needs
be ; and as if to give it the character of the utmost possible
offence against charity, other language than their own is
added to that, which they correctly enough, in general, are
represented to have used. It may be true, that some Pro¬
testants, in an intemperate zeal of dissent from Popery, have
considered Roman Catholics equally as idolatrous as the hea¬
thens either are or were."
In this passage he imputes to me, the addition of
other language than that which is correctly used by
Protestants, but he cannot deny that I use the ex¬
pressions found in the Catechism. In my letter I
made distinct reference to the following question
and answer of the little work.
" Q. Do they not declare, that they do not direct their
worship to the images themselves, but pray to Christ and
his saints, through the images ?
" A. That indeed is said by some of them, but it is no
more than the heathens said for themselves, and cannot ex¬
cuse them from the sin of idolatry : for the word of God is
express, " Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image.
Thou shalt not bow down to them. Neither shalt thou, set
thee up any image, which the Lord thy God hateth," Deut.
xvi. 22."
Tlie conclusion " Therefore Roman Catholics are
equally idolatrous as the Heathens are or were" was
I 16 j
clearly my own inference which I believed to be
contained in the premises and inevitably to flow from
them, it was distinctly marked as such; and yet this
writer complains ot me for having added those ex¬
pressions. Why then did he add to my expressions,
the words groundless and palpable ? Why did he
add the word false, which generally implies an in¬
tention to deceive, and which intention I did not im¬
pute ? Why did he add the word wilful, which
I never insinuated ? Why did he add the word shame¬
ful, which I did not use ? Why did he add the word
shocking ? Why the word wicked ? Why did he
add perverse ? Why did he assert that I charged
malicious misrepresentation ? Why had he the har¬
dihood to assert that I charged malignant misrepre¬
sentation ? Is either of those phrases or any word
that can convey a similar meaning to be found in my
production, such as it is ? Yet this is the champion
of truth who is to correct my aberrations ! who is
to vindicate the compilers of the little book from
misrepresentation ?
w- Why seest thou the mote that is thy brother's eye : and
the beam that is thy own eye thou seest not?"—Matt.
vii. 3.
Now, gentlemen, you must yourselves be fully
aware that I never boldly charged Protestants with
being guilty of perverse and groundless misrepresen¬
tations of the religion of Roman Catholics : and
therefore the writer who makes the assertions states
that which i3 not the fact.
But I now arraign him upon a more weighty
charge. In his first essay, he lays the ground of our
criminality in giving to creatures the worship due to
God alone, upon one assumption among others, viz.
That we call upon the Saints to Be merciful to us, in
the same manner as we call upon God the Father,God
the Son, God the Holv Ghost, &c. his words are
these, in the sixth paragraph of the essay,
'• Here, after the invocation of God the Father, God the
Son, God tho Holy Ghost, the Holy Trinity, prayer is offer¬
ed to Angels and Saints, to pray for those thus praying to
them, to intercede for them, and be merciful to them.'"
In the preceding paragraph he attempts to shew
the truth of the assumption by quoting the Litany of
the Saints from the Roman Missal: the latter part o1
the paragraph as given by him is thus •
[ " ]
*l St. Mary Magdalen, St. Agatha, St. Lucy, St. Agnes,
St. Catharine, St. Anastatia, St. Bridget, all ye Holy Vir¬
gins and Widows—Pray for us. All ye men and women
Saints of God, make intercession for us. Be merciful unto
us."—pp. 263—4. of the Missal.
The whole of these words it is true are found in
the Missal in the place referred to : and yet the as¬
sertion which he makes is not true. ARomanCatholic
will immediately perceive what credit is due to such
a writer, but as some members of other communions
might read this letter, it is necessary for me to ena¬
ble them to form a just estimate of the value of this
writer's testimony.
The book from which he quotes, has the Litanies
arranged in the following order : It commences with
an invocation to God, " for mercy."
" Lord have mercy on us. Christ have mercy on us. Lord
have mercy on us. Christ, hear us, Christ,graciously hearus.
God the Father of Heaven ! Have mercy on us.
God the Son, Reedeemer of the world ! Have mercy on us.
God the Holy Ghost! Have mercy on us.
> Holy Trinity One God 1 Have mercy on us."
Then follows the invocation of the Saints, in
which the address is altogether different; as they
are only addressed as co-worshippers of God with
us, arid asked to " Pray for us" or intercede for us." .
" Holy Mary 1
Holy Mother of God }
&C. &C. | in /»
St. Catharine Pray for us.
St. Anastasia j
St. Bridget J
All ye men and women Saints of God, make intercession
for us."
This closes the invocation of the Sainjs, in which
they certainly are called upon to pray for us, and to
make intercession for us. After which in a distinct
clause follows another invocation in the following
words :
'• Be merciful unto us. Spare us, O Lord !
Be merciful unto us. Graciously hearus, O Lord!
From all evil,
From all sin,
From thy wrath,
&c. &c.
Through the mystery of thy
holy Incarnation,
Through thy coming,
&c. Ac. J
c>*
' G Lord ! deliver us.
[ IB J
We sinners, Do beseech thee hear us.
That thou spare us, ~|
That thou vouchsafe to gov¬
ern and preserve thy holy
Church,
&c. &c. &c.
That thou vouchsafe to con¬
firm and preserve us in
thy holy service,
&c. &c. &c."
> We beseech thee to hear us.
J
It is here manifest, that all those latter invocations
are addressed to our Lord Jesus Christ, and not to
Angels or Saints. It is manifest that the phrase, Be
merciful to us, which he applies to the Saints, is by
Catholics addressed to their only Lord and Saviour
and Redeemer Jesus Christ, to whom the subsequent
addresses also are made.
The misrepresentation of the fact, of which your
correspondent is here guilty, is one which no honou¬
rable man could stoop to commit; it is one, respect¬
ing which no conscientious man could deliberate:
nothing could prompt to its perpetration but a consci¬
ousness of a desperate cause, and a determined obsti¬
nacy to hold to that cause right or wrong. I do not
accuse the writer,with the contradictory name,of this
depraved disposition ; but I can give him no alter¬
native but gross inadvertence, to which he is wel¬
come as a protection if he feels that he deserves it.
Here then in the very outset is the man who denies
that our tenets have been misrepresented in the little
book, detected himself in such a misrepresentation
as must be under any circumstances characterised
as groundless, palpable and false ; for aught that I
know, where the writer had the whole Litany before
him and cut a line into two portions, so as to add the
first half to that with which it had no connexion, and
to suppress the latter half, it would deserve the ether
epithets which he appears so anxious to introduce. He
is welcome to them if he thinks proper. Good gen¬
tlemen, I believe this witness is now fairly disposed
of. His incompetency is manifest. A writer who
garbles a document in the manner which he has done
would not be admitted in any court of justice in the
universe. But your correspondent is by no means sin-
L 19 J
pillar in this ; he has only done that which has beera_
usually performed by those of his class and party.
Of what value then is that part of his conclusion
which in the following passage is predicated on this
assumed fact, if such predication was therein intend¬
ed. \
" Then must the honour due to Christ be impaired by any
Christian worship tha1 supplicates blessing or mercy through
any mediation or intercession, either besides, or to the ex¬
clusion of his. That they who use such worship as that of
which I have adduced the several specimens selected, give
to the creatures the worship due to God,, alone, will not at
first view, admit of question ; nor is it easy, even on a closer
consideration of the matter, to separate the reproach of di¬
rect idolatry from prayer addressed in the same Litany to
God, and the many canonized Saints, arbitrarily determined
to be capable of hearing and answering prayer; and as arbi¬
trarily pronounced to be the blessed attendants of the divine
presence."
Then it is not a fact that Roman Catholics ask
the Saints or Angels to " have mercy on them, in the
same manner that they ask God to have mercy|6i|.
them, nor at all in the Litany : and henCp so
this expression goes I feel the question to bp con¬
cluded.
Before I enter upon the other divisions of the sub¬
ject, I shall briefly notice the assertion of the writer
in paragraph 9. " the many canonized saints arbi¬
trarily pronounced to be blessed attendants of the
Divine presence." As 1 know not what is the pre¬
cise meaning attached to the phrase the many cano¬
nized Saints, I shall for the moment suppose it to be
restricted to those enumerated in the quotation from
the Litany, and upon the application of the principle
I will here^Sfse, I shall be ready to take up the whole
Roman Calendar should your correspondent prefer
it.
I shall only suppose that the writer is a Protestant
Episcopalian which is an intelligible and appropriate
name of a very respectable class of Americans; and
next suppose that he believes and will admit, that the
Liturgy of his Church contains nothing censurable
and implies nothing erroneous. The writer counts up
the names of three Angels, and fifty-one Saints upon
our Litany. Amongst the changes effected by the
American Church in the revision of the English Li¬
turgy was the omission of several faint's days \ still
t 20 ]
a number of those days-are observed, and the col¬
lects are retained. Nineteen of our fifty one Saints,
are specially named : and a festival is celebrated for
All Saints ; one of the Angels is specially designat¬
ed and all the Angels are joined with him.
I should hope that I do not misrepresent the iact
when f state my impression, that although the Ame¬
rican Church thought proper to curtail the number
of Saint's days to be observed as festivals, she does
not condemn the English Protestant Church, from
which she sprung, for retaining a greater number of
those days ; and hence I may fairly assume, that she
does not think it criminal in the Archbishop of Can¬
terbury to believe that an individual named ou his
calendar is a canonized Saint,even though he should
be omitted upon the American calendar. Now the
English Protestant calendar contains those nineteen
names of Saints which are found upon that of the
American Church, and seventeen others of those in1
voked in the above litany : so that we have thirty-
six of our number pronounced by the English Church
to be attendants of the Divine presence: and she has
also the names of forty other Saints not in the above
Litany, nor on the calendar of the American Church,
amongst whom is King Charles the Martyr, who
was beheaded by order of the Reformers of the
Church and State of Great Britain. Besides this the
Church of England has the festival of all saints, and
the festival of the holy Innocents, in like manner as
our Episcopal brethren in this Union celebrate them,
as also the festival of St. Michael and all Angels. One
of the many inconsistencies then of theEnglish Protes¬
tant Church is, that although she gives-ps between
seventy and eighty Saints in her calendar, yet in the
admonition to the reader, in Prceces privates, printed
by authority in 1573, it is stated, not that we repute
them all for Saints or holy men: and yet they are all
classed together as Saints without informing us which
is so reputed and which is not so reputed. Now, I.
would ask who classed these persons in this man¬
ner ? Who declared that any one of them was a
Saint ? Has the Americap Church power to do so.?
Has the English Church power to do ? And if so,
why will not tfee Roman Catholic Church have at
least equal power ? 'Why then does the writer, with
I 21 ]
the contradictory name, complain of thelloman Ca¬
tholic Church as arbitrary in pronouncing, upon
what she conceives to be sufficient evidence, that
those whom she calls Saints are blessed attendants
upon the divine presence, whilst he acquits his own
churches ? Or if he condemns us, why not condemn
them ? The principle is the same whether the number
be great or small. It certainly is no very enviable
state for the English and American Churches to find
themselves pressed on one side by the charge of assum¬
ing to declare some who are Saints, and with those
titles of their Churches, those festivals in their Litur¬
gy and those names upon their calendar,to be found
proclaiming that they know not whether they are
Saints or not: and still farther should they admit that
a few whom they designate are known to be inha¬
bitants of heaven, to be perplexed in the effort to
confine to that few the application of a principle
which might be fairly extended to several others.
This is a result of their deviation from principle.
The Presbyterians and Baptists are released from
this difficulty by boldly rejecting the principle at
once, they have at least no self-contradiction on this
point, nor are they compelled as Protestant Episco¬
palians' are, to make an arbitrary distinction. The
Catholics do not act arbitrarily, but upon principle ;
they have a rule by which they are led, and they
acknowledge as Saints all to whom the rule applies.
There is nothing arbitrary in this. The Protestant
may, if he will, assert that Catholics have no sufficient
rule by which to ascertain that any particular individual
has been admitted to the divine presence: but then the
assertor himself must, if he will be consistent, not as¬
sume for his society a prerogative which he will deny
to a pre-existing,a Catholic, and ahApostolic Church,
This and several other assaults upon popery, by
champions of the Protestant Episcopal Church, al¬
ways remind me of a story told somewhere by, I be¬
lieve Sir R. L'Estrange, of a Lutheran, who declar¬
ed that all Martinists were rank heretics, and erro¬
neous in most of their tenets,as well as schismatical
in their origin, when upon examination it was disco¬
vered that the 'Martinists were followers of Martin
Luther and most steadily adhered to what they bad
received as his doctrine.
[ 22 ]
Having thus exhibited the character of your cor¬
respondent, I shall proceed, gentlemen, to examine
his production more particularly under the heads of
what are our tenets, and what is his Theology.
I remain, gentlemen,
Your obedient humble servant,
B. C.
Charleston, (S. C.) June 8, 1829.
LETTER III.
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and Sou¬
thern Episcopal Register, &c.
" Ye Seraphs, who God's throne encircling- still,
With holy zeal your golden censers fill;
Ye Aiming ministers, to distant lands
Who bear, obsequious, his divine commands ;
Ye cherubs, who compose the sacred chcir,
Attuning to the voice th' angelic lyre !
Or ye, lair natives of the heavenly [ lain,
Who once were mortal—now a happier train !
Who spend in peaceful love, your joyful hours,
In blissful meads, and amaranthine bowers,
On, lend one spark of your celestial fire,
And dein-n my glowing bosom to inspire,
And aid the Muse's mexpenene'd winjr,
While Goodness, theme divine she soars to sing."
Boyse.
Gentlemen,—I now proceed to shew that your
correspondent " Protestani Catholic" is not only
inconsistent with the tenets of your church, bur that
he has altogether failed in sustaining his first charge
against me.
He stated that Roman Catholics called upon the
Angels and Saints in the same way that they did
upon God, to be merciful to them, and this ground
has been removed, because of the untruth of the
statement. His next averment is that Roman Ca¬
tholics "pray to angels and saints to save them by
their merits." And here he assumes two grounds
for their condemnation : first that it is idolatry to
pray to the blessed spirits, next, that we dishonour
Christ when we ask to be saved by the merits of
such beings. I shall take each topic separately.
In paragraph 10, he lays down his principle,
e< And what is prayer offered to a creature, whether
visible or invisible, if not idolatry ?" If by prayer be
[ 23 ]
meant the homage which is due only to God,by which
we ask of hitn as the sole fountain of grace and
mercy, that which he alone can effectually bestow;
I answer distinctly ; to offer such prayer to any crea¬
ture would be idolatry. But it is untrue that Ro¬
man Catholics do offer any such homage to any crea¬
ture, and until your correspondent shall have proved
that they do, he will not have laid any ground for
the application of his principle : my assertion is
that he has not shewn and can not shew that such
prayer is so offered.
But the word prayer, frequently signifies a " re¬
quest" an intreaty made by one creature to ano¬
ther, for such aid as that creature can bestow," and
in this sense I submit that prayer might be lawfully
made by a human being, not only to his fellow man,
but to any other creature that can aid him.—
To make application for such aid to one who could
not hear, or who hearing, could not help, might be
folly; but it would not be idolatry. If prayer of
this latter kind be offered to angels and saints, I as¬
sert it is not Idolatry.
To say that no distinction can be made by the
suppliant who addresses a principal from whom alone
the favour must come, and an intercessor who might
join in the supplication to that principal, is to con¬
tradict not only common sense, But daily experi¬
ence, and the very paragraph itself affords full evi¬
dence that Roman Catholics do act upon this dis¬
tinction
" But Roman Catholics, do not, they say, commit idola¬
try in praying to Saints ; for they offer them only an infe¬
rior worship, and not that which is due to God—they only
invoke them, and ask their help in obtaining the benefits
which God alone can confer."
The admission here made, renders it unnecessary
for me to adduce any farther evidence for the fact
that Roman Catholics do make the distinction.—
The word prayer is then susceptible of two mean¬
ings, which are totally unlike : and Roman Catho¬
lics do not pray to angels and saints in the first sense
of the word : to state or to insinuate that they do is
to misrepresent 4hem. Your correspondent makes
this statement by a miserable quibble upon the am¬
biguity of the word, prayer, and by an unbecoming
[ 24 ]
equivocation attempts to shqw against their own de^
claration, that Roman Catholics do pray to the creat¬
ed spirits iri the same way that they offer their pray¬
ers to God.
" Surely the ora pro nobis, with a view to the benefits
which God alone can confer, addressed to an invisible being,
and in the same office of devotion in which God is directly
supplicated, is, to all intents and purposes, prayer; and
what is prayer offered to a creature, whether visible or invi¬
sible, if not idolatry."
When we ask another to " pray for us." We
avow by the phrase that the person so called upon
by us, must address himself to another, who can grant
what it is not in the power of this intercessor to be¬
stow. Hence, when in the same office of devotion
we say " Lord, have mercy on us." " Christ have
mercy on us." " Holy Mary, Pray for us." So far
from placing Christ and Mary upon an equal foot-'
ing, we distinctly profess that mercy is derived only
from him,& that she can do no more than obtain from
him by her prayer,to bestow this mercy upon us. Thus
if prayer to the only source of mercy, be worship of
adoration ; it is evident that by our prayer to the
blessed Virgin, we intreat of Mary to adore our Lord
Jesus Christ. Your correspondent cannot then as¬
sert that we pray to any Angel or Saint, in the same
manner as we do to God, until he shall have disco¬
vered us asking God to pray for us to the Angels
and Saints : asking God thus to adore the blessed
spirits. Have we then not been misrepresented by
him ?
But in paragraph 20, he is still less excusable.
By a mis-translation and a false suggestion he endea¬
vours to distort the meaning of a prayer in the Mass
to shew that vve place Jesus Christ and the Saints
upon the same footing. In paragraph 5, he quotes
from the translation of the Missal, printed in New-
York in 1822. He refers to the same edition
in paragraph 7. I am to suppose naturally, that he
refers to the same book in his quotation in paragraph
20. In that place he gives the following as the pray¬
er on which he builds his argument.
" Receive, O holy Trinity, this oblation, which we make
to the memory of the Passiop, &c.
The original latin is placed in one column and the
L 25 j
translation in another upon the same, page 281 of the
edition referred to, and is the following.
Suseipe Sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem <quam tibi offe-
rimus ob memoriam Passionis, &c.
The translation, which he quotes as in authorised
use, par. 5, gives us the following : in p. 281.
41 Receive O holy Trinity, this oblation which w'e make
to thee in memory of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascen¬
sion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honour of the blessed
Mary over a virgin, of blessed John Baptist, the holy apostles
Peter and Paul, and all the Saints; that it it may be availa¬
ble to their honour, and our salvation : and may they vouch¬
safe to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we cele¬
brate on earth. Through the same Christ our Lord. Jlmen"
His object was to persuade his readers that Jesus
Christ and the Saints were considered co-equal in¬
tercessors, and therefore after the mis-translation be
who complained so much of my having made an ad¬
dition, paragraph 23, now interpolates in the prayer
the phrase (Jesus, &c.) between the words tkpy
which he marks in italics, and the words " vouch¬
safe to intercede" : when such was by no means the
meaning of the prayer. I do not think it very unrea¬
sonable to suppose that when this critic undertook
to help out his own construction by introducing bis
own words, he looked at the explanation given in the
Missal itself for the purpose of knowing whether he
was fairly representing the doctrine which he under¬
took to explain. If he did not, he was negligent. If
he did, he was dishonest, for he found the following.
" The celebrant then comes to the middle part of the al¬
tar, and bowing down, says the next prayer, Receive, OHoly
Trinity, &c. This prayer, in its present form, is probably a
cause of difficulty to some persons who do not examine with
sufficient Care, nor reflect upon what they too hastily con¬
demn. They object that by this prayer, the church profess¬
es to offer the sacrifice equally to the blessed trinity and to
the saints. This is not the fact, nor is such the meaning of
the prayer. It consists of three distinct parts. The first
requesting the oblation to be received in memory of the Pas¬
sion, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is distinct, and the plain meaning of the request is evi¬
dently conformable to the institution,* Do this for a com¬
memoration of me The second part, requesting the oblation
to be received in honour of the blessed Virgin, and other
saints—that it may be available to their honour and to our
salvation. This latter clause," our $alv%tion," creates no
difficulty, The question is now what is meqnt by offering
* Luke xxii. v. 19.
3
[ 26 J
the sacrifice in honour of the Saints ? First, then, the word
honour in the first part of the prayer, is clearly not an exact,
though it be a literal translation of the original prayer—for
it should be rather translated on the festival of the blessed
Virgin, &c. Le Brun remarks t that the words found in the
oldest copies are in honore, and not in honorem, and states
also, that the words ad honorem found immediately after,
strengthens the proof of this reading being correct, for the
persons who framed the prayer would otherwise have fallen
into a glaring and inexplicable tautology. In honore evi¬
dently ought to be translated on the festival or at the time we
honour. Thus it would appear as well from the critical exa¬
mination, -as from various facts which that author adduces,
that this is the true meaning of this first phrase. But ad ho¬
norem, that it may be available to their honour, i. e. the
saints, is distinct, we must then see its meaning.
" St.Augustine writes,J "So that although we raisetaltars
to the memory of the martyrs, we do not build any to them.
For which of our prelates at any time celebrating at the altar
in any of the places of the saints, has said,4 We offer unto
thee, Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian ?' But that which .is offered,
is offered to God who has crowned the martyrs, at those pla¬
ces where is celebrated their memory whom he has crowned.1'
And again, in another place, " || Nor do we give to those mar-
trys temples, priests and sacrifices: because, not they, but
their God is our Godf." Thus no sacrifice was offered to the
saints, though places were consecrated to their memory,
where their virtues were honoured, and altars raised at
which this honour was paid. Not by sacrifice to them, but
by sacrifice to God; to their God and ours, to him who ena¬
bled them by his grace to triumph over sin, and to obtain
glory—the honour we pay to them redounds to him, who in
them has crowned his own graces ; and when we pray that
this sacrifice may be received by the Godhead, it is to the ho¬
ly Trinity it is offered, not the saints; it is offered in comme¬
moration of Christ, on the festival of the saints, perhaps in
places consecrated to God in their memory, and we pray it
may be available to their honour, we do not offer it to them
that they may receive it —this would be idolatry. But it is
offered to God to their honour ; and so far from this being
derogatory to the honour of Christ, or against his institu¬
tions, it is calculated to promote his honour , and in confor¬
mity with his institutions; for when we honour the saints,
we only pay to God the homage of our praise for their per¬
fections, we praise his work in them, and their glory re¬
dounds to Him who created them and sanctified them : and
surely it was to procure them honour, and glory, and salva¬
tion, that he sacrificed himsr.if on Calvary, and we only re¬
peat the offering lor the purpose of commemorating and ful¬
filling his institutions Nay, he distinctly declares, J For
them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in
truth, and its consequence, honoured in glory.
t Explic. lit. hist, and dog. part iii. art. ix. J Lib. 20,
contra Faust, c. 21. [| Lib. 8. de civ. c. 27. 6 John xvii, 19.
t 27 ]
" Thus the sacrifice is offered to the Trinity, but not to the
saints, and though they are honoured, that respect redounds
to the greater glory of the Lord.
" The third part of the prayer is a request that those saints
whose memory we celebrate on earth may intercede for us in
heaven. Here, then, we distinctly point out how far they
can assist us 11 by intercession" to be again subordinate to
that of the Redeemer, and only available through his me¬
rits, for the prayer concludes by the words which clearly
prove those merits to be the foundation on which we rest all
our hope by those words, " Through the same Christ, our
Lord, Amen."
" But why, it is said, need we ask to have our sacrifice
received, if that sacrifice be Christ, who must necessarily be
acceptable ? Because we are not necessarily acceptable, and
the object is to apply to us the benefit of this offering, by
granting to us those dispositions which will qualify us to
profit by that which in itself is excellent.
" This prayer was originally said, only on the festivals of
saints, and special mention then was made of that saint whose
festival was celebrated, but during the latter 700 or 800
years the special name has been omitted, and the general
form used asjow. Many of the ancient Missals style it the
prayer of St. Ambrose, we however, have no better evi¬
dence to attribute its formation to him."—Missal Explic.
ivii. .
Thus no part of our office, no tenet, no practice
of our's will for a moment countenance the notion
that we pray to the created spirits in the same man¬
ner that we do to God : and every attempt to impute
this to us is a misrepresentation and your corres¬
pondent has garbled, changed, added, I may pro¬
perly say, interpolated and equivocated in his vain
efforts to attain this object. Roman Catholics have
at least so much common sense as to know that God
is the Creator of angels &' saints, and that these bless¬
ed spirits are not their own Creator : Catholics know
that Jesus Christ is the only Redeemer, and to the
Creator and Redeemer and sanctifier only, do they
look for mercy at its source.
Having stated the doctrine of Roman Catholics
to be, paragraph 10, as regards prayer to the an¬
gels and saints, " only to invoke them, and ask
their help in obtaining benefits which'God alone can
confer," the writer with the contradictory name, re¬
presented truly the second kind of prayer above
described, and which Catholics hold it lawful to use
towards any of our fellow creatures who can hear
and help us. Yet this same correspondent of yours
[ 28 ]
unqualifiedly calls such invocation and demand oi
help idolatry. We now agree in the facts; and our
difference is upon principle. Let us see a specimen
of his Theology and of its necessary consequences.
He lays down the principle that " prayer offered to
a creature whether visible or invisible is idolatry,"
To invoke, means no more than to call u pon, and gen¬
erally for a favor; to invoke and ask help, means
that the person is called upon to grant that help as
a matter of courtesy or favour, not as claimed of
right: and this is prayer; by his own statement, sucit
prayer can be offered to visible equally as to invisi¬
ble creatures, and your correspondent informs us
that it is equally idolatry in one case as in the other.
1 agree perfectly with him in the principle though I
widely differ from him in my results. He would as¬
sert that in each case it would be idolatry, I say it is
not so in either. He admits as a fact that " Protes
tants ask the prayers of the faithful, or those they
consider so on earth, in the body that God will com¬
fort them in sorrow, sustain them in trial, and save
them from danger." Thus they intreat the faithful
in the body, they invoke them, they ask their help
by the ora pro nobis, " pray for us," with a view to
benefits which God alone confer, and thus Protes¬
tants according to this Theologian are guilty of ido¬
latry. No, no, for the persons whom they invoke
are in the body :—upon earth. I answer " they are
visible." If they were disembodied spirits, and not
upon earth they would it is true be invisible to us,
but not the less really in existence : and whether
visible or invisible the contradictory writer took
good care to make his principle embrace both.
It is very true that another question will fairly offer
itself respecting the wisdom of addressing ourselves
to intercessors invisible to us, who have departed
from the body : but the questions of idolatry and in¬
utility are very different. To invoke and pray in
our second meaning of prayer, to an angel or a
saiDt is then no more idolatry, than to invoke and
ask the aid of a creature upon earth ; and if Catho¬
lics are guilty of this crime by invoking those spirits,
Protestants are equally guilty by invoking each other.
So far the two cases resemble each other in princi¬
ple. But here the similarity ceases. Ho with an-
I 29 )
parent triumph asks, whether the cases resemble
each other. I say, that in principle, to this extent
they do. Before I take up the point of difference
it might not be amiss for me to remind you of one
who certainly besought earnestly the prayers of per¬
sons who though visible and on earth and in the bo¬
dy, yet were to him as perfectly invisible at the time,
as any of those blessed spirits whom I presume you
will admit he occasionally saw.
" 30 Now I beseech you, brethren for the Lord Jesus
Christ's sake, and for the love of the spirit, that ye strive
together with me in your prayers to God for me;"
" 31 That I may be delivered from them that do not be¬
lieve in Judea ; and that my service which I have for Jeru¬
salem may be accepted of the saints
" 32 That I may come unto you with joy by the will of
God,, and may with you be refreshed.—St. Paul, Ep. to '
Rom. Chap. XV."
The allegation upon which the charge of idolatry
was founded, being, that Roman Catholics prayed to
angels and saints in Such a manner as to commit
this crime; I apprehend that I should have sufficient¬
ly vindicated my denial of the charge by what I have
written ; but your correspondent has chosen to go
much farther, and it perhaps will be as well to fol¬
low him.
We have seen that it would not be idolatry to in¬
voke or call upon one of the faithful in the body to
unite with us in prayer to God. It remains to exa¬
mine whether the mere circumstance of making a
similar request of an invisible or spiritual creature,
would thereby become idolatry. I will at once say, it
would not: because, to constitute that crime we must
give to some creature visible or invisible, corporeal
or spiritual the homage due to God alone : the mere
circumstance of invisibility or spirituality will not
change the principle. The jet of the crime consists
in giving to a creature what belongs only to the crea¬
tor. Now we never worship God by asking him to
join us in prayer, by asking him to " pray for us," by
asking him " to make intercession for us." Hence
to address a fellow-creature in this manner, is not to
treat it as we treat God, but in a way in which no
rational or religious being would act towards the
Creator. To address to God such prayers as those,
which we address to angels and saints, would be, to
I 30 ]
derogate from his honour and to blaspheme. When
therefore we thus address the blessed spirits we do
not pay to them the homage which we pay to God.
The other differences alluded to in the 10th para¬
graph are: first a doubt as to whether the being whom
we ask to pray for us, is in Heaven. Suppose he is
not: then the worst will be that our labour will be
just as much lost, as would be that of a good Pro¬
testant who should write to a friend in a distant place
to pray for him, and the friend dies before the letter
arrives. We believe however upon grounds which
satisfy ourselves, that we can know in some instan¬
ces, that God has admitted particular individuals to
his presence, and we address ourselves only to them,
but if even here we should, being deluded, ask the
prayers of one who is a reprobate, we are in no
worse plight than probably are many of our protes-
testant friends themselves, who have often been im¬
posed upon* by hypocrites, whose prayers they have
besought, under the impression of their being virtu¬
ous ; But surely this mistake is not idolatry.
Your correspondent next states a new difference
to be,that we know not that those blessed spirits are
accessible, and we can surely have access to the
faithful in the body, on earth. This I call begging
the question, for we assert that there is equally cer¬
tain access to those blessed spirits. Yet still were
there no access to them, it would only be folly, not
idolatry, to ask their prayers.
In the same 10th paragraph which indeed con¬
tains the chief part of his argument he asserts ano¬
ther difference between the blessed in Heaven and
the faithful in the body to be, that we know not that
the former can pray for us, or help us; whilst we do
know that the latter can. This also is assuming
what we deny, and such ignorance if it even existed
on our part, would not constitute idolatry.
Upon those grounds I then state ; that Idolatry be¬
ing the giving to any creature the worship due only
to God; in order to prove us guilty thereof in pray¬
ing to angels arid saints ; it must be shewn that we
pray to them in such a way as is due only to God.—
But we do not pray to them in that manndr, but; on¬
ly in that manner in which Protestants pray to just
men on earth, in the body ; arid as this is hot on
[ 31 ]
their part idolatry ; so neither is our conduct idola¬
trous. In another place I shall shew that it is neither
foolish nor irreligious.
We now come to another point, " Catholics ask
salvation through the merits of the angels and saints."
No attempt having been made to produce any evi¬
dence whatever to sustain the charge of our ask¬
ing salvation ("• to save them,") through the merits
of the angels, and the proposition being conjuctive,
I might upon this single ground, claim to have the
whole assertion rejected as not proved. I shall how¬
ever not use this advantage. I shall merely say that
we deny, and our impugner has not attempted to
shew that denial to be unfounded, that we do pray
to the angels to save us by their merits. The only
proof adduced is a prayer to the guardian Angel,
paragraph 4. in which not one syllable of, or regar¬
ding merits is to^ be found. I do not of course ad¬
mit the unfounded assertions and repetitions of your
correspondent to be proofs.
In paragraph 7. he adduces the documents re¬
garding the merits of the saints ; after four prayers
in which mention is made of their merits and one of
intercession only, the writer concludes in paragraph
S. "It is then a fact, that Roman Catholics do pray
to angels and saints to save them by their merits."
So far as the angels are concerned, it is obviously
not a fact. Now to understand the question proper¬
ly, we must be clear as to the meaning of the terms
used : we should have no quarrel merely about
words. Doctrines and not expressions form the
subject of our enquiry.
I shall first state what 1 conceive is meant by the
expression " save them." I am under the impres¬
sion that amongst Protestants it means, to bring a
person from a state of sin whereby he is exposed to
eternal punishment, to a state of justification where¬
in he becomes entitled to Heaven, that is " save
them from Hell" which is the place of punishment
for sin. The word merits I believe is at present, by
the great bulk of protestants in this union, consider¬
ed as implying a claim of pure and strict justice on
the part of the meritorious, which gives them a com¬
plete right to demand an equivalent from the person
against whom they, have this, claim. Thus the iny*
L 32 ]
pression conveyed to the protestant mind by the ex¬
pression " A catholic believes that he can be saved
by the merits of the saints" is* that we believe the
saints have some demand of strict justice upon God
by reason of some service they have done hern, inde¬
pendently of any claim of his upon them, and by
virtue of which demand, they can in strict right save
sinners from Hell and bring them to Heaven. Now
Roman Catholics consider it a heresy to make any
such asesrtion. They condemn the Pelagians as erring
from the Faith, for asserting that a man can by the
proper use of his own faculties, merit heaven for
himself, which is much less than is implied in the
above assertion. Hence it is a misrepresentation of
Catholic doctrine to assert that it teaches that we
can be so saved either by our own merits,or by the me¬
rits of angels and saints. It is also of course a
misrepresentation to assert that we pray to saints
in this sense, or in any other like this, to save us by
their merits.
Thus the Catholic doctrine as laid down in the
sixth session of the Council of Trent, on the 13th
of January 1547, is
" That man cannot by his own works which are done ei¬
ther according to the teaching of human nature, or of the
law; without divine grace through Jesus Christ, be justified
before God.—Canon I.
" That divine grace is not given through Jesus Christ
merely that a man might with more ease live justly, and me¬
rit eternal life; as if he might be able to do so in any man¬
ner by free will, without grace; but yet hardly and with
difficulty.—Canon II.
" That a man cannot without the preventing inspiration
of the Holy Ghost and his help, believe, hope, love or re¬
pent as he ought, so that the grace of justification should be
conferred upon him.—Canon III.
" That men are not justified without the justice of Christ
by which he merited for us.—Canon X.n
In the decree concerning original sin passed on the
17th of June, 1546, in the third paragraph it is distinct¬
ly stated as Catholic doctrine that this sin cannot be
removed by the strength of human nature, nor by
any other remedy " but by the merit of the only me¬
diator our Lord Jesus Christ, who reconciled us to
God, in his blood."
Thus the only mode by which we can be saved
from ein, be justified before God, live justly, be-
[ 33 ]
iieve, hope, love, and repent as we ought, so that
the grace of justification should be conferred upon
us, and of course eternal life procured, is through
the divine grace of Jesus Christ our only reconciling
mediator, by and through whose merits only this
can be obtained. I could multiply evidences of this
being the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church,
and cite the various texts of Scripture, passages
from the fathers, and decisions of previous Councils
to which the Council of Trent refers for the purpose
of shewing that this was always the doctrine of the
Church : but it is unnecessary, for I presume it will
be conceded that the Canons of this Council itself will
be admitted as sufficient evidence of the fact that
such is our doctrine.
How then are we to reconcile the collects of the
Missal in which we pray to the saints to save us by
their merits, with this doctrine ? Does not the Mis¬
sal contradict the Council? By no means. The
reconciliation is easy, as between the prayers
and the decrees. The meaning of the passage
" save us by his merits," if applied to Jesus Christ
:n the sense in which those words are understood by
Protestants as above explained will give the exact
meaning of the Council. Now when Roman Cath¬
olics apply the word merit to a creature as regards
Cod it could not without a contradiction to their
doctrine have this same meaning : and they declare
that such is not the meaning which they attach to the
expression ; but they explain it in altogether a differ¬
ent sense. Now every good writer upon logic, as
well as every honest man, will tell us that when we
enquire as to a man's belief we must take his own
meaning of his own words, in order to understand
what in fact he'does believe ; but if we force upon
his worids a sense which he disclaims, we do not cor¬
rectly exhibit his belief, but our own imputation. I
shall in my next letter explain what we understand
by the merits of the saints: it is enough for my pre¬
sent purpose to state /that we do not in our prayers
or other formularies or documents, by any means
give to it the meaning which is forced upon us by our
opponents.
NoVv no one of the prayers " asks salvation"
through the merits of the saints. Let us examine
them.
[ 34 J
" Graciously receive, O Lord, we beseech thee, our offer¬
ings, and grant, by the merits of blessed Anastasia the mar¬
tyr, that they may avail to our salvation. Thro'."
The prayer is addressed to God, and the grace i3
asked from him, the only fountain of mercy : that
grace is, that the offerings(instituted by Jesus Christ)
may avail us to salvation, by the merits of a holy
Martyr. The previous collect p. 25. asked that " we
may be sensible of the effects of her prayers to thee
in our behalf," and this was asked " Through" the
only way in which her prayer could avail or be re¬
ceived " Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reign-
eth with thee in Unity of the Holy Ghost, world
without end. Amen." Those merits are in our
sense of the word no more than what eminent Pro¬
testant writers, as I shall show, mean by a state of
righteousness, and the way in which we believe her
merits would be regarded, is found in the mean¬
ing which protestants attach to this text, as read
in your version, James v. 16. " The effectual fer¬
vent prayer of a righteous man availelh much."
We believe, that a person who through the merits
of Jesus Christ is justified, and continues to serve
God by the practice of virtue, is thereby merito¬
rious before God through his mercy and the me¬
rits of the Saviour, and we believe that the Almighty
in regard to this secondary and derived merit,
which is a very different kind from that of our
Saviour, will more kindly and graciously hear the
prayer and grant the request of this righteoUs
person than the prayer of a sinner or of a repro¬
bate person. Yet still to shew whence this me¬
rit, such as it is, derives its value, the prayer al¬
ways concludes with the statement of its foundation
<l Thro' " "• our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and
reigneth with thee in the Unity of the Holy G1 < st,
world without end. Amen." Catholics are so well
accustomed to these forms of the conclusion, that ge¬
nerally only the word " Thro' " is printed, for the
sake of abbreviation.
Thus Catholics do not pray to St. Anastasia to
be saved by her merits in the sense in which protes¬
tants understand the phrase ; nor do they pray at all
"to be saved" by her merits. But they prav to be
saved by the institutions of our Lord Jesus Christ,
[ 35 ]
and they ask of God through the effectual fervent
prayer of the righteous or meritorious martyr, that
those institutions of Jesus Christ might be made of
avail to them,, by his bestowing upon them his grace
and creating in them those dispositions without which
even the merits and institutions of our only Saviour
and Redeemer and Mediator Christ Jesus will not
save us. Hence to represent Catholics as asking to
be saved by the merits of the saints is doing them a
gross injustice, and stating that which is not the fact.
In the collect of St. Scholastica and others, your
very generous and honourable correspondent stops
as usual so as to garble the prayer. I give in italics
what he omitted.
" O God, who to reconynend to us innocence of life, wast
pleased to let the soul of thy blessed Virgin Scholastica as¬
cend to heaven in the shape of a dove : grant by her merits
and prayers, that we may lead innocent lives here, and ascend
to eternal joys hereafter. Thro\"
" O God, who didst grant thy servant John, being inflam¬
ed with the fire of thy love, to walk without iiurt through
the midst of flames, and by him institute a new order in thy
Church : grant by his merits, that the fire of thy charity may
cure our diseased souls, and obtain for us eternal remedies.
Thro''.'''' ^
" O God, \yho wast pleased to send blessed Patrick, thy
bishop and confessor, to preach thy glory to the Gentiles:
grant, that by iiis merits and intercession we may, through
thy grace, be enabled to keep thy commandments. Thro'."
These prayers are ail addressed to God, calling
upon Inm to save us by bis mercy and the meaning,
of the merits is the same as that above in the collect
of St. Anastasia.
1 must return to this topic in my next.
I remain, gentlemen,
Your obedient humble servant,
B. C.
Charleston, (S. C.) June 15, 1899.
LB'f i'Eft IV.
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and Sou*
(hern Episcopal Register, &c.
" Give them a pilot to their wandering fleet,
Bold in his art., and tutor'd in deceit;
Whose hand adventurous shall their helm misguide
To hostile shores, or whelm them in the tide."
Tranls. Lusiad, Book L
Gentlemen.—-In my last letter I stated thai the
great difficulty as to a proper understanding of the
I ** J
question here at issue between your correspondent
with the contradictory name, and me, existed in the
equivocal nature of the word merit. No Koman
Catholic expects to be saved either by his own me¬
rits or by the merits of any angel or of any saint;
neither does be ask either of them or of God " to be
saved by their merits," but only by the merits of Je¬
sus Christ. The prayers to which reference has been
made, do ask indeed,of God, that he, having regard
to the merits of the saints "would be more kind and
merciful to us, and grant to us an increase of that
grace, which is altogether derived from the merits
and satisfaction of our Redeemer. But we do not
give the same meaning to the phrase merits of Christ
that we do to merits of the blessed Virgin Mary, or,
of any other saint. And my present object is to
exhibit the different senses in which this word merit
is used.
I shall send to the Editors of the Miscellany, a
translation of such of the doctrinal chapters of the
Council of Trent, as might be necessary to exhibit
our belief regarding the manner in which Justifica¬
tion is obtained by the sinner. This will shew to
whom we look for salvation, because when we be¬
come justified, we are saved from hell, unless we
should relapse into sin, and it will be seen that this
justification is derived solely and exclusively from
the merits of Christ; and in no way from the merits
of angels or saints.
Let us now proceed to state our doctrine regard¬
ing merit. Merit is a claim tp & recompense by
reason of some work which is worthy thereof. This
claim is of several kinds. I shall notice only two.
The first is that between equals ; where one has done
for another a work which this latter needs or accepts;
the agent was free and independent; under no real
or implied obligation to him whom he served, but
the service was done upon the express or implied
condition of obtaining a just recompense. In this
case the agent has fully and justly merited, and the
recompense can not, without palpable injustice, be
refused. Even though there should have been no
covenant, yet if the service was necessary and could
not then be done by any other agent, there would
exist a just ground of claim.
| r tw
^ ■■■■<■> f
No created being can stand in such a relation as
his, to God, because all our works are due to him,
3y reason of our creation and conservation, we have
nothing to bestow upon him which he cannot justly
claim by several previous titles : thus neither are we
independent, nor are we exempt from his just claims.
Hence though the works of creatures could in their
own nature be of sufficient value to make atonement
for our fallen race, men and angels united could not
offer any thing which was truly their own, and free
from the claim of the Creator. Thus the united ef¬
forts of angels and saints could not by their merits,
save one sinner. But the works of* the incarnate
Son of God, being free from claim, and his person'
independent, so too were his acts ; they were also
by reason of his infinite perfections, of infinite value;
and by them we are freely and fully saved from ruin,
and justified, when through the divine mercy we are
made partakers thereof.
When a man is thus justified by the application of
Christ's merits to his soul, we say that he might there¬
after, for the first time, become meritorious by observ¬
ing the law of God, but the nature of his merits will
differ essentially from that of the Saviour's merits.
In the first place the righteous or justified man, is
acceptable only by reason of the merits of the Soa
of God : hence his are not independent merits.
Next he cannot of strict justice claim any recompence,
but what is freely promised by God ; thus his claim
is founded upon the merits of Christ and the cove¬
nant by which the Creator freely bound himself to
give a reward to those works, and not upon any
intrinsic natural value of his own deeds." Thus it
is clear that when we say persons in a state of sanc¬
tity or justification have merit for their good works ;
we always understand that those works are rais¬
ed to this grade of excellence through the free mer¬
cy of God, and by the free merits of Christ, and that,
they create no demand upon God, farther than in vir¬
tue of his own voluntary covenant. That the Almighty
could claim them by several previous titles, but hav¬
ing mercifully waived those claims, he has promis¬
ed us that he would give to us a recompense or re¬
ward for deeds,to perform which,he even now aids us
by the grace of Jesus Christ, without which we
L 35- ;
could not do those works, as we ought; and that wnen
he thus rewards the saints, he by this recompense
crowns his own gifts in them. This is the only me¬
rit which Catholics believe the saints can have in his
sight.
We believe that all men obtain sufficient-grace &,
have free will. We know that God promises a recom¬
pense to those who using that freedom as they ought,
co-operate with his grace : we also know that he
threatens punishment to those who abusing that free¬
dom, and rejecting this grace, do wickedly. We
therefore say that the first persons through the grace'
of Jesus Christ, merit heaven, and that the second
by their criminality,merit hell. The first possess what
we call merit properly speaking, the latter what we
call demerit. Hence may be clearly seen what we
mean by the merits of the saints ; & that it is a very
different sort from that of the Saviour. I deem it un¬
necessary to enter into proof of the positions which 1
have here taken,as my object is rather to exhibit what
our doctrine truly is, than to defend it: to shew that
we have been misrepresented, rather than to shew
that we believe as Christ taught.
In order that a man might be capable of merit of.
even this description, it is required by our tenets ;
that the person shall have been already saved from
hell, and justified by the merits of Christ Jesus.—
Amongst a variety of scriptural reasons for this as¬
sertion, perhaps one would suffice at present.
" Ahide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear
fruit of itself except it abide in the vine : no more can ye
except ye abide in me.
" I am the vine, ye are the branches : He that abideth in
me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for
without me ye can do nothing. John xv. 4, 5."
To this text, amongst others, the Council of Trent
refers in its doctrinal chapter, regarding merit, which
I here insert. The branch (man) really brings forth
the fruit of merit.but onl) because the branch itself de¬
rives its sap or the virtue from Jesus Christ the vine :
through which stock alone this virtue can be drawn
from the root of merciful atonement. The sinner who
is not justified, whose works are not influenced by
grace,is not grafted on this vine-stock,he can do noth¬
ing. Hence the council teaches in the Same chapter.
[ 39 ]
Chap. xvi. Session vi.
" Upon this ground therefore, whether they shall perpe¬
tually have preserved the grace which they received, or re¬
covered that which they lost, the words of the Apostle are
to be placed before justified men.[a] Abound in every good
work, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord :[&]
lor God is not unjust that he should forget your work and
the love which you have shewn in his name. And, [c] Do
not lose your confidence which hath a great reward. And
therefore to those doing well [d] unto the end, and hoping
i:i God, eternal life is to be proposed it being as well, that
grace mercifully promised through Christ Jesus [e] to the
children of God : as also, as the reward to be faithfully giv¬
en as a recompense [/] by reason of the promise of God
himself to their good works and merits. . For this is that
crown of justice, [g] which the Apostle said was laid up for
him, to be given to him by the just judge, after his fight, and
course ; and not only to him, but also to all that love his
coming: for since he,Christ Jesus himself, as a head into the
members, and as a vine [7z] into the branches, continually,in¬
fuses virtue into those justified (which virtue always pre¬
cedes their good works, and accompanies and follows them,
and without which, they could on no account be agreeable to
God and meritorious;) it is to be believed that nothing more
is needful for those justified, but that they might be consi¬
dered, indeed, by those works which are done in God, to have
fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life;
and have tru)y merited (if indeed [z] they shall have depart¬
ed in grace) to obtain eternal life also in its proper time;
since Christ himself says [&] If any one shall drink of the
water which I will give him, he shall not thirst for ever ; but
it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up to
eternal life. So neither [I] is our own proper justice estab¬
lished b.s our own, proper from ourselves, nor is the justice
of God overlooked or rejected: for that righteousness which is
called ours,because we are justified by its inhering in us,is that
same righteousness ofGodjbeeause it is poured into us by God,
through the merit of Christ. Nor is that either to be omitted
that although in the sacred letters so much is attributed to.
good works, that even Christ himself promises [m] that who¬
soever will give a drink of cold water to one of those least
ones will not lose his reward : and the Apostle testifies [n]
that what in the present is but for a moment and light of our
tribulation, worketh in us above degree exceedingly on high,
an eternal weight of glory : far be it from us however, that
a christian man should so confide [o] or glory in himself,
and not in the Lord whose goodness towards men is so great,
that he wishes those things which are his gifts to be their
merits. And because [joj we all offend him in many things,
so each one of us ought to have severity and judgment be¬
fore his eyes, as he has mercy and goodness ; nor ought any
one judge himself \q] even though he should not be consci¬
ous to himself of any thing: for all the life oi man is to be
examined not only by human judgment, but by that of
[ 40 ]
God ; [r] who will bring to light the hidden things of dark ¬
ness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts : and
then shall every man have praise from God; who as it is
written will render to every man according to his works"
Note—The following references shew the parts of scrip¬
ture according to the Vulgate which contain the doctrine
above laid down.
[a] I. Cor. xv. [6] Heb. vi. jYJ Heb. x. [tf] Matt. s.
and xxiv. [e] Ps. cii. [/] Rom. v. [g] I. Tim. iv. [A]
John xv. \t\ Apocal. xiv. [fcj John iv. [Z] Rom. x. [»i]
Matt. x. Mark ix. &c. [n] II. Cor. iv. [o] I. Cor. i. II.
Cor. x. &c. \p] James iii. [5] I. Cor. iv. [r] I. Cor. iv.
[3] Matt. xvi. Rom. ii. &c.
What we call the merits of justified persons, then
evidently rest upon the merits of Christ,as their foun¬
dation ; first,, because their justification can be had
only through his merits ; and secondly, because no
man can do meritorious works until after he is thus
justified, and the merit of those works is derived from
that of the Saviour, as the fruit of the branch is de¬
rived only from that virtue or sap which has been
dra.vn from the trunk of the vine. The saints are
those-psrsops who are justified by the merits of Christ
and dying in the state of grace, are now in heaven,
partakers of his redemption. As we would expect
aid, and ar,k it through the prayers of a justified per¬
son on earth, we also expect it from their prayers,
now that they are in heaven: & as to hope for efficacy
from the prayers of a just man upon earth, because
of his being meritorious or righteous in the sight of
God would not be asking that man to save us by
his merits, so confidence that God will have favoura¬
ble regard to the merits or righteousness of these
heavenly supplicants, is not asking those saints to
save us by I heir merits : and the merits of these saints
who have no virtue or power or merit but what has
been obtained from the mercy of God through the
original and independent merits of Jesus Christ, are
of a nature far different, from, and infinitely below the
merits of our Redeemer.
In the twenty-fourth session, the council pub¬
lished a decree concerning the invocation of saints,
in which it desires the faithful to be taught accord¬
ing to the usage received from the earliest days of
the Church.
"■ That the 6aints reigning with Christ do offer their
[ 41 ]
prayers to God for man : that it is good and useful to invoke
them by way of supplication: that it is good and useful to
have recourse to their prayers help and aid, for the purpose
of obtaining benefits from God, through his son JESUS
Christ our Lord, who is our only Redeemer and Saviour."
The decree, charges the Bishops farther, to use
their utmost diligence and best exertions to pre¬
vent any abuses or superstition or other impropriety
in this practice. It is clear therefore that Roman Ca¬
tholics though they do pray to the saints to aid them
by their prayers to God, and do ask for their help to
obtain benefits from God through the merits of Je¬
sus Christ their only saviour and Redeemer, do not
pray to the saints to save them by their merits.
In the twenty-second session, Chap. iii. the coun¬
cil teaches
" That although the Church hath been sometimes accus¬
tomed to celebrate some masses to the honour and memory
of the saints; yet she does not teach that sacrifice ought to
be offered to them, but to God only; who hath crowned
them : whence the priest is not used to say : I offer sacrifice
to thee Peter, or Paul; but giving thanks to God for their
victories ; he implores their patronage, that they whose me¬
mory we celebrate on earth, may intercede for us in Hea¬
ven."
If you, gentlemen, will compare those testimo¬
nies of our doctrine, drawn from our highest and
undeniable authority, with the production of your
extraordinary correspondent, bearing the curious
name, you must at once perceive how grossly he
has misrepresented our tenets, and you cannot avoid
seeing the dishonest garbling and misconstruction
of our prayers, of which he has been guilty in his
paragraph No. 20. I could adduce much more evi¬
dence; but where is the necessity ?
I now state that it is a misrepresentation of our
doctrine, and practice to state as your "Protestant
Catholic" correspondent do^s, first. That we pray
to angels to save us by their merits, and secondly
that we pray to saints to save us by their merits, so
as to make those saints mediators with Christ or in
his stead: and thirdly that we give to creatures the
worship due to God alone: and fourthly that we
are thus guilty of idolatry.
But since the chief topic which is relied upon as
the basis for charging us with error is our assertion
that a man who is justified by Christ upon repent-
%*
[ « 5
ence, can afterwards do any thing for which he
may have merit; I shall adduce the testimony of
an eminent prelate of the English Protestant church
in support of the correctness of our doctrine on
this head. I could produce several, but I .shall con¬
fine myself to one, and he was no great admirer of
Roman Catholics, as two or three extracts from his
writings will shew.
" The wonder is not that the professed members of the
Chinch oi Rome, unite their hearts and hands; and leave
no methods, whether of deceit or violence unattempted for
the service of that cause, which in all their lowest fortunes,
they never suffer to be removed out of their sight; that
They put on all forms of complaisance and dissimulation;
of civility and good humour, even to heretics themselves,
to inveigle them into their own ruin; that they flatter, and
promise and swear every thing that is good and kind to their
fellow-labourers, and at the same time enter into ail the re¬
solutions of destruction and desolation, whenever an op¬
portunity of power shall come. This is nothing but what
is worthy of themselves, and of that Church, to the slavery
of which they have devoted themselves. It is no more than
what they openly and publickly profess ; if Protestants will
but open their eyes and see it. It is their religion and their
conscience : it is inculcated upon them as the great condi¬
tion of their acceptance with God, that no good nature of
their own ; no obligations from others ; no tics of oaths, and
solemn assurances; no regard to truth, justice, or honour ;
are to restrain them from any thing, let it be of what sort
soever; that is for the security or temporal advancement of
their Church."
Such gentlemen is the calumny published in a
sermon! bv that great friend of civil and religious
liberty!! !—the Right Reverend father in God,
Benjamin Hoadly, D. D. successively Bishop of
Bangor, Hereford, Salisbury, and Winchester. Yea,
of a truth, he loved not Popery ! The above, is taken
from a sermon preached at St. Peters Poor; No¬
vember 5th, (Cecil's holiday) 1715. from the Text.
And for this cause, God shall send them a strong delu¬
sion, that they shall believe a lie. 2 Thess. ii. 11.
entitled " The present Delusion of many Protes¬
tants considered."—p. p. 623 &c. Vol. III. of his
works. Edit. London. M. DCCLXXI1I. I shall give
hut one other extract from the same sermon, though I
could give a great number from various parts of the
works of this liberal and enlightened prelate, as he
is styled in contradistinction to several of his fel
[ 43 ]
lows who were indeed more virulent: and compar¬
ed with whom he might be called liberal and bene¬
volent.
" But in the Romish Church, it is firmly settled, upon ne¬
ver altered principles; it is an established article of religion ;
equally believed, and owned, and inculcated in their adver¬
sity and low estate, as in the height of their power. It
stands unrepealed, upon record ; and it is confirmed by ex¬
perience, that they are most likely not to fail of the Honours
of Saintship, and the applauses of that Church, who act
»the most uniformly, and the most steadily upon that foun¬
dation. Every weapon they use is sanctified; every in¬
stance of fraud and perfidiousness : every degree of violence
and fury ; is consecrated. It is not only allowed ; but first
recommended, and afterwards rewarded."
No wonder that persons who derive their notions
of Roman Catholics, and of their religion from such
sources as this,should be tempted to thank God that
they are not like the worse than publicans describ¬
ed by these holy men! We cannot be astonished
that in an old British colony, looking to Britain for
her literature and her religion, and whose children
were taught for British political reasons, to des¬
pise a church which she had always theretofore per¬
secuted, much of such information as that above
should be instilled into the mind ! Nor can we ex¬
pect that in one generation it could be obliterated I
Thus, gentlemen, though your curious correspon¬
dent has fallen into extravagant mistakes, I am far
from attributing his misrepresentations to any per¬
sonal malevolence. I would merely suggest for the
consideration of some of those who appear desir¬
ous to charge us with those characteristics,the light
in which all well informed men at present view
what this liberal father in God wrote about a centu¬
ry ago. In less than half that time, our successors
will scarcely believe that at the present day, Ameri¬
cans would be found capable of exhibiting themselves,
as our assailants do.
But it is time to leave this digression and to see
what this prelate of the Protestant church teaches,
regarding the merits of Christian men's works.—'
In his sermon XII. of relying upon the merits of
Christ for salvation, p. 570 Vol. III. he gives as
the doctrine of the English Protestant Church.
" That there can be no pardon, nor salvation, de-
" (Landed or Loped for, but by such as forsake their
L 44 J
" sins, and obey the moral laws of the Gospel: and
" in other words, that the sufferings of Christ have
" actually procured these conditions to be granted
" by Almighty God; so that those sinners who have
" forsaken their sins and entered upon anew course
" of action, may obtain justification from the guilt
" of their former sins, and eternal happiness in the
" kingdom of heaven."
After having at some length sustained this posi¬
tion, which requires the co-operation of man with
God's grace, he proceeds to combat an error which
he thus describes.
" It is manifest, that there have been especially
" in these latter ages, and still are, (in a very vi-
" cious generation of men) multitudes of Chris-
" tians, who are not content with this, that God
" should pardon the sins which they have forsaken
" for the sake of the merits of Christ: but profess
" to believe that he will pardon all the sins which
" they can possibly continue in, till death overtakes
" them ; if so be, they can but have time to declare
" their trust in Christ's merits to this purpose; or,
" in the usual promises of God made to Christians
" for the sake of his son Jesus Christ. They seem
" to think that Christ's merit excuseth them from
" attempting to have any merit in themselves : nay
" that it would derogate from, and disparage his
" merits, if they should pretend to have any thing
" in themselves so much as agreeable to the will
" of God; that it would be a piece of unpardona-
" ble presumption in them, to pretend to imitate
" the moral perfections of God, though they are
" called upon to be holy, as He is holy.''''
Thus according to Bishop Hoadley, the Protes¬
tant Church of England does not teach, that it is a
derogation from the merits of Christ, for a man who
has repented and been justified through those me¬
rits, to strive by the co-operation with God's Grace
to have the merit of being holy; by endeavouring
to imitate the moral perfections of God, though im¬
perfectly and at a great distance. But in his next
sermon (XIII. 576) Mistakes about man's inability,
and God's Grace considered, he is more explicit.—
He undertakes to examine and confute pernicious
mistakes " The mistakes at which I now particular-
[ 45 ]
4t ly point, are such as are founded upon a very fa-
{' tal notion of the weakness and inability of men;
" and of the part which Almighty God is to act in
" the business of Reformation and Holiness." com¬
menting on his text. Not that we are sufficient of our¬
selves to think any thing as of ourselves : but our suffi¬
ciency is of God. 2 Cor. iii. 5, he writes,
" St. Paul himself builds no such doctrine upon
" that great and strong notion which he had of his
" own insufficiency : and of the sufficiency of God.
" This insufficiency, I have shewn, already had re-
" ference to the work of his Apostleship ; and to
" his successful performance of it; &c. * * *
" He doth not presently infer, that nothing was to
" be done by himself, considered as distinct from
e' his great ^patron. But in this very Epistle, He
u represents himself and the other apostles, as work-
u ers together with God. Chap. vi. 1; and often
44 speaks of his indefatigable endeavours to answer
44 the ends of his office. And if he were a worker
44 together with God', he certainly had a part of (is
44 own distinct from that of Almighty God, in this
44 great affair. And consequently, as he had God
44 Almighty's sufficiency to support him, and make
44 up his deficiencies; so he had likewise some
" strength and ability of his own for his own part.
44 And as God was the Architect; the chief builder,
44 director, and encourager of tne whole; so like-
44 wise was the Apostle, a worker, under and toge-
u ther with him."
In his sermon XIY. he answers an objection that
it would be stripping God of his honour and glory
to attribute to man any share in his own amendment,
reformation, and salvation.
In his sermon XIX. p. 827. The best Christians
unprofitable servants. He misrepresents the doctrine
of Roman Catholics, by stating it to be that which
it is not. But we shall see what he lays do wn as
the doctrine of the English Protestant Church.—
He explains the text Luke xviii. 10, so likewise when
ye shall have done all those things which are cvmrn nd-
ed You, say. We are unprofitable servants, We have
done that which was our duty to do, to -mean u Where
you have done your duty to God, and performed the
services He has commanded, you cannot claim tha
[ 46 ]
happiness, as a reward due in justice to your servi¬
ces, which God will in mercy give you." Such too
is our explanation as has been seen above.
When in the course of the sermon he proceeds
to examine what is meant by the word unprofitable,
he justly observes "We must not imagine that our
" Lord declares, or insinuates that the best Chris-
" tians, and such as have exercised themselves in
" all the good works of his holy religion ought to ac-
" knowledge themselves to have done nothing in
" "what is called the service of God, or for the good
" of mankind; or of any significancy for their own
" salvation; or that any thing like this is the mean-
" ing of the words unprojitable servants. Far be
" such thoughts from us, concerning him, who in'
" another parable represents himself or his father
" as speaking to every Christian of this sort, Well
" done, good and faithful servant; enter into the joy of
" thy Lord, Matt. xxv. 20. 23."
He then proceeds to shew that he is not the un¬
profitable servant mentioned in v. 30 of the same
chapter, who is wicked and slothful and punished.
But he is unprofitable ; because he cannot increase
the happiness of God because of his many lesser
faults and failings; because of the imperfections of
his best actions. Again, because the capacity being de¬
rived from God, they are unprofitable in themselves
and their own merits, and what good they do as Chris¬
tians is derived from God's mercy and the grace of
Christ. In all this he does not contradict our doc¬
trine. But we now approach to a new point in
which he still farther upholds us.
" I will now add an observation or two, not foreign to what
I have been saying ; and so conclude.
" 1. The subject we have been treating, may naturally lead
us to a question which bas been sometimes asked by those,
who, I fear, are much more willing to know what is not their
strict duty, than to practice what they know to be so : ,And
that is, whether any Christian can do more than he iscom-
manded, or, than it is his strict duty, to do ?
" To this, I think, it may be answered, that no Christian
can possibly do more, in the great points of moral duty,
rightly understood, which are thegood works required in the
Gospel, than he is strictly obliged to do ; because these
points are always indispensably necessary, and the obliga¬
tion to duties never released or abated : But that, in other
points, and these not displeasing to God, which may be said
[ 47 ]
to belong to his religious service, as circumstances of it, a
Christian may do more than what is strictly enjoined, as ab¬
solutely necessary to his Salvation.
" This may be the better understood from what St Paul
says of himself; viz. That he chose to preach the Gospel to
the Corinthians without any charge to them, in order to have
a greater 'influence, in the exercise of his' office, amongst
them ; and that this was more than he was strictly obliged
to do. For it is plain that he (as well as all others) was obli¬
ged to do whatever he apprehended to be most for the honor
of God, and the interest of his Gospel : And j'et it is also as
plain, from his own words, that, had he taken a mainte¬
nance of them, he could have justified himself before God ;
and had ground for boasting, that he did not. He expressly
distinguishes lietwsen his strict obligation to preach the
Gospel ; and the circumstance of preaching it without charge
to them.— Wo to me, if I preach not the Gospel. This is my
indispensable duly. But whether I shall take a maintenance
for doing this, or not; this is left free for me : and I have
chosen not to doit: This is the Ground of my boasting.—
1 Cor. ix. 16. 19.
" I might mention also what is written of the first believ¬
ers, that those amongst them, who had possessions, sold
them, and laid the price at the feet of the Apostles, to be dis¬
tributed, in common, to all who wanted. It is evident, of
these persons, that they were strictly obliged to the duly of
charity to their brethren in want: and yet, it is also plain
that this particular behaviour of those who voluntarily and
honestly performed this service, in so extraordinary a man¬
ner, was more than was commanded them by their great mas¬
ter. Nay, it-is declared, by St Peter, Acts v. 4, that it was
Hot their strict duty, but a matter left to their own choice.—
From whence it appears, that, in this, they did more than it
was their strict duty to do."
It is true that after this passage he lashes most
soundly what he is pleased to call the Romish Doc¬
trine., but the doctrine which he lashes, is not, and
never was that of our Church. I will then state
that according to an eminent Bishop of the English
Protestant Church, it is not incompatible with her
doctrine to hold, and the scripture teaches, that
men justified through mercy of God, the merits of
Christ and sincere repentance, can work with God
by the grace of Christ, and thus do good works,
which have, through God's mercy and covenant, a
claim for reward, and are meritorious: and that they
not only can do what they are commanded, and is
their strict duty as absolutely necessary to their sal¬
vation, but can also in addition to this, do more
than what they are so commanded, more than is
their strict duty to insure salvation, and yet in
L 48 1
all this do not derogate from the merits of Christ.
Now if the persons whom we look upon to be
saints have done this, as Bishop Hoadly says one
of them (St Paul) undoubtedly did; one of two
consequences must ensue 'r Bishop Hoadly misrep¬
resents the doctrines of the Church of England, or
no person in her communion cqn object to our
doctrine on those points.
In my next I shall apply what I have been hither¬
to collecting and explaining.
I remain, gentlemen.
Your obedient humble servant,
b. d
Charleston, (S. C.) June 22, 1829,
BETTER V.
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and Sour
them Episcopal Register, &c.
" But mortals! know, tis still our greatest pride
To blaze those virtues, which the good would hide.
Rise ! Muses rise ! add to your tuneful breath,
These must not sleep in darkness and in death.
She said : in air the trembling music floats,
And on the winds triumphant swell the notes;
So soft, tho* high, so loud, and yet so clear,
Ev'n list'iung Angels lean from heav^i to hear ;
To furthest shores th' Ambrosial spirit flies,
Sweet to the world, and grateful to the skies."
Pope. Temple of Fame.
Gentlemen—-I have now exhibited To you, reasons
which justify my asserting that Reman Catholics do
not pray to angels to be saved by fi^hr merits ; that
they do not pray to angels in the same manner that
they pray to God the creator of angels ; but in the
manner,upon the same principle and for the same pur¬
pose that good Protestants beseech their fellow wor¬
shippers on earth, to pray to God for them, and help
them by their intercession, and therefore Roman Ca¬
tholics do not wive to those creatures the worship w hich
is due to God alone, nor are they as regards angels
guilty of either direct or indirect idolatry. And fur¬
ther that when Roman Catholics look upon Christ
as their mediator ; they consider his mediation to
be more than a mere intercession ; they look upon
it to be a fpll and perfect atonement in which he by
[ 49 ]
his own unclaimable and infinite merits and bitter
sufferings made abundant satisfaction .for their sins,
for which no created merits or power could satisfy :
that they do not consider that angels could or did
become atoning mediators for man ; and hence that
although angels might, and can. and do, intercede or
pray for us, they are not mediators of satisfaction or
atonement, either with Christ or in his stead. Hence
that asking the intercession of angels is not dishonor¬
ing the mediation of Christ.
AU that I have written of angels is equally appli¬
cable to saints, but that in regard to the latter, we
pray to God that he would regard their merits as
intercessors. Upon this, however, no difficulty
can exist in any honest mind that calmly and dispas¬
sionately views without prejudice what we mean by
the word merit as applied to the saints, who have been
human beings, justified through Christ, and were sub¬
sequently removed to glory in Heaven. It is evident¬
ly but an appeal to God, to act upon his own well
known and clearly revealed principles, that he would
yield mercy upon the entreaty of those his righteous
servants, through the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ
our only atoning and redeeming mediator. It is
then clear that we are misrepresented by those who
say, that we pray to saints to save us by their merits:
for we ask to be saved only through the merits of
Christ, through whom alone salvation comes, and
we therefore acknowledge with St. Peter,* that
there is no other name,save that of Jesus, given un¬
der heaven whereby we may be saved. We are
misrepresented by those who say that we make the
saints,mediators with Christ, or in his stead ; because
we profess and testify, that though they are inter¬
cessors who pray for us, they are not mediators by
whom we are redeemed; and we proclaim with St.
Paul,t that as there is but one God, there is but one
mediator between God and man ; the man Christ
Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all. We are
far from saying that any saint gave himself as a
ransom for us ; though in virtue of the ransom
paid by Christ Jesi^s for this saint, and the fidelity of
* Acts iv. 12. f Tim. ii. 5, 6,
5
I 50 I
that ransomed saint to divine grace, his intercession
might prevail much, and if so, he is acceptable
through Christ, and therefore instead of dishonour¬
ing Christ, we honour him by shewing the powerful
effects of his atonement and ransom in this creature
who was once a frail mortal. Henee to charge us
with idolatry in this, is to charge that the honour,
which we give to those saints, is the honour due to
Christ. Surely; we do not deny to Christ the glory
of being the ransom, and the orrfy ransom for bur
sins, yet we deny this glory to the saints and angels.
We do not say that the merits of Christ are valuable,
only in as much as they are derived from the supe¬
rior merits of saints ; yet we say the merits of saints
are only valuable as drawn from the underived,
original and superior merits of Christ Jesus ! !! Gen¬
tlemen,—I ask in sober sadness ; is it possible that
you can find any human being who with this fair
view of our tenets before him, will say that the wor¬
ship which we pay'to our Saviour the incarnate God,
is only that same which we pay to the blessed spirits ■?
Yet such is the assertion of your extraordinary cor¬
respondent !! But how wretched is his attempt in
paragraph 8.
" It is then a fact, that " the Roman Catholics do pray
to Angels and Saints, to save them by their merits," making
those Angels and Saints Mediators with Christ, or in his
stead. It is not unreasonable or unfair, to presume the Saint
to be even substituted as mediator for Christ, where, as is
sometimes the case, the collect does not namg Christ, or con¬
tain or end with any reference to him in the character of in¬
tercessor."
Let him produce the collect which omits to exhibit
Christ as mediator. There might be several where
he is not exhibited as an intercessor. Upon an assertion
which he makes without evidence, and against evi¬
dence, he builds his conclusioh " it is not unreason¬
able or unfair, to presume, the Saint to be even
substituted as mediator/or Christ." Indeed, indeed
he has been too presumptuous, and too unreasona¬
ble and altogether dishonest and unfair.
His ninth paragraph, confounds two distinct things,
mediation and intercession, and by this sophistry
he endeavours to force a conclusion against the laWr
fulness of any other intercession,save that of Christ,
i « ]
upon the principle that St. Paul in 1 Tim. ii. 5, as¬
serted that there was but one mediator. But whoever
will look to the text will find that the word used by
St. Paul does not mean intercessory but mediator of ran¬
som. This is what logicians call " a syllogism with
four terms," one of the worst and most deceitful at¬
tempts to mislead.
Another attempt is made in the same paragraph
to -combine for one conclusion two texts which re¬
late to things not of the same kind; that from the
gospel of St. John exhibits the Saviour, telling his
disciples to pray to the father in his name, or by his
merits, for hitherto they had not prayed in this man¬
ner, John xv. 24, and they also were accustomed
rather to request of him to ask on their behalf, John
xv. 26, and now he desired that they might pray
themselves, to the father, yet in his name. Thus
the passages here merely regard prayer. The text
from the Acts, Ch. iv. 12, it will be seen,by no means
teaches that we ought not to ask of others to inter¬
cede for us, or to pray with us, but merely and ex¬
clusively shews that this Jesus who was crucified,
was the Messias, in whom all should believe, and
through whom only salvation was to be obtained.—
X<et us see the argument which the two texts will
pbviously make. " Jesus Christ tells the Apostles
to pray in his name." " St. Peter tells us that there
is only th^rtiame of Jesus in which salvation Can
be had." My inference from these two propositi¬
ons will not go beyond this " Therefore it is useful
to pray in the name of Christ; and it is unprofitable,
or perhaps, unlawful, to seek salvation through any
other name." In fact it is but repeating the propo¬
sitions of the texts in other words,—and the sub¬
stance will be no more than what has been repeat¬
ed, " Christ is our only saviour." But it says not
"our only intercessor." Should we confine interces¬
sion to our Saviour, every person who asks any other
to pray for him, dishonours Christ. This, gentle¬
men, would produce bad times for the clergy, whose
intercession is so frequently besought.
We next come to his statements regarding the
blessed virgin,—and here the poor gentleman is
really to be pitied, for he is in pain, paragraph 11,
and the contemplation of the proof which he has
[ 52 ]
at hand to fix upon us the crime of downright idola■»
try, kso trying to his rierves that he only adduces
a little, but that " little will suffice." Let us see
his proofs. They are drawn from three sources.—
The first is the " Laity's Directory, for 1822, New
York. W. H. Creagh, Publisher." Suppose this
book contained blasphemy, is the Roman Catholic
Church chargeable therewith ? A church is ac¬
countable for her liturgy, and therefore it was fair
and lawful to charge us as a body,with the prayers
and passages of the Missal; a Church is justly char¬
geable with the declarations of doctrine which her
Prelates publish in her name, or as expositions of
her tenets, provided those publications are gener¬
ally known and received and not contradicted : and
therefore the catechisms and other such expositions
put forth by our Bishops are justly quoted for or
against us. But it is quite a novelty in religious
disquisition to quote an obscure, unauthorised,
ephemeral compilation, printed merely for his own
gain,by a man who,if he had any religion, was a mem¬
ber of the Church of England; in order to prove
that Roman Catholios hold tenets which cannot be
deduced from their works of authority. The name
of a very respectable priest in New York appears
On its title page, as if the book was revised and cor¬
rected by him: but even high as is the station of
that esteemed priest, still, the Church is not ac¬
countable for his publications. The work itself is,
1st a calendar, 2nd a sermon, 3d Practical instruc¬
tions for the Sundays, feasts &c. of the year, and
4th an account of the Catholic churches and other
institutions of the United States. The following
notice with which it opens will shew that it was not
sent forth either by authority or as perfect.
NOTICE.
" The Laity's Directory is published this year for the first
lime in the United States of America. It is intended to ac¬
company the Missal, with a view to facilitate the use of the
same. Considerable pains have accordingly been taken to
render it correct, as well in the Calendar, as in the general
information it contains. The errors, it is hoped, are not
many : such however as may exist of the kind, the spirit
that reigns throughout this little work will suffice to shew
and to satisfy the Catholic Public they have not been inten¬
tional,"
[ 53 ]
The Directory was never republished.—Yet here
is a writer who has before him according to his own
account the authorised works, and still proceeds to
build up his charge against the Catholic church,
upon a mere evanescent, unauthorised calendar !!!
I object to the principle of admitting such docu¬
ments,as evidence in a case of this description. Yet
I shall now take up his facts, from this document,
which your correspondent garbles, as usual.
His object is to shew that this pamphlet calls upon
Catholics to commit downright idolatry, in their wor¬
ship of the blessed virgin. I forget if I ever yet saw
a protestant's definition of idolatry. I shall there¬
fore set down the Catholic definition. Giving to
any creature the worship due only to God. Now to
prove that this document calls for idolatry, it must
be shewn that it calls for that worship that is due only
to God, to be given to Mary. If the book calls for any
such worship I shall condemn the directory, but not
the church. It does not call for any such. The
garbled extract is found in paragraph 11. It states that
Mary is invoked,even in the Mass : this I have before
disposed of. Next,that the church hasinstitutedafeiost
as many feasts in her honour, as she celebrates in honour
of her Divine son. If the word honour has the same
meaning in each place, I.say the doctrine is not that of
the Church :—but the writer of the Directory
has not given that meaning to the passage, for
in the very second line he drew the distinction : and
by the suppression of that portion of the document,
an unfair exhibition is given of1 the remainder. The
words of the writer are far more strong in regard to
the devotion towards Mary, than are those of any
strict and close explanation of doctrine by a compe¬
tent tribunal: and though I cannot find in the phrases
any thing which is against the doctrine of the church,
yet they are much better suited to the expression of
private, individual devotion, than to doctrinal expla¬
nation, they are unnecessarily and hyperbolically
strong, though not strictly speaking, inaccurate.
The following is the whole paragraph, the words
are printed as in the original.
ON THE FEASTS OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN.
" All the Festivals of the Blessed Virgin should be dear
*o Christians; because after God, Mary is the most worthy
f>*
[ 54 ]
object of their devotion. In all ages, the faithful have ho¬
noured and invoked the Blessed Virgin; and thus has that
prophecy been accomplished, which is found in her celebrat¬
ed canticle, where she says, that from henceforth all genera-
lions shall call me blessed. (Luke i. 48.) The Catholic
Church invokes Mary in every part of the divine office, and
more especially in the oblation of the holy sacrifice of the
Mass. Besides, she has instituted almost as many Feasts in
her honour, as she celebrates in honour of her divine Son.
It is the duty of every Christian to join in this devotion of
the church, and celebrate worthily all these Feasts. We
shall set down something'on each one of them in particu¬
lar."
In this there is nothing to lead to the conclusion
that Mary is to receive such worship as Is due only
to Christ, but a statement that her memory and
virtues are honoured on almost as many festivals, as
are specially celebrated in honour of the Birth, Ma¬
nifestation, Circumcision, Transfiguration, Cruci¬
fixion, Resurrection, Holy name and Ascension of
our blessed Lord Jesus. As yet then,we have nei¬
ther upright nor downright idolatrg.
The next proof is in paragraph 12, which is a
garbled extract from the following
ON THE NATIVITY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN.
u The birth of the Blessed Virgin is celebrated in the same
sentiments as her Conception : the Church makes use of the
same office for both Feasts: and in fact, it is the same grace
in Mary which sanctified hdr Conception and Nativity..
Mary was born for great purposes: never did any creature
render so much glory to God; never did one procure so
much good to mankind : by giving us a Redeemer, she gave
us every thing. We must beg her in this Feast to preserve
in us, by her prayers, what she has obtained for us from
heaven."
The charge is that we pay to her the same worship
which we pay to Christ, as God. We say that she
obtained from heaven, for us, something. What was
that something ?—The Redeemer : that she gave
him to us. The question is. Did she obtain him by
her merits?—If the book says "yes," I condemn
it: for the Catholic church tells me that she did
not. But she did in fact, obtain him from heaven,by
the mercy of heaven to us, for Mary had no claim
to be selected amongst all the other daughters of
men: and the compiler of the calendar himself dis-
tihctly holds the same doctrine; for, mentioning the
tact he writes.
I SS 'J
. ON THE ANNUNCIATION.
•* The Annunciation is both a Feast of Jesus Christ and
the Blessed Virgin; because it was on this day that the word
was made flesh, and Mary became the mother of God. This
was the greatest of all da^s, the object of the sighs of the pa¬
triarchs and prophets: the day on which the only Son of
God united himself to our nature in the unity of person.
This miracle, the greatest the Almighty ever wrought, was
operated in the womb of Mary, as in the most worthy temple
of the divine Majesty.
" From the very earliest ages, this Feast has always been
regarded as of great obligation ; and every faithful Christian
should accordingly expand his heart in sentiments of love
and gratitude, in the contemplation of so inestimable a bene¬
fit ; the church would even wish that the thought of this
Mystery would never escape our memory: and with this
view she exhorts the faithful to recite the Angelus thrice
every day, and nuts them in mind of it, by the sound of the
bell.
" This same day was also the most glorious to Mary : for
by becoming the mother of God, she was elevated far above
every creature, and became worthy of the respect both of
angels and of men : thus we find the angel Gabriel accosted
her with respect, and was the first to proclaim her^Blessed.
Let us repeat, with all possible devotion, the beautiful pray¬
er which begins with this salutation ; and let us never cease
soliciting the protection of the mother of God."
We ask her to preserve in us, "by her omnipo¬
tence." No.—God forbid.—" by her prayers," the
prayers which she addresses to her God, and our
God, what Heaven has bestowed upon us, not thro'
her merits, but through his mercy ; the graces of
that Redeemer whom she gave us, by his vouchsaf¬
ing to be born of her. But your garbler ought not
to have concealed the fact, that this very article and
the preceding referred to that on " her conception,"
and thereby it was more fully explained.—The
article is the following,
ON THE CONCEPTION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN
" The conception of the Blessed Virgin is celebrated in
memory of the inestimable privilege granted her, in being
conceived in original justice, and in being exempted from all
sin ; the Son of God would not permit her in whose womb
he was himself to be conceived, and who was to bear him
nine months, to be for a single instant contaminated with the
stain of sin : at the same time he gave her existence, he in¬
fused grace into her soul: and thereby he has been far more
perfectly her Saviour, than if in order to deliver her from
sin, he had waited until she was sullied with it. The church
in this Feast congratulates with Mary on this inestimable
privilege, which is peculiar to her, and which renders her so
t 56 ]
aimilSay to her divine Son.: In this feast we should ask,
through the intercession of the immaculate Virgin, for per¬
fect purity of soul and body."
In this,it is true,she is said to have heen rendered
in some manner similar to her divine son. But in
Mary it was a privilege conferred by her son, be¬
fore his incarnation, by which he infused grace into
her soul, became her saviour, and making her free
from sin, made her like to him in holiness derived
from him. This is far from giving to her the wor¬
ship due only to him.
The next proof in par. 13. is, that in the arti¬
cle on the annunciation, we are told in the last two
lines, not to cease soliciting the protection of, the
mother of God,—evidently by asking her to pray
for us :—for the petition is the following " Holy
Mary, Mother of God ! pray for us, sinners, now,
and at the hour of our death, Amen."
I cannot see how the 14th paragraph can estab¬
lish the guilt of Idolatry against any person, for the
averment is, that the writer says Jesus Christ made
use of Mary as an instrument through whom he
might distribute his graces. I belieye that Jesus
Christ distributed graces through the instrumental¬
ity of St. Paul. I do not therefore adore 4 St.
Paul, as I adore our Savipur. Is the difficulty in
the phrase, avail himself of his holy mother ?—
If the writer meant to say that Christ could not do it
without her, I condemn him, and so will the Catho¬
lic Church.—Here is, therefore, no idolatry.
The next proof is in paragraph 15. Is it idola¬
try to call persons the faithful servants of Mary?
If by faithful servant it is meant to insinuate that
the same service is due to her as is due to God; I
condemn the phrase, and so would the Catholic
Church. But dear gentlemen, I trust you will not
imagine I intend to adore you, because I have the
honor, so frequently to subscribe myself your obedi¬
ent humble servant.—No, no, you may feel quite
convinced that B, C. does not look upon you as in¬
vested with the qualities of the Deity. Hence to
say they are the faithful servants of Mary, is not idola¬
try, neither is it adoring her, to say that she offer¬
ed the sacrifice of her homage, her resignation, her
sufferings, and her feelings, together with that of
[ ]
her beloved son, to the Eternal father, at the foot of
the Cross of Jesus. It would afford me; callous
wretch that I am ! more consolation to unite in spi¬
rit with Holy Mary, in that moment of affliction
than to possess all the misapplied subtlety, which
her ingenious and immitigable opponents have ever
exhibited in their extraordinarily persevering efforts
to strip her of that glory which her son conferred
upon her, under the pretext of saving all their ho¬
mage for himself. The glow of fanaticism, and the
fervor of superstition are indeed bad: but either is
preferable to the cold heart which would not feel
sympathy with the afflicted mother of the suffering
Redeemer: and to feel and to express this sympa¬
thy is idolatry !—Bless the genius of your philoso¬
phical correspondent !
When to assert that God bestows a crown of glo¬
ry upon one who has fought the good fight,will be
lawfully marked as idolatry, we must, however re¬
luctantly, acknowledge St. Paul to be an idolater,
or at all events that they who believe in the fact de¬
clared in his second Epistle to Timothy, c. iv. 8,
are idolaters. I, for one, do not think they are
made so by that belief: nether is it idolatry to as¬
sert that honour is due io those whom God highly fa¬
vours, (prot. version,) Luke i. 28, provided this ho¬
mage or honor be not what is due only to God; nei¬
ther is it idolatry for each of us to love the mother
of Jesus and to address her by that endearing appel¬
lation which Christ himself desired his beloved
disciple to use towards his afflicted and venerable
and holv mother. John xix. 26, 27.
Thus I have unnecessarily undertaken to shew
that in this private, ephemeral and unauthorised
publication, which is any thing but a public docu¬
ment, there is not a single expression, savouring of
idolatry; though the examination has indeed made
me feel serious pain, indevout as I am, at the cal¬
lous, irreverent, and tortuous fallacy of your inex¬
orable and inconsistent correspondent.
But he has other proofs of the downright idola¬
try, paragraph 17. And gentlemen this is no private
compilation.—Yea it is from the very Missal, she
is called Holy !!!—Now there can be no question
of the downright idolatry!!!—Then the Holy Ghost
t 58 J
inspired Zachary with an idolatrous sentim ea
when he declared, that it was part of God's o ath
that the descendants of Abraham, of whom Mary
Was one, should serve him in holiness. Luke i. 75V
St. Paul leads us to most idolatrous notions when
he tells the Ephesians iv. 24, to put on the new mant
which after God is created in righteousness and true
holiness : equally wrong was it for this apostle to
pray for the Thessalonians 1. iii. 13, that the Lord
may establish their hearts unblameable in holiness,
before God, even our Father, at the coming of out-
Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints. And what is
the word saint but the more literal and ancient trans¬
lation of sanctus. holy?. Did not God himself
command the Israelites Exod. xxii. 31, And ye shall
be holy men unto me ? Did you read of the holy
angels, Mark viii. 38. But why waste time and
ink and paper on such folly as this? Again the
Missal styles her Mother of God. Good gentle¬
men ! are my eyes deceived ? Will Protestant Epis¬
copalians leave us no choice between idolatry and,
Nestorianism ? Are you prepared for the result?—
And she is asked to intercede for us. Nothing more
certain : that fact is fully admitted. This is there¬
fore downright idolatry! By no means : quite the
contrary ; it is an acknowledgement and declaration
that she must pray to a greater being than herself,
to her God, who is also our God!
The passage from the Christian's guide goes ho
farther,and is not, idolatry.
In paragraph 19. the good man's zeal outsteps his
premises.—"Now such language of adoration."
Softly, good sir. We have examined every syllable
of it, and not one syllable was language of adora¬
tion. Adoration is the worship due to Gpd. This
is what we call misrepresentation, " and prayer."
Yes in the lesser sense, " invoking her, asking her
aid," by her prayers to God for us, as you ask your
friends in the body to pray for you, but not prayer
of adoration such as we address to God, who alone
is the fountain and source of mercy. Thus we do
say that Holy Mary the mother of God, ever glo¬
rious virgin, is but a creature, and ought not to re¬
ceive the homage due to the creator alone : and we
E 59 3
not pay it to her, and thus we do not commit
downright idolatry,though your "Protestant Catho¬
lic" has been guilty of various sad misrepresenta¬
tions and has most unmercifully outraged logic.
Roman Catholics condemn as Heretics the Colly-
ridians mentioned by St. Epiphanius, who were cut
off from our communion, because of their paying an
idolatrous homage to the blessed virgin. This fact
speaks sufficiently strong, to shew that we neither
practice nor approve the crime which your corres¬
pondent would fasten upon us.
The nineteenth paragraph states that our doctrine
cannot be true, without giving to the blessed Virgin
(I may add each of the saints) " the divine attri¬
butes pf Omniscience and Omnipresence." lean
upon a variety of grounds cut short any disquisition,
by a denial of such a consequence. The first ground
I shall take, is that founded upon the indisputa¬
ble distinction betweeh the extent of this globe and
the immensity of space. A being- whose view would
reach to a great extent, is not therefore said to see
through all space, and our globe from which the
christian people send forth their prayers, is but a
speck in the midst of creation. It is great in rela^
tion to us ; but how small is it in relation to him
whose eye pervades the boundless recesses of that
space, through so small a portion of which the first rays
of our Sun have as yet travelled ? These big words
omniscience and omnipresence are thoughtlessly, and
incautiously used. God alone is omniscient and om¬
nipresent : but as man is raised above the brute in
knowledge, and as man excels man in science, so
ancrelic natures exceed ours ; neither can we com-
prBend, much less fix the boundary which God
has placed to their powers of intuition. Spiritual be¬
ings as they are, we know that it is not with the eye
they see, nor with the ear they hear, we know net
how they move, if motion they have ; nor how. if at
all, they correspond to space : we live in a ma¬
terial world, we know that it differs from the world
of spirits, in which Angels and Saints exist; and be¬
sides the blunder of extending our conclusions to all
extent, frorti our premises which only took in con¬
siderable extent; shall we be guilty of the attempt
to argue upon principles of analogy, regarding
[ 60 J
things where no foundation for analogy exists ?
Shall we argue from our imperfect experience in
this material world in which we live, and of which
we know so little ; to a spiritual world, of which we
have no experience, and concerning which so little is
known ? This is not only illogical, but presumptu¬
ous. The nature of the saints reigning together
with Christ in heaven, is at present altogether spiri¬
tual, and even when their bodies will arise in the
resurrection ; even then, the attributes of those bo¬
dies shall be like to those of the blessed spirits, the
angelic substances. This is the testimony of
Christ.
Mark XII.—24, 25, 26, 27.
" And Jesus answering, said to them : Do ye not there¬
fore err, not understanding the Scriptures, nor the power of
God?
" For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall
neither marry, nor be given in marriage ; but are as the an¬
gels in heaven.
" And as concerning the dead, that they rise again, have
you not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God
spoke to him, saying : I am the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
" He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You
therefore do greatly err."
An extended view is not omnipresence : neither
is extensive knowledge omniscience; extended
views and knowledge are required,by our doctrine,
in these spirits, but omnipresence and omniscience
are not. I do not here advert to the scriptural facts
which exhibit full evidence of the existence of what
our tenets necessarily suppose: but I thus, at once
shew that the assumed conclusions in this 19th pa¬
ragraph are perfectly unfounded.
Not only,is there a total want of correct reasoning,
but there is in the assumption, a principle,which will
of course, overthrow many of the scriptural doc¬
trines of your own church, for you believe that the
angels in heaven do know, and rejoice at the conver¬
sion of sinners who may at the same instant,repent in
various parts of our circumscribed globe, Luke xv.
7,10. You also do believe,that the Devil,who is nei^
tber omniscient nor omnipresent, tempts people in
all parts of the world, at the same time that he is
their accuser before the throne of God. Revel, xii.*
9, 10. Ephes. iv. 27, vi. 11, I Tim. iii. 6, 7, II
[ 61 ]
Tim. ii. 26. Jamesiv. 7, &c. As I,'at pfeseht, ah|
merely on the defensive, I consider it unnecessary
for me to adduce those texts and reasons that
would establish the facts upon which oxir doctrine
rests : I shall therefore,conte!it myself with shewing
as I trust I have done, that the gentleman with the
curious name, has altogether failed in his efforts to
maintain his positions; that he has treated our do¬
cuments with manifest dishonesty, and altogether
misrepresented our tenets,in his first essay; wherein
he undertook to adduce sufficient evidence to prove
that I asserted what was not true, When I stated it
to be a misrepresentation, to charge us with " pray¬
ing to angels and saints to save us by their merits,"
" making those , angels and saints mediators with
Christ, or in his stead; thus dishonouring Christ
•the only mediator," and " giving to creatures the
worship due to God alone" and " thus being guilty
of downright idolatry."
I shall proceed to consider his second essay in
my next, and remain, gentlemen, without any intern
tion of adoring you.
Your obedient humble servant,
B. C.
Charleston, (5. C.) June 29, 1829.
LETTER VI.
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and Souj
them Episcopal Register, &c. ,
" A most compendious way, and civil
At once to qheat the world, the Devil,
And Heaven, and Hell, yourselves, and those
On whom you vainly think t'impose.
Why then, (quoth he) may Hell surprize.
That trick, (said she) will not pass twice:
I've learned how far, I'm to believe
Your pinning oaths upon your sleeve.
But there's a better way of clearing
What you would prove, than downright swearing.
Butler, Hudibras. Part iii, c, 1.
Gentlemen. There is no subject upon whiih
greater injustice has been done to us than on the
worship of images. There are serious differences
in matters of fact, and there is a great difference in
principle upon this subject between several Protes¬
tants and the Roman Catholic church; I say Several,
6
[ 62 ]
Protestants, because I do not find the Protestants as a
body, of the same opinion regarding the principle, nor
do I find them, by any means, unanimous as to the
statement of facts. The chief object is therefore to
understand what our present opponent looks upon
to be erroneous. At first view it would appear to
be easily solved, by saying that he looked upon ido¬
latry to be erroneous. But this answer leaves us as
completely as ever at a loss ; for perhaps, we are not
agreed as to the meaning of the word itself, nor are
our opponents agreed amongst themselves upon
this point. For instance, some of them wdl say that
to pay any respect whatever to an image is idolatry,
whilst others state that if the image be considered
only as a memorial, by means of which the mind is
brought to worship the creator, whom it represents,
it is not idolatry: for it is God, and not the image that
is worshipped. A third class will assert, that to
make any thing as a likeness or image of the Crea¬
tor, is in itself highly criminal, and is idolatry. These
are some, hut not all the varieties of opinion amongst
Protestants.
Again, they differ in their statement of facts : for
whilst some of them admit that we do not adore ima¬
ges; others assert that we do adore them. And
again, whilst we meet witfy some who admit that
there might and do exist various degrees of religious
homage, which may be all designated, by the name
of worship, and the highest of which (adoration) is
that which is due to God alone : we meet with ma¬
ny who undertake to say, that all religious homage
is adoration ; and that there cannot be any grada¬
tions of worship : that in fact worship is an indivi¬
sible point, in which there can not be higher and
lower.
From this view, it will be pretty clear, that the
subject has been rendered more difficult, confused and
intricate than might at first seem. But as I have to
deal with an individual, I consider it to be my duty
to endeavour, first to ascertain how far he agrees
with me in principle, and in fact; and not to make
him accountable for, the opinions of other Protes¬
tants.
In the first place I believe, he admits as a fact*
that the worship which the itoman Cathoiic church
E 63 ]
permits to be paid to images is not the same sort as
that which she states is due only to God. My ground
for this assertion is the following passage in his se¬
cond essay (for March), paragraph 23.
" Christians under the denomination of Roman Catholics,
like other Christians, worship the one true God of the Scrip¬
tures. But their church has authorised a use of images in
their places of worship, that would make a certain Kind of
worship paid to them, consistent with the purer and exclu¬
sive homage which Jehovah demands for himself."
Thus he admits that there are degrees of worship,
the purer and exclusive homage of jehovah,
and a certain kind of worship paid to images. The
former is called by Roman Catholics adoration, and
is given exclusively to the one true God of the Scrip¬
tures : the other is not adoration ; but a certain kind
of different worship paid to images. I shall always
upon this subject,use the word adoration in the mean¬
ing which is here affixed by me to it, such also is
the meaning in which it is understood by all Roman
Catholics using the English language. In a preceding
part of the same paragraph, he has the following ex¬
pression of his opinion.
" It may be true, that some Protestants, in an intempe¬
rate zeal of dissent from Popery, have considered Roman
Catholics equally as idolatrous as the heathens either are or
were. I believe, however, that a wide distinction is gene¬
rally considered due in favour of Christian worshippers of
the one only God, however incumbered their worship may
be with erroneous appendages, from those, who, with no
knowledge or belief of the one Jehovah, may worship infi¬
nitely various fictitious deities, in idols, in which they may
be supposed to reside."
From this I infer, that he does not consider Roman
Catholics, to be Polytheists, since they are worship¬
pers of the " one only God," " the one true God
of the scriptures," whom they worship with " the
purer and exclusive homage" of adoration ; this they
pay to God alone, and they have no other God but
him; though your correspondent considers their
worship to be " encumbered with erroneous appen¬
dages," such as " a certain kind of worship paid
to images." In this passage he also draws
" a wide distinction between" "those christian"Ro-
man Catholic " worshippers of the one only
I^God," and the persons who "-with no knowledge or
belief of the one jehovah,may worship" " fictitious
r
deities, in idols, in which they may be supposed to
reside," these we may safely call idolaters. In a
subsequent passage of the paragraph he again states
that there is an " important" " difference" between
the Roman Catholics who pay adoration to the one
true God of the scriptures and the idolater who " ei¬
ther honoured his idols with a worship terminating
in them, or through them worshipped the unknown
God."
" Voltaire, it is true, thought the heathens were no more
idolaters than Roman Catholics. I would not, however,
take his authority as good, against the industrious author of
the essay, in the Review. There is a difference, and we
should admit that it is important. The poor Indian, either
honoured his idols with a worship terminating in them, or
thrdugh them worshipped the unknown God."
The author of the essay, he had previously ad¬
verted to in this passage,
" The author of an article in the fourth number of the
•' Southern Review" has with needless elaborateness of de¬
tail, given the literary and political community, for whom
that work is intended, reasons to believe, that the idolatry
of the aborigines of America, is a very different thing from
the Roman Catholic reverence or adoration of images."
From this passage it would appear that the author of
that article in the Review,stated that Roman Catholics
paid's adoration" to images. I have very carefully
.perused the article and can distinctly aver that the au¬
thor says no such thing. It is a little unpleasant to
be obliged to exhibit those peccadilloes, and is more¬
over somewhat troublesome to me, since it puts it
out of my power to rely on the assertion of your
correspondent. However, I am not perhaps war¬
ranted in using this language ; for if by adoration,
he means " certain kind of worship, quite different
from that which is given exclusively to Jehovah, the
only true God of the scriptures," it is not impossible
but the author of that essay did admit that Roman Ca¬
tholics paid such adoration to images, though he never
used the expression either in phrase or in substance:
or, perhaps, some other curiously baptized corres¬
pondent will prove the point against him in your
number for August. The article has, I believe,
been rather unsparingly commented upon, because
of the following passage,
" Another passage in the letter exhibits to us the grounddj
npan which we are fully warranted in calling their (the Ihdi-
[ 65 ]
ans') worship idolatrous. Idolatry is the giving to any created
being the worship of adoration,which is due to God alone. The
person who acknowledged the existence of only one God,and
paid to him adoration under any name by which he might be
designated, would not be an idolater, because the object of
his adoration was the supreme and only God. The person
who believed the divinity to reside in a statue or image, and
therefore made that statue or image the object ofhis adora¬
tion, would be an idolater: but if he viewed that image as it
really was, not divine, nor partaking of the divinity, nor
having any inherent sanctity, but a mere memorial by which
his attention was awakened, his imagination fixed, and his
religious feeling excited, and that in its presence he adored
the eternal and spiritual God, and him alone; clearly he was
not an idolater: for though by occasion of the creature he
was brought to the adoration of the creator, he adored God,
and him alone. Thus he who, filled with the piety which
nature excites, raises himself from the contemplation of a
flower, or the consideration of the solar system, to the adora¬
tion of Him who gave to the one its delicate tints, and to the
other its admirable order and wondrous harmony, is not the
adorer of nature, but of nature's God. He who pays the ho¬
mage of adoration to created beings, however intelligent and
superior they may be, whether they be holy or wicked, gives
to the creature that which is due to the creator alone, and is
thus an idolater : thus, the worshippers of Mars, of Juno, of
Ceres, and the other deities of Greece and Rome, gave to
created beings the homage of adoration, and were idolaters;
and though they should never have represented by statues
or painting, those objects of their homage, the crime would
have been fully committed ; the adoration of those demons
by occasion and in presence of the image, was still the un¬
due worship of creatures,.and they who were so far besotted
as to adore the statue itself, were, if possible, more criminal.
The adhering to this idolatry so far as to withdraw its vota¬
ries from the adoration of the only and true God, would hay*
been the consummation of this apostacy, and such was the
state of the Indians of whom we treat. The Manitou is not
considered as an intercessor with God, as a fellow worship¬
per with man of the Deity, but is the object of adoration, the
lord of life and of death."
The article was considered by seyeral with whom
I spoke, to have been obnoxjous for an addi¬
tional reason: because there was a general im¬
pression that it came from the pen of a writer, who
is supposed to believe that the kindness ofhis fellow-
citizens has more than compensated for the hostility
of unappeasable opponents. But so far as I can ob¬
serve, there is not throughout the whole article a sin¬
gle averment respecting Roman Catholic adoration
of images; or Roman Catholic veneration ofimages,
unless it be contained in the above paragraph, which
[ 66 j
another religious writer has proclaimed to be des
tractive of Christianity.
How far it is " needlessly elaborate, touches not
the present question ; but it appears to me, only to
do, what your correspondent, and all other writers
of his description,have been grossly deficient in omit¬
ting ; to give some distinct notion of what is meant
by the word idolatry, previously to charging milli¬
ons of accountable beings with the practice of " abo¬
minable idolatry, of all other vices most detested of
God, and most damnable to Man." (Homil.)
In the same 23d paragraph your correspondent
after giving pretty correctly the passage from the
creed of the Roman Catholic Church, set forth by
Pope Pius IV. in fulfilment of the order of the coun¬
cil of Trent, favours his readers with apiece -of latin
which he calls " the words of the decree of the coun¬
cil of Trent," but which is a garbled imitation, in¬
stead of being " the words of the decree." Although
some of the printed words are nonsense, and there
is a transposition of a point, which would make the
original appear to place the worship of Christ and
the saints upon an equal footing ; yet the transla¬
tion which he gives, is better in keeping with the spi¬
rit of the decree; though still in that translation the
point is not introduced, and the distinction between
the adoration of Christ and the veneration of the
saints is not so strongly marked as it. is in the origi¬
nal. Upon this, however, I shall not rest an argu¬
ment. God forbid I should be driven to the wretch¬
ed shift of endeavouring to sustain a calumny upon,
perhaps, a printer's mistake! From all this he
states.
" Now the honour and veneration of the images of Christ,
&c. thus provided for by the highest authority of the Roman
Catholic church, aaundispensably obligatory, we know to be
held and taught in that church, to be not such as is due to
God."
" The second Council of Nice, A. D. 786, which is referred
to by the Council of Trent, on. this subject, did assert the di¬
rect worship of images; declaring at the same time, that it
should not be Latria, which is due only to God, but merely1
an honorary adoration."
Hence we have the writer's testimony, or admis¬
sion for the following points :
First. That Roman Catholics pay to the One, only
God of the scriptures^ purer worship than
they pay to Ki\y other being.
t «T J
Second. That the worship which they pay to tjiis
God is a kind which is given exclusively to
him, and which we call adoration, to distin¬
guish it from any other.
Third. That they admit a certain kind of worship to
be paid to images, which is very different from
that which they give exclusively to God, and
which they assert is consistent with giving
that purer and exclusive worship of adora¬
tion, to God alone.
Fourth. That there are different and distinct degrees
of religious worship.
Fifth. That however erroneous Roman Catholics
might be, in their appendages of the worship
of one only God, of which the worship of ima¬
ges is one, there is a wide distinction to be
taken between them and those who worship
fictitious deities, in idols in which they may
be supposed to reside.
Sixth. That Roman Catholics are not Polytheists,
for they believe in the existence of only one
God,to whom exclusively, they pay adoration.
Seventh. That there exists an important difference
between Roman Catholics, who pay to images
a certain kind of worship, and idolaters who
give to their idols a worship terminating in
those idols.
Eighth. As also between Roman Catholics and those
idolaters who through their idols worshipped
the unknown God.
Ninth. That Roman Catholics do not believe any
divinity to reside in their images.
Tenth. That they do not believe any power to re¬
side in the images.
Eleventh. That the honour which is shewn to the
images of Christ is referred to the original,
so that through the image Christ is adored,
by Catholics.
Twelfth. That through the images of the saints, Ro¬
man Catholics venerate the saints whose si¬
militude the images bear, so that the honour
shewn to the image is referred to the original.
Upon these twelve points the author of the essay
and I appear to be perfectly agreed, but 1 must cor¬
rect a mistake of his, in the passage just quoted last
[ 68 ]
above, where he asserts that this honour and veneration
of the images, &c. is '' indispensably obligatory."
Such is not the fact, nor is such a provision made.
A person might be during all his life, a member of
the Roman Catholic church, and never be obliged to
pay either honour or veneration to any image. But
he would cease to be a member of the church by de¬
liberately denying that it was lawful to pay due ho¬
nour and veneration to either the images of Christ,
or of the saints. Should he assert that they ought
to be adored, in the sense in which 1 use the word,
he would also cease to belong to the church, for he
would thus assert idolatry, or that undue honour
should be given to them. Every Catholic is bound
to believe the true doctrine, but every Catholic is not
" indispensably obliged" to practice every religious
duty which he might lawfully practice if he pleases.
Your correspondent is very liable .to mistakes.
I remarked before upon the garbled extract which
was given to us by the writer as " the words ot the
decree of the council of Trent, enacted at its 25th
session" upon this subject. In a note to paragraph
23, he is pleased to state that for those decrees,
Father Paul's history is his authority ; he is moreo¬
ver pleased to assert, that neither Mr. Charles But¬
ler nor B.C.can make good their insinuations against
the correctness of that history : and especially as¬
serts that " it cannot be shewn that Father Paul has
not correctly reported the decrees passed by this
Council." He states that several years ago he did
himself look over them in Pallavicini's work; and
" believes that in this respect, there is no material
difference." He then insinuates that Pallavicini might
be biassed to, the Catholic side, and then confirms
the whole by adducing in support of the correctness
of Father Paul an attested copy of the original acts
of the council preserved in the library of Cambridge
University, in England.
Now the question is not, by any means, as to whe¬
ther either of those writers, Father Paul or Pallavi¬
cini, gave a correct history of the proceedings, de¬
bates,and if'it pleases you,the intrigues at the coun¬
cil; the question is a far more simple one, and much
more easily decided. Whether the extract given by
your correspondent contains " the words of the de«
[ 69 ]
:ree ?" A decree is a public document, every word
of which should be given when quoted, as " the
words;5' &then the suppression of any portion of "the
words" is the most unpardonable dishonesty. When
I saw your " Protestant Catholic's" note, before
I read the decree, my suspicions wer.e excited, and
I began to consider why such stress was laid upon
proving, what no person would be disposed to call
in question; that the public document was correctly
given. I next observed, that even your curiously
named friend manifested extreme caution in assert¬
ing that the documents were reported in the same
words in both historians, for he would only vouch
upon a distant recollection of several years, and to
there being in this respect, no material differ¬
ence. But why should there be any difference if
they were both honest ? They had only to copy the
words of a public document. Then, as if the wri¬
ter was fully aware that a difference would be dis¬
covered, he prepares his readers to distrust Pallavi-
cini, and next he proceeds to strengthen Father Paul,
ft was now too manifest to me,that your correspond¬
ent was aware of a difference in the document
as given by each of the historians. Was it- here,
honest in him ,to quote as unquestioned a doubtful
document ?
It is one of the best principles of evidence
that no secondary testimony shall be admitted
when primary testimony can be had ; jmd it is also
a practical maxim that secondary testimony, even
when admitted, shall not weigh as much as that
which is primary. Both those historians are secon¬
dary wituesses. An attempt is next made by him,
it is true, to give us primary testimony, but at se¬
cond hand ; an attested copy through Dr. Marsh.
The attested copy might be correct and Doctor
Marsh might have misquoted ; this J state, not to
insinuate that .he did, but to illustrate my po¬
sitions ; therefore, this statement of your corres¬
pondent gives us no primary testimony. The attested
copy would be testimbny of this description, not in
its strictest, but in its usual and practical meaning.
What is an attested Copy ? One testified to be cor¬
rect, by a public officer who is solemnly bound, and
rrust-worthy, and having the means of ascertaining
-T/u1 j-*
its correctness fully in his power. Let us apply this
to the Cambridge copy. Upon the very face of the
Case it is difficult to believe it to be what your cor¬
respondent says. Because at the very time of the
session of the Council, the laws of England prohibit¬
ed under the most severe penalties, any intercourse
with the only officers of the See of Rome who
could give the attestation : and the see pf Rome
had excommunicated the persons who were the
officers of the University authorised to receive
and to preserve the copy. To suppose the fact
then, we must first suppose the officers on both
sides to have disobeyed and violated the laws of their
respective governments. Even at this day, though
Catholics are emancipated, an officer of the Univer¬
sity of Cambridge could not legaily receive any offi¬
cial document from an officer of the See of Rome.
But gentlemen : authenticated copies of the pub¬
lic acts and decrees of the council of Trent are by
no means scarce, and two of them, of different editi¬
ons, now lie before ine, one of which I shall leave
at the Miscellany Office, during a week, from the
publication of this letter, so that any person who
thinks proper might satisfy himself of the correct-,
nes of the quoted decree.
I shall not then give Pallavicini against Father
Paul, but I shall give primary evidence, by giving
from an authenticated copy of the acts of the coun¬
cil, " the very words of the decree," taken from an
edition printed at Trent in 1745, with the regular
testimonies and licences, and moreover found to
agree,upon comparison, with the various quotations
anc transcripts in all public documents and standard
■works which regarded the same topics, printed in
several Catholic countries, and with various other
authenticated printed copies of the acts of the coun¬
cil published in othpr places.
Extract from the decree of the Council of Trent,
concerning the Invocation. and veneration, and Re¬
lics of Saints, and concerning sacred images, pass¬
ed in the 25th Session, celebrated on the 3rd and
4th days of December 15fc"3.
' Imagines porro Christi, Deiparce Virginia, et ali-
' oru:n sanctorum, in templis prtzserfim habendas,
' et retinendas, eisque debitum h morem, et vciera-
4 tionem impertiendam, non quod credatur itiesse
[ w ]
* aliqua in eis Divinitas, vel virtus, propter quam
' sint colendce; vel quod ab eis sit aliqy,id petendum,
' vel quod Jiducia in imaginibus sit figenda : veluti
4 olirnJiebat a Gentibus, quce inidolis spemsuam col-
4 locabaQt; sed quouiaui honos, qui eis exhibetur
4 refertur ad prototypa, quce illce representant: ita
4 ut per imagines, quas osculamur, et coram, quibus
4 caput aperimus piocumbimus Christum adora-
4 mus, et Sanctos,quorum illce similitudioem gerunt,
' veneremur, id quod Conciliorum, prcesertirn vero
' secundce Nicence Synodi decretis contra imaginum
1 oppugnatores est sancitum.
Translation.
4 Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the vir-
4 gin mother of God and of other saints are to be kept
4 and retained especially in the Churches, and that
4 due honour and veneration is to be given to them,
4 not that it is to be believed that there is in them
4 any divinity or power ; on account of which they
4 are to be worshipped: or that any trust is to be
4 placed in images : as was formerly done by the Gen-
4 tiles who placed their hope in idols; but because
4 the honour which is shown to them is referred to
4 to the originals which they represent: so that through
4 the 'images,which we kiss, and in presence of which we
' uncover our heads and kneel down, we might adore
4 Christ, and might venerate the saints, whose like-
4 ness they bear, that which has been sanctioned by
4 the decrees of Councils, but especially of the second
4 council of Nice against the opposers of images.''
4 In this extract I have marked in Italic letters the
parts omitted by this man, who with such effrontery
declared that 44 it cannot be shewn that father Paul
has not correctly reported the decrees passed by this
council! !! Be it remembered, that the object of
this writer was to shew,that there was no misrepre¬
sentation in charging Roman Catholics with adoring
images, in like manner as the Pagans did ; and that
in several Protestant writers, the overt acts, of kiss¬
ing, uncovering the head, and kneel&g, are relied
upon as evidence of the intention of adoration.
Then look at the parts omitted and say if this was
not flagrant unjustifiable garbling.
There is hewever great difference between even
father Paul and your correspondent. The former
[ 72 ]
did not undertake nor profess, to give " the words
of the decree," he had more prudence than to ex¬
pose himself to the necessary result. This writer
could not then have stated with truth that he took
the " words of the decree" from the historian, who
did not profess to give them. Father Paul wrote
in Italian, and his work was translated into English
by Sir Nathaniel Brent. I have not seen an Italian
copy,but I presume the English to be correct, as both
the original and the translation were procured to be
made and printed by the English government. The
translation gives no latin words of the decrees, which
were written in latin. I suppose, therefore, the Italian
original gave none : where then did your corres¬
pondent get the latin which he gives ? It is evident¬
ly taken from the latin of the original decree, for
the words, so far as they are given, are the same;
yet father Paul does not give this latin ; therefore
it was not copied from him : neither is the English
that of his translator, which is the following.
' Concerning images, that those of Christ, of the
4 virgin, and of saints, ought to be kept in the
* Churches, and to have due honour given them ;
4 not that there is any divinity or virtue in them, but
4 because the honour redoundeth to the thing repre-
4 sented, Christ and the saints being worshipped by
4 the images, whose similitude they bear ; as has
4 been defined by the Councils, especially in the se-
4 cond of Nice.' Edit. London M.DCLXXVI. p.
751.
Where then did your correspondent get either his
Latin or his English. For it is pretty clear he got
neither from father Paul, nor from Sir Nathaniel
Brent. Perhaps Doctor Marsh helped him from the
attested copy of the original acts, out of which in the
process of time, the moths had eaten a few words.
But it is for your veracious correspondent to say why
he fathered the " words of the decree" upon father
Paul, who was too cunning to lay himself open to
such exposut% Perhaps you can make another
point of this.
I am, gentlemen,
Your obedient humble servant,
B. C.
Charleston, (S. C.) June 6, 1829.
[ ?3 ]
LETTER VU
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger end Sou~
thern Episcopal Register, &c.
Turn vero ardemus scitari, et quffirere c&usas,
Ignari sceletum tantorum, artisque Pelasgse.
Prosequitur pavitans, et ficto pectore fatur.
Virgil Eneid II.
Now blind to Grecian frauds, we burn to know
With fond desire the causes of his woe ;
Who thus, still trembling as he stood, and pale
Pursu'd the moving melancholy tale.
Pitts translation.1
Gentlemen. It is an extremely unpleasant task
to come in contact with a writer like " Protestant
Catholic," not so much because of his amusing
name, but because of his multiplied errors. Leav¬
ing him to settle his differences with father Paul, in
the best way that he can ; I now must confront him
with St. Thomas.
He tells us in the same paragraph 23. concerning
this holy Doctor.
H Thomas Aquinas, ,who wrote several centuries after the
second Nicene Council, asserted for the images of Christ,
&c. placed in the churches, the direct worship ofLatria;
alleging that the same acts and degrees of worship, which
were due to the original, were also due the image ; on the
•ground, that to worship the. image with any other act than
that by which the original was worshipped, was to worship
it on its own account, which is idolatry,"
They who are acquainted with the works of the
angelic Doctor of the schools, will find this subject
treated in his Surnma Theologies, part iii. Quaest xxv.
article 3. XJtrum imago Christi sit adoranda, adora¬
tions latrive. I shall leave this work at the Miscel¬
lany Office, during a week from the day of publica¬
tion of this letter, and it will be seen by any person
who chuses to refer to the article, that the above ex¬
tract contains five distinct untruths ; for in the first
place, Thomas Aquinas does not assert for the ima¬
ges the direct worship of Latria; in the next
place, he does not give the ground here alledged, but
others of a description by no means like it; nor
does he state that it would be idolatry to worship
the image with any other act, than that with which
the original was worshipped: nor does he assert that
it would be idolatry to worship it on its own account;
7
| "74 1
nor has ha any passage which warrants the &c.
after the word Christ.
The ground upon which St. Thomas founded his
proposition, is a philosophical, not a theological to¬
pic, and upon a principle laid down by Aristotle ia
the 2nd chapter of his book " On Memory and recol¬
lection which is in substance, that the image
brings to the mind what it was formed to represent,
and, that the mental acts regard not the materials
which produce the recollection and excite the feel¬
ing, but the original object to which those recol¬
lections and feelings are directed : and St. Thomas
applying this principle to the images of Christ, says,
that since the memory and devotion have Christ, and
not the image for their object, the worship of ado¬
ration which is due to the Saviour might be indirectly
paid to those objects.
Your notable correspondent then makes an at¬
tempt to% place Cardinal Bellarmine in contradiction
to Thomas Aquinas, and for that purpose makes the
following statement.
" On the other hand,' Ita ut ipsae terminent venerationem
ut in se considerantur et non solum ut vicem gerunt exem-
plaris,' the language of Bellarmine,* places this matter in a
different, but still a very perplexing light. His object is to
vindicate the Church from the reproach of worshipping ima¬
ges, with the worship given to God. He assigns them, there¬
fore, an inferior worship, which might be all their own. The
difficulty is not thus removed."
* Bellarm. De Imag. 1.2. c. 21.
In this reference he has very carefully quoted the
latin, and pointed out the place: the chapter, indeed,
contains all the words that he quoted, but it con¬
tains others besides, which he does not give, and
which he ought to have given, but which I shall take
leave to supply.
Two authors writing upon the same subject and
viewing it in the same manner, contradict each other,
when one asserts exactly what the other denies.
Cardinal Bellarmine treats of the same subject as
does St.Thomas. But in chap, xxi of book II. on ima¬
ges &c. the Cardinal considers them without their
being so completely overlooked, as that the mind of
the observer is altogether occupied with the origi¬
nals which they represent. In part iii. Q. 25. art. 3.
[ 75 ]
St. Thomas considers them, the mind being alto¬
gether occupied with the originals, whose recollec¬
tion they excite. They do not both here view the sub¬
ject in the same manner ; they do not in fact exa¬
mine the same question. But in chapter x-xiii. of the
same II. book, the Cardinal takes exactly the same
question of which St. Thomas treats. If your cor¬
respondent was animated by a spirit of justice, and
candour, he would have found in this chapter the
ground of comparison, and had he made it, he would
have discovered agreement and not contradiction.
Mark what Bellarmine writes in this chapter xxiii.
After laying down his proposition, he gives the fol¬
lowing as his first reason.
" Ac primum, quod imago possit coli improprie eo cultu,
quo ipsum exemplar, probatur ; nam aliquando imago acci-
pitur pro ipso exemplari, et ea,quae fierent circa ipsum exem¬
plar si adesset praesens,fiunt circa imaginem, mente tamen de-
fixa in exemplari. Sic concionatores alloquuntur imaginem
crucifixi, eique dicunt tu nos redemisti, tu nos Patri reconci-
liasti; ista enim non dicuntur imagini, nec ut lignum est,
nec ut imago est, sed ut accipitur loco exemplaris, id est, di¬
cuntur ipsi Christo, cujus tamen imago vicem gerit,quemad-
inodum etiamin die Parasceves cum crucifixus paulatim de-
tegitur, & ostenditur, & adorandus proponitur, ilia omnia per
imaginem, ipsi Christo vero exhiberi intelliguntur, tunc au-
tem proprie nullus honor defertur imagini, sed soli exempla¬
ri : tamen improprie dici potest ipsa etiam imago honorari.
And first, it is proved, that an image might be wor¬
shipped not on its own account, with the same homage as
the original, for sometimes, the image is looked upon as ih
place of the original itself; and the same things which would
be done regarding that original, if it were present, are
done, regarding the image, the mind being however fixed firm"
ly upon the original. Thus preachers address the image of
him crucified, and say to it, " Thou hast redeemed us, thou
hast reconciled us to thy Father," for these things are not
said to the image,either as it is a piece of wood, or an image,
but as it is looked upon, as being in place of the original,
that is, they are said to Christ himself, whose place, howe¬
ver, that image holds; as also on Good Friday, when the
crucifix is gradually uncovered, and exhibited for adoration;
all those things are understood to be exhibited to Christ
through the image: then indeed on its own account, no honor
is paid to the image, but to the original only; but yet, though
not on its own account, it might be said that the image is
honoured."
He next proceeds to shew that the mind is also
frequently drawn through the image to the original!,
so that this latter only is viewed, not indeed as in
I }
the place of the first, but represented by it, and 33 if
clothed with the image : in such a case the image
is adored ; per accidens tamen, quia ipsa nec est
supposition quod adoratur, nec ratio adorationis,
sed quiddam adjunctum, " indirectly, because it
is not the object which is adored, nor the cause of
adoration,but is something joined to whatis adored:'*
he gives as an example : when a king clothed with
his robes receives homage, the royal dignity is the
cause of the respect, the person of the monarch is
directly respected, and the robes are indirectly (per
accidens) honoured, because they are so joined to
him, that it is in them his person is seen. So that
the adoration of Christ through th e image, is by
some called an indirect adoration of the image
itself, just as the homage paid to the wearer of the
robes, is said to be an indirect homage of the robes
themselves.
So far from contradicting St. Thomas : the Car¬
dinal in this very chapter in the paragraph next but
one after this latter explanation, mentions the opi¬
nion of this angelic writer, and after examining his
statements, shews that this very explanation agrees
with the position laid down in his work: and in
chap. xxv. after stating the opinion of St. Thomas
and other writers, as explained by Gabriel, be adds,
quod si ita est, omnes convenimus, " but if this be
so, we all agree."
Thus .all our writers agree that when the mind is
carried through the image to the original, the ho¬
mage which is paid, is directed exclusively to that
original; and by no means whatever to the statue or
image from which the mind received its impression
and direction. The various modes of expression in
different authors, must be construed by the general
character of their age and style and education, there
will frequently be found a difference of phrase, but
not a difference of sentiment. Thus the Council
of Trent viewing the subject in this same light agrees
with both of those writers, when it states that
" through the images" " we adore Christ, and vene¬
rate the saints whose likeness they bear."
But images might be considered in another light,
viz. as they are memorials of their prototypes or ori¬
ginals. In this view they are more than their mate-
[ 77 ]
rials, but less than their originals : as the statue of
General Washington, at Raleigh, is more than a
mere block of marble, more than a mere work of
art : but certainly, far less than the father of our
country. No American, with well regulated feelings,
would treat the Apollo Belvidere with equal attach¬
ment as he would this production of Canova, though
as a work of art, the Apollo is more excellent.
Place them side by side, and the citizen who looks
with mere admiration at the one,will feel something
like affection for the other. It was not a mere re¬
gard for the image as a work of art, but that regard
blended with respect and love Cor the memory of the
great original,that urged the legislature of North Ca¬
rolina in 1821 to pass the following statute.
CHAP. 1088.
An act making it an indictable offence to injure or deface the
Statue of General Washington
" 1. Be it enacted, &c. That if any person or persons herein¬
after shall knowingly spit upon, or in any way stain or de¬
signedly injure, or in any manner deface the Statue of Ge¬
neral Washington, erected by the General Assembly of this
state, he, she or they shall be guilty of an indictable offence,
and, upon conviction, shall be fined and imprisoned at the
discretion of the Court before whom the trial may be had.'*
Taylor's Revisal, p. 18.
Thus family pictures and images, are memorials
which naturally create a claim upon the affections,even
viewed in themselves and without actual recollection
of their originals. Cardinal Bellarmine in chap,
xxi. of book II. views the images in this light, and
says that as such, they do deserve from us properly
and on their own account, as memorials of Christ,
&c. a proper veneration: but not adoration, or la-
tria. His proposition is in the following words ; I
print in Roman letters the parts omitted by your
correspondent. " Imagines Christi, et sanctorum
" venerandte sunt non solum per accidens, vel im-
" propria, sed etiam per se propria, ita ut ips(& ter-
" minent venerationem, ut in se consideraniur, etnon
" solum ut vicem gerunf exemplaris.'v
" The images of Christ and of the saints are to
" be venerated not only indirectly, or improperly
" speaking, but properly on their own account so
" as that the veneration terminates in them, consider-
7*
L 78 ]
ed as what they really are, and not only as they hola
-*< ths place of the originals."
In this light also, as the Cardinal remarks, they
were viewed by the second Council of Nice when
it forbid them to be worshipped with latria or ado¬
ration ; but stated that they ought to be venerated
with the same respect which is paid to the book of
the gospels, to the holy vessels, such as the chalice,
the pix, &c. Such as was paid to the ark of the cove¬
nant with the images of cherubim, &c. in the old
law. Yet still, in the same chapter, Bellarmine re¬
marks, that the veneration paid to the image is be¬
cause of the sanctity of the original, so that though
respect be directly given to the representation, its
cause is found in what is represented. If you will
take the trouble of looking into St. Thomas 2nda
2ae. Quaest. xciv. art. ii. you will find that he take3
a wide distinction between the image of Christ, and
those of the saints, and keeping this distinction in
mind ; turn over to 3tia. Quest, xxv. art. iii. for the
image of Christ,and art. v. for the principle respecting
the images of the saints,by analogy from the answers
regarding their relics. You will find how complete¬
ly he agrees with Bellarmine, and with the second
council of Nice which was held 540 years before his
birth, and with the council of Trent which was as¬
sembled about 260 years after his death.
I shall now state our doctrine which your corres¬
pondent has endeavoured to perplex. 1. Christ
ought to be adored, because he is God. 2. The
saints are not to be adored for they are not Gods.—
3. But as the holy friends of God, they deserve from
us the homage of our religious respect, honour and
esteem. 4. An image of Christ, or of a saint has
no inherent sanctity, yet viewed as a memorial of
Christ or of the Saint, it, on that account, derives
from its connexion with the original which it repre¬
sents, an intrinsic value which makes it venerable and
and respectable; yet it is not when viewed in that light
to receive the same homage,that the original deserves.
5. But it frequently happens that in contemplating the
image, the mind is carried altogether to the original,
and the homage due to Christ or to the saint, is then
paid directly, to our Redeemer, or to his friend, but
through the image, which is thus said indirectly to
[ •79 J
receive the homage due to the original. Such is
the doctrine of the two councils and the two writers
whom " Protestant Catholic" has misrepresented.—
It is very easy for a man to create confusion, and then
to complain of its existence. Such has been the
unbecoming conduct of the writer who complains of
" perplexing light" produced by his own shift-
ings.
But I have not yet cleared away all his misrepresen¬
tations, in this second essay. In paragraph 24, he
confines himself to " the images or pictures of the
Virgin Mary, and other Saints," And this he inserts
within crotchets, as if it was a quotation. From
what does he quote it ?—The- creed of Pope Pius
has even upon his own shewing, in parag. 23, "the
images of Christ of the Mother of God, ever Virgin,
and of the other saints." I have marked in italics in
each phrase, the words omitted in the other. Could
•it be from what he calls " the words ofthe decree?" I
shall exhibit his crotchetted sentence and what he
says he copied from Father Paul " the images or
pictures of the Virgin Mary and other saints"—" the
images of Christ, the Virgin Mary and the Saints."
Father Paul omitted the word other before saints,
that he might leave room thus, to exhibit us as be¬
lieving that the blessed Virgin was not one of that
class: when it suited, your curious correspondent's
purpose in giving " the words of the decree" he
omits it, I should suppose for the same object : but
now in paragraph 24. he seeks another object to
attain which that word other is introduced, and the
word Christ is omitted. I shall now state facts,
and I think I need scarcely make an inference to ex¬
hibit the dishonesty of intention.
In parag. 23, the writer states that " Thomas
Aquinas asserted for the images of Christ, plac¬
ed in churches the direct worship of Latria," the&c.
placed after the word Christ evidently conveys an
idea of some adjunct, and the reader naturally asks
what that adjunct is.—And as naturally concludes
it must be what followed the word Christ in the two
former passages whichis, "ofthe Virgin Mary and the
Saints," so that without printing the proposition at full
length, the<S»c. leads him to believe that Thos. Aquinas
asserted the direct worship of Latria for the images'
t ]
not only of Christ but also of the Virgin and of the
other saints. With this fact before the reader, it now
becomes necessary to inform him, that so far from
making this assertion, St.Thomas of Aquin distinctly
excludes trie images of the saints from that worship
which he asserts for the images of Christ!! There was a
great clamour raised in England, in 1640 about the
insidious nature of an &c. which the convocation in¬
troduced in their sixth canon, at the end of a clause
in an oath tendered to the clergy ; of which the poet
Cleveland writes.
I can not half untruss
Etca#tera, it is so abominous.
In paragraph24, omitting all mention of the ima¬
ges of Christ, he merely mentions what his fyc. un¬
warrantably introduced, together with what he now
introduces for the first time, pictures,' and he asserts
that to " the images or pictures of the Virgin Mary,
and other saints," "we are required to give in our
churches" " due honour & veneration" " &. the reli¬
gious honour due to them is by some of our own writ¬
ers considered to be Latria " honor sive cultus soli
Deo exhibendus" the worship or honour due to God a-
lone." Not one of our writers ever was guilty of such
blasphemous nonsense. And yet, I have little doubt
but that the person who had the hardihood &,c. * * *
to publish this, is looked upon as a holy and zealous
man! ! ! The miserable little compilation, which
gave rise to this discussion, was innocence itself
when compared with a production like this. Mark
the gross folly which is imputed to us ! We are made
to say that Latria, " adoration" is due only to God,
and in the same breath to say that it is due also to the
image of a Saint!!! I feel degraded at being
brought to examine such a libel upon common sense,
as well as upon common religion, and common ho¬
nesty. I address you as gentlemen ; Editors of the
Gospel Messenger, do. you not blush at having per¬
mitted this to soil your pages ?
His next assertion is, that others of our writers
state, that this religious honour due to " the images
or pictures of the Virgin Mary, and other saints" is
dulia, or the honour, or worship, or service, which is
paid to man by reason of some dignity, holiness, vir¬
tue or goodness : or, as the words of Aquinas thus
L 81 •]
literally rendered, define it, " honor, vel cultus, yel
servitus quae exhibetur hornini, ratione alicujus dig¬
nitatis, sanctitatis, virtutis, vel bonitatis."
Who those other writers are, he does not state.—
Yet I shall not therefore say he has invented it, I
have no hesitation in admitting that what he des¬
cribes as dulia, is such homage as we believe might
be lawfully paid to the saints ; and, that if, not the
image itself, but the saint through the image, be con¬
sidered, this assertion of his might be admitted ; and
in this sense, some of our writers do allow it can be
used. I shall also state, that I can not find in the
Sum of St. Thomas, which I have carefully examin¬
ed, that definition of dulia which he exhibits as " the
words of Aquinas thus literally rendered define it."
Yet I admit it to be sufficiently correct. As his edi¬
tion of Thomas Aquinas differs so widely from those
to which I have recourse, I shall describe those lat¬
ter.—One, is a thick folio, 1 vol. Parisiis M. DC.
XXXIX. and the other ; 18 volumes 12 mo. Pata-
vii M.DCCLX.
In paragraph 25, he appears to stand upon more
solid ground. He had hitherto been only construct¬
ing gradually, what he now rests upon with confi¬
dence, " In this adoration then, this due honour
and veneration given to the images of the Virgin
mother of God, and the saints," in their Churches,
do Roman Catholics " violate the second of God's
commandments ?" Here is then a bold unqualified
assertion openly made of what has been distinctly
contradicted by all our writers. That we adore the
images of the Virgin Mary and other Saints. Upon
what ground does he make it ? His first assertion was
correct; that we believe "that images of Christ, of the
mother of God, ever virgin, and of other saints were
to receive due honour and veneration." He stated,
and truly, that this was founded upon adecree ofthe
Council of Trent, that decree laid down that they
were not to be worshiped because of a belief that there
was any divinity in them, nor was any trust to be pla¬
ced in them, as the Gentiles placed trust in their idols,
but Christ was to be adored through the image : the
honour shewn the image,was to be referred to Christ
the original,who was really, truly and properly ador¬
ed, because he is God: the honour shewn to the
[ 82 ]
images of the blessed virgin, and other saints, was t«*
be referred to their originals, the saints who were ve¬
nerated,, not adored. Here then the Council gave
us two classes arid two aets : Christ to be adored, and
the Virgin and other saints to be venerated. The first
dishonesty wa s in making three classes, instead of those
two. Father Paul omitted the word other by which
the virgin and other saints were shewn to belong to one
class, and gives us only the words, " the images of
Christ of the virgin and of saints," so as to destroy the
classification of the council: the next dishonesty was
also that of Father Paul in omitting the two verbs used
by the Council : adore which referred to Christ, and
the verb venerate relating to the saints, and by substitu¬
ting a generic verb which embraces adore and vener¬
ate^., worship ; and thus, by this trick, was the dis¬
tinction of the council destroyed. Your correspon¬
dent is next guilty of misrepresenting the words of
St. Thomas of Aquin, who states that through the
image of Christ, " adoration" or latria might be
paid to Christ himself,who is God ; and distinguished
his image from that of the saints, to whom no adora¬
tion was due, nor was any due to their images. It
would be too glaring a forgery to insert " the words"
which his work did not contain, but the adding of
an, fyc. under the special circumstances of the case
answered the same purpose, and was unwarrantably
recurred to. The effect of this trick, was to go a step
farther than Father Paul did, who merely exhibited
the council teaching that-all those images were to be
worshipped, but your correspondent undertaking to
shew the meaning of the verb worship, exhibits St-
Thomas teaching that they are to be adored with La¬
tria, or, the adoration du^ to God alone. The next
piece of dishonesty, consists in omitting the word
Christ in the conclusion, which was the only word
with which adoration was conjoined in the premises,
and keeping adoration, and making it now agree
with pictures which were not in any part of the pre¬
mises, and images of the saints with which it was
not connected by any true assertion in *the pre¬
mises, but to which it was unfairly connected by the
studied equivocation, of substituting the generic verb
worship, by Father Paul, and the dishonest attempt
of shewing from St. Thomas that worship meant
i a* ]
adoration" latria. This process reminds me of
a French distich which I recollect somewhat im¬
perfectly, and a better Eastern scholar, perhaps, can
supply the old Arabic word which has totally escap¬
ed my memory, but for which I give a substitute
almacra which is not very unlike the true one.—
The Poet is criticising a Spanish writer, who de¬
rived the Spanish word Caballo, " a' horse" from
the Arabic word for the same animal.
Caballo vient d'Almacra, sans doute,
Mais ii y a ete bien chang& dans sa route
Caballo is derived from Almacra, without doubt:
But it has been strangely metamorphosed on it's route.
As Sancho would say, <£ the mother that bore it,
would not know it." Indeed, gentlemen, we can
scarcely ever recognise our own doctrines in your
dresses. Your writers might be very good poets,
but with both our hands we vote against their claim
to be admitted as historians.
I shall now try your curious correspondent by a
few of his own assertions, versus a few of his own
assertions; and leave to you and himself to determine
which is the true Sosio.
" Now the honour and veneration of the images of Christ
&c. thus provided for by the highest authority of the Ro¬
man Catholic church, as indispensably obligatory, we know,
to be held and taught in that church to be not such as is due
to God."—Paragraph 23. p. 74. March.
" They are required to give them (the images or pictures,
of the Virgin Mary, and other saints) in their churches,
" due honour and venerationand the religious honour
due to them is considered by some of their own writers to be
Latria " honer sive cultus soli Deo exhibendus," the worship
or honour to be given to God alone."—Paragraph 24. p. 75.
March.
" The second was treated as a continuation of its subject
prohibiting the worshipping of image Gods ; and as images
were not worshipped as Gods by the church."—Paragraph
25. p. 76. March.
" Venite adoremus, is the express language of the Roman
Missal: Come let us adore. Thou shalt not adore nor serve
them, is the language of their translation of Scripture. Ro¬
man Catholics will say they are not served; will they say
that they are not adored ? The language of the passage, as
quoted by themselves, adore nor serve; not adore and serve."
-~Note to paragraph 25. p. 76.
Now good gentlemen, if our writers to the know¬
ledge of this man, required! for those images the ho-
[ 84 ]
aour to be given to God alone, how could he know-
that our church held and taught that it was not ho¬
nour such as is due God ?
To this I may add another paragraph.
" The second Council of Nice, A. D. 786, which is referred
to by the Council of Trent, on this subject, did assert the di¬
rect worship of images; declaring at the same time, that it
should not be Latria, which is due only to God, but merely
an honorary adoration."—Paragraph 23. p. 74. March.
In my last letter I enumerated twelve propositions
upon which he and I appeared to be fully agreed,
and I shewed in his essay the grounds for my assertion
that he taught those propositions* allow me there¬
fore to use them as his assertions, and to continue
the contrast. «
" First. Tha,t Roman Catholics pay to the one, only God
of the scriptures a purer worship than they pay to any other
being."
Second. That the worship which they pay to this God is
a kind which is given exclusively to him, and which we call
adoration, to distinguish it from any other.1'
" Christians under the denomination of Roman Catholics,
like other Christians, worship the one true God of the Scrip¬
tures. But their church has authorised a use of images in
their places of worship, that would make a certain kind of
worship paid to them, consistent with the purer, and exclu-v
sive homage which Jehovah demands for himself."—Para¬
graph 23. p. 73. March.
" Do Catholics then thus dishonour Christ, the nniy me¬
diator, and by giving to creatures the worship du£ to God
alone, make themselves guilty of direct idolatry ? To Pro¬
testants, it cannot but appear that they do."—Paragraph 9.
p. 49.—February.
u That they who use such worship as that of which I have
adduced the several specimens selected, give to the crea¬
tures the worship due to God alone, will not at first view,
admit of question ; nor is it easy, even on a closer conside¬
ration of the matter, to separate the reproach of direct idola¬
try from prayer addressed in the same Litany to God, and
to the many canonized Saints, arbitrarily determined to be
capable of hearing and answering prayer; and as arbitrarily
pronounced to be the blessed attendants of the Divine pre¬
sence."—Paragraph 9. p. 60. February.
I shall at present adduce but one or two other pas¬
sages. 1 first give two propositions from my last let¬
ter as containing his assertions.
" Fourth. That there are different and distinct degrees of
religious worship.
"• Fifth. That however erroneous Roman Catholics might
be, in their appendages of the worship of one only God, of
L 85. ]
which the worship of images is one, there is a wide distinc¬
tion to be taken between them and those who worship ficti¬
tious deities, in idols in which they may be supposed to re¬
side."
" His dulia might be an inferior worship ; but if it was
worship at all it was idolatry."—Paragraph 23. p. 75.
March.
" And the religious honour due to them is considered by
some of their own writers to be Latria, the worship or ho¬
nour to be given to God alone : by others dulia, or the ho¬
nour, or worship, or service which is paid to man by rea¬
son of some dignity, holiness, virtue or goodness."—Pa¬
ragraph 24. p. 75. March.
This is rather a bold stroke, where we are told,
that there are degrees of worship superior and infe¬
rior ; and that to give any worship at all is idolatry,
whether it be the worship due to God, or paid to
man. The exhibition which I give here is not by
way of refutation. It is merely to ask your corres¬
pondent to reconcile his own assertions, as consis¬
tency is creditable. When he has disposed of these I
have a few more at his service. I merely threw them
in now, to fill my sheet, as I wish to leave untouched
the next subjects, in treating of which, I must shew
how very widely different are his notions of Mytholo¬
gy and of Theology from those of Gentlemen.
Your obedient humble servant,
B. C.
Charlestonf (S. C.) July 13, 1829.
LETTER VIII.
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and Sou¬
thern Episcopal Register, &c.
Iris! descend and what we here ordain
Report to yon mad tyrant of the main.
Bid him from fight to his own deeps repair,
Or breathe from slaughter in the fields of air.
If he refuse, then let him timely weigh
Our elder birthright, and superior sway.
* % * * .
" What means the haughty sovereign of the skies "
The king of Ocean thus, incensed, replies
" Rule as he will his portioned realms on high,
No vassal God nor of his train, am I.
Three brother Deities from Saturn came,
And ancient Rhea, Earth's immortal dame :
Assign'd by lot,, our triple rule we know •
Infernal Pluto sways the shades below;
£
[ 86 ]
O'er the wide clouds, and o'er the starry plain.
Ethereal Jove extends his high domain ;
My court beneath the hoary waves I keep,
And hush the roarings of the sacred deep :
Olympus and this Earth in common lie
What claim has here the tyrant of the sky?
Pope's, Iliad. Book xv.
Gentlemen. Since, much of what follows in the
essay of your correspondent, must be explained by a
reference to the precepts regarding idolatry, which
were given by the Almighty to the Israelites ; and
of course to the nature of that worship itself: probably
it will save much time and trouble, and tend to give us
more clear notions upon the subjects of which we
treat, should we at once investigate the nature of pa¬
gan idolatry.
Your correspondent informs us paragraph 27.
That he has abundant evidence that the council of
Trent misrepresented the heathens : and refers to
the Iliad, the iEneid and the Pantheon, in support
of his assertion,which is contrary to that of the coun¬
cil. Probably we may yet discover better authority
than either of those works. I shall in the first place
give the statement of St. Thomas of Aquin, respect¬
ing the nature of pagan idolatry, and any person
who doubts the accuracy of my translation, can, by
applying at the Miscellany Office, consult the origi¬
nal.
' It is to be said as was before stated, that an un-
* due excess in the mode of divine worship is to be
'classed under the head of superstition. But this is
'principally done when divine worship is bestowed
' on that, to which it ought not to be given : but as
' we previously observed, when we treated of reli-
' gion, this divine worship ought to be given only to
' the supreme, increated God. And therefore it
' is superstitious to bestow it upon any creature
' whatever. But since worship is paid to God by
' some sensible signs, for instance by sacrifices, ex-
' hibitions, and others of this sort: so also it used to
' be given to a creature represented by some sensi-
' ble form or figure which is called an idol. Yet
' this divine worship was given in various ways to
' idols.4
' Some persons indeed by a certain wicked art,
' constructed a sort of images, which by the power
[ ST ]
4 of devils had certain effects: whencepeople thought
4 that in the images themselves there was some di-
' vinity ; and consequently that divine worship was
* due to them. And this was the opinion of Her-
4 mes Trismegistus, as Augustine says in his hook
4 viii. Of the city of God.''
4 Others did not pay the worship of the Divinity
4 to the images themselves, but to the creatures
' whose images they were. And the Apostle touch-
' es each of those. Rom. i. And they changed the
* the glory of the incorruptible God, into the likeness
4 of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds,
* and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things.
4 And as regards the second, he adds, and worship-
4 ped and served the creature rather than the Creator.
4 The opinions of those were of three sorts. Some
4 indeed thought that certain men whom they wor-
* shipped through their images, were Gods ; such
4 Jupiter, Mercury, and such others. But some
4 persons thought that the whole world was one God,
4 not by reason of its bodily substance, but, by reason
4 of a soul which they thought was God ; saying that
4 God was nothing else but a soul governing the
4 World by motion and reason : as man is said to be
4 wise by reason of his soul, not by reason of his
4 body. Whence, they thought the worship of the
4 Divinity should be paid to the whole world, and to
4 all its parts ; to the heavens, to the air, to the wa-
4 ters and to all other portions of this description.
4 And to these, as Yarro said, they used to refer the
4 names and the images of their Gods; and as
4 Augustine relates in his seventh book on the city
4 God.' 4
4 But others, to wit, the Platonists, laid down that
4 there was one supreme God as the cause of all
4 things : after whom they placed, that there were
4 certain spiritual substances created by the su-
4 preme God, which they called Gods, by reason of
4 their participation of the divinity, but we call them
4 angels. After whom, they placed the souls of the
4 heavenly bodies, and under those demons, who
4 were, they said, certain airy animals, and under
4 those they placed the souls of men, which through
4 the merit of virtue, they believed to be assumed to
4 the fellowship of Gods or of demons ; and thef
[ 88 ]
4 paid the worship of the Divinity to all those, as
1 Augustine relates in his book 8, Of the city God.'
' But they said that these two last opinions be-
4 longed to physical theology, which the Philoso-
' [fhers, considered in the world, and taught in the
4 schools. But they said that the other, regarding
' the worship of men,belonged to fabulous theology,
4 which according to the feigning of the poets was
* represented in the theatres. , But that the other
5 opinion concerning images, they said belonged to
civil theology, which was celebrated by the Pontiffs
' in the temples. But all these belonged to the su-
1 perstition of idolatry, whence Augustine says, in
' his second book " Of the doctrine of Christ." All
c this is superstitious, whatsoever has been mstitut-
4 ed by men to, make and worship idols,leading to wor-
4 ship,or worshipping as God, any creature, or the part
< of any creature.' 2da. 2dae. Quest, xeiv. art. 1.
The authority to which the angelic doctor of the
school refers in the above extract,is principally that
of St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, who flourished
in the decline of the fourth and the commencement
of the fifth ages. He lived at a time, and amongst
associates that still afforded him opportunities of
learning from personal observation, facts which are
to, us now, only the subject of remote history : his
father was a pagan, and so were several of his com¬
panions and friends: and previously to his becoming
a Christian, Augustin himself occupied an eminent-
place as an erudite and respectable scholar and
rhetorician. He informs us himself that his work
" Of the city of God" was compiled as a reply to
the pagans who endeavoured to attribute to Christi¬
anity the destruction of Rome by Alaric ; this work
occupied some years of his life : and in it he enters
deeply into the errors of paganism for the purpose
of exhibiting nbt only its contrast to Christianity,
hut its folly and criminality. It was published in
the midst of pagans, and when several eminent
scholars warmly advocated the mythological practices
and the ancient philosophy. I therefore rely on its
statements as deserving the highest credit. It is too
late now, after the lapse of several centuries, for
the republic of letters to be insulted by setting up.
the Iliad and the iEneid, and the Pantheon as equi-
[ 89 ]
valent to the testimony of such a writer. They in-?
deed give us the fabulous theology or mythology of
the poets ; but this is only one, and the least useful
subdivision of the information required to enable
any person correctly to judge of the true nature of
the religion of the people themselves. You might
just as well refer to Tasso's Jerusalem, Milton's,
Paradise, and the Lusiad of Camoens, to know the
exact nature of the Christian Doctrine. 0 ! it is
sickening to behold the intoxicated conceit of those
who have beeu forced in childhood to sip the shal¬
low draughts, boastingly brought by meagre empyr-
ics, from the stream of knowledge ! What a con¬
trast is exhibited in the calm dignified and consist¬
ent demeanour of the sages, whose lives have been
spent under the shadow of those venerable oaks
that surround the fountain? One views in aston¬
ishment the collection of splendid and accurate
charts that have been flung aside in the spirit of
overweening pride, by the hardy and courageous
adventurers, who infected with the mania of indiscri¬
minate reform, launch out as strangers,upon an ocean
which has been navigated for ages. And what
name shall we bestow upon those supercilious
looks with which they regard the persons who use
information of facts collected by their predeces¬
sors ?
St. Augustin shews in this work, that the pagans
were all polytheists, if not in belief, certainly in
practice : he shews that even the followers of Plato,
paid di 'ine honours to created spirits, whom they
called Gods, and clearly shews that Cicero was a
Polytheist, though he condemned the extravagance
and absurdity of the civil as well as of the mythologi¬
cal ritual. Besides this, he shews that when the pa¬
gans worshipped their Gods through images, they
paid divine honour to created beiugs, and though
the adoration should not have been directed to the
image itself, yet being directed to a creature, and
generally that creature was a devil, or some wicked
mortal, the act was highly criminal. There is ano¬
ther class of pagans also exhibited, which paid the
divine honours to the image itself,by reason of some
divinity which they believed to be residing theVein as
in a body after it* consecration, and this divinity was
[ 90 ]
either an imaginary being, a devil, or a deceased
human being, which they believed to be invoked to
occupy,or evoked to desert the image. Towards the
close of his eighth book ; he in the chapter xxvii.
finely vindicates the Christian honour of the martyrs
and of their remains, contrasting the veneration
which is shewn to them with the divine honours
which pagans paid to their imaginary Deities.
In order then to come to distinct and satisfactory
notions of the true nature of idolatry ; I had better
hastily view the origin of this crime. It is clear
that in the days of Noe, the family, of which he
was the head, and from which the human race is
derived, had an accurate knowledge of God, and of
the worship which should be paid to him. It is
also clear that at the period of the erection of the
tower of Babel, about one hundred and twenty
years later, men had but one language, but at this
period, they became divided in their tongues, and
formed separate nations. The most ancieat records
point out to us Chaldea and Egypt, as subsequently
the two principal nursing places of the human race ;
and the earliest exhibitions of religion,different from
that derived through Noe, are manifested in those
two countries. There is a large body of evidence
to shew that the first error which was generally ad¬
mitted after the corruption of the original traditions
consisted in a belief that there existed an universal
soul which animated the world. It was manifested,
they thought, in the activity of fire,the fertilizing or
the overwhelming power of water, the productive¬
ness of the earth; the menace of thunder, and the
fury of the wind. Man forgot the lord of nature even
in the contemplation of his works. Local circum¬
stances gave direction to the mind of the worship¬
per, and whilst the Chaldean adored the soul of the
universe, in the stars which he observed, the Egypt¬
ian saw its influence in the waters of the Nile, and
in their connexions, whilst the Persian viewed the
glories of the sun and paid his homage to the element
of fire. The natural alliance between the appearance
of the heavenly bodies and those changes of the
weather, an acquaintance with which was so neces¬
sary to an unsheltered and agricultural people ;
well as the regularity of the phases and motions which
[ 81 ]
those stars exhibited, added to the brilliancy of their
aspect made " the* army of heaven," as they were
soon called,an object of the earliest wonder & vene¬
ration for a people who found, as they believed,
their most important concerns influenced by this
heavenly host of which the sun was king, and the
moon was queen. It was but a step, and that easy
and natural, to view each prominent light as an in¬
dividual, guided by its own genius,' and that genius
the portion of the universal soul which animated and
watched over this luminary alone. Thus the Creator
was forgotten and the created objects received the
homage which was due only to him. The entire
was a gross error, which is finely described in the
following passage of the book of wisdom, which,
you gentlemen have thought proper to reject from
amongst the inspired writings, but which you still ad¬
mit to be read for instruction of life and manners, and
which you of course believe to be at least the testi¬
mony of a respectable and well informed witness, re¬
garding an important and public fact, the existence
of which he was then more competent, than we
now can be to ascertain.
wisdom chap. XIII.
" 1. But all men are vain, in whom there is not the know¬
ledge of God ; and who by these good things that are seen,
could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the
^orks have acknowledged who was the workman ;
" 2. But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or ths
swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the
sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world :
" 3. With whose beauty if they being delighted, took them
to be gods; let them know how much the Lord of them is more
beautiful than they : for the first author of beauty made all
those things.
" 4. Or if they admired their power and their effects, let
them understand by them, that he that made them, is migh.
tier than they:
" 5. For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the crea¬
ture, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known
thereby.
"6. But yet as to these they are less to be blamed. For
they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him.
" 7. For being conversant among bis works, they search:
and they are persuaded that the things are good which are
seen.
" 8. But then again they are not .to be pardoned.
" 9. For if they were able to know so much, as to make a
judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find
out the Lord tbsrwuf
I 92 ]
Here now was a crime, 1st, because of not giving
'adoration to the true God, 2nd. Because of multi¬
plying Gods, and 3rd. Because of giving to a crea¬
ture the homage which was due only to toe creator.
This criminality existed before an image was made,
Job mentions this as criminal conduct, in chap,
xxxi. as regarded the sur and moon. In process
of time the arts of painting and sculpture arose, and
were improved: images were then made; the adorers
of the several portions of creation,expressed in emble¬
matic devices, representations of the object of their
worship. Baal, Astharoth, Anubis, Isis, &c. These
representations had no real prototypes, nor were the
invented figures similitudes or copies of any of the ob¬
jects in which the genii were supposed to dwell: but
the persons who had the figure made, imagined forth
those limbs and features which they thought best fit¬
ted to express the qualities of the God whom they
adored.
Evdolon or " idolum" is a likeness, and so is
eikos " imago " but there was an obvious distinction
between an emblematic statue for which there
was no real prototype, or original from which it
could be copied, or to whose likeness it was made ;
and that statue which was the copy of an ; riginal
in nature. Hence the words soon came in common
usage to be differently appropriated,idohm to the re¬
presentation of a fictitious God, and imago to the re¬
presentation of that which had a natural prototype.
The worshipper of the fictitious deities was crimin¬
al in those times before an image was made, and noyp
when he paid divine honour to his imaginary Go d,
through the idol, his crime was not thereby di¬
minished, but if in his folly he imagined the genius
of the sun, for instance, after invocation to reside in
the statue of Baal, and then paid his homage to that
deity as actually residing in the idol, he was at least'
more besotted, if not more criminal. The worship
due to the deity was generally designated labia, and
hence the worshipper of idols was called an idolater.
In this view then, idolatry deprived the creator of
his homage and transferred it to an imaginary being
or to an idol. The author of the book of Wisdom
continues in the subsequent part of his chap. kiii.and
in the-commencement of his Ohan. viv„ down to yl
t 93 ]
14, to describe this mode of making and of wot-'
shipping of idols.
To this was now added, a new species of error,
which is described in the subsequent verses. The
servants of a great man began to pay divine honors
to the image of his son ; and the next proces was
paying divine honours to other statues by the wick¬
ed custom of law, and by the order of tyrants. The
history of the Egyptian, the Grecian and the Ro¬
man people will exhibit the same series of facts : as
well as those described in the 22nd and subsequent
verses of chap, xiv.; regarding the unnatural and other
criminal rites which accompanied this idolatry. Thus
to take a sketch of the basis of mythology ; We find
that the heavens and the earth were the parents of
Chronos, or Time, or Saturn the father of Jupiter the
king of the Gods : and when we follow up the ex¬
planations of the Philosophers, we are brought back
exactly to the point from which I set out. The
matter of the Heavens and of the Earth was eternal:
Time produced all other things,even the Genii who
preside over the various parts of the Heavens,of the
Earth, of the air, of the waters, and of the regions
below. The genii of the east became the Gods of
the Greek and of the Roman : their names were
changed according to the variety of language: and
the worship due to God alone, was given to crea¬
tures, through the idols ; and frequently to the idols
themselves : Heroes and demi-gods were next as¬
sumed into the rank of the celestial and infernal
gods, and the rites of divine worship were paid
alike to all. The creator was overlooked and idols
were adored. Gentlemen, if your curious corres-
p ndent should take it into his head from his
knowledge of the Iliad, the JEneid and the Panthe¬
on to call any part of this statement into question, I
beg to inform you that it is not thoughtlessly hazard¬
ed ; there is abundant evidence to sustain its aver¬
ments, but I do not deem it now necessary to exhi¬
bit an array of testimony, which is at his serv¬
ice.
In this view of Pagan idolatry are included, first; the
omission of worshipping the true God : secondly ;
polytheism : thirdly ; paying divine honour to creat¬
ed beings, or, to imaginary beings; fourthly, the
[ 94 ]
ceremonial of worship was in its own nature
and jn its necessary consequences, generally of the
most demoralizing tendency. The created be¬
ings were animate, or inanimate, but when this wor¬
ship was paid to an inanimate jdol, it was generally
because of a notion that a divinity resided therein :
and that this was apparently the case,and not always
gratuitously or absurdly imagined by the vulgar, the
various oracular answers given from shrinesand idols,
especially at Delphos,bear ample testimony. I acknow¬
ledge they were impositions, whether mere human,
or diabolical, this is not the place to discuss; but
they were such, as to cause kings and senators and
nations to apply for information to the shrine or idol,
under the most solemn circumstances, and after the
most mature deliberation. We can now form a dis¬
tinct notion, of pagan idolatry.
The Theogony of Hesiod as well as the other an¬
cient pieces of the Greeks will confirm this view. 1
will not assert that there might not have existed
some exceptions to the general statement: I shall
not say that every man in Greece was ignorant of
the nature of the Lord of the universe ; but I do state,
that no evidence of,tbeir knowledge has reached our
day. Socrates, if he knew the nature of God, cer¬
tainly was deficient in one great point of duty, for be
had sacrifice, which is the greatest act of divine wor¬
ship, paid to the God Eseulapius. His disciple Plato
not only profited by the knowledge of Socrates, but
is supposed to have received some communications
of the true and enlightening doctrine of the Jews,
and his supposed pure Thqism, like the great spirit, of
our Aborigines, is the idol of modern infidelity. St.
Augustine bad no extraordinary respect for this best
production of the Philosophical research of antiqui¬
ty. Let us observe a mere outline of Plato's sys¬
tem. In his Timceus he lays dpwn as a principle
that the soul or spirit should exist before the body
which it is to animate, or to govern ; from this prin¬
ciple, also,in the 10th book ot laws he concludes that
God must have existed before matter was arranged,
for by his intelligence it was m*ade harmonious in its
movements. He exhibits to us the whole matter of
the universe as animated and moved bymn universal
soul, without informing us whether this Psyche is Gad.
[ 95 ]
or a spirit which has been created we are informed
that this universal soul has been distributed amongst
the heavenly bodies and the earth ; -those bodies are
then called, "■ divine animals." •' Celestial Gods,"
&c. Those celestial Gods have produced beings
who generally invisible, yet have power of manifest¬
ing themselves ; they are Genii, Demons, and other
spirits, and those lower spirits are she be.ngs com¬
missioned to form man and terrestrial animals, to
animate thein with portions of soui derived from the
stars, &c. He states, that we can neither conceive
nor explain the origin of the celestiai Gods, but that
we ought to respect the accounts which we have re¬
ceived from our ancestors, of those beings, who
they said were their parents. Plato believed
that matter was eternal, God was not its creator, but
its modeller. Yet according to his own principle,
the soul which animated matter must have previous¬
ly existed, that is; existed before that which was
eterhal 1 Were I to enter into any examination, it
would occupy space and time which this present ob¬
ject does not require. This eminent Philosopher,
did not exhibit to us, as the object of our adoration
" the Lord of Hosts," " the creator of the universe,"
but the " celestial Gods," or " the GenM* &c."
But when Christianity was established, and the early
christian writers assailed this idolatry ; then for the
first time, the able and ingenious pagans of tlfe Pla¬
tonic school endeavoured to take shelter under the
shield of Christianity itself, by adopting the doctrine
of minor and relative veneration, which was ulti¬
mately referrible to " God the eternal," " the su¬
preme God," &c. Celsus was one of the first who
had recourse to this stratagem ; Origen gives us his
statement: Julian the Aposate went farther, and as
St. Cyril informs us, had the hardihood to say that
the pagans adored'as their " supreme God," " the
Jehovah of the Jews:" and Celsus and Julian are
not without imitators. But they were the first who
"made the assertions, and those assertions were then
new and inadmissible. And since truth must conti¬
nue unchanged through all times, those assertions
though somewhat older at present, are now equally
inadmissible.
I feel it to be altogether out of the question, that I
[ 96 ]
should introduce full proofs of my various positions,
but yet it is proper that I should at least allude to a
few of the testimonies which are so abundant, and at
hand. Origen in his Homily, 8, on Exodus, in ex¬
pounding the meaning of the phrase " graven thing,"
or " graven image," which the Septuagint, long before
Christianity,translated in Exod.xx. by the word " eido¬
lon"1 gives the distinction which i previously laid down
between image and idol: the first being copied from
a prototype ; the second being the representation of
that which does not exist, and is therefore " a false¬
hood," a lie," " a lying thing," " a deceit,"
&c. as it is frequently called by sacred writers.
Theodoret give3 the same distinction in quces, 38, up-
-on the same passage. Tertullian states that eidolon
is a diminutive of eidos " forma," or appearance, to
shew by the use of the diminutive there was no ex¬
pression of the prototype ; for those diminutives were
used either to denote extraordinary affection, or such
imperfection as created contempt, lib. de idololatria.
Hence Lucian also calls the shades of the dead eidola,
phantasmatic delusions,unreal mockeries; thus St. Au¬
gustine informs us in Psal.cxxxv.that what the Greeks
called eidola, the Latins called simulacra, which word
is derived, hot from similis, " like," but from simu-
lare " to pretend," whence St. Jerom in cap. vii.
Oseae, states that simulacrum is opposed to God, as
falsehood is to truth, because it represents " a false
god." I omit several others that lie before me, and
proceed to exhibit the same distinction from the
scriptures.
St. Paul in Coloss. i. 15. styles the incarnate son,
" the image of the invisible God," not eidolon, but
eikon tou theou tou aoratou : and in Heb. i. 3. '• the
express image of his person" not eidolon but charac¬
ter: no one would translate this, by idolum, but every
scholar would give imago. In Exodus xx. 4. the
translators who made the Septuagint gives us eidolon
fi idolum" an idol, and then omoioma, which is by
some rendered " similitudo" likeness ; by others 1
" simulacrum," the meaning of which we have seen
above : in Levit. xix. 4. repeating the precept,Moses
tells the Israelites not to follow eidu'ois,' idols, and
immediately adjoins " nor gods made bv fusion," or
" molten gods." In Numbers xxiii. 21. your ver-
[ 3
sion gives us, not the translation of the Hebrew, ac¬
cording to St. Jerom, nor that of the Septuagint,
but that of the Samaritan, with which the Syriac
and Arabic nearly correspond *. but to which the
Chaldaic paraphrase would appear to be opposed.
If there be no distinction between idols and images,
I believe it would be very hard to reconcile those va¬
rious readings : but if we only admit this distinction,
the reconciliation is at once effected. St. Jerom
,tells us that the meaning of the Hebrew is such as we
translate it.
" There is no idol in Jacob; neither is there an image-
God to be seen in Israel."
You translate it.
" He hath not beheld in iniquity in Jacob ; neither hath
he seen perverseness in Israel."
Bo'h iransiations agree in the next phrase.
" The Lbrd his God is with him, &c."
Now according to our translation, this was a de¬
claration that Israel could not be cursed by Balaam,
because, not only there was not an idol to be found
in their camp, nor an image-god : but The Lord God
of Israel was to be found therein. The Chaldaic
paraphrase strengthens this, for it makes Balaam say
I see that there are no servers of idols, nor any
-workers of falsehood in Israel." Yet in fact at this
very time, there were in the camp, the images of the
Cherubim, over the ark, or mercy seat; but they
were not idols, because they were not made to be
adored or served with divine homage ; neither were
they " image-gods," although they were images: and
the Lord God, whom Balaam declared to be present,
dwelt between those very images. Exod. xxv. 22. xl.
34. 38. and they had prototypes, after the pattern of
which they were made. Exod. xxv. 9. 40. xxvi. 30.,
&c. From the view already taken as well as from an in¬
spection ofExod. xxv. 18.&c. asalsoofl. or III.Kings,
vi. 23 to 36. it will be perceived that an image could
lawfully be made, and not only without iniquity, but
even in obedience to divine command, and therefore
religiously ; but an idol could never be made without
iniquity : and the word which signified an idol, thus
became synonimous with the iniquity ofidolatrv : the
word which signified an " image-god" also signified
•perverseness, go that I do not, object to your transla¬
tion as wanting in literal correctness, provided the
9
[ 98 J
words be, as they ought to be,understood to mean,this
special iniquity, and this particular perverseness,—as
he who made an " image-god,"' is very properly said
by the Chaldaic paraphrase to be " a worker of
falsehood." Thus the Samaritan has the words " ini¬
quity, and " prevarication," the Arabic " fraud," for
idol, and " deceit," for image-god, and in this it
agrees fully with the Syriac. If then we view " ini¬
quity" to mean idol, and " perverseness" image-god,
the translations at once are reconciled : and though
there were images in the camp,yet there were not idols
or image-gods therein. My object in making those
references, which might be easily multiplied, was to
shew that an idol or image-god was always designat¬
ed in the old scriptures, not merely by the phrase
which would signify an image, such as that of the
cherub,' but by a word or phrase that signified an
empty or vain, or deceitful representation ; or
" iniquity," as idolatry is called in Osee vi. 8.
" work of iniquity," and hence in the new tes¬
tament St. Paul I. Cor. viii. 4. writes " we know
that an idol eidolon, is nothing in the world," that
is, " an idol is a vain lying representation of what
has not existence in the world." And again, the
Apostle proceeds " and that there is none other
God but one. 5. For though there be these that are
called gods, whether in heaven, or in earth, (as there
be gods many, and lords many.) 6. But to us there
is but one God, &c." That is " idols lead to Po¬
lytheism, or the worship of many gods, but we have
only one God." I shall close this discussion by a
reference to the meaning of the words generally us¬
ed in the old Scripture, for those objects of pagan
worship, and of Jewish prevarication. Bahalim,
" masters or lords,"Elilim,"imaginary beings," Sche-
dim, or Schoudim, "wicked or destructive beings, or
iniquitous," Tsijjim, or Scharkirim, " monsters, or
ugly animals, or wild ferocious beasts." Again in
our version. Psalm xcv. v. 5. we read,
" For all the Gods of the Gentiles are devils : but the
Lord made the heavens."
The contrast is here drawn between the beings
who were actually worshipped if you will, " through
the images," and the Creator, who tvas neglected
by the Gentiles, or I shall take your own version of
the same passage, Psalm xcvi. v. 5.1
C 99 ]
w For all the Gods of the nations are idols: but the Lord
made the heavens."
Your version confines the Pagan worship to the idols
themselves; ours shews that it was carried through
the idols or images, to Devils ; but it is plain, that
take it which way you will, the Gentiles did not adore
the Creator but the creatures, whether the devils or
the images, matters little ; it was idolatry. Our doc¬
trine and practice then are, that divine honour is to be
paid only to the one God, th§ Creator and supreme
Lord of the heavens and the earth, to the " Lord of
the heavenly host" and not to the " host of Heaven."
Under ordinary circumstances, what I have writ¬
ten would be more than enough, but as there ap¬
pears to be a disposition to force us into the ranks
of idolaters, whether we will or not; and,N as many
very strange assertions are made respecting the be¬
lief and practice of the ancients, probably it would
be as well to resume the subject in my next.
I am, gentlemen,
Your obedient hymble servant,
B. C.
Charleston, (S. C.) Jme 20th, 1829.
—■mb—————bl
LETTER IX.
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and Sgur
them Episcopal Register, &c.
Forthwith from every squadron and each band
The heads and leaders thither haste where stood
Their great commander; godlike shapes and forms
Excelling human, princely dignities;
And powers that erst in heaven, sat on thrones,
Though of their names in heavenly records now
Be no memorial; blotted out and ras'd
By their rebellion from the books of life.
Nor had they yet among the sons of Eve
Got them new names; till, wandering o'er the earth,
Through God's high sufferance for the trial of man,
By falsities and lies the greatest part
Of mankind they corrupted to forsake
God their Creator, and the invisible
Glory of him that made them to transform
Oft to the image of a brute, adorn'd
With gay religions, full of pomp and gold,
And devils to adore for deities :
Then were they known to men by various names,
And various idols through the heathen world.
Milton's Paradise Lost, Book L
9
L 100 ]
Gen.tlemen. In my last, I have exhibited an
outline of the idolatrous worship of the Pagans •; in
it, you have seen stated, that they paid no worship
to the Creator of the world, the eternal and invisible
God, but that they worshipped imaginary beings,un¬
der strange figures fashioned according to fancy ; or
they worshipped creatures, whether they believed
them to reside in images or not; those creatures
were in many instances .devils, who sought to arro¬
gate to themselves the homage due to the Creator,
and in opposition to him. Upon the principle which
I have taken as my guide, it is proper that I should
satisfy my readers, that those assertions have not been
gratuitously made, though I shall not enter into full
evidence for their support. If I can prove that it was
not " the eternal God," " the Creator" whom they
adored as " their supreme God." I shall have es¬
tablished my first position. Your correspondent
very wisely keeps clear of committing himself upon
this point. Nay he even appears to me to be fully
aware of the correctness of my assertion, and to co¬
incide with me therein, for in his essay 2, paragraph
23, he admits a wide distinction in favour of " Chris¬
tian worshippers of the one only God" and " those
who with no knowledge- or belief of the one Jehovah**
worshipped " fictitious deities," and also between
them and the Indian who " through his idols"
" worshipped the unknown God." Now they who
neither knew nor believed any thing of the one Jeho¬
vah could not worship him through an image, or
without one.
The supreme God worshipped by the idolatrous
Greeks and Romans was Jupiter, or Jove, who cer¬
tainly was not the eternal God, because he was the
son of Saturn, who was himself the son of Coelus,
&c. neither was he " the Creator" beeause Coelus
and Terra, or the Heavens and the Earth which were
his grandfather and grandmother, pre-existed to his
father: what then are we to think of the informa¬
tion of those good writers, who gravely tell us that
the mythology of Greece and Rome placed Jupiter
the supreme god, in the situation of our Jehovah, or
" God the Creator," and Neptune, Pluto, &c. in
the situation of our saints ? Verily, the good simple
men need to he taught. But if they have been taught.
[ 101 1
and if they do know those facts, and if they have
during some years, laboured in teaching those same
facts to children, what are we to think of the religious
integrity of those holy assertors ? Yea,—of a truth
then, is their religious integrity a notable phenome¬
non ! ! !
But, gentlemen, your curious correspondent might
easily have referred to a better author than either of
those mentioned by him, if his object was to make
us well acquainted with the Heathen mythology-
Ovid wrote expressly upon the subject.
" Ante mare et tellus, et quod tegit omnia, caelum,
Unus erat toto Naturae vultus in orbe.
Quem dixere Chaos.
Before the seas, and this terrestrial ball
And heaven, high canopy, that covers all,
One was the face of Nature ; if a face :
Rather a rude and indigested mass :
A lifeless lump, unfashion'd and unfram'd,
Of jarring seeds; and justly chaos nam'd."
Thus Ovid gives us matter, or chaos in the first in¬
stance, before all things ; he then proceeds to in¬
form us of its subsequent distribution or arrangement.
" Sic ubi dispositam, quisquis fuit ille Deorum,
Congeriem secuit, sectamquein membra redegit.
Thus when the God, whatever God was he,
Had form'd the whole, and made the parts agree."
We have thus found his testimony in tfye first book
ofhis metamorphoses, for the pre-existence of chaos,
or matter increated ; and some one of the gods,—
one whom they did not know^ subsequently regulat¬
ing the parts, of which this chaos was composed.
•' Postquam, Saturno tenebrosa in Tartara misso,
Sub Jove mundus erat;
But when good Saturn, banish'dfrom above,
Was driv'n to Hell, the world was under Jove."
We are now brought to the exhibition of who was
" the supreme God" of the Greeks and Romans.
This Jove or Jupiter, clearly then was neither the
god who created chaos, nor he who regulated its parts.
A slight reference to the Theogony of Hesiod will
perhaps not be here amiss.
" Hail, maids celestial, seed of Heaven's great king,
Hear, nor unaided let thy poet sing,
Inspire a lovely lay, harmonious nine,
ftjy theme th' immortal gods, a race divine,
Of Earth, of Heav'n which lamps oflight adorn
^pd of old sable Night. great parents, born. &c-."
[ 102 ]
I make but such few extracts as are necessary for
my purpose, but am careful not to garble,so as to mis¬
represent any idea of the original, or to suggest any
not contained therein, 1 shall quote from Cooke's
translation and refer to the lines.
" Chaos, of all the origin, gave birth ;
First to her offspring the wide bosom'd Earth,
The sejU secure of all the gods, who now
Possess Olympus ever cloth'd with snow :
Th' abodes of Hell from the same fountain rise, &c, line 190.
# 3fC %
And Erebus, black son, from Chaos came, 202.
Born with his sister night, a sable dame.
Night bore, the produce of her am'rous play
With Erebus, the sky, and cheerful day.
Earth, first an equal to herself in fame
Brought forth, that covers all, the starry frame,
The spacious Heaven, of gods the safe domain,&c.
At length the Ocean, with his pools profound, 214.
Whose whirling streams pursue their rapid round,
Of Heaven and Earth is born. * * *
To these successive wily Saturn came, 223.
As sire and son in each a barbarous name
^ ^ ^ #
Rhea to Saturn bore, her brother god. 694.
Vesta and Ceres; Juno golden shod,
And Pluto hard of heart, whose wide command
Is o?er a dark and subterraneous land,
A pow'rful monarch, hence derive their birth
With Neptune, deity who shakes the earth:
Of these grdat Jove, the ruler of the skies
Of gods and men the sire, in council wise,
Is born; and him the uiyverse adores,
And the earth trembles when his thunder roars,
Saturn from Earth and Heav'n adorn'd with stars,
Had learn'd the rumour of approaching wars,
Great as he was, a greater should arise
, skjes>
I may here safely conclude that the Pagans did
not worship the true God in any manner whatsoever;
not in spirit and in truth, not through the images of
Jupiter, of Baal, of Beelzebub, or of any other,called
the king of heaven, the supreme god, or by whatever
other name he migtyt be designated.
Whom then did they worship, through their idols ?
Let the few extracts which I adduce inform you, and
you have only to call for others of a similar descripr
tion if you need them. I here quote from your own
version, unless I state otherwise.
*
*
[ 103 ]
" And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of
the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation,
and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord. And
they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after
whom they have gone a whoring, &c."—Levit. xvii, 6,7.
" Then he forsook God that made him, and lightly
esteemd the rock of his salvation. They provoked him to
jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they
him to anger. They sacrificed unto Devils ; not to God ;
to gods whom they knew not; to new gods that came newly
up, whom your fathers feared not. Of the Rock that begat
thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed
thee. And when the Lord saw it he abhorred them, because
of the provoking of his sons and of his daughters,"—Deut,
xxxii, 15, 16, 17, 18. Protestant version.
Catholic version of the same.
" He forsook God who made him, and departed from God
his Saviour. They provoked him by strange gods, and stirr¬
ed him up to anger with their abominations. They sacrificed
to Devils and not to God, to gods whom they knew not;
that were newly come up, whom their fathers worshipped
not. Thou hast forgotten the God that begot thee, and hast
forgotten the Lord that created thee. The Lord saw and was
moved to wrath,because his own sons and daughters provok¬
ed him."
Protestant version of Psalm cvi. Catholic Psalm cv.
" 19. They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped the mol¬
ten image. 20. Thus they changed their glory into the si¬
militude of an ox that eateth grass. 21. They forgot God
their Saviour, which had done great things in Egypt."
Catholic version,
" They made also a calf in Horeb : and they adored the
graven thing, and they changed their glory ipto the likeness
of a calf that eateth grass, &c."
Protestant version,
*' 28. They joined themselves also unto Baal-peor and eat
the sacrifices of the dead. . 29. Thus they provoked him to
anger with their inventions."
Catholic.
" They were also initiated to Beelphegor, &c."
This refers to the fact related in Numbers xxv.
Protestant version.
H 1. And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to
commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. 2. And they
called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods : and the
people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. 3, And Israel
joined himself unto Baal-peor, &c."
The idols that they adored were dead and the sa¬
crifices offered them were by way of contempt call¬
ed the " sacrifices of the dead," to shew the vanity
of idols, in contrast with V the living God," who ne¬
cessarily possesses life and communicates it. The
[ 104 J
Psalmist proceeds to shew who were the objects of
adoration through the images of those idolaters.
v; Protestant version.
" 35. But they were mingled among the heathen, and
learned their works. 36. And they served their idols : which
Were a snare unto them. 37. Yea, they sacrificed their sons
and daughters unto devils. 38. And shed innocent blood,
even the blood of their sons, and of their daughters, whom
they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan : and the land was
polluted with blood. 39. Thus were they defiled with their
own works, and went a whoring after their own inventions."
i shall now make a very short reference to the
Pantheon, as your correspondent seems to like the
book.
Sect. 4. Names of Jupiter.
" In different places, and languages, he was afterwards
called Beel, Baal, Beelphegor, Beelzebub, and Belzemen."
Allow me, good gentlemen, to refer you now to a
few texts of the old and new Testaments, merely for
a specimen of the evidence which is at your service.
Kings II. or IV. Chap. i.
" 2 And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice that was in
bis upper chamber in Samaria, and was sick: and he sent
messengers, and he said unto them, Go, and enquire of Baal-
zebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover of this dis¬
ease. 3. But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tish-
"bite, arise, go up and meet the messengers of the king of Sa¬
maria, and say unto them, Is i/not because there is not a god
in Irael, that ye go to enquire of Baalzebub the god of Ek¬
ron
Matthew xii, Protestant version.
" 24. But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fel¬
low doth not cast out Devils, but by Beelzebub the prince
of Devils.
Luke xi.
" 25. But some of them said, he casteth out devils through
Beelzebub the chief of the Devils."
I should hope that we afre no longer to be annoy¬
ed by the unlettered folly of those who assert, that
in worshipping Jupih r, the heathens adored the
eternal God, the creator, where it is plain that they
adored the prince of Devils. Nor am I aware of
the question having been ever seriously raised by
any scholar as to the independent power of each
deity,in the estimation of the pagans. To the read¬
er of the Iliad the contentions of Juno and of other
celestial and infernal divinities with Jupiter must be
familiar. They are equally Gods as he is; he
summons them to his council and after the consulta¬
tion, which is not always marked by kindness for
[ 105 I
each other, he takes the votes and ratifies the'deci¬
sion,- often against his own private inclination.—
Thus, they are not obsequious adorers, created by
him, dependent upon him, and whom he might an¬
nihilate, but they are turbulent and frequently vi¬
cious reprovers and opposers of his wishes. To¬
wards the close of the first book of the Iliad, we
find Jupiter granting a request of Thetis, to give
victory to the Trojans ; but warning her to depart
quickly, lest his loving spouse Juno should see her,
and give him all the benefit of her eloquence. And
indeed, some very extraordinary greetings are ex¬
changed between the loving pair, when the queen
of Gods makes the discovery, but her white armed
majesty is cheered by Vulcan, with a vase of nectar.
The third book opens with an exhibition of the
council chamber of the Deities. The fifth book
shews us the Gods mixed with the opposite armies
in battle. Passing over the various other place®
which exhibit the Polytheism of Homer; Virgil
gives us a pretty good specimen towards the close;
«of his third book. In every page of the Pantheon
the same evidence is given. Even in the very pas¬
sage which your correspondent quotes from Cicero,
parag. 27, Essay 2. that philosopher and orator
writes of the Gods in the plural. Yet strange as it
may appear, the question is not only raised whether
the heathens were Polytheists, but, a certain grave
sort of being, in this city, has asserted that they
were not, in order that our fellow citizens might be
persuaded that we were idolaters !! ! Is this what
we are to style the refinement of our age and the
progress of information ? Indeed, indeed, those
gentry often remind me of an order once given to a
squad of recruits " advance backwards, threesteps."
Daniel Chap, v,
" 4.They drank wine, and praised the Gods of gold, of sil¬
ver, of brass, of iron of wood, and of stone."
Acts xix.
" 26. Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesue
but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded
and turned away much people saying that they be no Gods
which are made with hands : 27, so that not only this our
craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the tem¬
ple of the great Goddess Diana should be despised, and her
magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the
world worshippetb."
[ 106 ]
I Cor. viii.
" 5. For though there be that are called Gods, whether in
heaven or in earth, (as there be Gods many and lords
many.]" f
Galat, iv.
" 8. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service
unto them which by nature are no gods."
Besides those passages we have several others in
various parts of the holy scriptures which distinctly
mention the Polytheism of idolaters. I shall advert
to a very few of the early instances. In Genesis
xxxi. 30.;we read of the Gods of Laban having been
stolen. In chap. xxxv. 2., we find Jacob command¬
ing the household to put away strange Gods, as he
was preparing by the divine command to erect an
altar, and in 4. we find that Jacob buried the Gods
and their appendages. That the family of the Patri¬
archs were with great difficulty preserved from the
polytheism of Mesopotamia and of Egypt is evident
from the necessity which Josue found, after so long
an interval to give the solemn injunction. Josue xxiv
14, &c.
"Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity
and truth : and put away the godsv^hfcli your fathers serv¬
ed on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt, and serve ye
the Lord "
The choice he gives them in the next verse is
between the Gods at the other side of the flood, or
the Gods of the country of the Ammorhites in which
they were,each given in the plural Gods, or to serve
the true and only God, given in the singular, the
Lord: in v. 20. he tells them that they must cease
to serve the Lord, if they serve strange Gods: and
in 23, he tells them to put away strange Gods. This
also is shewn fully in Amos V. to which St. Stephen
alludes and indeed the very words of which this
proto-martyr quotes in his speech Acts vii. where he
states that God permitted their fathers " to worship
the host of heaven," when they kept "the taberna¬
cle of Moloch and the star of their god, Remphan
figures which they made to worship." I need not
refer to the books of Judges, of Kings and the Pro¬
phets,which teem with evidence equally strong as do
the works of the Pagans themselves, and, yet some
of our good, sleek, modern Christians will say this *
was not Polytheism!!! Jupiter was the supreme*
[ 107 4
god, and the other gods were saints !! ! Let them
read the fifteenth book of the Iliad.
I now proceed to allude a few facts out of many
that shew the belief which the pagans had in the
virtue of idols, and though it might happen that Ci¬
cero or a few others formed an exception, I shall
easily shew the general impression to have been,
that there was in particular images, some virtue far
beyond the mere value of their materials or their
memorial effect. In the sixth book of the Iliad, He-
Jenus tells Hector to retire from the battle, and send
his mother and the other principal matrons of Troy
to the tower in which the Palladium was kept; this,
you know, was an image of Minerva which so
protected the city as to prevent the fall thereof
so long as it was safely kept. Homer gives us the
words which Pope thus translates, as Hector's di¬
rection to his mother.
" You with your Matrons go! a spotless train,
And burn rich odours in Minerva's fane.
The largest mantle your full wardrobes hold
Most prized for art, and labour'd o'er With gold,
Before the Goddess' honour'd knees be spread,
And twelve young heifers to the altar led.
So may the pow'r, atoned by fervent prayer,
Our wives, our infants and our city spare, &c,
Sf; Jjc Jf: ijc
Soon as to Ilions topmost tower they come,
And awful reach the high Palladian dome,
Antenor's consort, fair Theano, waits
As Pallas' pricStess, and unbars the gates,
With hands uplifted and imploring eyes,
They fill the dome with supplicating cries.
The priestess then the shining veil displays,
Placed on Minerva's knees, and thus she prays
* * % * *
So prayed the priesteds in her holy fane ;
So vow'd the matrons, but they vowed in vain."
The subsequent history is well known. Two
Greeks stole the image and the city was then left an
unprotected prey to its enemies. But let us come to
the JSneid, on the same subject.
" Interea ad templum non osquae Palladis ibant
Crinibus Iliades passis, peplumque ferebant.
Suppliciter tristes, et tunsae pectora palmis.
Diva solo fixos oculos aversa tenebat. 1 ./Eneid,. 483
Meantime a pensive supplicating train
Of Trpjan matrons, to Minerva's fane.
Ili sad procession with a robe repair,
Beat their white breasts, and rend their golden hair.
17 ru3~ j
Hnmov'd with prayers, disdainfully she frown'd
And fix'd her eyes, relentless, on the ground."
We have another instance in the next book of the
jEueid, where he is describing the desolation of the
ruined city, and the carnage.
" iEdibus in mediis, nudoque sub setheris axe 512
Ingeris ara fuit, juxtaque veterrima laurus,
Incumbens ara?, atque umbra compiexa Penates.
Hie Hecuba, etnatae nequicquam altaria circum,
Prascipites atra ceu tempestate columbee,
Condensse, et Divum ampiexm simulacra tenebant.
Within the courts, beneath the naked sky,
An altar rose, an aged laurel by ;
That o'er the hearth and household-gods display'd
A solemn gloom, a deep may stic shade :
Hither, like doves, who close einbody'd fly
From some dark tempest, black'ning in the sky
The que n tor refuge with her daugnters ran,
Clung and embraced their images in vain."
In the beginning of this book Sinon in imposing
upon the Trojans must have spoken to them in a
.manner that was according to their mode of think¬
ing, and he, line 171, &c. states.
" Nee dubiis ea signa dedit Tritonia monstris.
Vix positum castris simulacrum ; at sere eoruscas
Luminibus flammffi a/rectis, saisusque per artus
Sudor iit, terque ipsa solo (tnirabile oictu)
Emicuit, parmamq ; ferens hastamq : treinentem.
And many a dreadful sign
Totiembling Greece proclaim'd the wrath divine.
Scarce to the camp the sacred image came,
When from her eyes she flashed a living flame;
A briny sweat bedew'd her liinbs around
And thrice she sprung indignant from the ground;
Thrice was she seen with martial rage to wield
Her pond'rous spear, and shake her blazing shield."
I shall pass over various other passages of Virgil,
and I now come to an extract from " the school¬
boys Pantheon."
" The Palladium was an image of Pallas, preserved in the
castle of the city of Troy ; for while the eastle and temple of
Minerva were building, they say, this image fell from hea¬
ven into it, before it was covered with a roof. This raised
every body's admiration ; and when the oracle of Apollo was
consulted, he answered, That the city should be safe so
long as that image remained within it." Therefore when
the Grecians besieged Troy, they found that it was impossi¬
ble to take the city, unless the Palladium was taken out of
it. This business was left to Ulysses and Diomedes, who
undertook to creep into the city through the common sew*
«rs, and bring away the fatal image, When they had per-
C 109 J
formed the task, Trdy was taken without difficulty. Some
say it was not lawful for any person to remove the Palladium,
or even to look upon it. Others add, that it was made of
wood, so that it was a wonder how it could move the eyes
and shake the spear. Others on the contrary, report, that it
was made of the bones of Pelops, and sold to the Trojans by
the Scythians. They add, that ASneas recovered it, after it
had been taken by the Greeks, from Diomedes, and carried
it with him into Italy, where it was laid up in the temple of
Vesta as a pledge of the stability of the Roman empire, as
it had been before a token of the security of Troy. And,
lastly, others write, that there were two Palladia; one of
which Diomedes took, and the other JEneas carried with
him."
The dedication of the statues, their consecration,
&c. are so well known as scarcely to need even re¬
ference : the evocation or exauguratio, in opposition
to inauguratio is equally well known : by the latter
the divinity was called into possession of the idol,
or image, or temple: by the former he was called out
or evoked; and the object was thus desecrated. In
chap. lv. of the first book of Livy, it is stated that
when various other gods were turned out to make
room for Jupiter at the building of the Capitol, the
god Terminus would not quit. In the next chapter,
a delegation is sent by the king to Delphos, for the
purpose oflearning from the oracle of ApqJlo,what no
Etruscan or Roman shrine or image or augur
could resolve. In chapter xxii. of the fifth book: to
complete the destruction of Veii, a religious ceremony
is performed, by which Juno their tutelar deity, is
through her statue invited to Romejand it being sup¬
posed that she gave her assent by some visible sign ;
the image was borne along,and Camillus dedicated her
temple on the Aventine hill. The lectislernium
which Livy mentions in chap. xiii. of the same book,
consisted in bringing the images of Apollo, Latona,
Diana, Hercules, Mercury, and Neptune to feast at a
well furnished table during eight days, to render them
propitious, and such a ceremony was frequently used
in after times. In chap. xiv. of the Prophet Daniel,
you only give us chap. xii. we have the history of the
quantity of provisions given every day to be consum¬
ed by the idol Bel: and the manner in which Daniel
exhibited the fraud of those who eat the enormous
feast, which the people believed to be necessa¬
ry for the idol. ,
[ TIU ]
Suetonius tells us that when Augustus lost a num¬
ber of ships in a storm, he was so angry with Nep¬
tune,that he ordered his statue should not be carried
in procession with those of the other gods at the
next celebration of the Circensian games. Aug. 16.
Tacitus at the close of his book iv. of history,gives a
pretty specimen^ of the manner in which the people
of Egypt and of Sinope regarded an idol,which of its
own accord, went on board the Egyptian vessel,
when the people of Sinope refused their permission
for its removal.
Several of those idols were said to have been sent
down from heaven, and whosoever reads the eighth
chapter of Ezechiel will have abundant evidence of
the prevarication of Judea ; not to revert to the idol
of Beelzebub which was consulted in Accaron, nor
that of Apollo at Delphos, nor so many others ; I
shall exhibit a passage from the Prophet Zachary,
Chap. x.
" For the idols have spoken vanity, and the diviners have
seen a lie and have told false dreams."
I believe that what has been already adduced, is
confirmed by your own following of Beza's transla¬
tion of v. 35. chap. xix. of the Acts of the Apos¬
tles in which Demetrius is made to say, that the sta¬
tue of Diana at Ephesuswas let down from Jupiter.
St. Augustin in lib. iii. De Doct. Christ, c. 7. says
" I confess, they are more besotted who look upon
the works of mens' hands to be gods, than they
" who imagine the works of God to be such. Again
he states two various classes. " They worship idols
" either as gods,or as signs and images of gods." And
Eusebius, " Hesiod thinks that there are thirty thou-
" sand gods on earth, but I see that there are many
" more wooden and stone creators of men." Her¬
mes Trismegistus, as quoted by St. Augustine lib.
viii. chap. 23. de civi. Dei, is asked by Asclepius if
he calls the statues, gods, to which he answers,
" Yes the statues, Asclepius, animated " with sense
" and full of spirit, and foretelling what men cannot
" foreknow," &c. " bestowing good and evil," &c.
Arnobius writes, 1, 6, ch. 27. That the heathens did
not adore the metal of the idol, but the divinity
which came to dwell in it upon its dedication, and
upon this ground the various statements of the speak-
[ 111 }
4,
ing and acting of images was not so revolting to
these people, as it necessarily must be to us.
I have now shewn some grounds for the statement
which I gave of Pagan Idolatry. In my next I shall
examine the precepts given by the living God upon
this subject.
I remain, gentlemen,
Your obedient humble servant,
B. C.
Charleston, (S. C.) July 27, 1829.
n ■iiiwbinibw—a—wtw—mmm
LETTER X.
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and Sou¬
thern Episcopal Register, &c.
" Not so the mind that has been touch'd from Heaven,
And in the school of sacred wisdom taught
To read his wonders, in whose thought the world,
Fair as it is, existed ere it was :
Not for its own sake merely, but for his
Much more who fashion'd it, he gives it praise;
Praise that, from earth resulting, as it ought,
To earth's acknowledg'd Sovereign, finds at once
Its only just proprietor in Him.
* * # %
Much conversant with Heav'n she often holds
With those fair ministers of light to Man,
That fill the skies nightly with silent pomp,
Sweet conference ! inquires what strains were they
With which Heav'n rang, when ev'ry star in haste
To gratulate the new created earth,
. Sent forth a voice, and all the sons of God
Shouted for joy." Cowper.
Gentlemen. Upon the present occasion, I pre¬
fer being tedious, to being indistinct. I shall there¬
fore now re-state, summarily, the criminal charac¬
teristics of pagan idolatry ; they are
1. Not paying homage to God the eternal creator.
2. Giving divine worship to creatures.
3. Giving divine worship to devils.
4. Giving divine worship to idols.
5. Giving divine worship to imaginary beings.
6. Using unnatural, immoral and indecent rites.
Now Gentlemen, in the Roman Catholic invoca¬
tion and honouring of saints, and veneration of ima¬
ges, no one of tho.se ingredients is found. Your
curious correspondent acknowledges,that we do pay
homage to God the eternal creator, and I believe
[ 112 ]
we may assume that we are not charged as guilty
under the sixth head. Our attention is therefore
confined to the intermediate four. To understan
a proposition, we ought to know the meaning of its
terms ; there is one term common to each of those
four propositions, viz. the attribute divine worship.
And if we come to an agreement as to the meaning
of this term, our whole difficulty is at an end. Now
the pagans made no distinction between the wor¬
ship due to any two or their superior Gods, for in¬
stance Neptune and Pluto. So far as the mental act
is concerned, they gave divine worship to each ;
that is, the worship due to God : by praying to him
as an independent, and original deity, who immedi¬
ately of his own motion, and from his own sources,
and by his own power, bestowed what he gave.—
They did not consider it necessary for Neptune
to ask from Jupiter, what was demanded by bis vota¬
ry, nordid that votary ask of Neptune to intercede, or
to pray With him to Jupiter, for what was considered
Neptune's own gift, nor if it was bestowed, was the
gratitude considered as due to Jupiter, but only to
Neptune. To Neptune was the altar raised, to him
was the priest consecrated, to him was the sacrifice
offered, to him were all the acts of homage done, all
terminating in him alone, without reference to any
superior. This is divine worship, or the worship
due to the divinity, due only to God. And this ho¬
mage was paid to every one of their deities by the
pagans.
In order to have accurate notions of the meaning
of words, we should first have accurate notions of
the things, which they signify. Worship is an act
©f the mind, sometimes it is outwardly expressed,
but the mere outward expression is not worship ;
the same ceremony or deed which accompanies or
expresses the mental act, if performed without that
mental act itself, would not be worship, but hypocri¬
sy; so far from being true homage,it would be mocke¬
ry. Thus, the source of worship, the seat of wor¬
ship must be found in the mind. The etymology of
the word itself will here, as in many other cases,
greatly help us to discover the exact idea which it
expresses. It is a compound word, worth with the
old Saxon termination ship, which signified "office,''
[ 113 ]
employment" or " condition" ; the worth signified,
" value" " excellence" " importance" hence wor•
ship is properly " a condition of excellence" and to
worship is of course, mentally to appreciate the ex¬
cellence of the condition of any being, and after
knowing our relation in its regard, to do those acts
which that relation demands. The expression is a
generic one, and regards various beings ife their se¬
veral degrees of excellence : hence Johnson gives its
first meaning as a verb active, " to adore," "to hon¬
our or venerate with religious rites," its second "to
respect" " to honour" " to treat with civil defer¬
ence" its third, " to treat with amorous respect."
Hence it is obvious that worship in the English lan¬
guage,either as a noun o{ as a verb-active, denotes a
mental act, in which one reasonable being regards
the various excellencies of others, and treats them
accordingly : that it means various kinds of respect,
to those others as thsir excellence varies, and that
one kind thereof is due to God for his excellence,
and this is divine worship. And since only the eternal
God has this>sort of excellence, it is not lawful to
give di»ine worship to any other being; henee the
heathens who gave it to devils, to idols, to any other
creatures, or to imaginary beings were therein highly
criminal ; and for so doing they are condemned by
Roman Catholics. This condemnation, and explana¬
tion ought in common justice,form a goo&prima facie
case, to save Roman Catholics themselves from the
charge of idolatry, and strong testimony ought to be
required to make them even suspected.
It is now clear that in the English language, the
word worship is by no means restricted to express
the homage due to God, unless it be accompanied
by the adjunct divine. Let us then for clearness'
sake, call the act of divine worship, adoration. It
is true that Johnson states adoration to be " the ex¬
ternal homage paid to the divinity, distinct from
mental reverence;" But it is lawful to differ even
from the great bibliographer himself, and I humbly
apprehend that neither of the examples which he ad¬
duces will bear him out; the following are the passa-*
£es:
" Solemn and serviceable worship we name, for distinction
10*
[ J14 ]
sake, whatsoever belongeth to the church (or public society)
of God, by way of external adoration.—Hooker.
" It i? possible to suppose, that those, who believe a su¬
preme excellent Being, may yet give him no external adora-
tion at all,"—Stillingfleet.
Now in each of those instances, if Johnson is
correct, Hooker and Stillmgfleet were guilty of very
glaring tautology, for if adoration be the external act,
asdi iinct from the mental, each of those very accu¬
rate writers has given us the very curious phrase of an
•external external act, by prefixing the word external
to adoration, I apprehend the examples would go to
shew that adoration was the mental act of reverence
to the Divinity, which when manifested by £' solemn
and serviceable worship" became external. And
hence I apprehend that the true genius of the English
language exhibits adoration to be that species of
mental and external worship which is due to the divi¬
nity, in the strict and primitive meaning of the term.
The word is one adopted from the latin, " adoratio,"
which was appropriately used to signify the homage
paid by the Pagans to their divinities, by kissing the
hand, or placing it on their mouth whilst they ap¬
proached or saluted the idols ; hence the homage of
the divinity was known by the phrase apponere ma-
nus ad ora, or adora, or adorare. Hence, according
to your own version, Job, in vindicating himself from
idolatry, says xxxi. 26. 27. 28.
" If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking
in brightness; And my heart hath been secretly enticed, or
my |nouth hath kissed, my hand : this also were an iniquity
to be punished by the judge : for I should have denied the
God that i» above."
I suspect you will find a slight mistake, and per¬
haps not accidental, in your translation of I. Kings
xix. 18. where the Lord says,
Protestant version.
" Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees
which have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth which hath
not kissed him."
Catholic version. III. Kings, xix. 18.
" And I will leave me seven thousand men in Israel whosa
knees have not been bowed before Baal, and every mouth
that hath not worshipped him, kissing hands."
I apprehend, gentlemen, that you would find some
difficulty in shewing, that the worshippers of Basal
[ 115 ]
were allowed to kiss the idol, though you would find
none whatever, in proving that Baal was adored by
their kissing of hands, as well as by kneeling, pass¬
ing through fire, &c.
By adoration, then we mean ; that mental act, by
which a reasonable creature estimates to the best of
its power, the infinite excellence of the Creator, pre¬
ferring him infinitely beyond all his works, humbling
itself in his presence, acknowledging its dependence
upon him, desiringto be united to him as the source
of perfection, believing his declarations, anxious to
fulfil his will, and ready to use all efforts in its execu¬
tion : This divine worship is due to God alone;
the manifestation of this in " solemn serviceable
worship" is external adoration.
We have previously seen that worship, as a men¬
tal act, had several objects, indeed it must be of as
many kinds as there were classes of reasonable be¬
ings in various conditions of worth or excellence,
and yet in the manifestation of those several corres¬
ponding degrees of respect, man was confined to a
very few external acts, hence,- frequently we find
the same individual perform the very same external
acts of respect to beings of very different degrees
of excellence, and towards whom lie stood in very
different relations. I shall here adduce a few in¬
stances.
Catholic v ersion. Protestant version.
No. 1. Genesis xviii. 2. ,
Abraham, respecting three angels, appearing as men.
" And as soon as he saw " And when he saw them,
them, he ran to meet them he ran to meet them from the
from the door ofhis tent, and tent door, and bowed himself
adored down to the ground." toward the ground,"
No. 2. Genesis xix. 1.
Lot, respecting the two angels, coming to Sodom.
" And seeing them, he rose " And Lot seeing them, rose
up and went to meet them : up to meet them, and bowed
and worshipped prostrate to himself with his face toward
the ground." the ground."
No. 3. Genesis xxiii. 7.
Abraham, respecting the children of Heth.
" Abraham rose up, and " And Abraham stood up
bowed down to the people of bowed himself to the people
the land. of the land.
No. 4. v. 12.
" Abraham bowed down " And Abraham bowed down
before the people of the land." himself before the peoplfe of
the land.
[ 116 j
No. 5. Genesis Xxii. 5.
Abraham on the mountain going to sacrifice.
" And after we have wor- " Will go yonder and wor*
shipped will return to you." ship, and come again."
No. 6. Genesis, xxiv. 26.
Abraham's servant, in Mesopotamia.
" The man bowed himself " And the man bowed dow»
down, and adored the Lord. his head and worshipped the
Lord.
No. 7. v. 52.
" Which when Abraham's " When Abraham's servant
servant heard, falling down heard their words, he wor-
to the ground he adored the shipped the Lord bowing him-
Lord." self to the earth."
Now in those several passages we have in the He¬
brew, the self same verb for the several acts of res¬
pect, to God, to men, and to angels : the translators
"who produced the Septuagint, faithfully adhere in
this instance to the Hebrew, and give us also the
same verb. Yet no person will undertake to say
that the respect was the same, for in No. 5. we have
the supreme or divine worship due to God, as also in
-No. 6. and No. 7 : in No. 3 and No. 4, we have on¬
ly the worship due to the children of Hetb, whilst in
No. 1. and No. 2. we have the worship paid to three
Angels by Abraham,and by Lot to two. I shall not
here stop to remark upon some very curious varia¬
tions in the mode of bowing down, which are to be
seen upon comparing your translation with the ori¬
ginal and some of the ancient versions. I shall con¬
tent myself with stating what I believe is evident,
that the external act which is described by an un¬
changing verb, was the same in all the cases, but that
the nature of the internal act varied, with the mental
respect intended to be paid by him who gave the ho¬
mage. When Abraham bowed down to. the people
of the land, it was human worship, not divine wor¬
ship, when he or his servant bowed down to God, it
was divine worship, not human worship, and when
Abraham or Lot bowed down to the angels, it was
not divine "worship, nor was it human worship, for
they bowed neither to God, nor to man..
I am quite aware of its being said that one of the
angels was the second person of the Trinity, and
that Ahrahatn with this knowledge, worshipped him,
and therefore this was the worship of God, not of an
angel. I am just as well disposed to concede as to
[ m ]
dispute the assertion : and will argue upon its sup¬
posed truth. In this case Abraham knew that the
two who accompanied the divine person were not
Gods nor men, and yet the text makes no discrim¬
ination as to their mode of treatment : nor have we
sufficient scriptural evidence to sustain the assertion;
that one was theson of God,but there is indeed a vague
tradition to that effect. It is true that in the course
of the chapter, Abraham converses with the Lord;
and only two angels, subsequently appear to Lot ; if
then the eternal son had sent his two angelic compa¬
nions to Sodom, whilst he conversed with Abraham:
in No. 2. we have only those two angels ; suppose
I again admit, in this place, in order to concede eve¬
ry thing which can be demanded, that Lot mistaking
them for men, paid only human worship ; 1
shall have obtained all that I sought for ; which is,
that worship is an internal act, expressed sometimes
by an external deed, that the degrees of worship
vary with the gradations of that rational excellence
which calls for our esteem, that frequently the same
external act will express several degrees of respect,
and therefore,that the mere similarity of the outward
action in any two given cases, is not suff^ient evi¬
dence of the same description of homage or worship
being paid in those cases. When to this considera¬
tion we add the fact, that in early languages, especi¬
ally in Hebrew, there is a comparative dearth of
words, we must necessarily feel, that one word will
frequently express several ideas, which are to be
distinguished only by circumstances. Upon all
those grounds it is a natural conclusion, that the He¬
brews who, by the outward act of " bowing down"
manifested their respect for God for men,and for inter¬
mediate or angelic beings, should express all those
several degrees and sorts of respect by the verb " to
bow dow," and thus has arisen that ambiguity and
equivocation, which has afforded room to obscure
and to perplex what would otherwise appear simple
and plain.
Then every species of worship is not divine wor¬
ship, and it is lawful to give to human beings,by rea¬
son of their excellence, human worship,as it is lawful
to give to God, because of his excellence, divine
worship. The second is demanded by religion and
[-118 J
it is hence called a species of religious worship, the
first is not demanded by religion, but by the reason
of civilized society, and is therefore called a species
of civil worship. They might both in several instan¬
ces be expressed by the same external act, which
being equivocal, is explained in each case by the
circumstances. It is clear then that although di¬
vine worship be due to God alone, yet inferior wor¬
ship might be paid to creatures, and the criminality
of the pagan consisted in paying divine worship to
others instead of God. The manner in which it is
attempted to convict Roman Catholics of idolatry,
is by endeavouring to prove that though they wor¬
ship God, yet that they also give divine worship to
creatures. It is said by our opponents, and amongst
others by your curious correspondent, that every spe¬
cies of religious worship is divine worship, and that
our acknowledgment, that we do give religious wor¬
ship to creatures, is evidence that we do give them
divine worship. This is as good logic as any misera¬
ble play upon a word can exhibit. Our answer is
short. If all religious worship be divine worship,then
we do not give them religious worship ; but if there
be variou$ descriptions of religious worship, of
which divine worship is the principal, then-we, in
giving a different description from that which is di¬
vine, do not pay divine worship, so that the whole
question resolves itselfinto the enquiry,whether there
can be a religious worship, which is not divine.
We have previously seen what is meant by divine
worship. We are now brought to enquire what is
the meaning of the word religious. Religion, proper¬
ly speaking, means " a double or repeated bond;" it
is that strict tie, by which we are bound to the serv¬
ice of God. Thus, Johnson defines it, '' virtue as
founded upon reverence of God, and expectation of
future reward or punishment." The first object of
Religion is undoubtedly God. Hence, all proper
acts done through reverence of God are religious,
and if through reverence for God, other actions than
those which regard him, as their immediate object,
be done, it is clear that they are founded upon that
reverence of him, and therefore, if they/ be in their
own nature good, they will also be religious acts.
Thus a man who seas his fellow creature in distress,
[ 119 ]
and being moved with human pity, relieves him,
does an act of humanity or of human virtue, which
though good, yet is not a religious act, because it
has no immediate reference to God, but to man, and
to human feelings: but if upon seeing this distressed
person, he through reverence for God,and in accord¬
ance with his precept of mercy,bestows the necessary-
aid, it is then an act of religion. Religious is there¬
fore, that which is done through reverence for God.
When we worship God himself, it is an act of reli¬
gion, and is divine worship ; but if through rever¬
ence to God, we pay worship to some excellent be¬
ing nearly connected with the almighty, it clearly is
religious ; but not being such as we would pay to
God himself, it is not divine. I shall adduce a few
instances which will illustrate my positions. We
read in Josue, v. in both versions, that Josue seeing
one whom he thought to be a man, standing oppo¬
site him with a drawn sword.
Catholic. Protestant.
" 13. And he went to him, " 13. Joshua went unto
and said, Art thou one of ours him, and said unto him, Art
or of our adversaries ? thou lor us or for our adver¬
saries.
" 14, And he answered : No: " 14. And he said, nay ; but
hut I am a prince of the host as captain of the host of the
of the Lord ; and now ami Lord.am I now come. And
come. Joshua fell on his face to the
"15. Josue fell on his face earth, and did worship and
to the ground, and worship- said unto him, What saith my
ping said : what saith my lord unto his servant ?
lord to his servant ? " 15. And the captain of the
16. Loose saith he, thy Lord's host said to Joshua,
shoes from thy feet; for the Loose thy shoe from off'thy
place whereon thoustandestis foot; for the place whereon
holy : And Josue did as was thou standest is holy. And
commanded him." Joshua did so."
Now it is very clear that Josue did not here, pay
mere human or civil worship, and it.is equally clear
that he did not pay divine worship : for it was more
than he would pay to a man, but less than he would
pay to God. And what was its motive ? The civil
station of the angel ? No ! the exalted place of one so
nearly connected with God, as to be captain of his
host; and one of the blessed attendants before his
throne, as well as his envoy to his people. Josue
then viewed him as peculiarly connected with God ;
and through reverence for God he worshipped him :
I T2J" J
fchifs it is religious worship, though not divine worship.
and even the common and inanimate place, from its
connexion with God by those circumstances,became
holy, and the reverence of taking off the shoes, though
not divine worship, was religious respect, or venera¬
tion.
it was religious worship, not divine which Baalam
paid to the angel, Numbers xxii. 31. in like man¬
ner when your version informs us, DAxrEL ii. 46. that,
king Nebuchodonosor " fell on his face and wor¬
shipped Daniel, and commanded that they should
offer an oblation and sweet odours to him,'1 they paid
him religious worship, as God's friend and messen¬
ger, but not divine worship, for the king declares
that Daniel's " God is a God of Gods," and the
next verse informs us that the king made Daniel a
great man," " a ruler over the entire provinces of
Babylon," &,c.
In like manner Obadiah as he is named in your
version, who was a man in high rule, owed no civil
respect to Elias, or Elijah, as you have the name, a
poor humbled man, and yet we read in your book
I Kings, our Hi. xviii. 7.
" And as Obadiah was in the way, behold Elijah met him:
and he knew him and fell on his face, and said, Art thou that
my lord Elijah ?"
The respect which Abdias or Obadiah here paid
to the prophet was owing to his reverence of God,
to whom the prophet belonged, and with whom he
was connected. And in like manner, good gentle¬
men, when your reverend clergy, who have no civil
prerogatives, nor civil place in our state, are placed
in seats of honour, and first in our processions, and
receive all those attentions to their comfort, which
every man knows how to prize, it is because of their
sacred character : that is, their connexion with the
Deity, whose ministers they are; hence it is the
courtesy of a religious people, of a people who res¬
pect religion, or the service of God : and of course
respect its ministers ; it is all religious, it is done
through reverence of God. In like manner it was
neither civil nor divine, but religious worship which
the sons of the Prophets paid to Eliseus, or as you
call him, Elisha in Ii. or IV. Kings, ii. 15.
" And when the sons of the prophets which were to view
[ 121 j
at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest
oft Elisha. And they came to meet him, and •bowed them¬
selves to the ground before him."
Catholic version.
" And the sons of the Prophets at Jericho, who were over
against him seeing it, said : The spirit of Elias hath rested
upon Eliseus, And corning to meet him they worshipped
him,' falling to the ground."
Here we have got the very same Hebrew and
Greek words, for the worship, that were used in the
places before cited, as well as in Exodus xx. 5; in
the commandment of forbidding " to adore strange
Gods;" and in Exodus xxiii.24 forbidding the wor¬
ship of the Gods of the Gefatiles; in the same book
xxiv; 1, where the Israelites are commanded to
worship God,at a distance from the mountain, xxxi.
8, where they worship the Calf; in xxxiii. 10.
where they worship God; in xxxiv, 8. where Moses
worships God; and in a vast number of other places,
for various meanings of divine, religious and civil
worship. I should hope that after those few in¬
stances and explanations, I may be permitted to as¬
sert, that besides divine worship,or adoration which
is due to God alone, there has been exhibited by
his faithful and unreproved servants, by scriptural
evidence, other religious worship paid to his angelic
and human friends, and ultimately referrible to
himself and his honour, as well as civil worship
paid to people, and rulers, and others in civil offices,
not specially referrible to God, nor to his honour;
but to the courtesies of civilized life and civil socie¬
ty, and all these sorts of worship were paid by the
same sort of ceremony in various instances, and
have been in the scriptures described by the same
identical verb, not only in Hebrew, but also in the
Greek of the Septuagint, and generally in the Chal-
diac paraphrase. Thus there is a lesser kind of re¬
ligious worship, than that which is due only to God,
and which, though given to creatures,is referrible to
God, for it is given, because, of reverence for him.—
Thus the Lord himself cautions the Israelites Exod
xxiii. 20 &c. respecting their conduct towards are
angel who was to guide them, for not only was he
his messenger and friend, but his " name was in
him."
11
[ 122 ]
It is clear then that when we pay this minor, or
subordinate religious worship to creatures who are
God's friends, that we do not give divine worship to
creatures nor to devils; and we do not pay divine
worship to idols, when we pay to images veneration
similar to that which the great Josue paid to the ho¬
ly place, and to that which God commanded to be
paid to his sanctuary Levit xix. 30.
" Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my sanctua¬
ry, I am the Lord."
In fact we do not pay to sacred images any ven¬
eration so great, as the people of Israel paid to the
ark with the images of Cherubim ; neither do we
pay divine worship to imaginary beings.
Thus having fully investigated the nature of pa¬
gan idolatry, and the nature of the lawful practices
of the Israelites, and seen something of the genius
of their language; it only remains to enquire what
their peculiar situation was, and whether they were
forbidden to make images.
They had come from Egypt, which was pre-em¬
inently, a land of gross idolatry, in which several of
themselves had indulged, and to which they hud
still so strong a inclination, that we find them easi¬
ly drawn into its practice as well by their own pro¬
pensity as by the persuasions of the idolatrous women
with whom they associated; and they were going to
occupy a land from which a most profligately idola¬
trous jrace was to be ejected; and were to be sur¬
rounded still,by hosts of inimical and insidious idola¬
ters. God was desirous of preserving amongst them
the knowledge of his pure spiritual nature, and to
guard them from contamination. He shewed not
himself to them under any bodily shape, for he de¬
sired to impress upon their minds his pure spiritu¬
ality : yet he did not forbid their making images,
because he shewed Moses a pattern of some which
he was to make, and to place upon the ark in the
Sanctuary, and which he did so make, and place,
but they were not likenesses of God, but of his at¬
tendants and friends.
Let us now see the precept as recorded in Exo¬
dus xx.
[123 ]
Catholic. Protestant.
* 1. And the Lord spoke " 1. And God spake all
all these words : these words, saying,
" 2. I am the Lord thy " 2.1 am thd Lord thy God,
God who brought thee out of which have brought thee out
the land of Egypt, out of the of the land of Egypt, out of
house of bondage. the house of bondage.
'• 3. Thou shalt not have " 3. Thou shalt have no
strange gods before me*' other Gods before me.
u 4, Thou shalt not make " 4. Thou shalt not make
to thyself a graven thing, nor unto thee any graven image,
the likeness of any thing that or any likeness of any thing
is in heaven above, or in the that is in heaven above, or
earth beneath, nor of those that is in the earth beneath, or
things that are in the waters that is in the water under the
under the earth. earth.
u 5, Thou shalt not adore " 5. Thou shalt not bow
them, nor serve them; lam down thyself to them, nor
the Lord ,thy God, mighty, serve them : for I the Lord
jealous." thy God am a jealous God,
&c."
Roman Catholics look upon all this'to form one
law or precept, in which the preamble is a declara¬
tion of the right and claim of the £reat legislator,
which is contained in v. 2. : then a general prohibi¬
tion in v. 3. of Polytheism,and of abandoning his wor¬
ship ; then in v. 4. is a special enumeration of the
particulars in which they were most likely to be tempt¬
ed, and those are specially prohibited ; these speci¬
alties are of two kinds, graven thing, which is not
strictly speaking an image or likeness, as having no
prototype : and next likeness or image, distributed
into three classess, objects in the heavens, the stars,
&c. in the earth, such as men, beasts, &c. in the
■waters, such as fishes, fcc. After this follows the pro¬
hibition in 5. which unless it be considered as restrain¬
ing the terms of v. 4. will cause the enactment therein
to prohibit what God orders, in Exodus xxv. 18,
And thou shalt make two cherubims of Gold; and
would thus make God contradict himself. But this
difficulty ceases as soon as we view, v. 5, restrain¬
ing the general expression of v. 4, for in that case, the
precept will be, " you shall not make idols nor ima¬
ges for the purpose of giving them divine worship
and it will be admirably in keeping with v. 3. " Thou
shalt not have strange Gods, or other Gods before
me." Thus would every species of pagan idolatry
be prohibited effectually, and the making of images,
[ 124 ]
or copies of known prototypes; and the regardingthem
with that rSspect and veneration which was demand¬
ed from the people of Israel, towards the ark and its
images, would be permitted, for we read in your
version, I. Samuel, or I Kings vi. 19. that fifty thou¬
sand and three score and ten of the men of Bethshe-
mesh were smitten by the Lord because they looked
into the ark, and in II. Samuel vi. 7. that the an¬
ger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah or Ozias,
so that the Lord slew him, for merely taking hold of
the ark,when it was shaken by the oxen who were
carrying it; as through reverence for God, none but
the priests were permitted to touch it. We do not
require such veneration for our images, and yet it
was not only lawful in Judea but required by God
himself, and consequently his precept must not be
extended to forbid what he plainly requires.
One remark more upon your translation of v. 4.
might not be amiss. If the original bore you out, in
giving us " graven images" and " likeness," and
that they both mean the same thing, the original pre¬
cept would have two serious legal faults, first there
would be unmeaning repetition ; and next there
would be no clause prohibiting the making of those
fanciful figures which had no prototypes, and which
are peculiarly called idols, and which were the most
dangerous snare to the people. But, gentlemen,
the fault is not in the original, nor is it in the Pente-
teuch, nor is it in the Yulgat, nor in the Chaldaic.
The whole merit and credit is due to persons, who
after an interval of fifteen centuries, were perhaps
specially gifted to discover what had previously es¬
caped the observation of the world.
I shall in my next, again pay my respects to your
friend with the contradictory name, and remain, gen¬
tlemen,
Your obedient humble servant,
B.C.
Charleston, (S. C.) Aug. 3, 1829.
t 12S ]
LETTER XI.
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and Sou¬
thern Episcopal Register, &c.
" And furious Albion flings his hasty dart:
'Twas feather'd from a Bee's transparent wing,
And its shaft ended in Hornet's sting;
But toss'd in rage, it flew without a wound,
High o'er the foe, and guiltless pierced the ground."
Tickell,
Gentlemen. It is now clearly seen to be the doc¬
trine of Roman Catholics,that divine worship is to be
paid only to the eternal God : but that it is lawful to
pay inferior religious worship to angels and saints, be¬
cause oi their intimate connexion with God, as deriv¬
ing from him their sanctity and glory; and that the
honour paid to them is referrible to God, and like
every other aet of religion, is dictated by reverence
for him. Civil worship is paid in civil society; that
of the highest grade, to Presidents, Governors,
Rings, Emperors, &.c ; then to the various subordi¬
nate officers, according to their rank and the regula¬
tion of the state : the honour or dishonour given to
an ambassador or public officer of any nation, is felt
by his government and fellow-citizens, as given to
themselves : and the disrespect or obedience shewn
by any citizen to a public officer of the country, is
looked upon as shewn to the state itself. No so¬
phistry, no ingenuity can eradicate this feeling, which
is so immediate a consequence of first principles as
to be in a manner identified with them.
There is no language perfect, and it is only by
gradual process each tongue approaches to perfec¬
tion. There are various acts of the mind which we
can feel to he very distinct, and for which we have
scarcely as yet, distinct appropriate expressions : in
early times, in the infancy of language, this imper¬
fection was much greater. Hence it was, that al¬
though in Hebrew, and other old dialects, we have
expressions which signify the external act of adora¬
tion, we have no word which peculiarly and exclu¬
sively expresses the internal act. and the word " bow
down/' is used for this and for a great variety of
other acts, wherefore in these tongues it would be
folly to expect distinct phrases to signify the dis¬
tinct mental acts,for expressing each of which only two
11*
[ *26 ]
words " bow" and " serve" were used, one signir
fying a ceremony, the other signifying a state of oc¬
cupation, neither designating a mental act.
We have also seen that the ceremony which,
amongst the Greek pagans, was usually practised in
worship, was " kissing the hand to the object which
was honoured : hence their word was a compound of
pros. " to" and kuo " I kiss," their expression then
proskunesis was used as the translation of the He¬
brew. It might be a question whether the second
part of the compound might not have been a corrup¬
tion of kupto, " I bow down." Be that as it may,
the word expressed a ceremony, and not a mental
act. The Greeks used also the word latreuo " I
serve," which some derived from latris, an acquired
servant, others from la which signifies excess, and
treuo " I tremble," hence this was also an external
act. In process of time those two words came
amongst the Greeks to signify divine worship, and
were correlative to the Hebrew words; they also
used the word Douleuo " I serve," from Doulos " a
menial servant." They had no word to express
the mental act.
Amongst the Latins we find the same dearth : ado-
ratio which meant " putting the hand to the mouth,
and vereor " I fear" I reverence," which comes
nearer to the expression of a mere mental act than
any other, but it was seldom, if ever, used to signify
worship, but another word not unlike it in structure,
though greatly dissimilar in derivation, veneror was
quite usual: this was supposed to be a compound
of veniam " favour," and or© *' I ask:" upon the
same ground, I was greatly inclined to suspect that
ttdoratio, might be a compound of ad " to" and ©ra¬
tio " prayer," but the universal and clear evidence
as to the fact, of the mode of worshipping by putting
the hand to the mouth, and all the old testimonies
were too strong against this surmise. The verb colo
had various meanings, it's original and primitive
meaning was " to till or cultivate the ground," which
was a servile occupation, and also beneficial; amongst
several subsequent accidental meanings- that of
" paying court" to human beings and " worship¬
ping the gods" were added. St. Augustin,who was
an excellent grammarian, informs us,that even in his
£ 127 ^
day, 420, there was in Latin,no special word to sig¬
nify the peculiar worship due to God alone. Hence,
though there was a distinction of worship, there was
not precision of language. That precision in reli¬
gious languague was generally the consequence of
disputes arising from difference of doctrine or of
opinion.
Those differences in the christian church, gave rise
to an appropriation of words more by common usage,
than by authoratative appointment; and hence, as
the latris was a higher servant than the doulos, his
services were of a more honorable kind, and latreia
was considered a higher worship than douleia.
Amongst the Latins, colo was a sort of generic ex¬
pression, of which adaratio was the highest descrip¬
tion, veneratio was a lesser, and thus the former
words latreia and adoratio were used to express di¬
vine worship ; and the latter douleia and veneratio,
to express that lesser religious worship which we
give to angels and saints. Thus at present we feel
that the origin of worship is in the mind : the un¬
derstanding must first appreciate the value of the
object; the will next assents to this estimation, and
determines to pay the worship, which is frequently
done only by interior acts of homage, and mental de¬
votion, such as prayer, gratitude, pure love of cha¬
rity, praise, &c. which all are done in the recesses
of the heart; or they may be subsequently express¬
ed by outward acts, such as vocal prayer or ceremo¬
nial worship. In English we give the common
name of religions worship, to all that which is paid
to God, or to what is immediately connected with
himv When it is paid to himself, the understanding
appreciates him, alone, eternal, the source of all
good, above all estimable value, with no equal i
the will desires to give him the highest honour and
the most perfect worship terminating in himself, as
alone the best and highest. This we call adoration,
the school term for which is latria.
When worship is paid to an Angel or Saint, the
understanding views and appreciates him as a crea¬
ted, dependent, limited being, raised by God to some
high grade of virtue and excellence, by reason of
which he deserves our esteem ; it also considers
him as a permanent friend of God> united to him hp
[ 128 ]
charity, partaking in a limited degree of his holiness,
protected, loved, cherished and upheld by God, and
a benevolent fellow worshipper with us, who can in¬
tercede on our behalf with that God, to whom we
both pray,-whom we both adore. The will then de¬
sires to honour this friend of God, through rever¬
ence for God himself; and therefore, religiously: we
call this religious honour, or veneration, and if we
ask the intercession of the being whom we thus hon¬
our, we call it invocation : thus, we say that " angels
and saints might be honoured and invoked, and that
they offer prayers to God, on our behalfthe school
term for this, is Dulia; and as God has more highly
favoured the blessed Virgin, we honour her more
than we do any other saint ; the term is an exten¬
sion of Dulia, and is called hyperdulia, or, an ho¬
nour of the highest kind given to a creature.
When we make images, our object is, by their aid
to impress our minds more deeply, that we may be
excited better to pay the due worship to those whom
they represent : we do not look upon them as pro-
sessing any virtue in themselves, nor as able to help
or hear us ; they are not therefore idols.
When we worship before an image of Christ, if
the mind be carried away to Christ himself, the wor¬
ship we pay is latria or adoration, for we only re¬
gard the great original, of whom the image reminds
us.
When we worship before the image of a Saint,
or representation of an Angel; if the mind be carried
altogether to the prototype, our worship is Dulia,
greater or lesser, as we appreciate the object, which
it represents.
If we consider the jmage itself, as in some degree
connected with the service of God, and formed to,
aid us,in elevating our mind to contemplate heavenly
things, it acquires in our estimation, a sort of valu,e
like that of the ark wiih its cherubim, like that which
you yourselves give to your communion cups, which
you would not place upon your table for every day use,
through reverence for God, in whose servipe they are
Used, and to which they are devoted, lest you might
provoke him, as did the monarch of Babylon. Daniel
V. 3. To steal them is,by you,viewed not as common
theft, but sacrilege. We call this religious veneres-
I 129 ]
tion, as we call family veneration, that respect and at¬
tachment which we feel towards our family pieces :
And as we call civil veneration, that respect which is
paid to the statues or images of General Washing¬
ton, ofWiliiam Penn, and other great benefactors of
the civilized world.—As through civil respect, and
not for mere decoration, our Congress has placed in
its hall of representatives, the picture of General
Lafayette, the benefactor of our country ; so. thro'
religious respect, for a purpose beyond tnat of mere
decoration, we place in our churches, the pictures
of holy men, and holy women ; the benefactors of
the christian community, whom they edified by their
virtues ; whom they instructed by their examples.
I now return to your correspondent. In his 23d
paragraph, he has the question.
" Now whether it be Latria, or any thing else, does not
the sense of the Roman Catholic Church seem plainly to
be, that religious honour should be paid to images ?"
And farther down, the following assertion.
"His Dulia might be an inferior worship; but if it was
Worship at all, it was idolatry."
There is not a child that has learned its Catechism
in our Church, which could not feel that the whole
force of the'■sophism, was centered in the ambiguity
of the phrases, worship in the last, and religious ho¬
nour, in the first. Nay, your correspondent himself
admits the sufficiency of our distinction, in the fol¬
lowing passage of parag. 25.
" We should not hesitate to admit that there are among
them many who are capable of the elevated abstraction of
enlightened piety, which saves them from any necessity or
danger of rendering in their hearts, any honour which is
due to God, to the image of his creature. But we must be
permitted to doubt whether the multitude of Roman Catho¬
lic worshippers are not thus subjected to a temptation of hav¬
ing their spiritual conversation more on earth than in heaven."
Then in fact, provided we be " capable of the ele¬
vated abstraction of enlightened piety—he says, that
we commit no idolatry; for then we do not give " any
honour which is due to God, to the image of his
creature." If I at all understand this ; he deserts
his own sophism, and admits our distinction. He
only fears that our ignorant multitude will not be so
elevatedly abstractedly enlightened. Upon that
score,gentlemen, you may soothe bis troubled soul ^
I I <30 j
for our multitude are taught either in words or sub¬
stantially the following chapter, of the Catechism,
which they are made distinctly to Understand.
LESSON XVIII.
First Commandment, continued.
" Q. What else is forbidden by the first commandment ?
A. To give to any creature the honour due to God.
Q. Are we forbidden to honour Saints ?
A. No ; if we honour them but as God's special friends
and faithful servants, and do not give them supreme or di¬
vine honour of adoration, which belongs to God alone.
Q. How do Catholics distinguish between the honour
which they give to God, and the honour which they give to
the Saints, as they pray to both ?
A. Of God alone they beg grace and mercy ; and of the
Saints they only ask the assistance of their prayers. Tobias
xi. 12.
Q. Is it lawful to recommend ourselves to the Angels and
and Saints, and to ask their prayers ?
A. Yes; since by doing so, we may be heard by flipm,
and obtain their prayers in addition to our own. Luke
xv. 7.
Q. Can the blessed Spirits in Heaven know when we pray
to them ?
A. Yes; And there shall be joy before the angels of God,
upon one sinner doing penance. Luke xv. 10-
Q. Do the blessed Spirits interest themselves in our be¬
half?
A. Yes; and have frequently done so, with great Zealand
effect. Zach. i. 10. 12.
Q. Does it not take from the honour due to God and in¬
fringe upon the merits of Christ, to pray to Angels and Saints
as intercessors ?
A. No; it does not, as it does not take from the honour
due to God to pay respect to our parents and superiors, nor
infringe upon the merits of Christ to ask the prayers of our
fellow-creatures upon earth, and to pray for them. Thessal,
v. 25. James v. 16.
Q. Why do Catholics kneel before the images of Christ
and his Saints ?
A. To honour Christ and his Saints, whom these images
represent. Exod. xxv.
Q, Is not the making of images, and the bowing down be¬
fore them, forbidden by the first commandment?
A, The making of images is not forbidden by the first com¬
mandment ; for God ordered Moses to make images—Exod.
xxv,—and the people bowed down before them in prayer in
the Jewish Temple. 2 Parallip iii.
Q. What use of images is forbidden by the first command¬
ment ?
A. That use which idolators made of th!em» when they
served them as Gods. '
Q. Is it proper to shew any mark of respect to the cruci¬
fix, and to the pictures of Christ and his Saints ?
[ 131 J
A. Yes ; because they relate to Christ ait3 his Saints, be¬
ing representations and memorials of them. Acts xix,. 12.
Matt. ix. 21.
Q. Why do Catholics honour the relics of the Saints?
A. Because their bodies had been the temples of the Holy
Ghost; and after their resurrection will be honoured and
glorified for ever in Heaven.
Q. May we then pray to the crucifix, or to the images or
relies of the Saints ?
.A. By no means; for they have neither life nor sense, nor
power to hear er help us.
Q. Why then do we pray before the crucifix, and before
the images and relics of the Saints ?
A. Because they enliven our devotion, by exciting pious
affections and desires—and by reminding us of Christ and
his Saints. Exod. xxv. 18.—John iii. 14.
Q. Is there any thing else forbidden by the first command¬
ment ?
A, Yes ; all attempts at dealing and communication with
the devil; and inquiring after things lost, hidden, or to
come, by improper means.
Q. Is it also forbidden to give credit to dreams, to fortune-
telling, and the like superstitious?
A. Yes; and all incantations, charms, and spells; antT
superstitious observations of omens; and such foolish re¬
marks, are also very sinful."—Catechism of the R. C. Faith.
Now at least his holy anxiety may cease, and per¬
haps it might not be amiss to inform him for the
greater consolation of his spirit that the writer of
this, although he has had pretty ample opportuni¬
ties of mixing amongst the young and the ignorant
of various Catholic nations, never yet found one of
them who had not " elevated abstraction of enligh¬
tened piety" sufficient to know that the honour due
to the eternal God, was not to be paid to an image;
perhaps one or two illustrations would help to make
it appear that he does not speculate. The first is a
very painful avowal. He has more than once, had
occasion to enquire, whether there was any truth in
particular assertions made by persons differing from
him in religion, where the names and places of abode
were stated,of those who were, said to be as ignorant
as our multitude is here represented to be, and he uni¬
formly found the statement to be totally false. Those
occurrences are not new, nor unusual: they are like
the statement made some time since by the holy
men, who were employed to distribute Bibles in
the sixth ward of New York; that they found with
one family, believed to be Irish, a Catholic Bible,
[ 132 ]
in which the second commandment was omitted.
* The corporation of the Seminary pledged themselves
to pay a sum of five hundred Dollars to the bible so¬
ciety, or to any person who would produce such a
Bible. The propagators of the falsehood did not ac¬
cept the offer, nor retract the falsehood. The no¬
tions of our multitude upon this subject, are more ac¬
curate than are those of your correspondent himself,
and it is by no means creditable to his modesty or
good sense to make the charge which he has put
forth. 1 shall bring his assertion to a practical test.
I hereby pledge myself, that if within three mouths
from the date of this letter, he shall point out any
one of our multitude, black, brown, or white, that
has had the opportunity of sufficient instruction, or
been admitted to confirmation, or communion, wTho
shall upon examination, be found to believe that the
honour which is due exclusively to God, may be
lawfully paid to any creature, livihg or dead ; i shall
through the hands of the printer of the Miscellany,
who will give my name if 1 fail, pay one hundred
dollars to you, to be disposed of as your correspon¬
dent may please—Gentlemen, your correspondent
might in his own estimation take this aristocratic
assertion regarding the multitude, as a proof of his
super or intellect; I beg to inform him, that with
m • at lea»t, it always passes as mark of quite ano¬
ther kind,—and the distinction which some of your
writers affect to draw between our enlightened and
our illiterate Catholics, is taken amongst us. by no
means as a compliment: rich and p; or, learned and
unlearned, our doctrine is the same; we have no
genteel belief, no aristocratic orthodoxy, we are
all, whether emperors, kings, pones, beggars, or
slaves, members of one church, holding fast the
same faith; and when any man grows so fastidious
as to imagine that God-almighty revealed more or
less for his negro than for himself, he ceases to be
a Roman Catholic. I know not a more insulting,
nor a more unfounded distinction than this, which
is here insinuated. Some of our poorest people are
some of those best informed in the doctrines of our
church, and some of our most wealthy, are some
ot those most ignorant of our tenets. I have known
poor children not ten years of age, who have more
dear notions of the nature of idolatry, and the
meaning of what you call the two first command¬
ments, than your correspondent appears to possess.
Then if the meaning of this phrase
" That all Roman Catholics intentionally violate this com¬
mandment, in rendering the due honour and veneration,.
which their church requires, to the hedges of the Virgin
Mary, &e. should not be asserted."
be, that they who do not" render in their hearts any
honour which is due to God, (divine worship, I pre¬
sume) to the image of his creature," do not violate
the precept; I will upon a palpable fact united to
this principle claim for the Roman Catholic church
full acquittal of its violation. That palpable fact,
your correspondent so far from denying, appears to
admit; it is, that persons of enlightened minds ca-r
pable of that abstraction which considers God and
the image distinct and distinguished, do not give
to the image the honour due to God, thus do act ac¬
cording to the true spirit of the church. He only
fears that the multitude are not capable of this ab¬
straction. If these things be so, the spirit of the
church and the conduct of its enlightened mem¬
bers are not in violation of the precept. The
only crime then of which we would be guilty,
would be imprudence in placing the images before
the ignorant multitude, with the danger of their
committing idolatry. But this danger does not ex¬
ist, it is all fancy; it will cost me one hundred dol¬
lars if it be any thing more than a mere unfounded
surmize of your correspondent. Now since we have
our own experience against his surmize, every good
logician would tell us, that we must reject his con¬
clusion, and hence even upon his own shewing, the
precept is not violated in our church.
Yet still, your correspondent will not acquit us of
violating the commandment, for he concludes his
paragraph, 25, with the following passage,
" While, however, this may be, we may confidently ask,
is not the commandment violated by Roman Catholics, as
a body, by the fact of their erecting images in their church¬
es, to which it is obligatory to render honour and generati¬
on ?—And if, as a body, they conscientiously obey, in this
particular, the authority of their church, must they not, as
a body, violate the second commandment ' without scru¬
ple ?' I see not how it can be otherwise."
12
134—J
Upon this, I would remark, merely for the sake
of precision, that it is not obligatory upon Catholics
to render honour or veneration to images, nor to
place them in churches. It is permitted^ not com¬
manded', and it is a doctrine of the church that this
permission is not contrary to the law of God, but in
conformity therewith. Hence the person who
would neither erect nor venerate an image,would not
cease to be a Catholic; but he who should assert
that the erection or veneration was unlawful, would
err from the Faith. It would have saved me much
trouble if your correspondent used precise terms.—
However, perhaps he is not to blame: for terms
are the expression of ideas; and where the ideas
are confused, the expression cannot be accurate.
The ground upon which he endeavours to sustain
his position is, that the comipandment forbids what
we permit. I believe we have seen that this is, to
say the least of it, a great mistake. He in the
same paragraph brings to the aid of his interpreta¬
tion, the following texts.
Leviticus xxvi. 1.
Catholic. Protestant.
" I am the Lord your God : "Ye shall make no idols,
You shall not make to your- nor graven image,neither rear
self any idol or graven thing, up a standing image, neither
neither shall you erect pil- shall ye set up any image of
lars, nor set up any remarka- stone in your land, to how
ble stone in your land to adore down unto it: for I am the
it: for I am the Lord your Lord your God,
God."
* Deuteronomy iv.
" 15. Keep therefore your " 15. Take ye therefore
souls carefully. You saw not good heed unto yourselves;
any similitude in the day that for ye saw no manner of simi-
the Lord God spoke to you litude on the day that the
in Horeb from the midst of Lord spoke unto you in Ho-
fre : reb out of the midst of the Jircj
16. Lest perhaps being de- 16. Lest ye corrupt your-
ceived you might make to selves, and make you a gra-
you a graven similitude, or ven image, the similitude of
image ot male or female," any figure, the likeness of
male or female,"
Having previously examined the text of the ori¬
ginal precept, Exod". xx. and found that it did not
prohibit the making images, but the making them
for idolatrous purposes; and having seen, I trust
clearly, that the Israelites not only innocently, but
L 135 j
religiously held those which were made by God's
command in high esteem and reverence, not for any
inherent sanctity which they possessed, but be¬
cause of their relation to God himself; I now pro¬
ceed to examine whether the text of Leviticus does
prohibit more than that of Exodus appears to do.
The words printed above in Italics are found in the
Protestant Bible, but not printed in the quotation of
your correspondent.
I believe it will be admitted that the passage in
Leviticus is not a new enactment, but is a repeti¬
tion of that in Exodus, with some more special
enumerations. Your correspondent agrees with
me in this, for he adduces those texts to explain
and confirm the true meaning of Exodus. Now if
construing Exodus xx. to forbid the making of an
image would be a contradiction to Exodus xxv. 18,
as we saw it manifestly would, no number of texts
adduced to prove that Exodus xx. 4, prohibits
image-making will lessen that contradiction or pal¬
liate the absurdity of such a construction. You gen¬
tlemen cannotdo, what your church declares she can¬
not do. Art. xx, " neither may it [the Church] so
expound one place of scripture, that it be repugnant
to another," In truth this text of Leviticus is but an
enumeration of two new particulars,which though not
therein specially expressed, came under the gen¬
eral description in Exodus xx. 4, and the object
•for which they should be erected in order to come
under the description of idolatry, viz. " adoration"
" bowing down" is also specially expressed in Ex¬
odus xx. 5, as iu Levit. xxvi. 1.
The Catholic version exhibits to me, four distinct
objects of specification, idol, and graven thing which
we have previously found specified and described in
in Exodus, in addition to which we have here^pillar,
and remarkable stone, which are new specifications. I
must leave to some better intellect than mine,to dis¬
tinguish the specifications of your text in its image-
, ry, and to inform us why idol is specially introduced,
if every image for a religious purpose be an idol. That
it was lawful for God's servants, both before and
after this prohibition of Leviticus to erect remark¬
able and consecrated stones, provided they did not
erect them for the purposes of adoring theuq which
[ 136 ]
the Heathens did, I shall shew by one or two scrip¬
tural instances, and I shall adduce an outline,of
evidence sufficient to shew that the purposes of the
Heathen were idolatrous, and altogether dissimi¬
lar to our object in making images of marble or
other stone, which are the only kind that might
come under your designation, unless a standing
image, be in contradiction to the cherubim which
were kneeling figures, if our traditions be correct.
Jacob was not an Idolater. I use your own ver¬
sion of Genesis, xxviii.
*' 18. And Jacob rose up early in the morning', and took
the stone that he had put for his pillows and set it up for a
pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. 19, And he called
the name of that place Bethel: but the name of the city was
called, Luz at the first. 20. And Jacob vowed a vow saying,
If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I
go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on,
so that I come again to my father's house in peace ; then
shall the Lord be my God : 21. And this stone which I have
set for a pillar, shall be God's house, &c."
God did not command an idolatrous act, yet we
read Joshua iv.
" 1. And if, came to pass, when all the people were clean
parsed over Jordan, that the Lord spake unto Joshua, say¬
ing,' 2. Take yon twelve men out of the people, out of every
t ribe a man, 3. And command them, saying. Take you henee
out of the midst of Jordan, out of the place where the priests
feet stood firm, twelve stones, and ye shall carry them over
with you, and leave them in the lodging place, where ye
shall lodge this night. * * 8. (The children of Israel
brought the stones.) 9- And Joshua set up twelve stones
in the midst of Jordan in the place where the priests which
bare the ark of the covenant stood : And they are there to
this day. * * 20. And thosp twelve stones which they
took out of Jordan, did Joshua pitch in Gilgal.''
He then informs them of the reason, when the
children should ask what mean the stones, that they
should be informed,—and then for the religious
purpose
" 24. That all the people of the earth might know the
hand of the Lord, that it is mighty : that ye might fear
the Lord your God for ever."
That is; this religious tnemorial preserved the
recollection of the opening of the Jordan, and thus
reminded the people of the power and might of
God, as well as of his mercy,thus powerfully exci¬
ting to his worship. Probably you jnay thinls that
the scriptures were evidence enough, and that those
[ , 13? ]
stones " subjected the multitude to a temptation of
having their spiritual conversation more on earth than
in heaven." I can only answer, that I prefer God's
wise regulation, to the surmise of a man whose
name is contradiction. I have thus shewn, that nei¬
ther the erection of images, nor of remarkable
stones was prohibited. What then was prohibited?
What the Heathens did. I shall^give you a few
specimens.
Arnobius in his work Contra Gentes. lib. 1, writes.
" Si quando conspexeram rubricatam lapidem, et ex
olivi unguine lubricatum, tanquam inesset vis pre-
sens, adulabar, affabar." Whenever I had seen a
reddened stone, and made smooth with the ointment of
olives, I used to speak to it, I used to address it sooth¬
ingly, as if a power was present in it. >
Eusebius, Praepar. lib. i. c. 10, informs us that
the old Phenicians used to call stones thus prepar¬
ed for worship, Bethules. It would be very curious
to trace the history of one of those from Phenicia
to Spain, thence to Ireland, thence to Scotland,
and since the conquest by Edward I. preserved
even for the use of the head of the English Protes¬
tant church,after the change in religion,for the coro¬
nation chair,with which I believe it may now be found
in the tower of London. Sanchoniaton traces the ori¬
gin of those stones to the God of heaven,and says seve¬
ral of them which lived and were animated were wor¬
shiped near Libanus, Apuleius describes some of the
pillars [Florenorum initio~\ which received worship.
Slrabo book xvii. describes for us, remarkable stones
in all parts of Egypt as well as in Syria, which were
objects of worship, like the Grecian heaps of
Mercury. From the description of some of those
in ancient authors, many of them appear to have
been large aerolites, which naturally accounts for
their heavenly origin. These were more common
in Egypt, whence the Israelites were journeying;
and in Syria whither they were going, than in any
other place : and thus we can account for the spe¬
cial mention by Moses, of the pillars and remarka¬
ble stones, which are very different things from our
marble or other stone images. Ours are set up for
purposes similar to that of Jacob and of Josue, and
do not come within the prohibition.
12*
[ 138 ]
We now come to the text of Numbers which
corresponds to this of Leviticus, and it is not the
least curious part of the subject to find the standing
images, metamorphosed by your bible into pictures.
Numbers xxxiii. 5. 2.
Protestant.
Catholic.
" Destroy all the inhabi¬
tants of the land, beat down
their pillars, and break in
pieces their statues,and waste
all their high places.
" Then ye shall drive out
all the inhabitants of the land
from before you, and destroy
all their pictures, and destroy
all their molten images,, and
quite pluck down all their
high places."
In the quotation from Deuteronomy iv. as it ap¬
pears in the essay there is undoubtedly the appear¬
ance of an absolute prohibition of making the simili¬
tude of any male or female, however, it is perhaps,
only because your correspondent feared to occupy
too much of your valuable space, or got tired of
transcribing, or fell asleep at this particular moment.
Allow me to continue the passage which in each
version is only interrupted by a comma, whereas he
gives us a full stop. But you know, that he and I
never quarrel about points.
Protestant version.
" 17. The likeness of any
beast, that is on the earth, the
likeness of any winged fowl
that flieth in the air,
18. The likeness of any
thing that creepeth on the
ground, the likeness of any
fish that is in the waters be¬
neath the earth:
19. And lest thou lift up
thine eyes unto heaven, and
when thou seest the sun and
the moon and the stars, even
all the host of heaven,shouldst
be driven to worship them and
serve them, which the Lord
thy God hath divided unto
all the nations under the
whole heaven."
We see that the prohibition is not absolute; and
as soon as the entire passage is produced, we find it
to contain no more than an enumeration of the spe¬
cial objects, which they were particularly qaution-
ed not to adore; together with a substantial repeti-
Calholic version.
'• 17. The similitude of any
l»ea9ts, that are upon the
earth, or of birds, that fly
under heaven,
18, Or of .creeping things
that move on the earth, or of
fishes, that abide in the wa¬
ters under the earth:
19, Lest perhaps lifting up
thy eyes to heaven, thou see
the sun and the moon, and all
the stars of heaven, and being
deceived by error, thou adore
and serve them, whieh the
Juord thy God hath created
for the service of all the na¬
tions that are under heaven."
[ *39 ]
tion of what he commanded in Exqdus xx. 22, &
23. You have seen that I have spoken to you from
heaven. You shall not make Gods of silver, nor shall
you make to yourself Gods of Gold. And lest they
should imagine he had a bodily shape, he did not
exhibit himself to them under any bodily appear¬
ance, but only in fire, that they might be kept bet¬
ter to appreciate his spiritual nature. Hence, it is
the opinion of several Catholics that the Jews were
prohibited by this precept from making any statue
or image of the eternal and invisible God, for any
purpose whatsoever. But, even granting this to be
a fair consequence of the assigned reason, it will
not follow, that christians are forbidden to make a
likeness of Jesus Christ, who appeared in his hu¬
man nature, in his bodily shape; of angels, who ap¬
peared as men, and of whose images God himself
gave a model to Moses; of the blessed Virgin who
was a visible woman, and of other saints who lived
and moved in their bodies; nay even of the Holy
Ghost under the appearance of a Dove, as you do
yourselves. In fact my impression is that you have
more images of the Holy Ghost and of Angels in
your churches in the United States than we have,
and some of them so well-fed and so fat, as to testi¬
fy that they were made in times of royal favour and
regal munificence. And, wo ! be to the man who
would dare to go into either St.Philip's orSt.Michael's
to spit upon one of the shining figures, " similitudes
of things in heaven above," " graven images,"
though you do not adore them. Neither do we. I
have in vain strained my eyes through every nook
of our poor churches to discover cherub or seraph or
sacred Dove. I must confess our angels are indeed
spiritual and invisible! Is it then come to this, that
our cljjprches have changed sides ? The churches
of the Romans are bereft of image-Gods, and the
churches pf the Protestants possess them !!! This
probably is only a piece of Jesuitical policy.—-No.
I must say, that I have known the Catholic Bishop
Use upon the occasion, the words of Shakespeare's
Apothecary> " my poverty, but not my wilt con¬
sents.", If he had the means, he says, that he would
have the sacred images.
Arq the. Catholics of Charleston then not out of
[ 140 ]
the pale of that church which as your correspondent
says, makes it k' obligatory on them to render ho¬
nour and veneration to images of the Virgin and of
Saints ? Paragraph 25. No ! Because there is
no such obligation, the practice is useful, but nei¬
ther essential nor obligatory. Have they not the
images of Jesus Christ crucified ? Yes ; it is true"
they have ; but this is not an image of the Virgin,
nor of an Angel, nor of any other Saint. Do they
not adore the image of Christ ? No! They do
not. It but reminds them of their Saviour, fixes
their attention, and excites them to remember his
sacrifice of atonement and to seek salvation through
his merits.
In the outset of his 25th paragraph your corres¬
pondent asserts what is not the fact, when he makes
adoration and veneration synonimous terms; when
he changes the meaning of our expressions, he mis-
tates our doctrines, and is thus dishonest, and in this
mode of argument he has indeed few superiors.
I am still detained upon his precious second essay.
I remain, gentlemen,
Your obedient humble servant,
B. C.
Charleston, (S. C.) August 10, 1829.
LETTER XII.
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and Sou¬
thern Episcopal Register, &c.
" For she was just, and friend to virtuous lore,
And pass'd much time in truly virtuous deed ;
And in those elfins' ears would oft deplore,
The times when Truth by Popish rage did bleed,,
And torturous death was true devotions meed;
And simple Faith in iron chains did mourn,
That nould on wooden image p'ace her creed ;
And lawny saints in smould'ring flames did bcftn:
Ah ! dearest Lord! forefend thilk days should e'er retufn."
Shenstone.
Gentlemen.—Allow me to state what I believe
has been shewn. 1. That Roman Catholics pay-
adoration or divine worship to the eternal God, the
creator of the heavens and the earth, and of all
things visible and invisible. 2. That they pay di¬
vine honour or adoration to him alone. 3. Of
course they do not Dav divine honour to devils, 4.
[ 141 ]
nor to imaginary beings, 5. nor to idols, 6. nor
buman beings, living or dead, 6. nor to tbe images
of any being, 7. nor to any creature. 7. That they
do not believe there resides any divinity or divine
virtue in any image whatever. 8. That the worship
of dulia or hyperdulia, or honour which they give
to angels and saints is not divine honour, or adora¬
tion, but that honour which one reasonable being
owes to another, because of its excellence : 9. and
that the excellence of the angels and saints consists
in the perfection of that nature and those graces
which they received from God the Creator and Re¬
deemer, and therefore, 10. that the honour given
to them is ultimately referrible to God whose crea¬
tures they are. Hence, 11. the honour paid to
them is not derogatory to that of the Creator or Re¬
deemer, but 12. it is rather an enhancing of the
same? I have also shewn, 13. that when our wrif
ters mention the adoration of an image, the expres¬
sion is restrained to those of Jesus Christ, and that
their meaning is that not the image, but the original
whom the image represents, is to receive this hom¬
age : and 13. that when they use the expression of
paying the worship of dulia or hyperdulia to the
image of a saint, or the representation of an angel;
they mean that the worship is paid to the original,
through the image : yet 14. that those inanimate re¬
presentations, or images are to be treated with a de¬
gree of religious respect, which we call veneration,
15, not because of any inherent sanctity which they
possess, but because of their connexion with the
service of God, and through reverence for him.
I believe I have also fairly shewn that a}most
every one of those propositions which is true of
Roman Catholic worship, would be false if predi¬
cated of the worship of the Heathens.
I believe I have also fairly shewn that neither
the text from Exodus xx. 4, nor that from Leviti¬
cus xxvi. 1, nor that from Deuteronomy iv. 15,
16, forbids what the council of Trent declares to be
lawful, and is fully expressed in our formulary.
" I most firmly, assert, that the images of Christ, of tbe
mother of God, ever Virgin, and also of other saints, may
be had and retained ; and that due honour and veneration ia.
to be given to them."
That, and only that, is our defined doctrine.—
The council of Trent was not called upon to decide,
nor did it give a decision, upon either of those two
questions. " Is it permitted to make an image of
the invisible God ?" " Is it permitted to make an
image of a mere spiritual being, an angel for in¬
stance ?"—Yet still We can easily state what has
been the general practice, and the general senti¬
ment of the church upon those two questions.—
First, as to the practice respecting the image of the
invisible God. Such images are not, I believe made.
Sometimes painters attempt a representation founded
upon the description given in various parts of the
sacred writings; to omit many others, I shall mere¬
ly refer to Isaias vi. Ezechiel i. Daniel vii. The sen¬
timent is, that if their intention be to represent God
as really possessing that peculiar and proper ap¬
pearance, it would be criminal; and to yield to such
an impression would be folly : but if the painting
be considered as merely emblematic or allegorical,
it is not unlawful; though very unusual. As re¬
gards the second question. Images and pictures are
made, which give to us the representation of the ap¬
pearances which spiritual beings assumed, as des¬
cribed in the sacred volume; not that we believe
these to be their natural and usual modes of ap¬
pearance, but those assumed to affect our senses,
and the sentiment is universal as to its being a law¬
ful practice; otherwise, we must condemn God for
giving such a direction in Exod. xxv. 18, and Mo¬
ses and Bezeleel for making them,in Exodus xxxvii.
7, as also Solomon and his pe pie, I. or III. Kings
vi. and God himself w ho in eh. ix of the same
book, accepts and approves of a temple filled with
such images. Our Episcopalian friends are mighti¬
ly censurable for this crime, if crime it be; and I
have been filled with awe and wonder at beholding^
over th head of a zealous independent clergyman,
whilst he was praying fervently against idolatry ; a
beautifully graven image of the dove, representing
the spirit of God with which the staid, and demure
congregation of his hearers,at the time,believed the
holy man to be filled.
This view of our doctrine and practice will ena¬
ble any one to see what value is due to the assertion
[ 1« j
of your correspondent, parag. 27. that respecting
Heathens and Roman Catholics " the per imagines
of the Trentine decree, puts the matter, as to the
use of images, very much on the same foot¬
ing, in one case as in the other." But I cannot so
easily part with him even upon this score, for I
should like to see the gentleman reconcile himself.
Per. Conlra.
"27.The next is, that Protes- "23. It may be true, that the
tants say, " Roman Catholics some Protestants, in an in-
exculpate themselves from the temperate zeal of dissent from
charge of idolatry, not other- Popery, have considered Ro-
wise than as the heathens did." man Catholics equally as idol-
The Council of Trent, it is atrous as the heathens either
true, will not allow the hea- are or were. I believe, how-
then to have even pretended ever, that a wide distinction
to worship any thing above is generally considered due in
their idols. It may, on the favor of Christian worship-
contrary, be safely asserted, pers of the one only God,
that there is abundant evi- however incumbered their
dence that they did—and that worship may be with errone.-
the^er imagines of the Tren- ous appendages, from those,
tine decree, puts the matter, who, with no knowledge or
as to the use of images, very beliefofthe one Jehovah, may
much on the same footing, in worship infinitely various fic-
the one case as in the other, titious deities, in idols, in
The testimony of several of which they may be supposed
the fathers might be given to to reside."
this effect." * * * * *
" Voltaire, itis true,thought
the heathens were no more
idolaters than Roman Catholics. I would not, however,
take his authority as good, against the industrious author
of the essay, in the Review. There is a difference, and we
should admit that it is important. The poor Indian, either
honoured his idols with a worship terminating in them, or,
through them, worshipped the unknown God. Christiaus
under the denomination of Roman Catholics, like other
Christians, worship the one true God of the Scriptures."
When your correspondent shall have reconciled
these passages, it will probably be necessary to
support his character for honesty, to explain .why
in urging this argument in his first note to para¬
graph 25. he made two serious faults, in alluding
to the texts mention in a note to the Do way
Bible—and makes a very serious mistake by print¬
ing " chap. iii. 8, 7," for, " chap, xxxviii. 7,"
which is in the American Stereotype edition, in¬
stead of xxxvii. 7, which is correct, and usual: I
acquit him of all intention of dishonesty in this portion,
*—141—f
and look upon it to be your printer's error, though
we will not be allowed the mistake of a comma.
He then proceeds.
" The reader, it is hoped, will turn to these passages, and
see if they authorize any thing like the Roman Catholic
use of images in their Churches. Venite adoremus is the
express language of the Roman Missal/i Come let us adore.
Thou shall not adore nor serve them, is the language of their
translation of Scripture. Roman Catholics will say they
are not served ; will they say that they are not adored?—
The language of the passage, as quoted by themselves, is,
adore nor serve ; not adore and serve."
The first fault is what logicians call the sophism
of drawing an universal conclusion from particular
premises—which denotes either a defect in the head,
or one in the heart of him who uses it. The words Ve¬
nite Adoremus which he quotes are used only on one
day in the year, and confined to the exhibition of one
image, and can by no means whatever, be applied
to any other. They are used on Good Friday at
uncovering the image of Christ crucified. Now
from his construction of this paragraph, the appli¬
cation is made to appear general for all images, of
uthe Virgin and other saints," and his context ap¬
pears to put these latter and only these forward; for
the paragraph begins with " In this adoration, then,
this due honour and veneration given to the image?
of the virgin mother of God and the saints, in their
churches do Catholics violate the second of God's
commandments." Now I would be fully justified
by every rule of fair criticism to restrain the mean¬
ing of his note to the extent of his paragraph, and
if I did, that extent would not only not reach, but
would exclude the image of Christ. Upon this
ground he would be more criminal either agaiust
sound reason, or plain honesty, because he applies
to images of one class^the words used not by any
means for them, but for a class altogether dif¬
ferent.
His second fault was, that with the evidence be¬
fore him of the meaning and intent of the church,
he not only wilfully suppressed it in this essay,
though he gives it after the lapse of a month in
the next, but suggested the very opposite. In p.
p. 228, 229, of the Missal from which he quoted,
the following note is appended at the very passage
which he quotes.
" The intention of the church in exposing the cross to our
veneration on this day, is, that we might the more effectual¬
ly raise up our hearts to HIM who expired thereon for our re¬
demption. Whenever, therefore, we kneel or prostrate our¬
selves before a crucifix, it is JESUS CHRIST only whom
we adore, and it is in him alone that our respects termi¬
nate."
What now are we to think of his honesty ? I
have printed the words as they are printed in the
Missal. Even if he had not seen this note, he had
in the garbled extract itself, which he says he took
from Father Paul, of the decree of the council of
Trent, the distinction between the image of Christ
and the images of the saints, in the separate verb
applied to each; to Christ, adoremus ; to the saints,
veneremur ; and he had also the very preposition
which condemned him of dishonesty all through, ut
per imagines Christum adoremus, " that through
the images we might adore Christ," paragraph
23. and therefore it was, that he laboured in parag.
27. to prove that the pagans did not adore idols,
but God through the idols, that he might put them
on very much the same footing with us.
Again, he charges us with suppressing " thou
shalt not adore nor serve" and yet he quotes the
very words from our own bible !! ! This is one way
of suppressing !! !
After having, got through this task, I shall pro¬
pose to him another effort at reconciling himself to
himself. In parag. 27. The heathens are very much
upon the same footing with the Roman Catholics, be¬
cause he says,the assertion of the council of Trent is not-
true, that they " worshipped any thing above their
idols." There is he says abundant evidence on the
contrary that they did,—they adored something
above the images through the images,—they wor¬
shipped God through the images. If in this they
are upon very much the same footing with Roman
Catholics, these latter must therefore worship God
through the images, and thus God is the object of
the Catholic adoration. Yet, in paragraph 24. he
labours to shew that catholics do adore images and
pictures, and in parag: 25. he asserts that they vio¬
late the second of God's commandments in this ado¬
ration given to the images: and in the note, he tri-
13
1 14b—J
urnphantly asks will Roman Catholics say that the
images are not adored in their churches ?
After he has reconciled his assertion that it is God
we adore through the image, with his assertion that
it is the image we adore—he will still have to recon¬
cile two others, viz: that in parag. 23. where he
says that a distinction is due in our favour over the
Heathen, with that in 25. where he asserts that
we worship the image ; from which gross idolatry he
vindicates the heathen in parag. 27. thereby prefer¬
ring the Heathen worship as more pure than ours.
The only topic of his second Essay which 1 have
not now disposed of, is that which he takes up in
the second note to paragraph 25 and which he more
specially treats of in paragraph 26.—In which, his
object is to shew that we are not misrepresented
when it is alleged " that sensible that our practice
is contrary to the second commandment; we have in
several of our catechisms omitted the second, and
to keep up the number, split the tenth into two."
The first fault of your correspondent is, that he
begs the question, by assuming that what he calls
the second commandment is not a part of the first,
I shall not prolong a contest which has far exceed¬
ed in length my original plan, by taking up this ques¬
tion at large. I shall merely remark in the first
place, that neither God nor Moses divided the lawr,
containing the precepts, in the one way or in the
other, and that if we give the entire of the law it¬
self, as Bishop Stillingfleet attests, or as your cor¬
respondent attests—I care not which. Paragraph 26.
in our Vulgate and Doway Bibles, which are our
standards of Latin and English, it cannot be fair¬
ly said that we omit that which we actually print.
" But we omit it in our catechisms." Our ob¬
ject could not be to mislead, for if it was, we
would act very absurdly by printing it in our Bi¬
ble. But does your correspondent mean to assert
by the words, " and as it is printed in the Septuagint,
the Vulgate, and the Doway Bible, &c." that these
Bibles do divide the law into ten heads, and place
this the second? For if he does, he asserts what
is not the fact. The Bible has no such division, no
bible ever exhibited the division. In the next place ;
the division of this law into ten heads was a human
[ 147 ]
institution of convenience, and it would be just as
fair for me to state that they are only three command¬
ments, or only two commandments as that they are ten.
In the first case, I would divide the law into the pre¬
cepts regarding the worship of God, the external
conduct of man to his neighbour, and the regula¬
tion of his own desires. In the second case, 1 would
divide it as our Saviour did, into the duties towards
God, and those towards man, and yet having only
two or three commandments, I would still omit no
part of the law. In the third place. The division
which we adopt, was that which was universally
adopted and followed by the Christian church, at,
and before the beginning of the sixteenth century.
Your mode of dividing has been subsequently taken
up by the gentlemen whom you call Reformers, for
the purpose of having the appearance of a plea to
convict us of violating a commandment, by giving
to apart of the first, a meaning which I have shewn,
it cannot sustain. 'Fourthly, our catechisms do
not profess to give the words, but the substance of
the law, and therefore, as we conceive what you
call the first and second to be only one ordinance,
comanding the worship of God, wb'ch the pagans
neglected, and forbidding idolatry which they prac¬
ticed, we do not make two separate recitals of what
we look upon to be only one precept; and yet we
are guilty of no omission, because we give all the
words of the law in the Bible where we profess to
give them. Fifthly, we find a prohition of im¬
pure acts, followed by a prohibition of theft, and
as they are sins of various kinds, and separately
prohibited, so we follow the same order in the
prohibition of desire to act impurely, and desire
to act dishonestly, and we look upon the desires of
impurity and injustice, to be as distinct in their mo¬
ral nature, as are the external acts. Sixthly. Whe¬
ther we be right or wrong in this mode of division,
we are not the originators of the division or omis¬
sion. I need only fake your own evidence or that
of your correspondent to acquit us; fo - he tells us,
(note 2. to parag. 25.) that others had do no so be-'
fore us, both in the Jewish and earlv Christian'
churches. Why-then make us the criminals if the'
crime was committed before we were born? We
[ 148 ]
get two reasons from him, and most notable ones
they are. First, reason. " Their authority was not
paramount." .
The question is not concerning authority, but
concerning fact. The question of fact is, "whe¬
ther Roman Catholics omitted the second command¬
ment, and split the tenth into two for the purpose of
not having it exist as a reproof of their idolatrous
practice."—Mark the notable answer.—Yes they
did—because, though the Jews did it innocently be¬
fore Christianity existed, yet the Roman Catholics,
who received those precepts from the Jews as a di¬
vine law, were criminal, because the authority of the
Jews ■was not paramount!! ! And the early chris-.
tians innocently did it, but yet the Roman Catholics
are criminal in doing so, and it was the Roman Ca¬
tholics who alone were guilty of the omission, because
the authority of the early christians was not para¬
mount !!! Who will now dare to say that your cor¬
respondent is not pellucid ?—I must match para¬
mount if I can. Really, a person who does not af¬
ter this, clearly see, that the Catholics were the per¬
sons who first omitted the second commandment,
must be unable to see through a block of granite!
Finding, however, that the proof will by no
means sustain, what is the only conclusion that
should be established for his purpose, viz.—That
this omission was made first by Roman Catholics,
he comes upon the principle of cy pres, as near the
mark as he can, by sustaining his feebleness upon
an unfounded and uncharitable allegation, " nor was
their purpose sinister." Thus what the Jews and
early christians did without a sinister purpose ac¬
cording to the paragraph, is proof that the Roman
Catholics, who afterwards did it, were the only
persons guilty of omission!!! Call you this logic ?
Really, this puts to shame the wolf, who, when he
was obliged to acquit the lamb because of non age,
alledged that his father committed the crime, for
which he should suffer ; you will not admit that
Jews or Chrisitans are to save us, though botj/have
innocently done what you call our crime, but you
find that we are too young to be Jews, though we
are in truth those same "early christians," whom
you acquit of any sinister intention, though you com
[ i« ]
demn us, for our sinister intention. Pray, will you
ask your correspondent to reconcile his acquittal of
the Jews and of the early christians, who divided the
law as we do, with his condemnation of us, and with
his statement in paragraph 26.
" Now it may be offensive to Roman Catholics, that Pro¬
testants should say they make this omission, because they
are sensible that it is calied for in aid of the authority of their
Church, in ordering such adorations as they are required to
pay to images; and Protestants may possibly err, in assign¬
ing this motive for the omission: but as they can see no
other, and hold the fact of the omission to be indisputable,
they surely are not justly censurable, either for the assertion
of the fact, or their manner, so reasonable, of accounting
for it."
Can he not see another reason, in our following
the Jews and the early christians ?
I now ask any candid person who has had the pa¬
tience to read my explanations whether I was justly
censurable for stating in my letter to Bishop Bowen,
that it was a misrepresentation of our doctrine and
practice to assert.
" 1. That Roman Catholics pray to Angels and Saints to
save them by their merits, making those Angels and Saints
mediators with Christ or in his stead.
" 2. That Roman Catholics dishonour Christ our only
mediator.
3. That Roman Catholics give to creatures the wor¬
ship due to God alone; and are thus guilty of direct idol¬
atry.
" 4. That Roman Catholics worship the blessed Virgin
mother of our Lord in such a way as to commit downright
idolatry.
" 5. That Roman Catholics worship the images or pic¬
tures of the Virgin Mary and of other Saints.
" 6- That Roman Catholics violate the second of God's
commandments without scruple.
" 7. That notwithstanding such violation without scruple,
Roman Catholics seem to be sensible that their practice is
contrary to the said second commandment.
" 8. That therefore in several of their catechisms, the
Roman Catholics leave out the second commandment, and
to make up the number, they split the tenth into two.
" 9. That Roman Catholics in excusing themselves from
idolatry in their image worship, say no more for their ex¬
culpation than the Heathens said for themselves, and there¬
fore,
" 10. That Roman Catholics are equally idolatrous as
as the Heathens are or were."
Itiow come to his third Essay, in your number for
13*
[ 150 ]
March, where he attempts to shew that our adora¬
tion and praying to the cross is the most gross and
intolerable corruption. In paragraph 29. he states
this, and another question. In paragraph 30. He
undertakes to shew that it is fact, that we adore the
cross, and that we pray to the cross. To prove that
we adore it, he quotes Almain. The passage in this
writer is exactly such as that in St. Thomas of Aquin,
and the answer I make is the same, which is found at
the commencement of my seventh letter, to which I
refer you. If Bishop Taylor had no better claim to
Theological knowledge than this would create, he
would indeed hold an unenviable place. His second
proof is drawn from the Pontifical respecting the le¬
gate's cross. To this, I can only answer, that when
he vouchsafes to tell me in what part of the Ponti¬
fical the passage is found; I probably shall be able
to tell him its meaning.—The Pontifical now lies
before me ; I have spent some hours in looking
through it, I have read over carefully every word, in
any part which the Index shewed likely to point out
a legate or his cross, and all in vain. I can find no
such passage as that which is quoted. Is this a for¬
gery of his own, or who is its author ? The third
passage is from St. Thomas of Aquin. Did your
correspondent forget what he wrote in his second
essay, parag. 23. of St. Thomas Aquinas, that hp
asserted " that to worship the image with any other
act than that by which the original was worshipped,
would be to worship it on its own account, wjiich is
idolatry." According to him then, Thomas Aquinas
tells us, that it would be idolatry to worship it on
its own account, and also tells us that we must wor¬
ship it on its own account, because we place our
salvation in it. This, indeed, is one way of making
Thomas Aquinas appear ridiculous. But is this
mode honest ? Let us see. The quotation, is sub¬
stantially correct so far as it goes, but it is grossly,
incorrect as a representation of the doctrine of St.
Thomas, because it suppressed what is required to
give a correct view of his meaning. The passage
is found in his Summa. Theol. par. 3. quaest-xxv.
art. ix. To explain his proposition he writes as fol¬
lows.
I 151 ]
" Respondeo dicendum, ut supra diotum est, honor sett
reverentia non debetur nisi rationali naturae; unde creatures
insensibili non debetur honor yel reverentia nisi ratione ra¬
tionale naturae. Et hoc dupliciter. Uno mod o, in quantum
repraesentat ratior.alem naturam: alio modo in quantum
ei quocumque modo conjungitur."
" I answer, it must be stated, as was previously said, ho¬
nour or reverence is not due but to a reasonable being,
wherefore honor or reverence is not due to an insensible be¬
ing, except on account of one that is reasonable. And that
might be in two ways. In one way, in as much as it repre¬
sents a rational being: in another way, in as much as it is
in some manner joined with it."
Thus it is clear that any respect paid to the cross
of Christ is upon his principle, as exhibited through¬
out this article, and as explained before in my let¬
ter vii, because of its representing Jesus. Christ, to
whom it is so joined in our memory, that at once,
upon seeing it, the mind is carried to the recollec¬
tion of his sufferings', and to the disposition for
adoring him, who by his suffering upon the cross,
gave us the hope of our salvation. Hence, the ad¬
dress to the cross is, as Bellarmine shews in the
quotation in letter, vii, made to Jesus Christ cruci¬
fied, and not to the insensible piece of wood ; to
which our children are taught in the catechism, as
quoted in my former letter, we may by no mfeans pray,
any more than to other images or relics, for they
have neither life nor sense, nor power to hear or
help us. Gentlemen, I might perhaps be under a
mistake; but the impression on my mind is, wher
ther correct or not, that no man who has the least
pretensions to education or common sense, ever se¬
riously believed that we prayed to the crucifix; and
hence, the moment I find the assertion made by any
person, who has common intellect, and been taught
to read ; I lose all respect for him as a candid man
or a man of religious honesty. If I can avoid speak¬
ing upon religious subjects with such a man, I shall
never exchange a word with him on a religious
topic.
His next argument, if argument, I may so call it,
is from the Missal; where the office of Good-Friday*
£< exhibits the adoration of the cross.1' He partially
inserts the note from the translation of' the Missal,
as I have previously ^given it, which shews that it is
Jesus Christ whom we adore, and not the cvoss it?
[ 152 ]
self. And yet he would persuade his readers that
we do, what we declare we do not. He again has
recourse to the unworthy subterfuge of a groundless
distinction, between those who can, and those who
cannot distinguish the image from Jesus Christ.—
And in quoting the note he has again garbled, by
omitting the word only, which would defeat his
entire object if inserted. The note says, " When¬
ever we kneel or prostrate ourselves before a cruci¬
fix, it is Jesus Christ only whom we adore;"
the omission of this word did not satisfy him, but afi
ter the garbled insertion he adds. :t This note seems
to have been suggested by the obvious apprehension,
that the people thus called on to venerate, would
naturally understand the call to mean, come let its
iworship." I beg leave to inform him that the note
was altogether unnecessary for Catholics, and so far
as my own individual opinion might be expressed; I
would prefer the translation to be neither worship,
nor venerate, which are both generic, but adore
which is special and appropriate. I cannot say why
the note was introduced, but I should naturally be¬
lieve, that it was to guard others than Catholics from
being misled by writers as dishonest as your corres-.
pondent. For Catholics it is totally unnecessary.
This is the sum of his semblance of argument,
and I apprehend he has failed to prove that Roman
Catholics either adore or pray to the cross, though
excited by the image and the ceremony, they adore
and pray to Jesus Christ crucified, in whom alone,
they have hope of salvation.
I shall here add one remark upon his affected pain
and regret. I shall merely for a moment use his own
principle against himself, and appeal even to him,
what would be his estimation of one who would thus
assail his church.
" It is most painful to every good man to behold a
large and respectable body of our 'fellow Protes¬
tants, sunk into idolatry. 4 It is true, they say them¬
selves, that their intention is not idolatrous, and be¬
ing as they are, worshippers of the only Jehovah of
the scriptures, we must draw a favourable distinc¬
tion between them and the Heathen, who, though
he bows down, o» kneels dowa, as they do, to mere
inanimate creathres, still is a worshipper of the un-
[ m i
known God, if! not of fictitious deities, But what¬
ever may be the declaration of our brethren of the
Episcopalian Church, we cannot leave the word of
God which is our common standard, acknowledged
by themselves as paramount. They even acknow¬
ledge that God alone is to be worshipped, but this
only aggravates their infatuation, and renders them
more the objects of our compassion. Prayer and
kneeling are the evidences of worship, and yet they
kneel before creatures, and this in the most solemn
act of their religious worship, and most serious
time of prayer. It is true, they tell us that al¬
though they kneel to the inanimate element, yet
it is not the element but God that they worship,
but do they not bow down ? Do they not
kneel ? And they kneel to worship, and before
what they call holy, as if it were untrue that God
alone is holy, and then is not it making Gods for
themselves ? Strange Gods, before which they kneel
or bow down, when the, commandment is, you shall
not bow down!! They even go farther, for they kneet.
and bow down, and both, before a creature to which
they give the appellation Holy, though God alone is
holy. What is this but to worship that creature as
God 1 It is painful to see the proof in their own
books and in their own practice—In their commu¬
nion service, where they meet to eat bread and drink
wine, they kneel, whereas Christ and his disciples
remained seated at table, the scripture does not inform
us that they worshipped, or kneeled ox bowed down, nay,
even to guard against the supposition of such wor¬
ship, it is specially recorded that it was whilst they
were at table. Yet read the rubrics of the Episco¬
pal Prayer book, and be moved with compassion for
this degeneracy of Protestants ; of brethren of our
Reformation !! !
" Then shall the priest first receive the communion In both
kinds himself, and proceed, to deliver the same, to the Bi¬
shops, Priests ahd Deacons, in like manner (if any be pre¬
sent,) and after that to the people in order, into their bands,.
all devoutly kneeling : and when he delivereth the Bread, he
shall say, &c."
It is true, they say thatthey only worship God, but
do they not kneel down devoutly to that bread ? God
forbid that we should assert that there are not
[ 154. ]
amongst them some whose abstraction of enlight¬
ened piety does lead to spiritual worship, but for
the multitude / The Lord says, You shall not how
down, the Church says, You shall devoutly kneel
dawn. We must, painful as it is, say that the idol¬
atry is palpable."
When your correspondent can feel what he
ought to think of one who would address your
church in such language, he can estimate the feel¬
ings entertained regarding himself by; Gentlemen,
Your obedient humble servant,
B. C.
Charleston, (S. C.) Aug. 17, 1829.
LETTER XIII.
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and Sou¬
thern Episcopal Register, &c.
" In doubtful Points betwixt her diff'ring Friends,
Where One for Substance, One for Sign contends,
Their contradicting Terms she strives to join ;
Sign shall be Substance, Substance shall be Sign.
A real Presence all her Sons allow, 1
And yet 'tis flat Idolatry to bow, ' V
Because the God-head's there they know not how. J
Her Novices are taught that Bread and Wine 1
Are but the visible and outward Sign, >
Receiv'd by those who in Communion join. }
But the inward Grace or the Thing signify'd,
His Blood and Body, who to save us dy'd;
The faithful this Thing signify'd receive :
What is't those faithful then partake or leave ?
For what is signify'd and understood,
Is, by her own Confession, Flesh and Blood.
Then, by the same Acknowledment we know,
They take the Sign, and take the Substance too,
The literal Sense is hard to Flesh and Blood,
But Nonsense never can be understood."
Dryden's Hsnd and Panther.
Gentlemen. Your correspondent undertakes in
the paragraphs, 33, 34, and 35 of his third essay for
April, to shew that we commit Idolatry by adoring
the Eucharist. Though such be his avowed object,
he wanders most egrsgiously from the subject into
one totally distinct, but into which I shall scafcely
follow him. He attacks the doctrine of Trarisub-
stantiation, to shew that in the Eucharist thlre is
only bread and wine; and that therefore' we adore'
[ ]
nothing but those created substances, and of course
are idolaters. Even if the doctrine of the Catholic
church were proved to be a mistake, his proposition
would not necessarily follow as the result, for the
Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, which im¬
plies the real presence of Christ together with the
bread and wine, might yet be true, even if ours was
false, and yet in that case we would worship Christ
who would be really present. He will not say that
such worship would be idolatry, because Christ, and
not the bread and wine would be" the object of our
adoration. A very large body of Lutheran Protes¬
tants still adore Christ present in the Eucharist.
Will the gentleman call his fellow Protestants ido¬
laters ?
I fhall now suppose the Roman Catholics, the
whole of the Eastern separatists and the Lutherans
to be in error, and that the true doctrine as to the
nature of the Eucharist, is held only by the follow¬
ers of Zuinglius, or the sacramentarians, principal¬
ly consisting of the Calvinists, Baptists, Church of
England, and their several branches and separa¬
tions, in all probabty scarcely approaching at most,
to forty millions. They form not one sixth of the
christian community, I believe from close calcula¬
tion and enumeration, that they are more properly
speaking, less than one seventh : let us take them
at one sixth. Let us suppose the other five sixths
who believe the doctrine of the real presence, to be
all in perfect error as to the nature of the Euchar¬
ist ; which would indeed be a very strange supposi¬
tion ! I ask a simple question, of any one of those
persons, " Pray to whom or to what, do you direct
your adoration in presence of the sacrament?"—
Would he not directly say ? " To Jesus Christ." I
ask him, " Do you intend to worship bread ?" He
will certainly answer; "No." I state to him, your
opinion, that he is under a mistake, and that indeed
Jesus Christ is not there,that the sacramentis nothing
but bread : and then ask him, " Will you adore the
bread ?" He will reply, that the mistake is on your
part, for that you ought to know, that it is in the
povyer of God to place one substance under the ap¬
pearance of another, or if he be a Lutheran, to con¬
ceal one substance in another: that God's word is to
[ 156~7
"®s tlie most ample evidence; that when he says any
thing has been done by him, it is certainly done:
that he declared the body and bl <od &c. of Christ,
would be really present in the Sacrament at the
consecration of the Eucharist: that this has been
so consecrated: that of course this is the case
to which his testimony applies, and that it is
very strange on your! part to deny his power to
assume this appearance; or to deny that in fact he
does assume it in the case in which he declared it
should be done. Thus he states that he has satis¬
factory evidence of the presence of Christ, and that
his adoration is intended for the saviour, and only
for him, and not for bread. Now gentlemen, sup¬
pose what he calls reasoning,to be only fanaticism;
suppose that Christ had said, " This is bread, which
shall signify that I died tor you, but it is not my bo¬
dy," instead of saying " This is my body, which is
given for you it is clear that on the part of this
adorer, there was no intention of idolatry, though
there would have been a mistake as to the fact of
the presence of him, whom he intended to adore.
Would that citizen be a traitor, who honestly mis¬
taking a spy of the enemy for the commanding offi¬
cer of the army of his state, would sedulously, and
respectfully,and affectionately,entertain, protect, and
escort that spy affording him all the information in
his power ?. Clearly it was patriotism, not treason
that led him to act. Adoration is a mental act, and
our intention is to adore Christ the eternal God, and
not bread. This would suffice to rescue us from the
imputation so thoughtless'y repeated. But as your
correspondent has seen proper to accompany the im¬
putation with a variety of other remarks, it might
not be amiss to glance at some of them. He says,
that Roman Catholics do not deny that they wor¬
ship the consecrated elements, parag. 33. He makes
the same assertion in parag. 35. in which he states
that " according to a decree passed on this subject
in the xiii. session of the Council of Trent lairia
or div ne worship is not denied to be rendered to
them" i. e. the elements. It is plain that by
the word elements, he and his readers understand
bread ad wine, consecrated it is true, but still natur¬
ally and substantially only bread and wine. The de-
I 167 j
cree to which he refers is the following, which de¬
clares it to be a departing from the communion
of the church.
Sess. xiii. Can. vi.
" Si quis dixerit, in sancto Eucharistias Sacramento Chris¬
tum unigenitumDei filium non esse cultu latriae,etiam exter-
noadorandum; * * * et ejus adoratores esse idolo-
latros.
" If any one shall say, that Christ the only begotten
son of God, is not to be adored,in the holy sacrament of the
Eucharist,even with the external worship of latria * * *
* and that his adorers are idolaters-"
I had little trouble in examining whether it was
his idol father Paul that led your curious corres¬
pondent in this mishap. I find in two places that
it was not. Roman Catholics then do deny that
they worship the elements. But how happy a facility
has your correspondent here acquired of calling
things by their right names ? We have latria, in this
place even under his own hand " divine worship."1
But he says, that " if Protestants find it impossi¬
ble to be convinced that the sacramental bread and
wine even after consecration, are any thing else but
bread and wine, Roman Catholics must admit that
they do not wilfully misrepresent them in saying that
they worship bread and wine in the Eucharist."
Paragraph 33. The same semblance of argument is
used in paragraph 35. and because he, a Protestant,
saysthey are bread and wine,this Catholic who adores
Christ must be an idolater !! ! In the first place I mqst
remark, the question was not whether our doctrine
was wilfully misrepresented, but whether it was mis¬
represented. The dragging in therefore of the word
wilfully is changing the question and giving up the
field. Now for his argument, I leave its answer to
himself; and when he shall refute the Unitarian, I
will answer him. By the bye, it is to me one of the
most extraordinary spectacles that I have ever wit¬
nessed, to see the self-important orthodoxy of one
class of Protestants condemning another class for
antichristian conduct, in merely helping to carry
their common principle of scripture-interpretation,
to its just and natural extent. It is a melancholy
amusement to behold your church, for instance, turn
14
[ 158 ]
upon the Roman Catholics and accuse them of tyran¬
ny and dictation, because they say, " These texts res¬
pecting the Eucharist, have always been thus un¬
derstood, and it is an unwarrantable act on your part,
now to force upon them a meaning different from
the faith of all antiquity;" than declare that she will
use the liberty of her own judgment, accountable
only to God, for its use. And she next, turns to the
Unitarian; and declares that he acts unwarrantably,
and deserts orthodoxy, because he uses the very
came " right" as she calls it, respecting texts con¬
cerning the nature of Jesus Christ! ! !—But to our
point. Does the Unitarian misrepresent you when
he says that you pay an idolatrous worship to the
creature Jesus Christ ? And are you to be fairly
chargeable with Idolatry in your adoration of
Christ the only begotten son of God,as long as
the Unitarian will continue to declare that he finds
it impossible to be convinced of his eternal divinity ?—
Is his error to make you a criminal ? Are you to be
made a butt of obloquy and reproach, because the
Unitarian is obstinate ? Admirable Theology !
In his paragraph 33. the philosophical writer
gravely informs us that the " matter is determined
by the sense of seeing. They see the bread and
wine, and they see the adoration paid to them."—
As he read my letters to Bishop Bowen, I must be
satisfied to repeat that I differ very widely from this
writer's metaphysics and theology, for the reasons
assigned in my eighth letter to that prelate. But as
the gentleman probably is anxious for employment,
I shall again have recourse to my Unitarian acquain¬
tance, with whom I differ most widely in doctrine,
but who appears to me, be it said without offence, to
be the most consistent and rational Protestant that I
know. I shall then beg of Protestant Catholic to in¬
struct me how to answer himself by refuting the Uni¬
tarian who thus applies the principle so very thought¬
lessly adopted by a Protestant Episcopalian. "The
whole matter of idolatry is determined by the'sense
of seeing. No man hath seen the invisible God,
Jesus Christ was seen by man, to the sense of sight
he was a man, and yet seen in human shape, seen
in every way as a man, still we see him adored,
by Protestants." The same argument is repeated
[ 159 ]
in paragraph 35. What my answer is, may be found
in my Letter viii. to Bishop Bowen.
Further on, in the same paragraph 33. He states,
Catholics say, that Christ " meant his disciples
to believe contrary to the testimony of their senses,
that the bread which the Saviour had in his hand was
not bread." With all due respect for the most sa¬
gacious juggler, they say no such thing.—I call jug¬
gler,a person who endeavouring to keep the semblance,
of the same expression, substitutes ono having a
totally different meaning. Roman Catholics say
that Christ had bread at first; that without chang¬
ing its appearance, he changed its substance, so that
bread ceased to be there, but a totally different sub¬
stance came in its stead, which latter however retain¬
ed the appearance of the bread, just as the angel that
appeared to Josue had the appearance of a man:
now Catholics believing this to have occurred, did
not believe that what was under this appearance
was bread, but they believed it was not breads hence
they would beg leave to say,they do not assert what
your curious correspondent's legerdemain imputes.
They do not use the absurd proposition, " Bread is
not bread," but the rational oue, " The body of
Christ, though having the appearance of bread, is
not bread, but is the body of Christ." Neither do
they believe against the testimony of their senses,
for their senses testify only of appearances, and the
appearances are exactly as the senses Testify them
to be. It is a different question, and one for the
judgment, and not for the senses, to determine
what is the nature of the substance which the ap¬
pearance covers. The general rule is that we
ought to judge it to be bread : but the special testi¬
mony of Christ makes this case an exception when
he says " This is my body." Upon this, two ques¬
tions only can arise : first, " did he mean his body
in our sense ?" We say there is ample and satisfacto¬
ry evidence that he did; and next " Is his testi¬
mony sufficient ground for our belief against the ge¬
neral rule ?"—We are convinced that it is. We are,
unfortunately,as blind as our predecessors were to all
the absurdities said to flow from this belief. Your
curious correspondent has altogether overlooked a
material fact,that in his assertion that the Sacrament
[ 160 j
remained bread, he begged the question. ^ He has
honored me, in his note to Essay 2. with being
" plausible and subtle," I should be very ready
to return the compliment if in my power. But,
alas! I cannot. In paragraph 34. He says upon
the same subject, that the church is not better
authority for him than his eyes, as to what he sees.
Nothing shall be more willingly conceded by me :
therefore the church cannot testify to him that what
he sees to be bread, is not bread. His proposition
I apprehend, must in order to be philosophically
correct, be differently constructed. I am not one of
those who admit that it is by sight the nature of sub¬
stance is ascertained : sight will testify only to the
appearance; if then his proposition be made, " the
Church cannot testify to me that what appears to be
bread does not appear to be bread." I will as rea¬
dily grant this too. But I will also assert, that the
Church has the authority of Christ, in this case, to
declare that what appears to be bread is, by the spe¬
cial interference of Cod, the body of Christ now
clothed with that appearance: as she has the same
authority to declare that he who appeared to be
no more than a dying criminal was the incarnate
son of God.
In paragraph 35. He attempts to draw a distinc¬
tion between the mystery of the Euchaj-ist and " the
holy Trinity, and other mysterious doctrines of
Christianity," upon the principle that " these doc¬
trines relate to the invisible and incomprehensible
nature of operations of deity," and that " the Eu-
charistic elements are matter of sensible observation
and act." He must excuse me for saying that I do
not understand either the ground of his distinction,
or the meaning of his last phrase, and I assert
plainly that no ground of distinction exists. For
even according to the principle of the Protestant
Episcopal church, it will not be denied, that the
Deity operates in some invisible and incomprehen¬
sible manner, in the Eucharist, and therefore " this
doctrine relates to the invisible and incomprehensi¬
ble operations of Deity." Tillotson's phrase has
been before considered in its principle. Our sight
does not deceive us, we are certain that the appear¬
ances which we see, are there; our sight takes cog-
[ 161 ]
nizance of nothing more—Josue's sight did riot tes¬
tify to him that it was the Angelic substance which
was present, but what it testified,was truly testified,
and Josue was correctly certain that the appear¬
ance of a man was there, though in truth he was
subsequently certain, that at the time there was not
a man present where his appearance was.
In paragraph 33. He tells us that Christ did not, on
any other occasion, ask the disciples to believe him
against the evidence of their senses. I say, nor did
he on this occasion; because the exception which he
makes is not against the correct testimony of the sen¬
ses,but to the conclusion usually drawn from that tes¬
timony, and therefore, he appeals to the testimony
to establish the facts of miraculous occurrence, upon
the plea, that the disciples are to follow the general
rule in all cases where an exception is not plainly and
fully established, as it was by himself in the special
case of the Eucharist. When for the hacknied,
and often refuted objections of the vine, the shep¬
herd, and the door, he will produce something new,
perhaps a new answer will be given, until then it
will suffice for any reasonable man to consider that
there can be no analogy between a professedly para¬
bolic discourse, and the solemn institution of the
most important sacrament in religion : that it would
be ridiculous to assert, that because Christ spoke
figuratively sometimes, his expressions must always
be figurative ; and that where all the evidence that
can be collected shews the one expression to be a
mere figure, and the other to be literally and plain¬
ly meant, that we are to reject this evidence, and to
say that both are figures. We besides, do believe
Christ to be actually the door, in the very manner
in which he plainly says he is, "I am the door : by
me if any man shall enter in he shall be saved."
John x. 9 : in like manner we believe him to be ac¬
tually " the good shepherd that giveth his life for
his flock," ib. 11 ; in the same way do we beljeve
him to be actually " the vine of which his disciples
are tfie branches" in the very plain literal way in
which he uses the words, as the branch cannot
bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine ; no
more can ye except ye abide in me." John xv.» 4,
5. Thus we do believe all his words in the plain
14*
[ 162 ]
import which they carry with them, nor do we make
suppositions, as Archbishop Synge does in parag.
33. to establish new and easy meanings, after " we
suppose his meaning to be" what the Archbishop
has made it.
I do not question but the meaning which Archbi¬
shop Synge " supposes" is " easy and natural"
and implies no mystery, and would be very distinct
from " that invisible and incomprehensible nature
of operations of Deity but this is with me a very
sufficient reason for its rejection, because all the
ancient witnesses declare that the Eucharist was al¬
ways considered a sublime mystery,wrought after the
"invisible and incomprehensible nature of operations
of Deity." Neither was it so very " conformable to
the common way of speaking among the Jews," who
" strove among themselves saying, How can this
man give us his flesh to eat." John vi. 52. And
even Many therefore of his disciples when they
had heard this said, This is a hard saying ; who can
hear it?" lo. 60. As to Elfric's pastoral Homily;
it would perhaps be well before you again quote him,
to inform us who he was, of what See he was bi¬
shop, and what reason you have for knowing that
his Homily was either his, or an authentic homily
of any Bishop of the English church previous to the
days of Henry VIII. because, notwithstanding your
reference to Foxe and Collier, there has hitherto
hung a most worrying veil of ignorance upon all
those very necessary topics. You will do some
service if you clear up " this mystery." I address
this to you, gentlemen, because I know not whe¬
ther the note be yours, or your correspondent's.—
When this lias been done, I shall enter, if you will,
into a discussion of the meaning of the homily it¬
self ; until then it would be only waste of time.
In his paragraph 34. your correspondent boldly,
asserts.
" The evidence of scripture, however, is by learned and
candid Roman Catholics themselves admitted insufficient
for the faith which the doctrine of Transubstantiation im¬
plies, if the Church does not make this literal interpretation
the true one,"
To support this allegation, he in a note refers to
Bellarmine's treatise on the Eucharist, lib. iii. chap,
xxiii. This is unquestionably, the most unfortunate
[ 163 J
reference he could have made—Bellarmine in chap.,
six. clearly proves the doctrine from the scripture,
without any reference to the explanation or inter¬
pretation of the church, and after having fully done
so at considerable length, he closes his chapter with
this passage.
" Adde, quod licet in verbis Domini esset aliqua obscuritas
vel ambiguitas, ea tamen sublata est, per multa concilia
Catholic® Ecclesi®, & Patrum consensum.
" Add to this, that even though there should be any ob¬
scurity or doubt in the words of our Lord, it is nevertheless
removed by many councils of the Catholic church and the
consent of the Fathers."
This is not admitting the insufficiency of the scrip¬
tural evidence which he had proved to be sufficient:
but asserting, that even though it were not as strong
as he shewed it to be, still the doctrine could be
proved as that of the scripture, from the testimo¬
ny, that such was always the meaping attached to
those passages. In his Chap. xx. he adduces the
testimony of the Fathers; in chap. xxi. he adduces
the testimony of councils and writers subsequent to
the age of those Fathers: in chap. xxii. he shews
the doctrine of Transubstantration from special
reasoning: then comes chap xxiii. whose title is
Refelluntur Kemniiii objectiones. " The objections
of Kemnitz are refuted."- The third of those ob¬
jections is, that Andradius, Scotus and Cameracen-
sis, Catholic writers, admit the insufficiency of the
evidence of scripture to support the doctrine. An¬
swering this, Bellarmine writes.
" Quod autem ex A'idradio et Scoto, atque Cameracensi
Kemnitius refert, mala fide, ut ei solemne est, refert.
But what Kemnitz quotes from Andradius, Scotus and,
Cameracensis, he quotes dishonestly, as is his solemn cus¬
tom."
He then adduces the passages, and shews that
Kemnitz was more than a match for your curious
correspondent.
" Thus Kemnitz makes the hypothetical opinion of An¬
dradius absolute, that he might take the occasion of calum¬
niating him; upon this principle, he could say that Christ
was a liar, and could prove it by the testimony of Christ
himself. John viii. If I say that 1 have not known him, I shall
be like to you, a liar"
The only ground which afforded any thing like
the shadow of support for the assertion, is a passage
[ 164 ]
of an individual, Scotus, upon which Bellarmifre,
and, as far as I know, all other divines differ from
him, in which he says, that he thinks there is not any
one passage of scripture so completely expressive
of the doctrine of transubstantiation as to force (co-
get) the conviction of its truth, without the testimo¬
ny of the Church that such was always the doctrine
derived from Christ, and delivered in the scripture.
This is a very different view from that given by your
correspondent. But even supposing the opinion of
Scotus to be correct, it would not tend to support
the conclusion sought by a '' Protestant Catholic,"
whose object is to condemn the adoration as Idola¬
try. Let U3 then granf, what is not the fact, that
no one text of scripture evidently proves Transub¬
stantiation, still Scotus and the Lutherans say that
the real presence is evidently proved by many texts,
and Luther declared that he was anxious to deny
the doctrine, but the texts were too plain in its sup¬
port. Hence, under any circumstances, even if we
should grant him Scotus, and transform an indivi¬
dual into " learned and candid Roman Catholics,"
it will not aid his object.
In the same paragraph 34. he asserts, that Pro¬
testant writers have abundantly shewn from the ear¬
ly fathers, that they held the doctrine of the Eucha¬
rist without that of the real bodily presence. He
must not be displeased at my asserting that no Pro¬
testant writer has shewn it. though several have
attempted it. Nor is it true, that it is an histori¬
cal fact, though endeavoured by various attesta¬
tions to be established as such, that the real bodily
presence of Christ was not asserted until the close
of the eighth century, nor that the manner of change
in theEucharist was not accounted an article of Faith
until the 12th. He must also permit us to think that
the learned Doctor Wharton has made a complete
failure in his attempt. But I do not undertake to
enter upon any controversy upon this point, my ob¬
ject being merely to vindicate myself from the
charge of having made an untrue assertion when,in
my letters to Bishop Bowen,I stated, that they who
exhibited us as idolaters were guilty , of misrepre¬
senting our tenets. Nor is it a fact, that it was In-
fiocent III. in the council of Lateran, established
t 168 ]
Transubxtantiation as to doctrine, though I admit
the word was adopted by that-Council, as consub-
stantial respecting the divine nature of Christ, was in
the first council of Nice, but in each case, the doc¬
trine pre-existed to the word: and he only uses
against the Catholic in one instance, the argument
which he declares in the other, to be of no weight
when used by the Unitarian against himself.
In paragraph 37. he makes a strange effort to
firing Bossuet to his side, but it is one of those ef¬
forts which had better be omitted. Bossuet does
not object to the word spiritually so as absolutely to
reject it,as describing the eating and drinking of the
Eucharist. But why did he not explain to us ex¬
actly what was the meaning of the Bishop of Meaux.
Upon the question whether the Eucharist contain¬
ed the body of Christ in its natural state of exis-r
tence, he says. No, but in a state which is called
spiritualized, such a state as it was in. after its re¬
surrection and glorification, and if eating the
body of Christ spiritually, be really eating it in this
spiritualized state, the expression is not to be re¬
jected. I apprehend that Bossuet and he will be
found to differ very widely in their doctrine upon
this head; for your correspondent in paragraph 33.
rejects, arid appears with Doctor Jortin to laugh at
this distinction. I have, however, upon this topic,
a very serious complaint: for affecting to give the
explanation of some of the members of the Roman
Catholic Church, in parag. 33. he evidently has his
eye upon the distinction in my letter viii. No. 26, to
Bishop Bowen, where I state "we are taught that
the body of Christ is in this supernatural state in
the Eucharist, not in its natural mode of mortal
existence, but in its spiritualized state of immortal
existence such as it is after its resurrection." It is
plain here, that I treat of the same body, though in
two states of existence,,, mortal and immortal; not
of two distinct bodies. When a man's body is
joined to the soul, and is living, it is the same body
which separated from the soul, is -dead; no person
would undertake to say that they ate two distinct
bodies, but it is the same identical body in two very
different states. So the body of Christ in its mor¬
tal and natural state, is the same identical body in as
[ 166 ]
its supernatural or immortal state : the body is the
same, though* its modes of existence be different.
Yet your uncandid correspondent asserts that we
mean two distinct bodies, and then laughs at what
he could not answer. Where I used the words,
" body of Christ in this supernatural state," he
substitutes the words " supernatural and immortal
body," and shortly after adds, " of such a body of
Christ we know little from the scriptures. Of the
body in which he suffered, we know him to have
met his disciples at the passover" &c. From this
it is evident that he endeavours to make us appear
to mention two distinct bodies, where we only
speak of one body in two different states.
The manner in which Jortin mentions the dis¬
pute between the corruptibles and incorruptibles re¬
minds me of the manner in which Gibbon and his
fellows mention that between the homousians and
hotnoiousiansv where he says, the entire dispute was
about the letter i, and yet it is the introduction of
this letter that makes your church cry out " blasphe¬
my "against theUnitarians. If your laugh at me is good,
theirs is equally so at you, no two cases can be more
parallel than yours on the Eucharist and theirs on the
divinity of Christ. Yes, good Sir, it is that same
party in the church, that is the entire chfarch. and
not some of her members, who tell you about, not
the supernatural body of Christ, but the body
of Christ in its supernatural state, in the Eucharist,
and it better behoved Jortin and you, as divines, to
learn and to state correctly what the question was.
Ii you did, your assertion about the Council of La-
teran would go by the board, and this was what you
would not consent to.
It might indeed be very true that wekuow nothing
by inspired information of the presence of the spiri¬
tualized and supernatural body of Christ in the Sa¬
crament, if you mean to say that it is a different bo¬
dy from that in which he suffered, for he has not two
bodies, numerically distinct; but we do know from
holy writ in more places than one.that there were ap¬
parently incompatible properties of that body in co-ex
stence: thus,Gentlemen,when he used the words quot¬
ed, Handle and see that a spirit has not Jlesh and, bones
as yon see Ihavs, we have equally strong evidence that
[ 167 ]
both in coming into the room and going out therefrom,
that palpable flesh and those palpable bones were car^
ried in a supernatural way, through solid enclosures.
John xx. 19.26. because they were in that mode of ex¬
istence which St. Paul describes; and from admitting
which your correspondent makes so miserable an effort
to escape, by endeavouring to persuade us that what
St. Paul describes as the nature of glorified bodies,
is no more than to say,that persons who live accord¬
ing to the maxims ofthe world. Jlesh and blood, can¬
not enter the kingdom offleaven. This is undoubt¬
edly very profound Thdology ! ! !
But at length your correspondent vouchsafes to
understand us, and triumphantly asks, " If it is the
supernatural body as changed by final reception to
glory which is in the bread and wine :—then the
question occurs how can this idea accord with the
creed of Pius IV. &,c." I do not know. Nor is it ne¬
cessary for me to answer: because your question ought
to be put to a Lutheran,not to a Catholic. We do not
say that the body of Christ is in the bread and wine.
It is a little strange,that in every way his propositions
are put, he misrepresents our tenets.
Had he asked how our doctrine agreed with the
creed of Pius IV. I should have answered, " Ex¬
actly." Because the one body of Christ in its state
of spiritualized existence is truly and substantially
present under the appearance of the bread, and this
a living body, such as it is after the Resurrection,
having its blood, &c. and united personally with the
soul and divinity,really,truly and substantially present,
but visible under the appearance of a different sub¬
stance.
How many1 misrepresentations of our tenets are
in this third Essay ? Yet we are told that we havb
no cause to complain.
I remain,' gentlemen,
Your obedient humble servant,
B. C.
Charleston, (S. C.) August 24, 1829.
[ 168 j
LETTER XIV.
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and Sou¬
thern Episcopal Register, &c.
" So have I seen on some bright summer's day,
A calf of genius, debonair and gay,
Dance on the bank, as if inspired by fame,
Fond of the pretty fellow in the stream."
Young.
Gentlemen.—Your curious correspondent in his
Essay. No. 4. in your No. for May, commences with
an enumeration in his two first paragraphs, 38. and
39. of the misrepresentations which he undertakes
to prove are not misrepresentations. In this latter
paragraph, he takes the liberty of changing the
question upon one of the heads in a way which is
any thing but correct. It is apparently but a soften¬
ing of the phrase, yet in truth it is a restriction of
the extent of his terms, the substitution of'some for
many : I pass this over and corne to the defence
which he sets up for the misrepresentation.
In paragraph 41. he undertakes to shew that our
doctrine of Penance is not misrepresented. Before
.1 proceed further, allow me to remind you that the
word penance, has in our nomenclature three dis¬
tinct significations, easily discernible from each
other, by the context or mode of its use. First ;
" the virtue of sufficient repentance." Thus a per¬
son is said to be filled with the spirit of penance.—
Next: " the sacrament by which the sins committed
after baptism are remitted through the merits of
Christ." Thus a person is said to have recourse to
the remedy or sacrament of penance. Lastly :
•' works of satisfaction." Thus a person is said to
have done or performed penance. If your corres¬
pondent had the slightest notion of our doctrine he
must have been familiar with this distinction. I
must presume that he was.
In the beginning of parag. 41. he informs us that
" contrition, confession, and satisfaction, are equal¬
ly parts of the sacrament of the penance, and toge¬
ther make the matter of it." Now the manner in
which the crotchets exhibit this passage would lead
one to suppose it was a quotation from a decree of
council, when in truth it is not, and the very word
equally upon which he subsequently rests chiefly,
[ 169 ]
for his conclusion is not either "in the explanatory
chapter, or in the decretal canon ; and although the
three acts are usually required, they are by no means
equally essential : because contrition or the spirit
of penance, that is true repentance, is always actu¬
ally necessary, and so essential that nothing else can
supply its want, actual confession is sometimes im¬
possible, the sincere intention and disposition of sa¬
tisfaction is always sufficient, and penance scarcely
ever is actually performed before or at the adminis¬
tration of the sacrament. Thus the words which he
quotes are not those of the council : and they im¬
ply what the council did not require. Again the
words " the thing signified by it" which he gives as
a quotation, are not in the chapter, nor in the de¬
cree : the words of the council are the following.
" Sane vero res, et effectus hujus sacramenti, quantum
ad ejus vim et efficaciam pertinet, reconciliatio est cum
Deo, &c.
But truly the thing, and the effect of this sacrament, so
far as relates to its force and efficacy is reconciliation to
God, &c."
The res. " thing" is not " the thing signified,"
but the " thing obtained.'''' Our notions of the na¬
ture of a sacrament are very different from those of
several of your divines, and their expressions do not
oonvey our doctrines.
" The express language of the second decree of
the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent is
precisely of this tenor. It exhibits confession and
satisfaction as inseparably allied, in order to that end
or effect of Penance" &c. I am convinced that
your correspondent would never expose himself as
he does, had he read the decrees which he affects
to quote. - Now, neither the second chapter nor the
secohd decree nor the second canon, has one sylla¬
ble upon the subject, much less of the tenor of the
subject here quoted. I have looked into Father
Paul which he stated to be his authority, and I can¬
not find any thing even in that author to justify his
expressions.
So far from the Couneil exhibiting confession and
satisfaction as inseparably allied, to the effect of pe¬
nance which is reconciliation to God, it distinctly
states in chap. iv. of this session.
l i™ j
44 Docet proeterea, etsi contritionem hanc aliquando cha-
ritatem»perfectam esse contingat, hominemque Deo recon-
ciliare, priusquam hoc sacramentum actu suscipiatur ; ipsam
nihilominus reconciliationem ipsi contritioni, sine sacramen-
ti voto, quod in ilia ineluditur, non esse adscribendam.
It teaches moreover, that although this contrition might
sometimes be perfect charity, and might reconcile a man to
, God before this sacrament be actually received, neverthe¬
less, the reconciliation itself is not to be ascribed to the con¬
trition itself, without the desire of the sacrament which is
included therein."
Thus, so far from being inseparably allied thereto,
they are actually separated therefrom, except so far
as relates to their desire ; and the reconciliation
takes place sometimes long before they actually exist.
Your correspondent is certainly, no Theologian. He
handles implements to which he is unused. Even in
Father Paul, he might have seen the above state¬
ment given almost in the very words of the Coun¬
cil.
The council in chap. xiv. of the sixth session de¬
clared as by reference to it you will perceive, that tem¬
poral punishment is not always, remitted as happens
in baptism, and sometimes upon repentance for the
sins after Baptism; that is, when the sorrow is such,
as is here described, contrition produced by perfect
charity or the pure love of God ; for in those two
cases the temporal punishment is altogether remit¬
ted by God, together with the guilt and the eternal
punishment, at the moment that through the merits
of Christ he takes away the guilt. Thus it is not true
that confession and satisfaction are inseparably allied
in order to reconciliation with God.
He next makes a latin quotation from " the same
decree" 2nd. of Session xiii. not one word of
.which is found in the chapter or the decree answering
to that reference, nor is such passage found in any
place that I know of. Had he inserted one word which
he appears to me studiously to have omitted, I would
acknowledge that the doctrine was exhibited with
substantial correctness ; but the introduction of that
word would have prevented the conclusion which he
aims at drawing. However he found the same omis¬
sion in father Paul, that most accurate historian !—
As the passage is short, I might as well exhibit this
as a specimen of various readings, and an instance
[ 171 J
of what a change the omission of one or two words
will make.
Father Paul. Protestant Catholic.
" Of satisfaction the synod " The synod, doth finally de-
doth declare, That the sin clare concerning satisfaction,
being remitted, the punish- that sin being pardoned by
ment is not pardoned, it God, the punishment is not
not being convenient that he altogether remitted ; it not
should be so easily received being consistent with divine
into grace who hath sinned justice, that they who sin af-
before baptism and after, and ter Baptism, should so easily
be left without a bridle which and so soon be received to
may draw him from other grace, as those who through
sins, &c." ignorance sinned before Bap¬
tism."
This is the writer who informs us " In stating the
language of the decrees of the Council of Trent.
Father Paul's history of that council, it is proper
to mention, is our authority." The words printed
in Italics in the extract, I have translated from his
own latin quotation. Between those two passages,
there is a very serious difference. Father Paul say£
absolutely, and unrestrictedly, that sin being remit¬
ted, the punishment is not pardoned, whereas your
correspondent gives us a very different proposition,
the punishment is not ALTOGETHER remitted. I shall
now mhke a few extracts of the phrases used by
the Council, but I cannot discover any passage which
leads me to find what part the above were intended
to represent, unless it be the following.
Session xiv. chap. viii.
" Demum quoad satisfactionem, quae ex omnibus Paenitenti®
partibus, quemadmodum k patribus nostris christiano populo
fuit perpetuo tempore commendata, ita una maxime nostra
ffitate, summo pietatis praetextu, impugnatur ab iis, qui spe-
ciem pietatis habent, virtutem autem ejus abnegarunt: sanc-
ta Synodus declarat falsum omnino esse, et verbo Dei alie-
num, culpam a Domino nunquam remitti, quin universa
etiam poena condonetur: perspicua'enim et [«] iilustria in sa-
cris litteris exempla reperiuntur, quibus praeter divinam tra-
ditionem hie error qukm manifestissime revincitur. Sane et
dwinas justitios ratio exigere videtur, ut aliler ab eo in grali-
am recipianlur^ qui ante Baptismum per ignorantiam deli-
querint; aliter vero, qui semel k peccati et daemonis servitu-
te liberati, et accepto spiritus sancti dono scienter [6] tem-
plum Dei violare, et [c] spiritum sanctum contristare non
formidaverint. Et divinam clementiam decet, ne ita nobis
absque ulla satisfactione peccata dimittantur, ut, occasione •
accepta, peccata leviora putantes, velut injurii, et [d] contu-
meliosi spiritui sancto, in gravioralabamur, [el tbesaurisan-
I I?* J
tes nobis irarn in die irse. [d] Proculdubio enim magnopere a
peccato revocant, et quasi frsen® quodam coereent bse satis-
factoriffl pa3n$,cautioresque et vigilantiores infuturum paeni-
tentes efficiunt; medentur quoque peccatorura reliquiis ; et
vitiosos habitus, male vivendo comparatos, contrariis virtu-
tum actionibus tollunt, &c.
a. Gen. iii. 16,17,18, 19. Numb. xii. 10, &c. xx. 12. II.
Samuel or Kings, xii. 13. 14. b. I. Cor. iii. 17. c. Eph. iv.
30. d. Heb. x. 29. e. Rom. ii. 5.
" At length as regards satisfaction, which of all the parts
of Penance as delivered at all times to the christian peo¬
ple by our fathers, is alone chiefly assailed in our age
under the greatest pretext of piety, by those who have the
appearance of piety, and have rejected its virtue : the holy
Synod declares, that it is altogether false and foreign to the
word of God, that guilt is never remitted by the Lord, unless
he also bestows full pardon from every kind of punishment:
for there are very clear and illustrious examples found in the
sacred scriptures by which, as well as by divine tradition
this error is most plainly refuted. And truly, the reason of
divine justice appears to require, that they who through ig¬
norance sinned before Baptism should be received in one
manner into grace; but in another manner, they who being
once freed from sin, and delivered from the slavery of the
devil, and having received the gift of the Holy Ghost, have
not dreaded knowingly to violate the temple of God, and to
make sad the Holy Ghost. And it is becoming the divine
clemency; lest sins should be so forgiven to us without any
satisfaction, so that, taking occasion thereof, thinMng sins
less grievous, as if with injury and contempt of the Holy
Ghost we should fall into more heavy ones, treasuring up
for ourselves wrath against the day of wrath. For without
doubt those satisfactory works of penance do greatly recal
from sin and restrain as with a bridle : and do make peni¬
tents more cautious and vigilant in future: they do also re¬
medy the remains of sins; and take away by the perform¬
ance of the acts of contrary virtues, the habits Of vice con¬
tracted by living badly, &c."
The person who has had the patience to com¬
pare the latin given in the essay and its translation
with that of the Council and its translation, as giv¬
en here, cannot but observe how grossly defective
and how palpably wrong was father Paul; and
though better than this same accurate and honest
father Paul, how defective was your correspondent.
Neither of them represents the meaning of the
Council. I have marked in Italics the parts of the
original which correspond to the garbled extract
given by "Protestant Catholic." I shall now lay
before you, the exact difference between the sever¬
al doctrines,
[ 173 ]
Doctrine op the Council.—When God remits
the guilt oj sin to the repentant sinner, he always
remits the eternal penalty of Hell, but does not al¬
ways remit altogether the temporal punishment due
to the offence
Stated by " Protestant Catholic !! l—^When
God remits the guilt of sin he does not remit the pun¬
ishment, altogether.
Stated by Father Paul.—-When God remits the
guilt of sin the punishment is not remitted.
In the view of the Council, the sinner, having
contracted the guilt of mortal sin, is liable to pun¬
ishment in Hell for eternity, and also to temporal
punishment even in this life. Upon repentance; the
mercy of God removes through the merits of Christ,
always the guilt of sin, and always, the liability to
punishment in hell, and sometimes, but not always,
the liability to temporal punishment. The council
used the two words non semper " not always," of
which, Protestant Catholic suppresses the semper
" always," and it also used the two words pcenam
universam, " entire punishment" meaning tempo¬
ral and eternal, which words your correspondent
gives, but insists that in all cases the temporal pun¬
ishment remains due, by suppressing the word
semper, and father Paul by omitting semper and uni-
versam, is still worse. This is abominable dishon¬
esty, yet effected merely by suppressing two words.
Gentlemen, it is such conduct as this, so palpably
exhibited as we unfortunately find it generally tp
be, which caused the Reverend Doctor Whitaker,
Protestant Vicar of Blackburn in England, in hi$
vindication of Mary, Vol. iii. p. 2. to write. M For¬
gery, I blush for the honour of Protestantism while
I write it, seems to have been peculiar to the re¬
formed * * * * I look in vain for one of
those accursed outrages of imposition amongst the
disciples of Popery."
In this same 41st. paragraph, your correspond¬
ent again untruly asserts " the temporal penalty in¬
flicted by the church as the satisfaction which i§ an
essential part of the sacrament of penance remains
to be undergone."
Now it is a proposition which is fully and plainly
taught by the covrn'H ThanhC who having
[ 174 ]
ceived from, God the divine gift of perfect Charityt
and dying in this disposition of true and perfect Con¬
trition, should have desired the sacrament of Penance,
without having been able to obtain it, and without hav¬
ing been able to do any satisfactory woi-k of penance,
will through the merits of Jesus Christ be reconciled
to God, and will enter the kingdom of Heaven with¬
out suffering any pain of Purgatory; and thus even
though he had not received absolution he would be
saved, both from Hell and from Purgatory. Such
is the doctrine of the Council of Trent; in the
sixth and fourteenth sessions. As my object is not
to enter into a Theological defence of our doctrines
but to exhibit the misrepresentations of " Protes¬
tant Catholic" I merely refer him to the places
where the doctrine is found; so far from it being
true that the sinner, must suffer in both worlds, this
man would not suffer in either, which contradicts
his assertions.
In this same paragraph he states that his conclu¬
sion will hold good that the temporal punishment
must be indispensably undergone by every miner,
unless an indulgence be interposed. Here are two
egregious blunders ; because in the first place where
the temporal as well as the eternal punishment is
remitted as in the case of the contrition above des¬
cribed by the Council, the remission is not by the
interposition of an indulgence; and secondly, the
penance imposed in the sacrament of penance is not
remitted, nor diminished, by the interposition of
an indulgence. It is very troublesome to have to
do with a man who is ignorant of his subject!.
j Equally untrue is his assertion in the same para¬
graph, that .we "consider some temporal punish-,
ment to await the sinner in Purgatory, by way of sa¬
tisfaction for his sins" : if, as it is plain he and the
compiler of the Catechism did mean, it is meant to
assert that every sinner who is saved must previous¬
ly to entering heaven pass through Purgatory. We
hold no such doctrine. We believe that several of
the saints now in Heaven, never were in Purgato¬
ry. Even your curious correspondent feels that this,
assertion of his was not true: for he immediately
adds " Protestants ffT^jrrT-r-nrs} ftrr in saying that
every sinner in <rdcr to make satisfaction to God for
[ lis ]
his sins, must suffer some temporal punishment in Pur¬
gatory." Yet he did say it, and reasoned upon the
supposition of its truth, and when I denied that
we held any such doctrine, he stated that I was
deceiving my readers, and he undertook to shew
that I was not warranted in making the denial.—
But the next blunder which he makes is so glaring
that I can scarcely believe he did not write the non¬
sense, in order to try and create a feeling of ridi¬
cule against us. " Sinners only, whose offences are
venial, may perhaps, by the Romanist doctrine of
Purgatory be doomed to its torments ; whilst those
whose sins are mortal, may be thoroughly absolved
and pardoned before they die." Thus he would
exhibit us as believing that the greater sinner suf¬
fers less ; and the lesser sinner suffers more !! !—
If he thought this was our doctrine, he is extremely
ignorant as a divine; if he knew our doctrine, he
is criminally dishonest. Which he is, I cannot
say.
As some well disposed Protestant might read this,
I shall more explicitly state our doctrine, and his
gross inaccuracy will be seen : and his many blun¬
ders will be easily counted up.
We believe, 1. That sin is a violation of God's
law. 2. The sinner becomes guilty upon its viola¬
tion. 3. The consequence of guilt is penalty. 4.
A serious violation is called mortal sin. 5. A slight
violation is called venial sin. 6. Persons guilty of
mortal sin are liable to eternal punishment in Hell.
7. Persons guilty of venial sin are liable to tempo¬
ral punishment. 8. No person can enter Heaven
with the stain of guilt upon him. 9. The guilt is
removed only by the mercy of God upon the appli¬
cation of the merits of Christ, after the repent¬
ance of the sinner. 10. When God remits the guilt
of the punishment, he does not always remit all the
temporal punishment, though he always remits the
eternal punishment. 11. Persons who have true
contrition arising from perfect Charity, have the
guilt, and the eternal and temporal punishment
wholly and fully remitted, and without any applica¬
tion of an indulgence. 12. The temporal punish¬
ment might, through the merits of Christ and the
mercy of God, be i amoved by satisfactory works of
[ 176 ]
penance performed in this life by the repentant sin¬
ner, who has obtained pardon of guilt and remission
of . eternal punishment. 13. Should he die before
he has fully suffered what God had alloted, or been
able to obtain its remission, he will suffer the unre¬
mitted or unsatisfied part in Purgatory, after which
being free from guilt and not liable to punishment
of any description, he will through the mercy of
God and the merits of Christ enter Heaven. 14.
Because of their being in our communion, and their
being free from guilt, and in regard to the merits
of the'Saviour of which they aTe partakers, and by
which our prayers are enriched. God will allevi¬
ate the sufferings of those who may be detained in
Purgatory upon the prayers of those who with pro¬
per dispositions intercede for them.
Such is our doctrine, which your correspondent
has grossly misrepresented whether wilfully or not,
matters nothing to us, but much to him. As to the
suffering being by fire or not, we have no certain
knowledge of Faith, neither are we bound to be¬
lieve without stronger evidence than we possess,
that such is the mode of suffering, but such is the
general opinion of the Western division of the Ro¬
man Catholic Church, others fully in our commu¬
nion, are of opinion that the suffering is by dark¬
ness : in the estimation of each, this is a topic of
opinion, not of Faith. A Roman Catholic is bound
only to believe " that there is a Purgatory, and that
the souls therein detained, are helped by the suf¬
frages of the faithful."
The 42nd. and 43d. paragraphs as they relate to
penance, are but unbecoming rant, and illogical in¬
ference. In the 42nd. your correspondent states,
that in ours as, in every other human society, there
are hypocrites, fools and knaves; and that abuses
of which some of our own good members com¬
plain, have been, introduced and are continued by
such persons, under the alledged warrant of the
church's teaching, and the Popes permitting. Is
then the allegation of a knave, of a fool, or of a
hypocrite, the evidence upon which a church of
nearly tw.o hundred millions of Christians is to be
condemned as holdingjjoctrine which she disavows,
and which her upright ftid intelligent members " in-
[ rfr ]
dignantly disclaim," to use his own expressions ?-—
Gentlemen, is your case so desperate as to require
your retreat to this disgraceful citadel ? Is this, the
accurate reasoning; this, the'high-minded honour ;
this, the generous liberality; this, the dignified de¬
meanour of members of the Protestant Episcopal
Church ?—I would say; it is impossible! But that it
is a fact!! !
Of all the miserable shifts of a disappointed so-
phister, that which is least honorable is, after avow¬
ing that " many virtuous and enlightened Roman
Catholics especially in England and the United
States, indignantly refuse to recognise in them (the
imputed doctrines and practices) any thing belong¬
ing to their system of institutions still, with the
knowledge that their doctrine is the same as that of
every other Catholic in the world; to assert without
evidence,that those doctrines are held elsewhere,and
to assert against evidence that they are those of the
Roman Catholic Church. Yet such is the conduct
of your correspondent. He makes groundless as¬
sertions of " pious faithful, and pure" Priests now
to be found, deploring the fact of such abuses. Why
not name those pious and good men ? I must avow,
that to me this is news indeed. I know of no such
fact as he states: yet he asserts that they may be eve¬
ry where found. Can he name one person, or one
place ? I willingly admit that he might find in many
places, pious and faithful priests deprecating the
•evil and shame of such misconduct as his, the
unfounded imputation of such doctrines to our
Church !
As to the testimony of Protestants who have vis¬
ited Catholic countries, and which he refers to, f
shall probably in my next letter examine the value of
the special instances which he adduces, and it is on¬
ly from the nature of the special testimony a correct
general result can be drawn. I shall however, here
make one general remark founded upon my own
personal knowledge. Others might have been more
fortunate in th eir acquaintances than I have been ;
though perhaps, not many had much more extensive
opportunity. I have known some of the best in¬
formed and most liberal Protestants, men who would
have done honor to any circle of society, and many
[ 178 ]
of whom have been conspicuous in public and pri¬
vate life, who have visited Catholic countries. Se¬
veral have had prejudices removed, many have had
them extended and confirmed, and others had
them scarcely in any rfespect modified. But of the
entire number, I cannot now bring to my recollec¬
tion a single individual, who was fitted to give testi¬
mony to others, or to form a correct judgment him¬
self, respecting the ceremonial or practices which
came under his observation. This will, to several of
my readers, appear strange: but the explanation is
simple. Not one of them had previously acquired
the necessary information : not one of them knew
the principles, the doctrines, or the history of the
Church: so far from having the proper information,
they had previously misinformed themselves, by
reading such works as your writers produce. As
well might you except a correct judgment of our
conduct, character and institutions from an English
traveller who had prepared for a visit to those states by
reading as a correct and accurate statement,
Pauldings " John Bull in America" and then with
a firm belief in its truth, was driven through our
states on a tour of observation. I would just as
soon expect a Kalmuc Tartar to comprehend the
process of carrying a bill through Congress,or of con¬
ducting a suit through our Courts, or to compre¬
hend the purport'of our festive national celebrations,
as to find a well-disposed and well-informed Protes¬
tant, who has only the notions which you and your's-
generally give of our religion, comprehend a single
religious celebration qf the Catholic Church. 1 ne¬
ver had to exercise more self-restraint, than when
listening to the incongruous remarks of some of my
most kind and respectable friends, who imagined
they displayed knowledge and liberality.
What in the name of common sense, can be more
ridiculous than for one of those Lordlings (Mount-
cashel I believe) gravely to state as your correspon¬
dent relates, that " Popery was little understood in
England," where the Premier Earl, Marshal, and
a number of the Aristocracy, and nearly a million
of the people were Roman Catholics ? It is true
the Protestants did not then know as well as they
now do, what that religion was. But was it not
[ rre ]
more ridiculous for this same nobleman to inform
the people of Ireland as he did, that they did not
know their own religion as well as he did. He said
that he learned it in Spain. Yet the four Archbi¬
shops of Ireland and two or three of her Bishops, at
that very period, were Prelates who had learned and
taught Theology in Spain 1 and your curious corres¬
pondent has the assurance to tell us that we in Ame¬
rica understand very little about our religion. I sup¬
pose he means as it exists in the Catholic nations of
Europe, though our Prelates and clergy and laity,are
not only composed of native Americans, North and
South,but of citizens adopted from Ireland,from Eng¬
land,from France,from Spain, from Italy,from Portu¬
gal, from Germany, from Holland, &c.' He, who
for aught I know, was never in any one of those
countries, vouchsafes to inform us who have come
from the very spot, that he knows our religion in
that place better than we do! This is a degree of
modesty to which we do not aspire.
Will your correspondent then account for this ex¬
traordinary fact. That there is scarcely a Catholic
congregation in the United States in which you will
not find blended together, the natives of five or six
foreign nations, severed not only by seas and moun¬
tains, but by language and customs, and yet they
are all found most harmoniously to agree in doc¬
trine and practice !—This is an exhibition which is
peculiar to " the Cburcb of all nations," when he
can give me a parallel fact in his society, I shall
cease to be amused at his foolish usurpation of the
name of Catholic.
One other remark is perhaps called for by the note
to paragraph 42. by Mendham. We desire to be
judged by the . decisions of the council of Trent,
why do our adversaries fly from its application ?—
The miserable sophistry, that individuals cannot dis¬
claim, because individuals cannot decide is too pue¬
rile. Though an individual cannot pass an act of
Congress, yet he can testify that such an act has
been passed, or where he hears it falsely asserted
that such a law exists; he can testify that it does not,
though he could neither enact nor repeal nor modi¬
fy it. Our Church decides, and we know and can ap¬
ply its decisions.
[ 180 ]
In paragraph43. the writer who in the preceding
one had the indelicacy to charge us without evi¬
dence, and against evidence with Priestcraft and
holy immorality, now avows that what he char¬
ges "is wot our doctrine and practice as required by
the highest authority of our chureh to be taught and
inculcated, nor as they are everywhere taught
and inculcated;" now his note-writer Mendham sta¬
ted that it was to this faith and discipline one ought
to look for the " true and genuine character" of the
Roman Sect. Thus, your correspondent avoids the
very mode which his own associate whom he quotes
with approbation, points out. And what mode does
he follow ? He looks to " what is known and observ¬
ed to be in some portion of the Roman Catholic
communion" and to what might be " any ■where
within its limits." That is, as he told us before,
" There might be hypocrites and knaves and fools
any where in your church, and in fact there are some
in various portions of it. But your governing au¬
thority every where teaches and inculcates, and your
good members adhere to doctrines and practices,op¬
posed to the conduct of those fools and knaves ; but
you must have the character of your church depict¬
ed from the misconduct of the fools and knaves, and
not. from the uniform teaching of your tribunal."-—
Such is the avowed principle on which we are calum¬
niated, such the mode in which we are represented !
And you do not blush and hide your heads in shame
at the avowal!!! There is a point in misconduct at
which shame and honour cease to be found.' It is
not for me to apply the observation 1
As to his queries, I for one will pretend to say
that the correction of the sinner is attained by the
means of the sacrament of penance. I also again
charge your correspondent with gross misrepresen¬
tation by introducing the word adequate, before " sa¬
tisfaction" because no Roman Catholic asserts that
the satisfaction made by the sinner is adequate. He
would condemn as heretical the assertion which is
here attributed to himself. The adequate satisfac¬
tion is made only by Christ. I also assert, that in
no Country does the Roman Catholic church per¬
mit, nor could she permit the medicinal "penance or
medicinal satisfaction imposed in the sacrament of
Penance by the Priest upon the Penitent to be per¬
formed by another, and I lay pl^iira to some informa¬
tion and to some candour.
When he undertook to correct my statements, he
ought to have been prepared with testimony instead
of useless questions, and vapid declamation.
T remain, gentlemen,
Your obedient humble servant,
B. C,
Charleston, (S. C.) Aug. 31, 1829.
LETTER XY.
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and Sou¬
thern Episcopal Register, &rc.
" And were they vain, those soothing lays ye sung?
Children of Fancy ! Yes, your song was vain :
On each soft air though rapt attention hung,
And silence listened on the sleeping plain.
The strains yet vibrate on my ravish'd ear,
And still to smile the inimic beauties seem,
Though now the visionary scenes appear,
Like the faint traces of a vanish'd dream."
LanghoRne.
Gentlemen,—It was very kind in your corres¬
pondent to warn us to be discreet. We do not every
day meet with so generous an opponent. Others,
Jess charitable than he is, would have encouraged
us to do those deeds of indiscretion which would
tend to their advantage; but " Protestant Catho?
lie"!!! already more than triumphant, scorns to
stoop so low. He discovers our weak point and
magnanimously cautions us not to expose it. " On
the subject of indulgences, it is indiscreet in Catho¬
lics to say much." I shall take his advice and write
but little. However, I shall vie with him in gen¬
erosity, by candidly avowing the reason. To write
much is not necessary for my purpose. My object is
only to prove that in my letters to Bishop Bowen, I
did not hazard a statement which I could not support-
I stated that it was a misrepresentation of Roman
Catholic doctrine and practice to assert either of the
following propositions.
" That the Pope grants indulgences whereby he some¬
times remits all penances of such sins as shall be committed
for a great number of years to come.
16
I 182 ]
" That the Pope grants indulgences whereby he sometimes
remits all penances of such sins as shall be committed dur¬
ing a man's whole life.
*' That those indulgences are considered by many Roman
Catholics as licenses to commit sin.
" That the public sale of those licenses to commit sin is
practised by the authority of the Roman Catholic church or
of the Pope."
He makes scarcely an effort, to prove the truth of
one of the propositions. He merely declaims.
He states that " It (the subject of indulgences)
is too plain and universally known an instance of
the corruption of the Church." But this assertion
-is not disproving the truth of any one of my propo¬
sitions. He says " which (corruption) even the
council of Trent left very imperfectly remedied."
The doctrine of indulgences and the abuse of in¬
dulgences are two very different subjects; as differ¬
ent as the use of medicine and its abuse; the use of
meat and drink is not their abuse. Your correspon¬
dent does not vouchsafe to inform us whether he
looks upon an indulgence to be in any way use¬
ful, or available, and if he does, to what extent. I
shall exhibit what the Church usually teaches her
children upon the subject.
" Q. Can we cancel our sins by our own satisfactory
works ?
A. No; our sins can be cancelled only by the merits of
Jesus Christ.
Q. What do you meg.n then by saying that penance is a
satisfaction for sins ?
A. I mean, that when by thfe merits of Christ the guilt of
sin and its consequences damnation, are remitted, a tempo¬
ral punishment remains due, of which we may procure re¬
mission, by penitential works, which also have their value
from the merits of our Redeemer.
Q. Will the penance enjoined in confession, always satis¬
fy for our sins ?
A.*No ; but whatever else is wanting may be supplied by
indulgences, and our own penitential endeavors,
Q. What does the church teach concerning indulgences ?
A, That Christ gave power to the church, to grant indul¬
gences 5 and that they are most useful to christian people.
Cone. Trid. xi. 25.
Q. What is the use of an indulgence ?
A. It releases from canonical penances, enjoined by the
church on penitents for certain sins.
Q. Has an indulgence any other effect ?
A. It also remits the temporary punishments, with which
Clod often visits our sins ; and which must be suffered in this
[ 183 ]
life, or in the next, unless cancelled by indulgences, by acts
of penance, or other good works.
Q. Has the church power to grant such indulgences ?
A. Yes; Whatsoever, says Christ to St. Peter, thou shalt
loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Matt. xvi.
19. 2. Cor. ii. 10.
Q,. To whom does the church grant indulgences ?
A. To such only as are in the state of grace ; and are sin¬
cerely desirous to amend their lives; and to satisfy God's
justice by penitential works.
Q,. Is an indulgence a pardon for sins to come;'or a li¬
cense to commit sin ?
A. No ; nor can it remit past sins ; for sin must be remit¬
ted by penance as to the guilt of it, and as to the eternal pu¬
nishment due to mortal sin, before an indulgence can be
gained.
Q. Why does the church grant indulgences ?
A. To assist our weakness ; and to supply our insuffi¬
ciency, in satisfying the Divine Justice, for our transgres¬
sions,
Q* When the church grants indulgences, what does it of¬
fer to God, to supply our weaknesss and insufficiency, and
in satisfaction for our sins ?
A. The merits of Christ, which are infinite and supera¬
bundant; together with the virtues and good works of his
Virgin Mother, and of all his Saints.
Q. What conditions are generally necessary to gain in¬
dulgences ?
A. A good confession and communion ; and a faithful
compliance with the other good works, which the church re¬
quires on such occasions.
Q. What are the other good works, which the Church
usually prescribes, in order to gain indulgences ?
A. Prayer, fasting, and alms deeds; which good works,
besides confession and communion, are recommended by in¬
dulgences ; and on thi3 account also, they are most useful to
christian people." Catechism, Lesson XXX.
Now the council of Trent did not decide as per¬
haps he would wish, that an indulgence was a cor¬
ruption, or a superstition; but as there did exist se¬
veral abuses, she applied a remedy in the following
decrees. In the xxi. session held on the 16th of July,
1562. Chap. ix. "on Reformation." After adverting
to the decrees of the Councils of Lateran, of Lyons,
and ofVienne, having applied remedies "againstthe
wicked abuses of quests" and complaining of the in-
efficacy of those remedies, and the scandals which
those continued abuses perpetuated, " totally abol¬
ishes their use and name throughout Christendom:"
after having then commanded that they should un¬
der no colour be permitted, it proceeds to regulate
that the indulgences or spiritual benefits, shall be
published by the ordinaries accompanied by two
members of the Chapter, and forbids any remune¬
ration to be given or received for the publication :
but any alms which might be bestowed, are to be
fully and faithfully applied to pious uses ; so that no
profit or gain shall arise from the practice of piety.
In the session xxv. celebrated on the 4th. of De¬
cember, 1563, it was decreed ; after stating that the
power had been left by Christ in the Church, and
was used from the most ancient times, to the bene¬
fit of the Christian people, and condemning all who
contradict this. " But in granting those, it desires that
' moderation be had according to the custom of old,
' and approved in the Church, lest by too great a fa*-
' cility, ecclesiastical discipline should be enervated.
' But desiring the correction of the abuses which
' have crept into them, and by occasion of which,
' this remarkable name of indulgences is blasphemed
' by Heretics, should he amended and corrected, it
' generally enacts by the present decree : that ail
' wicked gain for obtaining them, whence great
' cause of abuses flowed upon the Christian peo-
' pie, should be altogether taken away. But as to
£ the other evils, which have in any way arisen by
' reason of superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or
' otherwise in any way whatsoever : since because
' of the many corrupt practices of different places
' in which they are committed, they cannot be all
* specially prohibited ; it commands all Bishops; that
' each should diligently seek out the abuses in his
' own Diocess, collect tbem, and relate them in the
£ first Provincial synod ; so that the opinion of other
1 bishops being known ; they may be immediately
' referred to the Pope, by whose authority and pru-
c dence, that might be enacted which would be ex-
' pedient for the Universal Church : so that the grace
c of holy indulgences, might be dispensed to all the
' faithful, in a pious, holy, and ur.corrupted man-
6 ner."
Thus has the Council regulated, and thus has the
church executed.
As regards Mosheim, I not only dispute but deny
his authority, and distinctly aver that his statements
are not correct. In describing the treasure he omit s
[ 188 ]
that which is its chief ingredient viz. " the supera¬
bundance of the merits of Christ." Such is bftt
a specimen of his dishonesty.
Your correspondent makes a serious mistake if
he imagines that 1 shall dissent from one syllable
which " the amiable and ingenuous Fleury" has writ¬
ten in his fourth discourse upon the subject of indul¬
gences. I subscribe to the entire. I only regret
that you published an unfair and a garbled extract.—
Allow me to make a few remarks.
" Indulgences" form the sixteenth 'topic of the
historian's fourth discourse, and this very naturally
followed the fifteenth which related to " the change
of Penance," where " the amiable and ingenuous
Fleury" pathetically laments the abolition of public
and of severe works of satisfaction, against which
your curious correspondent lamentably declaimed ;
so that here Fleury and he were fully opposed. Al¬
though it is a pretty long discussion, still I shall give
the translation of a portion to shew what Fleury
thought of indulgences, and to exhibit that his mean¬
ing is misrepresented by the garbled extract which
you have published as a specimen of his sentiments.
" It is true that the multitude of indulgences, and
5 the facility of gaining (granting) them, were a
' great obstacle to the zeal of the more enlightened
' confessors. It was hard to persuade to fasting
' and discipline a sinner, who could redeem them
' (buy it off) by a small alms, or by a visit to a
' church. For the bishops of the twelfth and thir-
' teenth centuries granted indulgences for all sorts
' of pious works," Here your correspondent stops,
as usual, at a comma, in an unfinished sentence. I
have marked in Italics, where my translation of the
word gagner, corrects his granting ; and mine for
les racheter, corrects his buy it ojf. But I suspect
the object of his stopping, was to leave the impres¬
sion on the reader's mind that the money paid in the
buying off went into the pocket of him who granted :
fwhy else did he not continue the sentence which pro¬
ceeds?—%'Such as the building of a church, the endow-
' mentof an hospital,in fine every description of public
' work, a bridge, a causeway, the paving of a high
road. Therindulgence§, in truth, were nothing
' more than a nart of the penance i but if Jtnany of
[ 186 ]
' them were united, the entire could be redeemed.
''These are the Indulgences which the fourth council
' of Lateran calls indiscreet and superfluous, which
' bring the keys of the church into contempt, and
' enervate the satisfaction of Penance. To prevent
' the abuse, it ordains that for the dedication of a
' church, the indulgence shall not exceed one year,
' even though many bishops should be present, for
6 each used to undertake to give his own."
I apprehend this gives a different sort of view from
what your curious correspondent intended, and it is
neither " amiable" nor "ingenuous" to garble.—The
church then does not recommend, nor approve, nor
sanction even such disproportionate indulgences, but
calls them abuses. But the writer,generally condemns
thechurch for whatshe herself condemns, andimputes
to her what she disclaims; and makes her own writers
appear to testify against her, by garbling their works.
It is also clear that the money did not go to the per¬
son granting the indulgence, but to the public good.
I apprehend, however, that such indulgences would
neither spoil our roads, nor destroy our bridges, nor-
starve our poor, nor increase our taxes.
Fleury then adduces the reasoning of William,
Bishop of Paris, in vindication of the practice of the
indulgence, being more to the honour of God, the
public benefit, and the salvation of souls than the
infliction of heavy satisfaction of Penance. Fleu¬
ry, whilst he upholds the doctrine of the Church
on each point, differs in his view of expediency
from the Bishop, and after a considerable discussion
adduces the example in the Essay,the whole of which
however your correspondent does not give, and after
the phrase " The application is easy, (obvious) >' he
then makes that application in the following man¬
ner.
"We must then go back to the maxim of St.
' Paul, that every thing which is permitted is not
' expedient. Because this prince who would par-
' don the guilty would only do as he had a right to
( do, for I suppose him a sovereign : but he would
' use his right indiscreetly. So with Indulgences.
' No Catholic doubts but that the Church can grant
c them: nor that she ought to do in certain cases,
• what she has always done; but it is the duty of
[ is* ]
c her ministers to dispense these favours with wis-
4 dom, and not to create an useless profusion, or
' perhaps a pernicious one."
Your notably candid correspondent, however, in¬
stead of giving us Fleury's explanation and appli¬
cation ; flies off from his fourth discourse which he
quotes, and adds a passage of his sixth, which is al¬
so distorted by its unnatural juxta-position with
what the author never intended to place it near.—
In his sixth discourse he treats of the Crusade,
which your correspondent calls by some very ugly
names, concerning the propriety of which I shall
not now dispute. Another time perhaps, and a
morq fit occasion, might induce me to give my rea¬
sons for differing very widely with him upon this
subject. But even this passage he garbled also.
Fleurv begins his paragraph by stating that it was
not Pope Urban alone, but the council of two hun¬
dred Bishops assembled at Clermont, that for rea¬
sons previously assigned, looked upon it as the will
of God that the expedition should be undertaken,
and then continues " To carry it into execution,
1 and to put the people in motion, the great re-
1 source was a plenary indulgence ; and it was then
' that this commenced. At all times, the church
1 had left to the discretion of the Bishops, to remit
4 some part of the canonical penance, according to
4 the fervour of the Penitent, and other circumstan-
' ces; but until now it had not been seen, that in
4 favor of one single work the sinner was discharg-
4 ed from all the temporal punishment for which he
4 might be amenable to the justice of God. It re-
4 quired no less than a numerous council, at which the
4 Pope presided in person to authorise such a change
4 in the usage of penance ; and doubtless it is believed
4 that there existed good reasons for it. For more
4 than two hundred years, the Bishops had found it
4 very difficult to bring sinners to submit to the ca-
4. nonical penances: it had been even made imprac-
* ticable by multiplying them according to the num-
' berof sins, whence arose the invention of com¬
minuting them, so as to redeementire (buy off many)
4 years, in a few days. Because amongst the commu~
4 tations of penance, for a long time were used, pilgrim-
4 ages to Rome^ to Comvostella. or to Jerusalem ; and
[ 18S ]
'• the Crusade added to these the perils of war. Per-
<■ sons woon this ground, believed that this penance
' was' equivalent to the fasting, the prayers and the
' alms which each penitent might in particular offer,
£ and that it would be more useful to the churchy without
' being less agreeable to God."
Such is Fleury's paragraph in which he does not
assert that it was then for the first time a plenary in¬
dulgence was given; but that then was the first
time that it was granted for the performance of one
single work. In his fourth discourse he had, as we
see, stated, that " if many [works] were united, the-
entire [canonical penance] could be redeemed.''
And in the very earliest ages, instances are found
of the full remission. Fleury states also the re¬
medies applied not only by the Council of Trent,
but also by previous councils, and mentions them
with approbation.
Your correspondent then, instead of taking up
either of the propositions which he undertook to
confute, has garbled Fleury, quoted Mosheim, and
concluded with a notorious fabehood, " That in¬
dulgences are still to be had in the Romap Catholic
Church under the authority and at the discretion,
in general of the Pope for money applicable to the
uses of the Church.''
It is no argument, it is no proof, to write, " Will
any pretend to question this ?" When we not only ques¬
tion but deny its truth. " Can it be unknown to any?"
is no proof when it is denied that it is known to any.
I do as firmly and as determinedly and as plainly,deny
that at the present day " indulgences are to be had
in the Roman Catholic Church for money applicable
to the uses of the Church," as I assert that I have
proved your correspondent to be guilty of garbling,
misrepresentation and dishonesty. I am aware that
the assertion is made : but to make an assertion
is not to prove its truth. I have the authority of the
Bishop of Charleston to make the following state¬
ments upon his responsibility for their truth. That
be has received from very highly respectable
witnesses, the names of some persons belonging to
ancient and wealthy families in this state, who
solemnly declared upon their honour that they read
upon the doors of th«» notices from him of
[ * 1S9 ]
the sale of indulgences; and yet that he never did
give any such notice : and that no publication had
even to his knowledge or suspicion been ever so ex¬
hibited as to give any pretext for such a charge up¬
on, him. The 236th No. of the Miscellany publish-,
ed on the 5th of July 1828, contains some docu¬
ments regarding one of those calumnies. Look to
that, and say what remedy could be applied if the
person who was capable of publishing this of the
Church of Charleston, should, after returning from
an European tour report the occurrence of a church
in Italy ?
The Bishop also authorises me to state that the
indulgence mentioned in paragraph 46, is one of
which he has full and intimate knowledge. He was
at the period alluded to, Secretary to the Diocess of
Cork, and the present Bishop of Cork was then its
Archdeacon; the execution was committed to the
Archdeacon, and Secretary by the then Bishop of
Cork. The pastoral letter was drafted by the Secreta¬
ry, and all the details of the exercises were superin¬
tended by him, and not one cent of money was looked
for,upon any pretext whatever,save the usual collecti¬
ons applicable to the usual purposes,except one extra
collection which he made by hi3 own authority, to
relieve the family of a poor man who was crushed to
death in the crowd, leaving his family consisting of
a wife and seven children totally, destitute. But so
far as the spiritual benefits of the Indulgence exhi¬
bited themselves in fervent and renewed piety, in the
restitution of property dishonestly acquired, in the
oblivion of ancient and inveterate enmities, in the
sedulous attention to prayer and instruction, he ne-
never did, and probably never will, witness a more
gratifying and edifying scene than continued at that
time, during four successive weeks. Nor was there
found in the city, as far as he could discover, a single
Protestant who did not proclaim, that if the Catholic
religion always exhibited itself in such a manner, no
one could resist its influence. Such, gentlemen, is the
testimony of Doctor England. Upon what then
does your correspondent found his assertion, that in¬
dulgences might now be had for money ?
In paragraph 44, your correspondent introduces
" In relation to the prayers for the dead in purga-
[ 190 ]
tory as well as indulgences" a passage from DaU'
beney's Protestant Companion. But " the respec-
table author of our own times," has really made a
very curious exhibition of himself. Were 1 not
to know from other sources the meaning of the
notice which he saw, and attempts to translate,
I could never make out from his exhibition what
it meant : for the translator not knowing the
language of the country, or phraseology or facts
or doctrine of our church, made perfect nonsense
of the entire. There is no such phrase as " receiv¬
ing the prayers of a mass," intelligible amongst us :
and you may go through half Christendom asking
how a man could " could receive two Cantatas,"
or " the prayers of two Cantatas," before you could
get any Catholic to suspect what you meant, or to
look upon you to be in your sound senses.
The entire notice in plain English amounts to no¬
thing more than the following. That this was not a.
public church of a Parish, but one* maintained by
private subscription, the clergy who officiated in
which were supported out of the contributions of the
benefactors : and that the sum required for such
support, was regulated at certain rates for the va¬
rious duties, so that persons desirous of having the
benefit of the services therein performed, must con¬
tribute accordingly, either monthly, or as life mem¬
bers, and that the benefactors would also be special¬
ly prayed for and remembered in the services after
their death, with a recommendation to persons ra¬
ther to join the society of that church, than to de¬
pend upon the casual affection of surviving relations.
Paragraph 45. regards an indulgence, but for
what ? For money? No. For repentance for sins,
Confessing, going to communion and praying—Yes,
such is our doctrine,that in consideration of those acts
of virtue,God will, through the merits of Jesus Christ,
not only remove the guilt,and the eternal punishment,
but also the temporal punishment which might re¬
main due to the repentant sinner. But the nonsense
of the translation in the previous paragraph is really
common sense when compared to the multiplied
blunders of this. Surely it was not Barretti that
taught " this respectable author of our own times
to translate Quarante "forty-eight." 1 profess my¬
self completely unable even to guess at what is
[ 191 J
meant by "bis professed confession being confirmed."
I know the foundation of the ridiculous blunder of
" acquire ten years," but the superlative ignorance of
the ''respectable author of our own times" who gives
" moreover forty indulgences for each time," would
be really capping the climax,but that " the Brevia¬
ry of Paul the fifth" places a pinnacle even above
the cap. Do,—good gentlemen, for mercy' sake, tell
your correspondents to take up our American prayer-
books, and save our country at least, the disgrace of
those exhibitions of the lowest ignorance. Those ex¬
pressions are downright nonsense : you can if you
will,find in several of our churches in Maryland and
Kentucky, I believe also in Louisiana and Missouri,
that this " devotion of the forty hours" is practiced
and understood as well as it is in Rome. We will our¬
selves, give you our books and explain our doctrine
and practices, upon your application, and then when
you assail us, you will do so without making your¬
selves ridiculous.
In paragraph 47. your correspondent founds his
conclusion upon a false assumption, that " the con¬
fessing penitent may buy himself off from the ne¬
cessity of that which is imposed to satisfy the di¬
vine justice," hence the conclusion that "itoper¬
ates as a license to commit sin" is not true. But
surely " the gratuitous discharge" will so operate.
Be it so, good gentlemen / What then shall we say
to you who have granted a total and a gratuitous
discharge?. You say that Jesus Christ has granted
to the repentant sinner, a total and a gratuitous dis¬
charge for all satisfaction to the divine justice. We
say he does not always grant a total discharge, but
that generally he substitutes a temporal for the eter¬
nal punishment and that sometimes, he after¬
wards in consideration of some acts of virtue, re¬
mits, the temporal punishment also. Which is more
like " a license to commit sin"?
Recollect gentlemen, that not even an attempt
was made to prove a single allegation of mine res¬
pecting indulgences to be incorrect. The whole of
your charges are day-dreams of Fancy.
I remain, gentlemen,
Your obedient humble servant,
B. C.
Charleston, (S. C.J Sept. 7th, 1829.
[ 192 "J
LETTER XVI.
To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and Sou
them Episcopal Register, &c.
" So saying, with extended wings,
Lightly upon the wave she springs ;
Her wisdom swells, she spreads her plumes,
And the swan's stately crest assumes.
Contempt and mockery ensued,
And bursts of laughter shook the flood.
Moore's Fables.
Gentlemen,—I am now arrived at the fifth Es¬
say in your number for June. The object of your
curious correspondent was stated by him not to be
controversy, but to shew that what I called misre¬
presentations were not so. In this essay as in the
previous one, he seems altogether to lose sight of
his professed purpose, for he is quite controversial,
and somewhat facetious. His wit sparkles in his
49th. paragraph; and the exhibition has been so
rarely and so modestly made that it would be cruel
to sport with it. Should I tell him that the passage
which at the close of that paragraph he quotes from
Bellarmine, Prof, de Rom. Pont, is not a translation
of Bellarmine's words though crotchetted as such;
• the glittering arrows of his satire "would dazzle the
beholders and terrify me his unfortunate victim;
yet it is true that Bellarmine's words are not accu¬
rately represented in the translation.
But what shall I say to the note which purports
to be an extract from A pastoral instruction of Arch¬
bishop of Troy, the late primate of Ireland ?—
Surely it is blasphemy for him to mention the CE¬
LESTIAL primacy of the Pope! I shall only in¬
sinuate that it would have been more satisfactory,
if instead of referring us to a pastoral, we had been
' directed to the particular one which contained th e
passage. I shall however again refer to the testi¬
mony of the Bishop of Charleston, who authorises
■me to state: " that he was during some years well
acquainted with Archbishop Troy, and was fre¬
quently in his company, that his impression is
-that he was the last Irish prelate whose hospi¬
tality he experienced, and with whom he had
much intercourse during the last week of his being
in Ireland; that he thinks he read every pastoral
[ 193 j
instruction issued by that prelate, that he is confi-
dent no one that he ever read contained such an ex¬
pression as that put forward in the note; that from
his knowledge of the deceased Irish primate, he
is perfectly certain, that he never did, nor would
use such an expression, and is quite convinced that
the word CELESTIAL has been substituted for
ECCLESIASTICAL, which is the appropriate
and usual expression, and the very word which in
a variety of similar cases he has known the Arch¬
bishop to have used." It is true that such evi¬
dence as this would not procure a conviction for
forgery in a court of justice, nor do I assert that it
is a celestial forgery, but I leave to my readers to
think what they ought.
The paragraphs 50. 51. and 52. are all very ex¬
traordinary negative arguments to disprove the pri¬
macy of the Bishop of Rome. I have given some
time since, six letters, containing positive proofs to
to the contrary. Whoever wishes to read them
can, if he will, compare the negative and the posi¬
tive arguments, and draw his own conclusions, I
shall not go into the controversy upon this point at
present. However, it is very curious, if Bishop
Hobart never was aware of the usual practice in
judicial assemblies, that the first who delivers his
opinion is not the President of the Court. And it
is also begging the question to assume that St. Igna¬
tius "delineated with the greatest minuteness the
Christian hierarchy." And it is an evidence of a
want of acquaintance with our doctrine to impute
io us even by implication that we consider the pa¬
pal office to constitute a separate Hierarchal order.
The writer would have done better had he inform¬
ed us who was " the corrupt hand of secular pow¬
er" that v gave to the Bishop of the imperial city
" the title and prerogatives of Universal Bishop,"
than so boldly to assume as fact, that which we as¬
sert is a fable. It would have argued a little more
knowledge of Church-history in Bishop Hobart,
than he appears to possess, had he not fallen into
the glaring inconsistency of adducing the rebuke
to the Bishop of Constantinople by the Pope, for
his assuming the title of (Ecumenical Bishop as
proof that the title itself was usurped by Rome: for
£ ItM j-
he ought to have known that in this case Rome re¬
buked, because it possessed authority, and Constan¬
tinople submitted because of its want. That Protes¬
tants never admitted the sufficiency of the evidence
is no better argument against its sufficiency,than is the
non-admission by Presbyterians, of the sufficiency
of evidence of the Divine institution of Episcopa¬
cy, a warrant for denying that such institution, is di¬
vine. Is Jesus Christ to be changed in his nature,
because the Unitarian does not admit the sufficiency
of the evidence that he is the eternal God ? Will the
dissent of a minority destroy the force of that evi¬
dence upon which the majority rest their conviction r
Doctor Barrow's essay is, but an extension of the
topics urged by every one who has taken the same
side, and they have been often and fully met be¬
fore : many candid enquirers, to my own know¬
ledge, after full and deep examination of the topics
urged by him, have been convinced of their insuffi¬
ciency, and upon that conviction, deliberately came
back to that Christian unity from which their fore¬
fathers had been led away.
In his paragraph 53. under the semblance of a
concession, he increases the previous misrepresen¬
tation. In my second letter to Bishop Bowen, I
stated that the following proposition was untrue,
viz.
u Roman Catholics found their doctrine, that the Scrip¬
tures, though being the word of God, are not the entire
rule of faith, except as explained by their unwritten tradi¬
tions, and the authority of their church, on the pretended
infallibility of their church.'"
He d <>es not at empt to prove the truth of the
proposition, but he asserts that "the scriptures are
according to the Roman Catholic doctrine only
one-half, and that not the most important half of
the word of God ?- It is not because of his incor¬
rect most, nor because of his only one-half how ex¬
actly he measures! but because of the whole scope
of this assertion that I now state it to be a misre¬
presentation of our doctrine : and his next two pro¬
positions are equally untrue viz. " The traditions
that explain them [the scriptures] remain the more
important part of divine revelation," " and in this
lies the difference between Roman Catholics and
Protestants upon this subject." I shall not enter
[ 195 ]
into any examination of the correctness or incor¬
rectness of your mode, or of your contrast: but
your correspondent has here been guilty of misre¬
presenting our doctrine, as also in this other propo¬
sition in the same paragraph. Catholics " make the
traditions, which while they explain and illustrate
them (the scriptures) are the depository of other
and more important revelations than they contain
equally with them, their divinely given rule of
faith and practice." Now his misrepresentations
are first, the assertion " that we believe tradition to
be the mode by which we learn more important doc¬
trines than are contained in the scriptures." Second¬
ly, " that by it we learn as many doctrines as are
revealed in the scriptures," and thirdly,in the equi¬
vocation respecting the word unwritten, which he
exhibits as meaning " not committed to writing," but
in which our authors whom he quotes is always un¬
derstood to mean " not written in the Bible" though
it might be written elsewhere, for instance in the
works of the ancient Doctors of the Church, &c.
I had intended to pass over this without farther re¬
mark, until I recollected the playful manner in which
a former distinction was disposed of, for the pui'-
pose of destroying which, it is possible that celestial
was substituted for ecclesiastical: you will there¬
fore excuse me if I now shew glaring misrepresen¬
tation by a more detailed reference. That your
correspondent alleges our traditions to be not writ¬
ten as contradistinguished to written in any book,
and not merely in the holy scriptures, is apparent
from his calling them oral in paragraph 53. in his
first and fourth reasons for the dissent of Protes¬
tants. He thus represents us, as raising mere oral tra¬
dition to a higher rank than the scriptures. Yet
this man quotes Bellarmine, and takes passages as
from the very chapter in which the contrary is
found. That author in his lib. iv. cap. 1. has the
following passage to explain his meaning of unwrit¬
ten word of God.
" Vocatur autem doctrina non scripta, non ea quaa nus-
quam scripta est, sed qu® non est scripta a primo auctore :
exemplo sitBaptismusparvulorum, Parvulos baptizandos vo¬
catur traditio Apostolicanon scripta, quia non invenitur, hoc
scriptum in ullo Apostotico libro, tametsi scriptum est in U»
bxis fetA omnium veterum paUrum.
t T
That is called unwritten doctrine, not which is no whers
found written, but which is not found written by an original
author : for example the baptism of infants^ That infants
are to be baptized is called an unwritten Apostolical tradi¬
tion, because this is not found written in any Apostolical
oook, although it is written in the books of almost all the
ancient fathers."
In his twelfth chapter of the same book from
which your correspondent affects to quote his pass-
sage, the following is found, as the first of the
modes by which tradition is preserved.
" Prima est scriptura. Etsi enirn non sint scripts? traaitiones
in divinis litteris,sunt tamen scripts in monimentis veterum,
et in libris Ecclesiasticis.
The first is writing. For although the traditions be
not written in the divine books, yet they are written in the
monuments (records) of the ancients, and in ecclesiastical
books."
I hope he will not assert that I wrote " celestial
books."
It is now plain, that by " unwritten tradition" we
do not mean "mere oral tradition."
It is to me truly painful to be perpetually obliged
to shew how unfaithful, and little worthy of confi¬
dence is " Protestant Catholic." He places toge¬
ther a passage of Bellarmine from the second and
one from the twelfth chapter of his fourth book,
and does not give the latter entire. That from the
second chapter is the first sentence which is fully
and correctly translated. That from the twelfth
chapter is the following.
" Totalis enim regula fidei, est verbum Dei, sive revelatio
Dei Ecclesi© facta, quae dividitur in duas regulas partiales,
scripturam et Traditionem. Et quidem scriptura, quia est
regula, inde habet, ut quidquid continet sit necessario verum
et credendum, et quidquid ei repugnat, sit necessario falsum
et repudiandum : quia vero non est regula totalis sed parti¬
alis, inde illi accidit ut non omnia mensuret, et propterea
aliquid sit de fide, quod non in ipsa continetur. Et hoc mod©
intelligi debeant verba Si. Augustini, nusquam enim dicit
scripturam solam esse regulam, sed dicit scripturam esse re-
gulam, ad quam examinari debent scripta Patrum, ut ea re-
cipiamus, quae scriptur© sunt consona ; ilia rejiciamus qu©
scriptur© adversantur.
For the total rule of faith is the word of God, or his reve¬
lation to his church ; which is divided into two partial rules,
scripture and tradition. And indeed scripture because it is
a rule has this property, that whatsoever it contains is ne¬
cessarily true and ought to be believed ; and whatsoever is
repugnant thereto inust necessarily be false, and should be
I 187 'J
{ejected : but because it is not a total but a partial rule it is
a consequence that it does not measure all things, and there¬
fore something might be of faith which is not contained
therein. And in this manner should the words of St. Au¬
gustine be understood, for he no where says, that the scrip¬
ture is the sole rule ; but he does say that the scripture is a
rule by which the writings of the fathers ought to be examined,
that we might receive those which are consonant to the
scripture; and reject those which are adverse to scripture."
I acknowledge that Bossuet and Bellarmine
agree. Perhaps the better mode of meeting your
assertion respecting the council of Trent will be to
state in the very words of the decree itself, what
those traditions are concerning which the decree was
made; they are found in the decree concerning Vie
canonical scriptures passed April 8th, 1546, and are
thus described.
" Hoc sibi perpetuo ante oculos ponens. Ut sublatis er-
roribus puritas ipsa Evangelii in Ecclesia conservetur, quod
promissum ante per prophetas in scripturis Sanctis, Dominus
poster Jesus Christus Dei filius, proprio ore primum pro-
mulgavit; deinde per suos Apostolos, tanquam fontem om-
nis salutaris veritatis, et morum disciplines, omni creaturse
praedicari jussit; perspiciensque hancveritatem, et discipli-
nam contineri in libris scriptis, et sine scripto traditionibus,
quae ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptqe,aut ab ipsis Apos-
tolis, Spiritu sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditas, ad
nos usque pervenerunt, orthodoxorum Patrum exempla se-
cuta, omnes libros tarn veteris, quam novi testamenti, cum
utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, nec non traditiones ipsas,
turn ad fidenj, turn ad niores pertinentes, tamquam vel ore
tenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu sancto dictitatas, et continua
successione in Ecclesia Catholica conservatas, pari pietatis
affectu, ac reverentia suscipit, et veneratur.
Continually having in view, that errors being removed
the very truth of the gospel might, be preserved in the
church : that which was before promised by the prophets in
the sacred scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ the son of God
first promulgated with his own mouth ; then ordered it to be
preached to every creature by his Apostles, as the fountain
of all, both saving truth and discipline of morals : and (the
synod) seeing that this truth and discipline is contained in
written books, and in unwritten traditions, which having
been received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ him¬
self, or from the Apostles at the dictation of the Holy
Ghost, have come to us as if delivered by hands following
the examples of the orthodox fathers, receives and vener¬
ates with equal affection and reverence, all the books as well
of the old as of the new testament, since the one God is
the author of both as well as of the traditions themselves, as
well belonging to faith, as to morals, as either received from
the mouth of Christ, or dictated by the Holy Ghost, and
preserved by continual succession in the Catholic church,"
17*
[ 198 ]
In this your correspondent copies Father Paul
word for word, and it is one of his most correct
statements. It is clear then that the traditions are
not what he calls oral, nor are they any other but
such as by the evidence of the whole Church have
been derived from the mouth of Christ or of his
Apostles.
He vouchsafes to quote even me, after those high
authorities, to prove from my statement " that the
principal revelations of the saviour" having been
made at a time of which we have no scriptural re¬
cord of the revelation that was made, I must have
said that such communications were more impor¬
tant than any delivered to the Churches by the Apos¬
tles in their Epistles,—and thus he might justify his
previous assertion in the same paragraph. "The
scriptures according to Roman Catholic doctrine
are only half, and that not the most important half
of the word of God." Now the word principal is
equally susceptible of the meaning which I intend¬
ed to convey " numerous" as that which he attach¬
ed to it " important." But probably both meanings
might be sustained by the third verse of Chap. i. of
the Acts of the Apostles, as well as by John xvi.
12, 13, xiv. 25, 26, 30, xxi. 25.,
I shall not here controvert his arguments : I shall
merely correct his mistatements. His first reason
for not concurring with us, assumes against the fact
that those traditions are oral, not written : and that
we assert what is not written to be more important,
what is written to be less important.—AH which
is untrue.
His second reason improperly shifts the ground.
We do not state that the Apostles " did not think it
good or expedient publicly to impart to the disci¬
ples" articles of belief of which they- had the know¬
ledge amongst themselves." But we do state, our
having evidence that they did teach doctrines and
institute practices, necessary for faith and morals,
concerning which they never wrote documents that
have reached us or been publicly known in the
church aatheirs, and we do find in their writings al¬
lusions and references to unwritten teaching. One
or two passages will suffice for present .reference,
I. Cor. xi. 2, II. Thess. ii. 15.
[ 199 }
His third begs the question.
His fourth assumes a false basis, oral.
His fifth is extremely unfortunate in its specifi¬
cations. The millenarian error was founded upon
Rev. xx. 2, 3. 4, 5, and other texts. It is a little
strange, good gentlemen, that your correspondent
does not seem to be aware, that Luther and Calvin,
and several of their followers, produced many texts
of scripture upon which they contended against Ca¬
tholics, that the saints would' not see God until the
Resurrection. The necessity of giving the Euchar¬
ist to children was sustained upon the text of John
vi. 53, 54, and others.
His sixth reason consists of two parts, the first is
neither controverted by me, nor sufficient for his
purpose ; the second part is untrue in fact, as might
be easily shewn in several instances.
His last reason, as applied to doctrine, is altoge¬
ther untrue, let him shew the particulars.
Upon his quotation from Bishop White, I shall
make but a passing observation, that if I admit his
principle in the concluding remark, it will establish
all for which I care to contend. I believe the legis¬
lature and courts of any civilized nation to be fully
competent, not only to declare that the statutes and
usages which are by them recognized as law are the
law, but I believe that it is only by their authority
they are known to be such. And this was the sense
of St. Augustine when he declared that he would
not believe in the gospel, but upon the authority of
the Church ; that it is perfectly reasonable, is plain
from the fact, that the church pre-existed to the gos¬
pel, and that she taught her doctrines before the
gospel was written, and that it was only by her tes¬
timony, the fact of their inspiration and divine autho¬
rity has been established. Her public tribunals give-
this testimony not only to the written gospel, but
to more than is written in the gospelv< I believe with
Bishop White, that there is no species of evidence
more generally acted on, or less liable to be decep^
tive."
My complaint against the catechism and against
your correspondent is, for having misrepresented
what we mean by tradition: and for having misre-
L 200 j
presented us in the attempt to shew that we prefer-
ed it to the scriptures.
I shall add one remark upon his note. He says
that " there is no need of considering tradition to be
kept right amongst the great body of the faithful by
an extraordinary divine influence over the mind."—
My answer is. If God promised to preserve the
knowledge of truth amongst the great b'ody of the
faithful by such influence, it is necessary to believe
that he will fulfil his promise. If this tradition be
of " high and inestimable importance" to ascertain
" the sense in which the apostles, &c. held the
words of Christ in relation to his mission, offices,
and nature," &.c. if the having true doctrine upon
those subjects be so necessary as to cause the son
of God to vouchsafe to become our teacher : this
extraordinary divine teaching must have been consi¬
dered necessary bjf God, and when he declares he
will be with those who teach this doctrine by his
commission " always even to the end of the world."
Matt, xxviii. 20, and keep the spirit of truth " to
abide with them" "forever" John xiv. 16, 17, it
has the full appearance of evidence that such influ¬
ence upon the general mind of the great body of
the teachers, was not only necessary, but assured ;
and such assurance is the only guarantee which men
can have, for the perfect certainty essential to faith.
" The supposition of such an influence is attended
with insuperable difficulties." I acknowledge, gen¬
tlemen, that to a Protestant, if he desire so to conti¬
nue, it must; for if such influence be once admitted,
he must become a member of " the great body of
the faithful." But to a Roman Catholic it pre¬
sents no difficulty, but it removes all doubt, and
creates perfect repose in his certainty of tho guid¬
ance of the spirit of Truth.
The topic in his paragraph 57. is not worth a re¬
mark.
The 59th. adduces motives to prove that the
statement in 58, is not a misrepresentation. I shall
briefly advert to them.
If it be a denial of the free use of the scriptures
to use proper care that the editions and translations
be correct, then the charge against us is true.
Jf it be a denial of the free use of the scriptures
[ "201 ]
to declare that the meaning of the books and passa¬
ges is that vvhich.the great body of the faithful have
by the proper use of tradition known it to be ; then
the charge is true. But if it be an abuse to deviate
from " that sense in which the Apostles held the
words of Christ in relation to his mission, offices,and
nature," and from " that sense in which the first
Christians held the words of these Apostles a9 to
such and other points spoken of,or referred to in their
writings," we only guard against that abuse. And
as " the account furnished by tradition" is on those
points by Protestants " regarded as of high and in¬
estimable authority," and this account can only be
known by the unanimous consent of the fathers,
and the constant and undeviating judgment of the
church ; it is to be hoped that in preventing an abuse,
we shall not be charged with taking amax/ the free use
unless free use and abuse be synoniinous. If they
are we plead guilty.
The rule of the Index is not a general law of the
Church, and has no force except in those places
where it has been adopted, which are comparative¬
ly speaking, very few. The note here, is therefore
an untrue statement.
Pope Leo XII. only did his duty in admonishing
the Pastors of the Church to warn their flocks
against imagining your Bibles to be either syscurate-
ly translated or perfect copies, because they are
neither.
My object not being a controversy upon the me¬
rits of the question, but a vindication of my former
statements, I shall not proceed, as I might, to shew
that in the English Protestant Church from which
you are sprung, the same principle exists and is
frequently enforced. Why do you call other Protes¬
tants, Heretics,for merely making the free use of their
own judgment in the interpretation of the scripture?
The Unitarian only makes free use of the scripture,
yet you condemn him with equal decision, but not
with equal scurrility as we are condemned for
merely the free use of our own judgment, in deter¬
mining how we may best arrive at the sense of the
words which the sacred volume contains.
You will not allow a person to belong to your
communion who professes that in the exercise of his;
I 202' 1
judgment he cannot believe Jesus Christ was an in¬
carnate God. You tell him to read the scriptures,
and make free use of the Bible ; he tells you that
after having done so he cannot understand those
texts as you do ; neither can he, after that free use,
see whv you assert that Bishops are superior to
Priests, or that Presbyterial ordination is invalid,
or that the administration of the sacraments should
be confined to a privileged order, neither can he see
it is conformable to God's ordinances that a formal
liturgy should be used : yet he claims to be a mem¬
ber of your church. He is a good moral man,
zealous for the free use and distribution of the Bi¬
ble, of splendid intellect, of winning manners, of
estimable and extensive benevolence, desirous of
officiating for a vacant church of yours', by the
great body of whose members he is held in high es¬
teem. Will its pulpit be open for him ?—Yet he ad¬
dresses you. "Gentlemen it is true you tell me that I
am free to use the scriptures, but not my under¬
standing, in order to know what they teach and re¬
quire." " Can any" Protestant Episcopalian " on
earth deny this to be true, and the only true account
of the matter?".
Gentlemen, whatever the effect of the restric¬
tion may be, one effect of the abuse of the scrip¬
tures certainly has been, more sectarian hatred,
animosity, ill-will, malice, misrepresentation, strife,
envy, contention, and falsehood, than has proceed¬
ed from any other cause that I know of. The simple
questions ought to be " Can all the contradictory
meanings attributed to this book be correct?".
No one will assert that they can.—" Has it any true
and consistent meaning ?" We agree that it has.
" How shall that correct and consistent meaning be
ascertained ?" We answer. By the same mode by
which the meaning of any ancient public document
can be ascertained. By the testimony of the tribunal
which was charged with its preservation, its inter¬
pretation and with the execution of its provisions,
supported as it is by the collateral testimony of all
the sages who expounded it, from the earliest times,
and the nations which have been led by its regula¬
tions. "No," "no." You answer "Let every body in¬
terpret for himself and act upon his own interpreta-
[ 203 ]
tion." You have thus flung the document abroad,
and proclaimed the licence : why will you condemn
those who act upon your principle ? Why condemn
even us who take the document and judge for our¬
selves ?" Gentlemen, you may declaim against our
ignorance as your correspondent does in parag. 60.
But you mistake: the Bible is better known
amongst Catholics than is any other book in exist
ence,and it is more attentively read. And from your
own books, and from your own acts. Catholics in
those countries in which Protestants are found
know your tenets, your principles and your argu¬
ments, with infinitely more accuracy than you know
those of our church. In other countries, where
Protestants are not found, it does frequently happen
that the great body of the people have as little
knowledge of your particular tenets, of your spe¬
cial discipline, and of the nature of your institu¬
tions as the members of the American Protestant
Episcopal Church or of the Church of England
have of the tenets, discipline and institutions of the
Nestorians, the Eut^chians, or any other of the
Eastern Christian separatists from the great body of
the faithful. Yet this ignorance is compatible with
a knowledge of their own religion and of the con¬
tents of the Bible. Nor would a study of the Bi¬
ble supply a knowledge of the nature and prac¬
tices of a church whose characteristic peculia¬
rities are mere denials of what those persons believe
to be authorised by that religion which the Bible up¬
holds.
I shall endeavour to conclude my remarks next
week, and remain, gentlemen,
Your obedient humble servant,
B. C.
Charleston, (S. C.) Sept. 14, 1829.
"ETJT* —-j
in all ages by the unanimous consent of the fathers.
I am not astonished that, as he proceeds, in this
paragraph, your Correspondent should feel himself
embarrassed by the practice of your church, and
flounder, as he does, into a paramount authority
which your church assumes, but which he would
not grant to either the early Christians or the Jews,
respecting even the simple division of the Decalogue
into its proper heads. " This modification of the
doctrine," as he calls it, might be very convenient
to him who is a member of a church that will never
admit she is wrong, though she admits she may be
wrong. Which is, indeed, such infallibility in fact,
as made a judicious person remark, that the essential
difference between the church of England and the
Roman Catholic church was to be found in this,
that the first never is in error, and the second never can
err, in declaring the doctrines that Christ taught.
Hence your sapient and discriminating Correspon¬
dent would be content, were we only to declare that
it was of indispensable necessity to conform to the de¬
cisions of the church until she shall change or qua¬
lify her doctrines. We have, however, this very se*
rious objection, that we do not believe the church has
power to change or qualify any doctrine which God
has revealed. This, in truth, is the great obstacle
which prevents our acceding to his suggestion. When
he shall have satisfied us that we may conscientiously
conform to what is not the doctrine of Christ, until
the church shall see fit to qualify or to renounce the
error; all the difficulty will be removed. When we
find any general council determining infallibly that
a former general council was wrong in a doctrinal
decision, we shall then be quite ready to tell him
why it might be done. We are content at present
with the knowledge, that during eighteen centuries
it has not occurred, and believing upon the promises
of Christ that it never will occur. In our view of
the case, it would be more reasonable and practically
useful for us to discuss at present where we should
place the spires of the churches, to prevent their
being crushed when the moon shall strike our side
of the globe.
Your Correspondent makes a very sad mistake in
his conjecture as to the "probable reason" for our
[ 207 ]
not renouncing Transubstantiation. To save him
the trouble of speculating, I shall inform him of the
fact. The true reason why we retain the doctrine
is, because we have the fullest evidence that it was
always preserved by the great bulk of the faithful,
and testified by the unanimous consent of the fa¬
thers, as taught by our Saviour Jesus Christ, and
we find the same evidences in the Scriptures..
In viewing the paragragh, sixty-two, I shall give
your Correspondent the credit of honesty; but it
must be at the expense of his information. If I err
he can correct me. I beg leave to inform him that
the Catholic church neither now teaches, nor did
she ever teach " that the Pope can absolve subjcets
from their oath of allegiance to Protestant Princes."
He says, " it has undeniably been the established
sense of the Roman Catholic church.'" I have now
denied what he says is undeniable. I suppose his
meaning to be that it is a doctrine of the church, and
that this power was an essential part of the papal
authority. He says also, " that Popes have undeni¬
ably maintained the position, that faith is not to be
kept with heretics." I know not what evidence
he might possess of the private sayings of a Pope, or
of a number of them. But I do deny that any Pope
did promulgate any such position, as a doctrine of
the Church. Let him now produce his facts, be¬
cause he says, " these things are matters of histori¬
cal facts too well known to be disputed.'? I not only
dispute, but I deny that they are facts.
To support the first, he adduces the fact, that
Pius V. absolved the subjects of Elizabeth of Eng¬
land, from their oaths of allegiance.. The act of the
Pope is not evidence of the doctrine in this instance
for several reasons. First. The power of absolving
subjects from their oaths of allegiance by the Pope,
was a grant made by most of the sovereigns of Eu¬
rope at several periods, when they were members of
a common church; they appointed him, who was
their spiritual head, as their common arbiter, and
armed him with power to execute the common law
of nations which they had enacted in congress, and
one of which laws did empower Pius to issue this
entence. The only question which could, there-
ore, arise, was whether the church taught as a por-
£—2tn5" j
tion of her doctrine, that the Pope had such a po we?
in virtue of his succession to St. Peter, as the head
of the church j or whether he had it by the consti¬
tution of the congress of Christian powers. The
church never taught that he had it upon the first
ground. She saw that he had it upon the second
ground, but it was a public fact, not a doctrine of
religion. The subjects of Elizabeth were then ab-
■solved in virtue of a national law of Europe, not in
virtue of a doctrine of the Roman Catholic church.
It was, however, successfully and legally contended
that the kingdom, of England, being a sovereign
power, and having withdrawn publicly from the
agreement, was no longer bound by its ordinances;
and that this absolution was therefore void. Eliza¬
beth herself, had such serious .doubts of the suffi¬
ciency of the reasoning, that she preferred applying
to Pius for the revocation of the sentence, which,
however, she did not obtain. Her subjects, Catho^
lie and Protestant, were satisfied with the reason¬
ing, and no one attempted to carry the sentence into
execution, until several years afterwards, Philip of
Spain, for his own private purposes, induced Sixtus
V. to renew the publication ; and the English
Catholics were the most zealous to repel the inva¬
ders, should they effect a landing; and they were
never considered by this act of opposition to Sixtus
and Philip, to have swerved from the doctrines or
duties of their church. Thus the fact of the publica¬
tion of such a sentence, does not prove that it is the
doctrine of our church—that the head of that church
has the power of absolving from the oath of alle¬
giance to Protestant princes or powers. The law
of nations, by which the power once existed, has
been long since repealed by opposition and disuse.
The church considers kings and princes to be
men, and as such, members of the great body of
the faithful, neither above her power nor beyond
her censure. She does not find that Jesus Christ
made any particular exception in their favour, and
although your Correspondent might venerate roy¬
alty above discipline, such is not, I will avow, the
spirit of our church. Our Chrysostoms, and Ambro¬
ses', and Gregories, and Beckets, and Langton's
had the spirit, as they had the faith of John the
[ 209 ]
Baptist, and they were as ready to say to an empe¬
ror as to a beggar " this is not lawful for thee," and
to denounce the one as well as the other; for they
are taught to be no respecters of persons. Your
Correspondent may amuse himself with reference
to false decretals, published subsequent to the days
when the facts to which I refer occurred. When
I think he knows Something more of the history of
those decretals, than I believe he does, I shall ex¬
pect him to inform me how they may be justly vend
legally binding, and yet in one sense be false. It is
easy to give ugly names to men who are the glory
of their age; but it is exceeding strange in the
midst of republican institutions, to find the vindica*
tors of public liberty in their day, against the law¬
less despots of the feudal times,, branded by men
who claim to be republicans, with appellations too
bad even for the tyrants themselves. But those
men that do those things have one excuse, " they
know not what they do," when they repeat the li¬
bels for which monarchs have richly rewarded venal
scribes.
The few and insulted Catholics of this city, as
far as I can learn, despise your Correspondent's
professed complaisance to them: they claim no supe¬
riority over their fellow citizens of any other place
or denomination, either in virtue or in patriotism;
they are content to be upon the level of their fellow
citizens in their civic duties, and of every other Ro¬
man Catholic in the world, in doctrine and belief.
They pay full spiritual and ecclesiastical obedience
to the See of Rome, and with as thorough a love of
civil liberty as any other citizen of those states they
acknowledge in their tenets, nothing which endan¬
gers either that liberty or the tranquillity of the land.
By you and by others, their feelings have been woun¬
ded, their doctrines misrepresented, their practices
vilified, their ceremonials ridiculed, and themselves
held up to contempt. Anti-Christ, Idolater, Heathen,
Persecutor, intruding stranger, slave of corruption,
unclean thing, and vicious, are phrases with which
they have been assailed in a state which boasts of its
liberality, and vaunts its superior civilization, parity'
of taste, and its chivalrous honour. God forbid chat I
should deny that South-Carolina is entitled ;o those
18*
I 216 ]
characteristics! But the more elevated her digci-
•ty, the more humiliating is the reproach of any
amongst her children to us ! Are we suspected of
disaffection to the civil institutions which we labour
to uphold ? Did we desert our brethren of other
creeds in the day of invasion ? Did we conspire
against their domestic peace, and following our own
notions of Scripture liberty, whisper ought that
might overwhelm us in unforeseen ruin ? Was our
blood or our treasure withheld in any day of peril ?
Is the charter of your liberties perfect without our
Dame? Did we preach against the acts of your
Congress in the midst of a conflict with the epemies
of the land ? Did we ever express a reluctance to
act against a Catholic as soon as we would against
a Protestant foe ? What then, in the name of Heav¬
en, is the cause of the continual allusion to the dan¬
gers of the Republic, from our body ? We have
never entered into combinations to paralyse the force
of the nation, when the enemy was ravaging
our shores and burning our capitol. Let your cor¬
respondent refer to the history of our common coun¬
try, which perhaps he understands, in place of drag¬
ging us to feudal times, in Europe, of which he
knows so little.
I cannot and will not stoop to notice the misera¬
ble and dishonorable distinction which he touches
in his second note upon this sixty-second paragraph,
where he tells us, that he does not charge the Pope
with being dishonest in retail, but in wholesale; it is
not in small transactions that Catholics are rogues,
but in mighty concerns. I fling back his insult with
the feelings which it so richly merits. I defy him
to the proof. He treat of honesty! He treat of good
faith! Let him look to his garbling.
Even in the third note to this paragraph, he gives
us " doomed by anathema to damnation," as the
translation of anathemate damnentur, " should be
condemned by anathema," the common modes of
expression for persons convicted of holding errone¬
ous doctrines.
He has modestly half-abandoned the charge,
"countenancing and commanding persecution, mas¬
sacre and murder."
He asks why do not our councils or Popes dis-
[ 2U 3
claim those imputed doctrines. I ask," Who would
dare to ask the congress of the union to disclaim
having held that piracy and sacrilege were virtues?'?
No rule.of common action requires that the calum¬
niated body should volunteer an useless disclaimer.
To disclaim would imply that there was an apparent
ground for the calumny. Why does not the calum-
niator retract? This is a most natural question.
But they who gave origin and currency to the false¬
hoods have long since passed away. Would -to
God their evil deeds had been buried with them.'
" The canon and decrees, and dogmas of Popery
yet unrepealed and unrenounced, embody the pow¬
er and right to punish temporally for religion's
sake, and pursue heresy and schism with spiritual
denunciations." All this I admit to be true, " and
temporal inflictions." This I deny, and I defy him
to prove. He adds, "Protestantism knows nothing
of the kind." I refer him to North Carolina, I re¬
fer him to New Jersey. I need not cross the At¬
lantic ; if I did, I would go to some of the Pro¬
testant cantons of Switzerland ; I would say that
whilst the ink was flowing from his pen as he wrote
the paragraph, he' could have known that the
head of the English church had laid aside the char¬
acter of Protestant persecutor, which his predeces¬
sors had well deserved for two centuries and a half.
He ought nowr to recollect what a powerful effort
the prelates and pastors of the Protestant church
made to perpetuate the persecution. He ought not
to force ipe to remind him of the part which was
acted here by several of the Protestant clergy in
favor of the Greeks, and to ask where they were
when their flocks nobly aided to break the fetters
of the British and Irish Catholics ? ' Prudence is
sometimes found where neither charity or genorosi-
ty exist.
With his concluding remarks I have no concern.
I have been too tedious and too diffuse. I am an¬
xious to lay down my pen. Truth and principle
demanded much from me, asssailed as my positions
have been, I know not my assailant, I therefore
could have had no personal feeling against him;
though if I should discover who he is, I trust my
charity for him will be perfect. But ! cannot say
[ 212 ]
that my respect for him would be enhanced by the
merit of his production.
Should any expression unkind, uncharitable or
unnecessarily severe, have escaped me, I regret it.
And pray you gentlemen to believe that none such
was intended to annoy you, or your fellow reli¬
gionists.
In the spirit of Charity, Peace and Truth,
Your obedient humble servant,
B. C.
Charleston, (S. C.) September 21, 1829.
To the Editors of the United Stales Catholic Miscellany.
Gentlemen—In the number of the Gospel Messenger for
the present month, I have read the following paragraph,
which is satisfactory evidence of the candour and honesty,
with which the Editors conduct that press :
" The quotation which was made by a writer, whose num¬
bers appeared in our work, under the signature of a " Pro¬
testant Catholic," from the translated Missal used in this ci¬
ty, in connexion with his remarks on the Roman Catholic
Worship of Saints and Angels, was made, we are satisfied,
in perfect fairness, and without the least intention of applying
to his purpose, an error of the translator, or of the press.
That the comma at the words, " make intercession for us,"
instead of a. period, is an error of the press, or of the transla¬
tor, we are since perfectly satisfied. The latin Missal, and
other translations which we have seen, of the part of the
Roman Catholic Offices referred to, have, make intercession
for us. The prayer here addressed to the men and women
Saints, is for their intercessio?i; and not for their mercy.—
The prayer to canonized Saints for their intercession in be¬
half of supplicants at their shrines, in the same office with
prayer addressed to^God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost*
remains admitted—and we should suppose is enough for the
purpose of our correspondent; who, we are sure, will not
disapprove of the notice we have felt it proper to take of his
error, in using against Roman Catholics, a wrong translation
of a passage of their Missal."
Had the" Protestant Catholic"correspondent taken the trou¬
ble to instruct himself on what he wrote, I would have been
spared considerable labour, and you, Sirs, would have been
relieved from loading your pages with the weekly refutations
of iftsipid and often refuted charges against our doctrine.
I have, Gentlemen, to make my acknowledgments to you,
for the facility, which you have given to the publication of
my humble defence of the principles of our holy faith, as well
on the present, as on former occasions. In a few more let¬
ters, I will dismiss the " Protestant Catholic" in the hope
that he will in future, study and prepare himself on Catho¬
lic doctrine, before he shall again hazard such charges
against us. Your's sincerely. R r*.
Charleston, (S. C.) Sep
L 213 ]
From the U, S. C. Miscellany of July 5,1828. referred to in p.18.
To the Rt. Rev. Dr. England, Bishop of Charleston.'
Right Rev. Sir,—
The Editors of the United States Catholic Mis¬
cellany, beg leave to call your attention to a curious
and extraordinary piece of information of which they
have been put in possession, and hope you will have
the kindness before they proceed to make any fur¬
ther use of it, to elucidate the circumstance in such
a manner as to remove the unfavourable impressions,
Which such a report is calculated to make on minds
of persons unacquainted with the doctrines of the
Catholic Church.
They have heard it asserted as a fact, and they know
it is believed by many, that you, Right Rev. Sir, had
advertised Indulgences for sale, and that the adver¬
tisement was placed on the door of your Church.
From the character of one person who it seems says
he saw it there, they have reason to think it was not
a tale forged by him, but that he might have seen
something else where which he mistook for it.—Such
is the substance of a report that is currently circulated,
and anxiously waiting your explanation on the subject.
We remain, Right Rev. Sir,
Your most obedient humble servants,
Editors of the U. S. Catholic Miscellany.
To the Editors of the U. S. Catholic Miscellany.
Wentworth-Street, July 1, 1828.
Gentlemen—You had indeed good cause to de¬
signate as curious and extraordinary the piece of in¬
formation which you convey to me. But how am I
to correct the evil ?—I know, and I surely need not
inform you that the entire statement is as unqualifi¬
ed an untruth as was ever whispered* about. How¬
ever wealthy, or aristocratically descended, or gifted
with talents, or otherwise correct in his deportment
the person whom you accuse and excuse might be,
or whatever situation he might fill, I cannot so far
mock truth as to admit that it would be even-charita¬
ble to suppose that he did see upon the Church door
any advertisement which he could mistake for one
notifying the sale of Indulgences by me. I cannot
surmise to what individual you allude, nor do I wish
to know, because I should prefer not being aware of
who has thus far degraded himself, to being obliged
to estimate him as I should after the discovery. May
he repent, and be forgiven !—The only notice con¬
cerning Indulgences that has ever been published by
advertisement on the Church doors by me, or by my
authority, or with my knowledge, is that of the Ju¬
bilee—you have the copy and can use that and this
letter as you please.
I have been the instrument of communicating In¬
dulgences to thousands of persons during the twenty
years that I have been in the ministry and .have known
hundreds of clergymen similarly circumstanced, and
I never have myself received, nor have I known one
of them to receive directly or indirectly to the value
of one cent for such ministerial duty.—Yet my de¬
nial is of little value as regards those who have made
up their minds that things must be, as unprincipled
writers have stated them to be. I cannot wonder
at the belief of stories imported from Europe and
Asia, when stories like this are believed by the very
persons in whose society I am daily found.
To receive such information as yours' is no no¬
velty to me : I have yesterday been told by a respec¬
table Protestant lady, that she had to defend me from
the charge of having trafficked in the sale of Indul¬
gences upon my arrival here, but that finding the peo¬
ple too well informed and the profit small I thought
proper to lay aside the commerce. You can
well conceive how mortifying it must be to me to
know that frequently the religion of our blessed Sa¬
viour, and even my humble self should be thus treat¬
ed in the highest circles of our society ; and by per¬
sons whose information upon other subjects I.respect
and admire, but who where our Church is concern¬
ed,-speak unmeasuredly and mercilessly of what they
have never studied, and therefore do not understand-
{assure you, gentlemen, that the hardihood of asser¬
tion and absence of information upon the subject of
our religion is so great as to have at first excited my
extreme astonishment: but custom is the best mode
of removing admiration. I can now calmly hear
what I once thought no person would venture to as¬
sert, and I have long been enabled patiently to know
myself described as guilty of such acts as if perpe¬
trated by me would stamp my character as that of
[ 215 ]
an unprincipled, sacrilegious, dishonest, iimonal.
deceiver, and rny flock as the most egregious simpk
tons.—I have been insensibly led on, without feel-
•ing that I have far exceeded the limits within which
1 intended to confine myself. I regret to find that,
your statement of public report is considerably un¬
der what I know to be the fact. But we must have
patience and persevere. The people of America
will examine and though slowly, will finally disco¬
ver the truth. Your's,
►I< John, Bishop of Charleston.
This unqualified disavowal is nothing more or less
than what we expected, so perfectly satisfied-were
we in our own mind, from the general character of
the Prelate upon whom this strange and malignant
charge was attempted to be fastened, that he would
not be guilty of an act which his religion not only
forbids, but the perpetration of which would expose
him to the heaviest penalties which that Church, of
which he is a minister, could inflict upon him. But
our duty as Journalists, responsible to the public for
the truth of each, and every statement we make,
compelled us, however disagreeable to our own, or
hurtful to the feelings of the respectable individual
concerned, to lay before him the information we re¬
ceived, and thus afford him an opportunity of vindi¬
cating his character and his religion, before the tribu¬
nal of public opinion, and of covering with merited
confusion, an injudicious, careless being, who report¬
ed as a fact, what he never examined, or having ex¬
amined, circulated as truth what he knew-Jo be a
falsehood. We are well aware the trafficked Indul¬
gence alluded to, is the one which was published to¬
gether with the Jubilee in the Cathedral Church of
this city, on the 5th of November, 1826. Now we
ourselves have conversed with hundreds, who to the
best of their powers endeavoured to perform the con¬
ditions upon which the benefits derivable from that
Indulgence could be obtained ; we have heard these
conditions distinctly, and -audibly published from
more than four Altars in this Diocess ; we haves^een
manuscript copies of them, sanctioned by the signa¬
ture of the Bishop of Charleston, we have seen print¬
ed ones of them confirmed by the same authority,
i t
t sigti&fcurh $ and from all that we could gather
4m those with whom we have spoken, from all we
Jibuld hear, from all We could see, and from all w e
could read, we could learn nothing, of money, of
bartering! or traffick, we never could ascertain that
Bishop England proposed changing the temple of
the Living God, into a Simonaicaf counting-house,
the Altar of his pennyless master, into a vile money
table, nor the Missal of his Creed into mercenary
ledger. We fortunately have lying before us on our
table a printed copy of these conditions ; we gladly
insert them for the gratification of our readers, and if
they, or our trust-worthy Reporter, .can extract any
thing in the shape of money, from the duties here
prescribed, we despair not, that inashorttimeby some
c^ier unheard of experiment, they may be able-to
discover the maximum desideratum, or the Philoso¬
pher's Stone.
**. Conditions to be fulfilled in Order to obtain the benefit of the
indulgence of the Jubilee, at present in the City of Charleston,
1st. To make a good Confession and Communion.
2d. To visit at least four times within the space of one week,
at any time of the day which may be most convenient, each of
the following three altars, viz. That of the Church of Ha^ell-
street, the large altar at the Cathedral, and the small altar at
the Cathedral, repeating at each of them, at,least, the Lord's
prayer and the,Hail Mary, each five tunes, and the Creed
once, at each Visit, to-beseech God for the conversion of a*l
those who are in fcrror of faith, or in the habits of immorality,
and that he would vouchsafe to enlighten the understandings
of men to see truth, and incline their hearts to its belief and
to reduce its principles to practice.
3d. To attend during the said week at least at three masses
and three instructions, in Hassell-street Church; or if t lere
is a serious obstacle to prevent attendance at the masr, ntber
the five decades of the Rosary, or the Litany of Saints may
be substituted therefore. *
4th. In any special case in which through sickness or infir¬
mity or other reasonable causeit will not be in the power of
the person desirous of obtaining the benefit of the Indulgence
to,comply with either of the Conditions No. 2, No. 3, the
Confessor is empowered to substitute some other cpndatiop
jvhich may be performed.
^RpER. OP PROCEEDING DAILY.
Meditation read after Morning prayer, which prayer shall
commence at six o'clock—Mass at seven o'clock.
Ten o'clock, Mass, and exhortation,
H^tlf-past six o'clock,, p. m. short prayer, short insi.ru tma,
longer prayer and sermon, after which will be a. h yn n and
music,——These exercises to co ttinue during tins neck.
JOHN, Bishop OP C^tnrF&noN.*'*
JYov. 5, 1$26.