11 11 ill 
 
 iilii;!;' 
 
 ■11' I't'/ I 
 ll.hl,i!l'.|l,l 
 
 ■'iim's '.Lii.i'j 
 
 
 i!]i!!iiiiillili!iii!liii!iili!L., 
 
 ii! 
 
Columbia SBnitJersittp 
 
 intI)eCttpofllfttigork 
 
 THE LIBRARIES 
 
 Bequest of 
 
 Frederic Bancroft 
 
 1860-1945 
 
 r 
 
p 
 
 / 
 
WORKS OF 
 THE RIGHT REVEREND JOHN ENGLAND 
 
THE WORKS OF THE RIGHT REVEREND 
 
 JOHN ENGLAND 
 
 . FIRST BISHOP OF CHARLESTON 
 
 Edited with Introduction, Notes, and Index 
 under the direction of 
 
 The Most Revefiend Sebastian G. Messmer 
 Archbishop of Milwaukee 
 
 With Portraits 
 
 V 
 
 OLUME 
 
 II 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio 
 The AriKur H. Clark Company 
 

 COPYRIGHT 1908, BY 
 
 THE AETHUE H. CLAEK COMPANY 
 
 ALL EIGHTS RESERVED 
 
CONTENTS OF VOLUME II 
 
 PART I. DOCTRINE [concluded]. 
 
 Defence of "A Protestant Catechism." [Concluded from 
 
 Volume I.] 9 
 
 PART II. CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Judicial Office of the Church. 171 
 
 The Vicious Circle. 210 
 
 Calumnies of J. Blanco White. 213 
 
PART I 
 DOCTRINE 
 
 {Concluded from Volume I) 
 
LETTER III. 
 
 Ye seraphs, who God 's throne encircling still, 
 With holy zeal your golden censers fill; 
 Ye flaming ministers, to distant lands 
 Who bear, obsequious, his divine commands; 
 Ye cherubs, who compose the sacred choir, 
 Attuning to the voice th' angelic lyre! 
 Or ye, fair natives of the heavenly plain. 
 Who once were mortal — now a happier train! 
 Who spend in peaceful love your joyful hours, 
 In blissful meads, and amaranthine bowers, 
 Oh, lend one spark of your celestial fire. 
 And deign my glowing bosom to inspire. 
 And aid the Muse's inexperienced wing, 
 "Vvhile Goodness, theme divine, she soars to sing. 
 
 Boyse. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, June 15, 1829. 
 To the Editors : 
 
 Gentlemen : — I now proceed to show that your correspondent ' ' Pro- 
 testant Catholic" is not only inconsistent with the tenets of your church, 
 but 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 Catholics "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: "And what is prayer 
 offered to a creature, whether visible or invisible, if not idolatry?" If 
 by prayer he meant the homage which is due only to God, by which we 
 ask of him as the sole fountain of grace and mercy, that which he alone 
 can effectually bestow, I answer distinctly, to offer such prayer to any 
 creature would be idolatry. But it is untrue that Roman Catholics do 
 offer any such homage to any creature, and until your correspondent 
 shall have proved that they do, he will not have laid any ground for 
 
10 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 the application of his principle : my assertion is that he has not shown, 
 and cannot show that such prayer is so offered. 
 
 But the word prayer, frequently signifies a "request," "an intreaty 
 made by one creature to another, for such aid as that creature can be- 
 stow," 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 assert it is not idolatry. 
 
 To say that no distinction can be made by the suppliant who ad- 
 dresses 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 experience, and the very para- 
 graph itself affords full evidence that the Roman Catholics do act upon 
 this distinction. 
 
 ' ' But Eoman Catholics, do not, they say, commit 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. ' ' 
 
 The admission here made, renders it unnecessary for me to adduce 
 any farther evidence for the fact that the Roman Catholics do make the 
 distinction. — The word prayer is then susceptible of two meanings, 
 which are totally unlike: and Roman Catholics 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 them. Your correspondent makes this statement 
 by a miserable quibble upon the ambiguity of the word, prayer, and 
 by an unbecoming equivocation attempts to show against their own 
 declaration, that Roman Catholics do pray to the created spirits in the 
 same w^ay that they offer their prayers to God. 
 
 "Surely the 07-a pro noiis, 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 invisible, 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 bestow. 
 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 footing, we distinct- 
 ly profess that mercy is derived only from him, and that she can do 
 no more than obtain from him by her prayer, to bestow the mercy upon 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 11 
 
 us. Thus if the prayer to the only source of mercy, be worship of adora- 
 tion; 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 assert that we pray to any angel or saint, in the same manner as 
 we do to God, until he shall have discovered 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 mistranslation 
 and a false suggestion he endeavours to distort the meaning of a prayer 
 in the Mass, to show that we 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 fol- 
 lowing as the prayer on which he builds his argument. 
 
 ' ' Eeceive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation, which we make to the memory of the 
 Passion," and so forth. 
 
 The original Latin is placed in one column and the translation in 
 another upon the same page 281 of the edition referred to, and is the 
 following. 
 
 Suscipe Sancta Trinitas hanc Ghlationem quam tihi offerimus ob memoriam 
 Passionis, and so forth. 
 
 The translation which he quotes as in authorized use, paragraph 
 5, gives us the following in page 281: — 
 
 ' ' Eeceive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which we make to thee in memory 
 of the Passion, Eesurrection, 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 all the Saints; that it may be available to their honour, and our 
 salvation: and may they vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we 
 celebrate on earth. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen." 
 
 His object was to persuade his readers that Jesus Christ and the 
 saints were considered co-equal intercessors, and therefore after the mis- 
 translation, he who complained so much of my having made an addition, 
 paragraph 23, now interpolates in the prayer the phrase (Jesus, and so 
 forth) between the words they which he marks in italics, and the words 
 "vouchsafe to intercede:" when such was by no means the meaning of 
 the prayer. I do not think it very unreasonable to suppose that when 
 this critic undertook to help out his own construction by introducing his 
 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 undertook to explain. If he did not, he was negligent. If he 
 did, he was dishonest, for he found the following. 
 
12 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 ' ' The celebrant then comes to the middle part of the altar, and bowing down, 
 says the next prayer, Eeceive, O Holy Trinity, and so forth. 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 condemn. They object 
 that by this prayer, the church professes 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 Passion, Eesurrection, and Ascension of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ. This is distinct, and the plain meaning of the request is evidently 
 conformable to the institution. "- ' ' Do this for a commemoration 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 salvation, ' creates no difiiculty. The question is now what 
 is meant by offering 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, and so forth. Le Brun remarks "' 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 evidently ought to be translated "on 
 the festival or at the time we honour." Thus it would appear as well from the 
 critical examination, as from various facts which that author adduces, that this is 
 the true meaning of this first phrase. But ad honorem, ' ' that it may be available 
 to their honour" i. e., the saints, is distinct, we must then see its meaning. 
 
 ' ' St. Augustine writes, ' So that although we raise altars to the memory of the 
 martyrs, we do not build any to them. For which of our prelates at any time cele- 
 brating at the altar in any of the places of the saints, has said, ' ' 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 places where is celebrated their memory whom he has 
 crowned. ' And again, in another place, ' Nor do we give to those martyrs temples, 
 priests and sacrifices: because, not they, but their God is our God.' 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 enabled 
 them by his grace to triumph over sin, and to obtain glory — the honour we pay 
 to them redovmds 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 Holy Trinity 
 it is offered, not the saints; it is offered in commemoration 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 institution, it is 
 calculated to promote his honour, and in conformity 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 redounds to Him who created 
 
 ' LuTce xxii. v. 19. 
 
 ' Explic. lit. hist, and dog. part iii. art. ix. 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 13 
 
 them and sanctified them: and surely it was to procure them honour, and glory, 
 and salvation, that he sacrificed himself on Calvary, and we only repeat the offering 
 for the purpose of commemorating and fulfilling his institutions. Nay, he distinctly 
 declares," "For them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth, 
 and its consequence, honoured in glory." 
 
 ' ' Thus the sacrifice is offered to the Trinity, but not to the saints : and, though 
 they are honoured, that respect redounds to the greater blory 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, 'by intercession,' to be again subordinate to that 
 of the Eedeemer, and only available through his merits; 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 seven hundred or eight hundred years, the special name has been omitted, and 
 the general form used as now. Many of the ancient Missals style it the prayer 
 of St. Ambrose: we, however, have no better evidence to attribute its formation to 
 him." — (Missal, Explic. Ivii.) 
 
 Thus no part of our office, no tenet, no practice of ours, will for a 
 moment countenance the notion that we pray to the created spirits, 
 in the same manner that we do to God : and every attempt to impute this 
 to us, is a misrepresentation ; and your correspondent has garbled, 
 changed, added, I may properly 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 and 
 saints, and that these blessed spirits are not their own creators: Cath- 
 olics 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 angels and saints, "only to invoke them, 
 and ask their help, in obtaining benefits which God alone can confer," 
 the writer with the contradictory name, represented 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, unqualifiedly calls such invoca- 
 tion and demand of help, idolatry. We now agree in the facts ; and our 
 difference is upon principle. Let us see a specimen of his theology, and 
 
 " John xvii. 19. 
 
14 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 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 upon, and generally for a favour; 
 to invoke and ask help, means that the persoon is called upon to grant 
 that help, as a matter of countesy or favour, not as claimed of right: 
 and this is prayer; by his own statement, such prayer can be offered to 
 visible, equally as to invisible creatures ; and your correspondent in- 
 forms us that it is equally idolatry, in one case, as in the other. I agree 
 perfectly with him in the principle, though I widely differ from him 
 in my results. He would assert that, in each case, it would be idolatry: 
 I say it is not so in either. He admits as a fact, that "Protestants ask 
 the prayers of the faithful, or those they consider so on earth, in the 
 body, that God ■wall comfort them in sorrow, sustain them in trial, and 
 save them from danger." Thus they entreat the faithful in the body, 
 they invoke them: they ask their help, by the ora pro nohis, "pray for 
 us," with a view to benefits which God alone can confer; and thus 
 Protestants, according to this theologian, are guilty of idolatry. 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, respect- 
 ing the wisdom of addressing ourselves to intercessors invisible to us, 
 who have departed from the body: but the question of idolatry and 
 utility are very different. To invoke and pray, in our second meaning 
 of prayer, to an angel or a saint, is then no more idolatry, than to invoke 
 and ask the aid of a creature upon earth; and if Catholics 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 
 principle. But here the similarity ceases. He, with apparent 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 persons, w^ho, though visible, and on earth, 
 and in the body, yet were to him as perfectly invisible at the time, as 
 any of those blessed spirits, whom I presume you will admit he occas- 
 sionally 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 ; 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 15 
 
 "31. That I may be delivered from them that do not believe in 
 Judea ; and that my service which I have for Jerusalem, may be accepted 
 of the saints; 
 
 "32. That I may come among you with joy by the will of God, 
 and may wnth you be refreshed." (St. Paul, Ep. to Rom., chap, xv.) 
 
 The allegation upon which the charge of idolatry was founded, 
 being, that Eoman Catholics prayed to angels and saints, in such a man- 
 ner as to commit this crime, I apprehend that I should have sufficiently 
 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 follow him. 
 
 "VVe have seen that it would not be idolatry to invoke, or call upon 
 one of the faithful in the body, to unite with us in prayer to God. It 
 remains to examine, whether the mere circumstance of making a similar 
 request of an invisible or spiritual creature, would thereby become idol- 
 atry. 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 con- 
 sists, in giving to a creature, what belongs only to the Creator. 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 which no rational or religious being would act to- 
 wards the Creator. To address to God such prayers as those which we 
 address to angels and saints, would be to 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 tenth paragraph, 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 Protestant who would write to 
 a friend in a distant place to pray for him, and the friend dies before 
 the letter arrives. We believe, however, iipon grounds which satisfy 
 ourselves, that we can know, in some instances, 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 Protestant friends themselves, who have often been imposed upon 
 by hypocrites, whose prayers they have besought, under the impression 
 of their being virtuous ; but surely this mistake is not idolatry. 
 
16 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 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 ques- 
 tion: for we assert that there is equally certain 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 tenth paragraph, which indeed contains the chief part 
 of his argument, he asserts another 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 these grounds, I then state: that idolatry being the giving 
 to any creature the worship due only to God, in order to prove us guilty 
 thereof, in praying to angels and saints, it must be shown that we pray 
 to them in such a way as is due only to God. But we do not pray to them 
 in that manner, but only in that manner in which Protestants pray to 
 just men on earth, in the body ; and as this is not on their part idolatry, 
 so neither is our conduct idolatrous. In another place, I shall show 
 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 evidence whatever to sustain the charge of our asking 
 salvation ("to save them") through the merits of the angels, and the 
 proposition being conjunctive, I might, upon this single ground, claim 
 to have the whole assertion rejected as not proved. I shall, however, 
 not use this advantage. I shall merely say that we deny, and our im- 
 pugner has not attempted to show 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 regarding merits is to be found. I do not, of course, admit the 
 unfounded assertions and repetitions of your correspondent to be proofs. 
 
 In paragraph 7, he adduces the documents regarding 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 
 8: "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 properly, 
 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 inquiry. 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 17 
 
 I shall first state what I conceive is meant by the expression "save 
 them. ' ' I am under the impression 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 Avherein he becomes entitled to 
 heaven, that is, "save them from hell," which is the place of punish- 
 ment for sin. The word merits, I believe, is at present, by the great 
 bulk of Protestants in this Union, considered 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 impression conveyed to the Protestant 
 mind by the expression, "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 
 him, independently 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 assertion. They condemn the Pelagians as erring from the 
 faith, for asserting that a man can, by the proper use of his own facul- 
 ties, merit heaven for himself, which is much less than is implied in 
 the above assertion. Hence it is a misrepresentation of Catholic doc- 
 trine to assert, that it teaches that we can be so saved either by our own 
 merits, or by the merits 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 either accord- 
 ing to the teaching of hiunan 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 merit eternal life ; as if he 
 might be able to do so in any manner- 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 repent 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. 
 
 In the decree concerning original sin, passed on the 17th of June, 
 1546, in the third paragraph, it is distinctly stated as Catholic doctrine, 
 that this sin cannot be removed by the strength of human nature, nor 
 
18 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 by any other remedy "but by the merit of the only mediator, our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who reconciled us to God, in his blood." 
 
 Thus, the only mode by which we can be saved from sin, be justified 
 before God, live justly, believe, 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, pas- 
 sages from the fathers, and decisions of previous Councils to which 
 the Council of Trent refers, for the purpose of showing 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 admit- 
 ted 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 Missal contradict the Council? By no means. The recon- 
 ciliation is easy between the prayers and the decrees. The meaning of 
 the passage, "save us by his merits," if applied to Jesus Christ in the 
 sense in which those words are understood by Protestants, as above ex- 
 plained, will give the exact meaning of the Council. Now, when Roman 
 Catholics apply the word merit to a creature as regards God, 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 different sense. Now, 
 every good writer upon logic, as well as every honest man, Avill tell us 
 that, when we inquire as to a man's belief, we must take his own mean- 
 ing of his own words, in order to understand what, in fact, he does be- 
 lieve ; but if we force upon his words a sense which he disclaims, we 
 do not correctly 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 present 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. 
 
 Now, no one of the prayers "asks salvation" through the merits of 
 the saints. Let us examine them. 
 
 "Graciously receive, O Lord, we beseech thee, our offerings, and grant, by the 
 merits of blessed Anastasia the martyr, that they may avail to our salvation. Thro '. ' ' 
 
 The prayer is addressed to God, and the grace is 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 mar- 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 19 
 
 tyr. The previous collect, page 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 received, 
 "Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth 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 Protestant -WTiters, 
 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 meaning which 
 Protestants attach to this text, as read in your version, James v. 16. 
 "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." We 
 believe, that a person who, through the merits of Jesus Christ, is jus- 
 tified, and continues to serve God by the practice of virtue, is thereby 
 meritorious before God through his mercy and the merits of the Saviour ; 
 and we believe that the Almighty, in regard to this secondary and derived 
 merit, which is [of] a very dift'erent 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 reprobate 
 person. Yet, still, to show whence this merit, such as it is, derives its 
 value, the prayer always concludes with the statement of its foundation 
 "Thro.' " "our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee 
 in the Unity of the Holy Ghost, world without end. Amen." Cath- 
 olics are so well accustomed to hear these forms of the conclusion, that, 
 generally, 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 Protestants understand the phrase; nor 
 do they pray at all "to be saved" by her merits. But they pray to bo 
 saved by the institutions of our Lord Jesus Christ; 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 recommend us to 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 
 
20 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 her merits and prayers, that ive may lead innocent lives here, and ascend to eternal 
 joys hereafter. Thro'." 
 
 "O God, who didst grant thy ser\-aiit John, being inflamed with the glare ©f thy 
 love, to walk without hurt through the midst of flames, ana by him institute 
 a new order in thy church: grant by his merits, tlmt the fire of thy chanty may cure 
 our diseased souls, and obtain for us eternal remedies. Thro'." 
 
 ' ' O God, who wast pleased to send blessed Patrick, thy bishop and confessor, 
 to preach thy glory to the Gentiles: grant, that by his merits and intercession we 
 may, through thy grace, be enabled to keep thy commandments. Thro'." 
 
 These prayers are all addressed to God, calling upon him to save 
 us by his mercy; and the meaning of the ynerits is the same as that 
 above, in the collect of St. Anastasia. 
 
 I must return to this topic in my next. 
 I remain, gentlemen, 
 Your obedient, humble servant, 
 
 B. c. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Give them a pilot to their wandering fleet, 
 Bold in his art, and tutored in deceit; 
 Whose hand adventurous shall their helm misguide 
 To hostile shores, or whelm them in the tide. 
 
 LusiAD, Transl., Book I. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, June 22, 1829. 
 
 To the Editors: 
 
 Gentlemen: — In my last letter I stated that the great difficulty as 
 to a proper understanding of the question here at issue between your 
 correspondent with the contradictor}' name, and me, existed in the equiv- 
 ocal nature of the word merit. No Roman Catholic expects to be saved 
 either by his own merits or by the merits of any angel or of any saint ; 
 neither does he ask either of them or of God "to be saved by their 
 merits," but only by the merits of Jesus 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 may be necessary 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 21 
 
 to exhibit our belief regarding the manner in which justification is 
 obtained by the sinner. This will show to whom we look for salvation, 
 because when we become justified, w'e are saved from hell, unless we 
 should relapse into sin; and it wall 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 regarding merit. Merit 
 is a claim to a 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, wliere 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 cannot, 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. 
 
 No created being can stand in such a relation as this to God, because 
 all our works are due to him, by 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 ofl:'er anything which 
 was truly their own and free from the claim of the Creator. Thus, the 
 united efforts 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 may thereafter, for the first time, become mer- 
 itorious by observing 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 Son of God: hence his are not independent merits. Next, he 
 cannot of strict justice claim any recompense, but what is freely pro- 
 mised by God ; thus his claim is founded upon the merits of Christ, and 
 the covenant by which the Creator freely bound himself to give a reward 
 
22 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 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 sanctity 
 or justification have merit for their good works, we always understand 
 that those works are raised to this grade of excellence through the free 
 mercy of God, and by the free merits of Christ, and that they create no 
 demand upon God, farther than in virtue of his own voluntary covenant. 
 That the Almighty could claim them by several previous titles, but hav- 
 ing mercifully waived those claims, he has promised us that he would 
 give to us a recompense or reward for deeds, to perform which he even 
 now aids us by the grace of Jesus Christ, without which we could not 
 do those works as we ought; and that when he thus rewards the saints, 
 he by this recompense crowns his own gifts in them. This is the only 
 merit which Catholics believe the saints can have in his sight. 
 
 We believe that all men obtain sufficient grace, and have free wilL 
 We know that God promises a recompense to those who, using that free- 
 dom as they ought, co-operate with his grace. We also know that he 
 threatens punishment to those who, abusing that freedom, 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, and that it is a very different 
 sort from that of the Saviour. I deem it unnecessary to enter into proof 
 of the positions which I have here taken, as my object is rather to exhibit 
 what our doctrine truly is, than to defend it, — to show that we have 
 been misrepresented, rather than to show that we believe as Christ taught. 
 
 In order that a man might be capable of merit of even this descrip- 
 tion, 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 assertion, perhaps one would 
 suffice at present. 
 
 "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except 
 it abide in the vine, no more can ye abide in me. 
 
 "I am the vine, ye are the branchces: He that abideth in nic, 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 doc- 
 trinal chapter regarding merit, which I here insert. The branch (man) 
 really brings forth the fruit of merit, but only because the branch itself 
 derives 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^ 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 23 
 
 is not grafted on this vine-stock ; he can do nothing. Hence the council 
 teaches in the same chapter, (Chap. xvi. Sess. vi) : 
 
 "Upon this ground, therefore, whether they shall perpetually have preserved 
 that grace which they received, or recovered 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 [b] : for God is not unjust 
 that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown 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 in 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, the reward to be faithfully given as a recompense [f], 
 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 [h] into the branches, continually infuses virtue into those 
 justified, (which virtue always precedes 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 considered, 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 truly 
 merited (if indeed [i] they shall have departed in grace) to obtain eternal life 
 also in its proper time, since Christ himself says [k]. 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 [1] is our own 
 proper justice established as 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 of God, because 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 whosoever 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 [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 goodness; nor ought any one judge himself [q] even though 
 he should not be conscious to himself of anything: 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 following references show the parts of Scripture, according to the Vulgate, 
 which contain the doctrine above laid down. 
 
 * [al / Cor. XV ; [b] Heb. vi; [c] Eeb. x; [d] Matt. x. and xxiv; [e] Ps. cu; 
 [f] Eom. v; [g] I Tim. iv; [h] John xv; [i] Apocal. xiv; [k] John iv ; [1] Bom. x; 
 [m] Matt. X, Marie ix and so forth; [n] / Cor. iv; [o] / Cor. i, II Cor. x and so forth; 
 [p] James iii; [q] I Cor. iv; [r] I Cor. iv; [s] Matt, xvi, Eom. ii and so forth. 
 
24 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 the hearts; and then shall every man have praise from God: who as it is written will 
 render to oveiy man according to his works." 
 
 What we call the merits of justified persons, then evidently rest 
 upon the merits of Christ, as their foundation : first, because their jus- 
 tification 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 derived only from that virtue or sap which has been 
 drawn from the trunk of the vine. The saints are those persons who are 
 justified by the merits of Christ, and dying in the state of grace, ai*e 
 now in heaven, partakers of his redemption. As we would expect aid, 
 and ask it through the prayers of a justified person on earth, we also 
 expect it from their prayers, now that they are in heaven : and 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 favourable regard to the merits or righteousness of these heavenly 
 supplicants, is not asking those saints to save us by their 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 inde- 
 pendent 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 published a decree con- 
 cerning the invocation of saints, in which it desires the faithful to be 
 taught, according to the usage received from the earliest days of the 
 Church. 
 
 "That the saints reigning with Christ do offer their 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 prevent any abuse or superstition or other impro- 
 priety in this practice. It is clear, therefore, that Roman Catholics, 
 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 Jesus Christ their only Saviour and Redeemer, do not pray to the 
 saints to save them by their merits. 
 
 In the twenty-second session, chapter iii., the council teaches — 
 "That although the church hath been sometimes accustomed 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 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 25 
 
 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 
 memory we celebrate on earth, may intercede for us in heaven. 
 
 If you, gentlemen, will compare these testimonies of our doctrine, 
 drawn from our highest and [most] 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 miscon- 
 struction of our prayers, of which he has been guilty in his paragraph 
 No. 20. I could adduce much more evidence, but where is the necessity ? 
 
 I now state that it is a misrepresentation of our doctrine and prac- 
 tice to state, as your "Protestant Catholic" correspondent does, 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 
 mediatoi-s with Christ or in his stead ; and, thirdly. That we give to crea- 
 tures 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 charg- 
 ing us with error, is our assertion that a man who is justified by Christ 
 upon repentance can afterwards do anything 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 confine myself to one, and 
 he was no great admirer of Roman Catholics, as two or three extracts 
 from his writings will show. 
 
 "The wonder is not that the professed members of the Church of Eome unite 
 their hearts and hands, and leave no methods, whether of deceit or violence, unat- 
 tempted 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 all the resolutions of destruction and desolation, whenever an opportunity 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 publicly 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 condition of their acceptance with God, that no good nature of their own; 
 no obligations from others; no ties of oaths, and solemn assurances; no regard to 
 truth, justice, or honour; are to restrain them from anything, 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! by that 
 great friend of civil and religious liberty ! ! ! the Right Reverend father 
 in God, Benjamin Hoadley, D.D., successively Bishop of Bangor, Here- 
 
26 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 ford, Salisbury, and Winchester. Yea, of a truth, he loved not Popery ! 
 The above is taken from a sermon preached at St. Peter's Poor, Novem- 
 ber 5th, (Cecil's holiday,) 1715, from the text, "And for this cause, 
 God shall send them a strong delusion, that they shall believe a lie," 
 (// Thess. ii. 11), entitled, "The present Delusion of many Protestants 
 considered." — pages 623, and so forth, volume iii. of his works, edit. 
 London, MDCCLXXIII. I shall give but one other extract from the 
 same sermon, though I could give a great number from the various parts 
 of the works of this liberal and enlightened prelate, as he is styled in 
 contradistinction to several of his fellows who were indeed more viru- 
 lent, and compared with whom, he might be called liberal and benevolent. 
 ' ' But in the Eomish Church, it is firmly settled upon never altered principles ; 
 it is an established article of religion; equally believed, and owned, and inculcated 
 in their adversity and low estate, as in the hight of their power. It stands unrepealed 
 upon record, and it is confirmed by experience, 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 foundation. Every weapon they use is 
 sanctified; every instance 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 described 
 by these holy men! We cannot be astonished than in an old British 
 colony, looking to Britain for her literature and her religion, and whose 
 children were taught, for British political reasons, to despise a church 
 which she had always theretofore persecuted, much of such information 
 as that above should be instilled into the mind ! Nor can we expect that 
 in one generation it could be obliterated ! Thus, gentlemen, though your 
 curious correspondent has fallen into extravagant mistakes, I am far 
 from attributing his misrepresentations to any personal malevolence. I 
 would merely suggest, for the consideration of some of those who appear 
 desirous 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 century ago. In less than half that time, our successors will 
 scarcely believe that at the present day Americans would be found capa- 
 ble 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, page 570, volume iii.', he gives as the doctrine of the Eng- 
 lish Protestant Church, — 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 27 
 
 ' ' That there can be uo pardon, nor salvation, demanded or hoped for, but by 
 such as forsake their 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 a new 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 position, 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 vicious generation of men,) multitudes of Christians, who were 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 anything in themselves so much as agreeable to the 
 will of God; that it would be a piece of unpardonable 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 Protestant Church of Eng- 
 land does not teach that it is a derogation from the merits of Christ, for 
 a man who has repented and been justified through those merits, 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 imper- 
 fectly and at a great distance. But in his next sermon (xiii. 576), Mis- 
 takes about mail's mahility, and God's grace considered, he is more 
 explicit. He undertakes to examine and confute pernicious mistakes. 
 * ' The mistakes at which I now particularly point, are such as are founded 
 upon a very fatal 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." Commenting on his text, Not that we are sufficient of 
 ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufSciency is of 
 God, (7/ 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 insuffi- 
 ciency, I have shown, already had reference to the work of his Apostleship; and to 
 his successful performance of it, and so forth. . . He doth not presently infer, 
 that nothing was to be done by himself, considered as distinct from his great patron. 
 But in this very Epistle, he represents himself and the other Apostles as workers 
 together with God (chap. vi. 1) ; and often speaks of his indefatigable endeavors 
 to answer the ends of his office. And if he were a worker together with God, he cer- 
 tainly had a part of his owti distinct from that of Almighty God, in this great affair. 
 
28 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 And consequently, as he had God Almighty's sufficiency to support him, and make up 
 his deficiencies; so he had likewise some strength and ability of his own for his 
 own part. And as God was the architect, the chief builder, director, and encourager 
 of the whole, so likewise was the Apostle, a worker, under and together with him." 
 
 In his Sermon xiv, he answers an objection that it would be strip- 
 ping God of his honour and glory to attribute to man any share in his 
 amendment, reformation, and salvation. 
 
 In his Sermon xix., page 827, The best Christians unprofitable ser- 
 vants, he misrepresents the doctrine of Roman Catholics, by stating 
 it to be that which it is not. But w'e shall see what he lays down as the 
 doctrine of the English Protestant Church. lie explains the text Luke 
 xviii. 10, "So likewise when ye shall have done all those things which 
 are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants, we have done 
 that which was our duty to do, to mean," "Where you have done your 
 duty to God, and performed the services He has commanded, you can- 
 not claim the happiness, as a reward due in justice to your services, 
 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, — 
 
 "Wo must not imagine that our Lord declares, or insinuates that the beat 
 Christians, and such as have exercised themselves in all the good works of his holy 
 religion, ought to acknowledge 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 anything like this is the meaning of the words unprofitable 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 show that he is not the unprofitable servant 
 mentioned in verse 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; be- 
 cause of the imperfections of his best actions. Again, because the capa- 
 city being derived from God, they are unprofitable in themselves and 
 their own merits, and what good they do as Clu'istians is derived from 
 God's mercy and the grace of Christ. In all this he does not contradict 
 our doctrine. 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 has been sometimes asked by those who, I fear, are much more willing to know 
 what is not their strict duty, than to practise what they know to be so: and that is, 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 29 
 
 whether any Christian can do more than he is commanded, 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 the good works 
 required in the Gospel, than he is strictly obliged to do; because these points are 
 always indispensably necessary, and the obligation to duties never released or abated: 
 But that, in other points, and these not displeasing to God, which may be said to 
 belong to his religious service, as circumstances of it, a Christian may do more than 
 what is strictly enjoined, as absolutely 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 others) was obliged to do whatever he apprehended to be most for the 
 honour of God, and the interest of his Gospel. And yet it is also as plain, from 
 his own words, that, had he taken a maintenance of them, he could have justified 
 himself before God; and had ground for boasting, that he did not. He expressly 
 distinguishes between 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 duty. But whether I shall take a maintenance for doing this 
 or not, this is left free for me, and I have chosen not to do it: this is the ground 
 of my boasting. (7 Cor. ix. 16, 19). 
 
 "I might mention also what is written of the first believers, that those amongst 
 them who had possessions, sold them, and laid the price at the feet of the Apostles, 
 to be distributed, in common, to all who wanted. It is evident, of these persons, 
 that they were strictly obliged to the duty of charity to their brethren in want: and 
 yet, it is also plain that this particular behaviour of those who voluntarily and 
 honestly performed the service, in so extraordinary a manner, was more than was 
 commanded them by their great Master. Nay, it is declared by St. Peter, (Acts 
 V. 4), that it was not 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 Doctrine, 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 incom- 
 patible with her doctrine, to hold, and the Scripture teaches, that men 
 justified through the mercy of God, the merits of Clirist, 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 re- 
 ward, and are meritorious: and that they not only can do what they 
 are commanded, and is their strict duty as absolutely necessary to their 
 salvation, 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 all this do not derogate from the merits of Christ. Now if the per- 
 sons whom we look upon to be saints have done this, as Bishop Iloadley 
 says one of them (St. Paul) undoubtedly did, one of two consequences 
 
30 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 must ensue; Bishop Hoadley misrepresents the doctrines of the Church 
 of England, or no person in her communion can object to our doctrine 
 on those points. 
 
 In my next I shall apply what I have been hitherto collecting and 
 explaining. 
 
 I remain, gentlemen, 
 
 Your obedient humble servant, 
 
 B. C. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 But, mortals! know, 'tis still our greatest pride ♦ 
 
 To blaze those virtues, which the good would hide. 
 
 Eise, 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'ning angels lean from heaven to hear: 
 
 To furthest shores th' ambrosial spirit flies, 
 
 Sweet to the world, and grateful to the skies. 
 
 Pope, Temple of Fame. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, June 29, 1829. 
 To the Editors: 
 
 Gentlemen : — I have now exhibited to you, reasons which justify my 
 asserting that Roman Catholics do not pray to angels to be saved by 
 their 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 purpose that good Protestants beseech 
 their fellow- worshippers on earth, to pray to God for them, and help 
 them by their intercession ; and therefore Roman Catholics do not give 
 to those creatures the worship which is due to God alone, nor are they 
 as regards angels guilty of either direct or indirect idolatry. And 
 further, 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 full and perfect atonement in which he by his own 
 unclaimable and infinite merits and bitter sufferings made abundant sat- 
 isfaction for their sins, for which no created merits or power could 
 satisfy: that they do not consider that angels could or did become aton- 
 ing 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 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 31 
 
 the intercession of angels is not dishonouring the mediation of Christ. 
 All that I have written of angels is equally applicable 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 dispassionately views without preju- 
 dice what we mean by the word merit as applied to the saints, who have 
 been human beings, justified through Christ, and were subsequently 
 removed to glory in heaven. It is evidently 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 re- 
 deeming 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 under heaven whereby 
 w^e may be saved. We are misrepresented by those who say that we 
 make the saints mediators with Christ, or in his stead ; because we pro- 
 fess and testify, that though they are intercessors who pray for us, they 
 are not mediators by whom we are redeemed; and we proclaim with St. 
 Paul, ^^ 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 Jesus for this 
 saint, and the fidelity of that ransomed saint to divine grace, his inter- 
 cession might prevail much, and if so, he is acceptable through Christ, 
 and therefore, instead of dishonouring Christ, we honour him by show- 
 ing the powerful effects of his atonement and ransom in this creature 
 who was once a frail mortal. Hence, 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 only ransom for our 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 superior merits of saints ; 
 yet we say the merits of saints are only valuable as dra-wTi from the unde- 
 rived, original, and superior merits of Christ Jesus. Gentlemen, — 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 woi-ship 
 which we pay to our Saviour the incarnate God, is only that same which 
 
 "^Acts iv. 12. 
 «« I Tim. ii. 5, 6. 
 
32 DOC T R I N E Vol. 
 
 Ave pay to the blessed spirits? Yet such is the assertion of your extra- 
 ordinary correspondent ! ! But how wretched is his attempt in para- 
 graph 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 name Christ, or contain or end with any reference to him in the character 
 of intercessor." 
 
 Let him produce the collect which omits to exhibit Christ as medi- 
 ator. There might be several where he is not exhibited as an interces- 
 sor. Upon an assertion which he makes without evidence, and against 
 evidence, he builds his conclusion "it is not unreasonable or unfair, to 
 presume, the saint to be even substituted as mediator for Christ. ' ' In- 
 deed, indeed he has been too presumptuous, and too unreasonable, and 
 altogether dishonest and imfair. 
 
 His ninth paragraph confounds two distinct things, mediation and 
 intercession, and by this sophistry he endeavours to force a conclusion 
 against the lawfulness of any other intercession, save that of Christ, 
 upon the principle that St. Paul, (/ Tim. ii. 5), asserted that there is 
 but one mediator. But whoever will look to the text will find that the 
 word used by St. Paul does not mean intercessor, but ■mediator of raii- 
 som. This is what logicians call "a syllogism with four terms," one 
 of the worst and most deceitful attempts to mislead. 
 
 Another attempt is made in the same paragraph to combine for one 
 conclusion two texts which relate 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 manner, {John xv. 24), and they also were accus- 
 tomed 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 Acts iv. 12, it will be seen, by no means teaches that we ought not 
 to ask of others to intercede for us, or to praj' with us, but merely and 
 exclusively shows that this Jesus who was crucified, was the Messias, in 
 whom all should believe, and through whom only salvation was to be 
 obtained. Let us see the argument which the two texts will obviously 
 make. "Jesus Christ tells the Apostles to pray in his name." "St. 
 Peter tells us that there is only the name of Jesus in which salvation 
 can be had." My inference from these two propositions 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 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 33 
 
 other name." In fact it is but repeating the propositions of the texts 
 in other words, — and the substance will be no more than what has been 
 repeated, "Christ is our only saviour." But it says not "our only 
 intercessor." Should we confine intercession to our Saviour, every per- 
 son who asks any other to pray for him, dishonours Christ. This, gen- 
 tlemen, 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, (par. 
 11), and the contemplation of the proof which he has at hand to fix 
 upon us the crime of downright idolatry, is so trying to his nerves 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, Puhlisher. Suppose this 
 book contained blasphemy, is the Roman Catholic Church chargeable 
 therewith? A church is accountable for her liturgy, and therefore it 
 was fair and lawful to charge us as a body, with the prayers and pas- 
 sages of the Missal; a church is justly chargeable with the declarations 
 of doctrine which her prelates publish in her name, or as expositions of 
 her tenets, provided those publications are generally known and received 
 and not contradicted : and therefore the Catechisms and other such expo- 
 sions put forth by our bishops are justly quoted for or against us. But' 
 it is quite a novelty in a religious disquisition to quote an obscure, 
 unauthorized, ephemeral compilation, printed merely for his own gain, 
 by a man who, if he had any religion, was a member of the Church of 
 England; in order to prove that Roman Catholics 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 corrected by him : but even high 
 as is the station of that esteemed priest, still the church is not accountable 
 for his publications. The work itself is, 1st, a calendar, 2d, a sermon, 
 3d, practical instructions for the Sundays, feasts, and so forth, 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 
 show that it was not sent forth either by authority or as perfect. 
 
 "Notice. — The Laity's Directory is published this year for the first time in 
 the United States of America. It is intended to accompany 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 show and to satisfy the 
 Catholic public they have not been intentional." 
 
34 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 The Directory was never republished. — Yet here is a writer who has 
 before him, according to his own account, the authorized works, and 
 still proceeds to build up his charge against the Catholic Church, upon 
 a mere evanescent, unauthorized calendar!! I object to the principle 
 of admitting such documents as evidence in a case of this description. 
 Yet I shall now take up his facts, from this document, which your cor- 
 respondent garbles, as usual. 
 
 His object is to show that this pamphlet calls upon Catholics to 
 commit downright idolatry, in their worship of the blessed Virgin. I 
 forget if I ever yet saw a Protestant's definition of idolatry. I shall 
 therefore 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 shown 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 has instituted almost as many feasts in her hon- 
 our, 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 of 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 competent tribunal : and though I can- 
 not find in the phrases anything which is against the doctrine of the 
 Church, yet they are much better suited to the expression of private, 
 individual devotion, than to doctrinal explanation ; 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 to Christians; because after God, Mary is the most worthy object 
 of their devotion. In all ages, the faithful have honoured and invoked the Blessed 
 Virgin; and thus has that prophecy been accomplished, which is found in her cele- 
 brated canticle, where she says, that from henceforth all generations shall call me 
 blessed. {Luke i. 48). The Catholic Church invokes IMary 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 some- 
 thing on each one of them in particular. ' ' 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 35 
 
 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, Manifestation, Circumcision, 
 Transfiguration, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Holy Name and Ascension of 
 our blessed Lord Jesus. As yet then, we have neither upright nor down- 
 right idolatry. 
 
 The next proof is in paragraph 12, which is a garbled extract from 
 the following: 
 
 On the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin. "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 
 her 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 Eedeemer, she gave us everything. 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 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 distinctly holds the 
 same doctrine; for, mentioning the fact, he writes. 
 
 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 days, the object 
 of the sighs of the patriarchs 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 benefit; 
 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 puts 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 prayer which begins with this salutation; and let 
 us never cease soliciting the protection of the mother of God." 
 
36 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 AVe ask her to preserve in us, "by her omnipotence." No. — God 
 forbid, — "by her prayers," the prayers which she addresses to her God, 
 and our God, what Heaven has bestowed upon us, not through her merits, 
 but through his mercy : the graces of that Redeemer whom she gave us, 
 by his vouchsafing 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 
 Bin: at the same time he gave her existence, he infused 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 similar to her divine Son. In this feast we should ask, through 
 the intercession of the immaculate Virgin, for perfect purity of soul and body." 
 
 In this, it is true, she is said to have been rendered in some manner 
 similar to her divine Son. But in Mary it was a privilege conferred by 
 her Son, before his incarnation, by w^hich 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 worship 
 due only to him. 
 
 The next proof in paragraph 13, is, that in the article on the annun- 
 ciation, we are told in the last two lines, not to cease soliciting the pro- 
 tection of the mother of God, — evidently by asking her to pray for us : — 
 for the petition is the following, ' ' Holy ]\Iary, Mother of God ! pray for 
 us, sinners, now, and at the hour of our death, Amen." 
 
 I cannot see how the 14th paragraph can establish 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 believe that Jesus Christ distributed graces 
 through the instrumentality of St. Paul. I do not therefore adore St. 
 Paul, as I adore our Saviour. Is the difficulty in the phrase, avail him- 
 self 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 Catholic Church. 
 Here is, therefore, no idolatry. 
 
 The next proof is in paragraph 15. Is it idolatry 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 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 37 
 
 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 
 honour, so frequently to subscribe myself your obedient, humble servant. 
 — No, no, you may feel quite convinced that B. C. does not look upon you 
 as invested with the qualities of the Deity. Hence to say that they are 
 the faithful servants of Mary, is not idolatry, neither is it adoring her, 
 to say that she offered 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 spirit with 
 Holy Mary, in that moment of affliction, than to possess all the misap- 
 plied 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 homage for himself. The glow of fanaticism, and the fervour of 
 superstition are indeed bad; but either is preferable to the cold heart 
 which would not feel sympathy w'ith the afflicted mother of the suf- 
 fering Redeemer ; and to feel and to express this sympathy is idolatry ! — 
 Bless the genius of your philosophical correspondent ! 
 
 When to assert that God bestows a crown of glory upon one who 
 has fought the good fight, will be lawfully marked as idolatry, we must, 
 however reluctantly, acknowledge St. Paul to be an idolater, or at all 
 events that they who believe in the fact declared in his Second Epistle 
 to Timothy, iv. 8, are idolaters. I, for one, do not think they are made 
 so by that belief; neither is it idolatry to assert that honour is due to 
 those whom God highly favours, (Prot. version, Luhe i. 28), provided 
 this homage of honour be not what is due only to God; neither is it 
 idolatry for each of us to love the mother of Jesus, and to address her 
 by that endearing appellation which Christ himself desired his beloved 
 disciple to use towards his afflicted, and venerable, and Holy Mother. 
 (Jo/mxix. 26, 27). 
 
 Thus, I have unnecessarily undertaken to show, that in this private, 
 ephemeral, and unauthorized publication, which is anything but a public 
 document, 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 callous, irreverent, and tortuous fallacy of your inexorable and in- 
 consistent correspondent. 
 
 But he has other proofs of the downright idolatry, 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 inspired Zachary with an 
 
38 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 idolatrous sentiment when he declared that it was part of God's oath 
 that the descendants of Abraham, of whom Mary was one, should serve 
 him in holiness. {Luke i. 75). St. Paul leads us to most idolatrous 
 notions, when he tells the Ephesians, (iv. 24), "to put on the new man, 
 which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Equal- 
 ly wrong was it for this Apostle to pray for the Thessalonians, (1, iii. 
 13), that the Lord may establish their hearts unblamable in holiness, 
 before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 with all the saints." And what is the word saint, but the more literal 
 and ancient translation 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 gentlemen ! are my eyes deceived ? Will 
 Protestant Episcopalians leave us no choice between idolatry and Nes- 
 torianism ? Are you prepared for the result ? — And she is asked to inter- 
 cede for us. Nothing more certain : that fact is fully admitted. This 
 is therefore downright idolatry. By no means: quite the contrary; it 
 is an acknowledgment 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 no 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 the language of adoration. 
 Adoration is the worship due to God. This is what we call misrepresenta- 
 tion, "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 glorious virgin, is but a 
 creature, and ought not to receive the homage due to the Creator alone : 
 and we do not pay it to her, and thus we do not commit downright idol- 
 atry, though your "Protestant Catholic" has been guilty of various sad 
 representations, and has most unmercifully outraged logic. 
 
 Roman Catholics condemn as heretics the Collyridians 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 suf- 
 ficiently strong, to show that w'e neither practise nor approve the crime 
 which your correspondent would fasten upon us. 
 
 The nineteenth paragraph states that our doctrine cannot be true, 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 39 
 
 without giving to the blessed Virgin (I may add, each of the saints,) 
 "the divine attributes of omniscience and omnipresence." I can, 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 
 indisputable distinction between the extent of this globe and the immen- 
 sity 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 Chris- 
 tian people send forth their prayers, is but a speck in the midst of crea- 
 tion. It is great in relation 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 omnipresent; but as 
 man is raised above the brute in knowledge, and as man excels man in 
 science, so angelic natures exceed ours; neither can we comprehend, 
 much less fix the boundary which God has placed to their powers of in- 
 tuition. Spiritual beings as they are, we know that it is not with the 
 eye they see, nor with the ear they hear ; we know not how they move, 
 if motion they have ; nor how, if at all, they correspond to space. We 
 live in a material world : we know that it differs from the world of spirits, 
 in which angels and saints exist; and besides the blunder of extending 
 our conclusions to all extent, from our premises, which only took con- 
 siderable extent, shall we be guilty of the attempt to argue upon prin- 
 ciples of analogy, regarding 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 presumptuous. The nature 
 of the saints reigning together with Christ in heaven, is at present al- 
 together spiritual, and even when their bodies will arise in the ressur- 
 rection; even then, the attributes of those bodies shall be like to those 
 of the blessed spirits, the angelic substances. This is the testimony of 
 Christ. 
 
 ' ' And Jesus answering, said to them : Do ye not therefore 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 angels 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 Abra- 
 ham, 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." {Mark xii. 24, 25, 26, 27). 
 
40 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 An extended view is not omnipresence, neither is extensive knowl- 
 edge omniscience; extended views and knowledge are required, by our 
 doctrine, in these spirits, but omnipresence and omniscience are not. 
 I do not advert to the scriptural facts which exhibit full evidence of 
 the existence of what our tenets necessarily suppose: but I thus at once 
 show that the assumed conclusions in this nineteenth paragraph 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 Scrip- 
 tural doctrines of your own church; for you believe that the angels in 
 heaven do know and rejoice at the conversion 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 neither 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. {Bevel, xii. 9, 10 ; 
 Ephes. iv. 27 ; vi. 11 ; I Tim. iii. 6, 7 ; II Tim. ii. 26 ; James iv. 7, and so 
 forth). As I am at present merely on the defensive, I consider it unnec- 
 essary for me to adduce those texts and reasons that would establish the 
 facts upon which our doctrine rests. I shall therefore content myself 
 with showing, 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 documents with manifest dishonesty, and altogether mis- 
 represented our tenets, in his first essay, wherein he undertook to adduce 
 sufiScient evidence to prove that I asserted what was not true, when I 
 stated it to be a misrepresentation to charge us with ' ' praying 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 intention of adoring you. 
 
 Your obedient, humble servant, 
 
 B. c. 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 41 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 A most compendious way, and civil 
 
 At once to cheat the world, the devil, 
 
 And heaven, and hell, yourselves, and those 
 
 On whom you vainly think t' impose. 
 
 Why then (quoth he) may hell surprise. 
 
 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, Hudihras. Part iii. c. 1. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, June 6, 1829. 
 To the Editors: 
 
 Gentlemen: — There is no subject upon which greater injustice has 
 been done to us than on the worship of images. There are serious dif- 
 ferences in matters of fact, and there is a great difference in principle 
 upon this subject between several Protestants and the Roman Catholic 
 Church ; I say several 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 idolatry 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 will 
 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 anything as a like- 
 ness or image of the Creator, is, in itself, highly criminal, and is idol- 
 atry. These are some, but 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 images, others assert that we do adore 
 them. And again, whilst we meet with 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 (adora- 
 tion) is that which is due to God alone — we meet with many who under- 
 
42 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 take to say, that all religious homage is adoration, and that there can- 
 not be any graduations of worship ; that, in fact, worship is an in- 
 divisible point, in which there cannot 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 
 Protestants. 
 
 In the first place, I believe he admits as a fact, that the worship 
 which the Eoman Catholic Church permits to be paid to images is not of 
 the same sort as that which she states is due only to God. My ground 
 for this assertion is the following passage in his second essay (for 
 March), paragraph 23: 
 
 "Christians under the denomination of Roman Catholics, like other Christians, 
 worship the one true God of the Scriptures. But their Church has authorized 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 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 Scriptures ; 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 meaning 
 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 expres- 
 sion of his. opinions: 
 
 "It may be true, that some Protestants, in an intemperate zeal of dissent from 
 Popery, have considered Eoman Catholics equally as idolatrous as the heathens either 
 are or were. I believe, however, that a wide distinction is generally 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 infinitely various fictitious dieties, in idols, 
 in which they may be supposed to reside." 
 
 From this I infer that he does not consider Roman Catholics to be 
 pol5i:heists, since they are worshippers 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 appendages," such as 
 "a certain kind of worship paid to images." In this passage he also 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 43 
 
 draws "a wide distinction between" "those Christian" Roman Cath- 
 olic "worshippers of the one only God," and the persons who, "with no 
 knowledge or belief on the one Jehovah, may worship" "fictitious 
 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 Scrip- 
 tures, and the idolater who "either 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 Eoman 
 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 terminat- 
 ing in them, or, through them, worshipped the unknown God. ' ' 
 
 The author of the essay, he had previously adverted to in this pas- 
 sage — 
 
 "The author of an article in the fourth number of the Southern Review has, 
 with needless elaborateness of detail, 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 ''adoration'' to images. 
 I have very carefully perused the article, and can distinctly aver that 
 the author says no such thing. It is a little unpleasant to be obliged 
 to exhibit those peccadilloes, and is, moreover, 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, warranted in using this 
 language; for if, by adoration, he means [a] "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 Catholics paid such adoration to 
 images, though he never used the expression either in phrase or in sub- 
 stance: or, perhaps, some other curiously baptized correspondent 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 grounds upon which we are 
 fully warranted in calling their (the Indians') 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 adora- 
 tion under any name by which he might be designated, would not be an idolater, 
 
 " See Essay on the Religion of the N. Am. Indians. 
 
44 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 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 of his adoration, 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 adoration 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 homage 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 Eome, gave to created beings the homage of adoration, and were 
 idolaters ; and though they should never have represented by statues or painting those 
 f.bjects 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 undue 
 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 votaries from the adoration of the only and true God, would have 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- 
 worshipper with man of the Deity, but is the object of adoration, the lord of life 
 and of death. ' ' 
 
 The article was considered by several with whom I spoke, to have 
 been obnoxious, for an additional reason: because there was a general 
 impression that it came from the pen of a writer who is supposed to be- 
 lieve, that the kindness of his fellow-citizens has more than conpensated 
 for the hostility of unappeasable opponents. But, so far as I can ob- 
 serve, there is not throughout the whole article a single avennent respect- 
 ing Roman Catholic adoration of images, or Roman Catholic veneration 
 of images, unless it be contained in the above paragraph, which another 
 religious writer has proclaimed to be destructive of Christianity. 
 
 How far it is "needlessly elaborate," touches not the present ques- 
 tion; 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 millions of accountable beings with the practice 
 of "abominable idolatry, of all other vices most detested of God, and 
 most damnable to man." — {Homil.) 
 
 In the same twenty-third paragraph, your correspondent, after 
 giving pretty correctly the passage from the creed of the Roman Cath- 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 45 
 
 olic Church, set forth by Pope Pius IV., in fulfilment of the order of the 
 Council of Trent, favours his readers with a piece of Latin, which he 
 calls "the words of the decree of the Council of Trent," but which is 
 a garbled imitation, instead of being "the words of the decree." Al- 
 though some of the printed words are nonsense, and there is a transposi- 
 tion of a point, which would make the original appear to place the wor- 
 ship of Christ and the saints upon an equal footing : yet the translation 
 which he gives, is better in keeping with the spirit 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 original. Upon this, however, I shall 
 not rest an argument. God forbid I should be driven to the wretched 
 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, and so forth, thus 
 provided for by the highest authority of the Eoman Catholic Church, as indispensably 
 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, at the 
 same time, that it should not be Latria, which is due only to God, but merely an, 
 honorary adoration." 
 
 Hence, we have the writer's testimony, or admission, for the follow- 
 ing points : 
 First. That 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 that they pay to this God, is a kind which 
 is given exclusively to him, and which we call adoration, to dis- 
 tinguish 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 adoration to God alone. 
 Fourth. That there are different and distinct degrees of religious wor- 
 ship. 
 Fifth. That however erroneous Roman Catholics may be, in their appen- 
 dages of the worship of one only God, of which the worship of 
 images 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. 
 
46 DOCTRINE Vol 
 
 Sixth. That Ronum 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 idol- 
 aters, 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 reside in the images. 
 Eleventh. That the honour which is shown 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, Roman Catholics ven- 
 erate the saints whose similitude the images bear, so that the hon- 
 our shown 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 I must correct a mistake of his, in the passage 
 just quoted last above, where he asserts that this honour and veneration 
 of the images, and so forth, 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 deliberately denying that it was lawful 
 to pay due honour and veneration to eitheer the images of Christ, or of 
 the saints. Should he assert that they ought to be adored, in the sense 
 in which I use the word, he would also cease to belong to the church, for 
 he w^ould assert idolatry, or that undue honour should be given to them. 
 Every Catholic is bound to believe the true doctrine ; but every Cath- 
 olic is not "indispensably obliged" to practise every religious duty 
 which he may lawfully practise, 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 of the decree of the Council of Trent, 
 enacted at its twenty-fifth 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, moreover, pleased to assert, that 
 neither Mr. Charles Butler, nor B. C, can make good their insinuations 
 against the correctness of that history: and especially asserts, that "it 
 cannot be shown that Father Paul has not correctly reported the decrees 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 47 
 
 passed by this Council. ' ' He states that, several years ago, he did him- 
 self look over them in Pallavieini 's work; and believes that, in this 
 respect, there is no vnaterial difference." He then insinuates, that Palla- 
 vieini 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 whether either of those 
 writers. Father Paul, or Pallavieini, gave a correct history of the pro- 
 ceedings, debates, and, if it pleases you, the intrigues at the Council; 
 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 decree ? " A decree is a public document, every word of which should 
 be given, when quoted, as "the words;" and 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 were excited, and I began to consider why such stress 
 was laid upon proving, what no person would be disposed to call in ques- 
 tion, that the public document was correctly given. I next observed, 
 that even your curiously named friend manifested extreme caution in 
 asserting 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 difference. 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 writer was 
 fully aware that a difference would be discovered, he prepares his read- 
 ers to distrust Pallavieini, and next he proceeds to strengthen Father 
 Paul. It was now too manifest to me, that your correspondent 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 testi- 
 mony shall be admitted when primary testimony can be had; and 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 secondary witnesses. An attempt is next made by him, it is true, 
 to give us primary testimony, but at second hand; an attested copy 
 through Dr. Marsh. The attested copy might be correct and Dr. Marsh 
 might -be misquoted ; this I state not to insinuate that he did, but to il- 
 lustrate my position; therefore, this statement of your correspondent 
 gives us no primary testimony. The attested copy would be testimony 
 of this description, not in its strictest, but in its usual and practical 
 
48 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 meaning. What is an attested copy? One testified to be correct, by 
 a public officer who is solemnly bound, and trustworthy, and having 
 the means of ascertaining its correctneess 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 correspondent says. Because 
 at the very time of the session of the Council, the laws of England pro- 
 hibited under the most severe penalties, any intercourse with the only 
 officers of the See of Rome who could give the attestation : and the See 
 of Rome had excommunicated the persons who were the officers of the 
 University authorized 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 legally receive any official document from 
 an officer of the See of Rome. 
 
 But, gentlemen, authenticated copies of the public acts and decrees 
 of the Council of Trent are by no means scarce, and two of them, of 
 different editions, now lie before me, 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 may satisfy himself of the correct- 
 ness 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 Council, "the very words of the decree," taken from an edition 
 printed at Trent in 1745, with the regular testimonies and licenses, and 
 moreover found to agree, upon comparison, with the various quotations 
 and transcripts in all public documents and standard works which re- 
 garded the same topics, printed in several Catholic countries, and with 
 various other authenticated printed copies of the acts of the Council 
 published in other places. 
 
 Extract from the Decree of the Council of Trent, concerning the invocation, and 
 veneration and relics of Saints, and concerning sacred images, passed in the 
 S5th Session, celebrated on the 3d and 4th days of December, 1563. 
 
 "Imagines porro Christi, Deipara3 Virginis, et alionim, sanctorum, in templis 
 prsesertim habendas, et retinendas, eisque debitum honorem, et venerationem imper- 
 tiendam, non quod credatur inesse aliqua in eis Divinitas, vel virtus, propter quam 
 Bint colendae; vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum, vel quod fiducia in imaginibus 
 sit figenda: veluti olim fiebat a Gentibus, quaj in idolis spem suam collocabant; sed 
 guoniam honos, qui eis exhibetur refertur ad prototypa, quae illae representant : ita ut 
 per imagines, quas osculamur, et coram quibus caput aperimus et procumbimus 
 Christum adoramus, et Sanctos, quorum ilia; similitudinem gerunt, veneremur, id quod 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 49 
 
 Conciliorum, prEesertim vero secundfe Nicenaj Synodi decretis contra imaginum oppu- 
 gnatores est Bancitum. " 
 
 Translation. — "Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of 
 God and of other saints are to be kept and retained especially in the churches, and 
 that due honour and veneration is to be given to them, not that it is to he believed 
 that there is in them any divinity or power; on account of which they are to he 
 worshipped: or that any trust is to he placed in images, as was formerly done hy' 
 the Gentiles who placed their hopes in idols; but because the honour which is shown 
 to them is referred to the originals which they represent: so that through the images, 
 which we Tciss, and in presence of which we uncover our heads and Tcneel down, we 
 might adore Christ, and might venerate the saints, whose likeness they bear, that 
 which has been sanctioned hy the decrees of councils, hut especially of the second 
 Council of Nice against the opposers of images." 
 
 In this extract I have marked in italic letters the parts omitted 
 by this man, who with such effrontery declared that "it cannot be shown 
 that Father Paul has not correctly reported the decrees passed by this 
 Council! ! !" Be it remembered, that the object of this writer was to 
 show, that there was no misrepresentation in charging Roman Catholics 
 with adoring images, in like manner as the pagans did; and that in 
 several Protestant writers, the overt acts, of kissing, uncovering the 
 head, and kneeling, are relied upon as evidence of the intention of adora- 
 tion. Then look at the parts omitted, and say if this was not flagrant, 
 unjustifiable garbling. 
 
 There is, however, great difference between even Father Paul and 
 your correspondent. The former did not undertake nor profess to give 
 "the words of the decree;" he had more prudence that to expose 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 correspondent get the 
 Latin which he gives? It is evidently 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 translators, which is the follow- 
 ing:— 
 
 ' ' Concerning images, that those of Christ, of the Virgin, and of the saints, ought 
 to be kept in the churches, and to have due honour given them; not that there is 
 any divinity or virtue in them, but because the honour redoundeth to the thing 
 
50 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 represented, Christ and the saints being worshipped by the images, whose similitude 
 they bear; as has been defined by the Councils, especially in the second of Nice." 
 (London MDCLXXVI. p. 751). 
 
 Where then did your correspondent get either his Latin or his 
 English? For it is pretty clear he got [them] neither from Father 
 Paul, nor from Sir Nathaniel Brent. Perhaps Dr. 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 exposure. 
 Perhaps you can make another point of this. 
 
 I am, gentlemen, 
 
 Your obedient, humble servant, 
 
 B. c. 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Turn vero ardemus seitari, et qua3rere causas,' 
 Ignari scelerum tantorum, artisque Pelasgae. 
 Prosequitur pavitans, et ficto pectore fatur. 
 
 Virgil, Aeneid II. 
 
 Now blind to Grecian frauds, we burn to know 
 With fond desire the causes of his wo; 
 Who thus, still trembling as he stood, and pale 
 Pursued the moving melancholy tale. 
 
 Pitt 's Translation. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, June 13, 1829, 
 To the Editors: 
 
 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. Leaving 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, — 
 
 ' ' Thomas Aquinas, who wrote several centuries after the second Nicene Council, 
 asserted for the images of Christ, and so forth, placed in the churches, the direct 
 worship of Latria; alleging that the same acts and degrees of worship, which were 
 due to the original, were also due to 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 Summa Theologioe, part 
 iii. quaest xxv., article 3. Utrum imago Christi sit adoranda, adorantione 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 51 
 
 lairoe. I shall leave this work at the Miscellany Office, during the week 
 from the day of publication of this letter, and it will be seen by any per- 
 son who chooses to refer to the article, that the above extract contains 
 five distinct untruths ; for in the first place, Thomas Aquinas does not as- 
 sert for the images the direct worship of Latria; in the next place, he 
 does not give the ground here alleged, 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 worship- 
 ped; nor does he assert that it would be idolatry to worship it on its 
 own account; nor has he any passage which warrants the and so forth 
 after the word Christ. 
 
 The ground upon which St. Thomas founded his proposition, is a 
 philosophical, not a theological topic, and upon a principle laid down 
 by Aristotle in the second chapter of his book On 3Iemory 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 feelings, but 
 the original object to which those recollections 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 adoration which is due to the Saviour might 
 be indirectly paid to those objects. 
 
 Your notable correspondent then makees an attempt to place Car- 
 dinal Bellarmine in contradiction to Thomas Aquinas, and for that pur- 
 pose makes the following statement. 
 
 "On the other hand, 'Ita ut ipsae terminent venerationem ut in se considerantur 
 et non solum ut vicem gerunt exemplaris, ' 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 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. ' ' 
 
 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 contains 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 subjects as does 
 St. Thomas. But in chapter xxi. of book ii., "On images," and so forth, 
 the Cardinal considers them without their being so completely over- 
 
 Bellarm. De Imag. 1, 2, c. 21. 
 
52 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 looked, as that the mind of the observer is altogether occupied with the 
 original which they represent. In part iii., quaest 25, article 3, St. 
 Thomas considers them, the mind being altogether occupied with the 
 originals, whose recollection they excite. They do not both here view 
 the subject in the same manner; they do not in fact examine the same 
 question. But in chapter xxiii. of the same second book, the Cardinal 
 takes exactly the same question of which St. Thomas treats. If your 
 correspondent were 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 following as his first reason. 
 
 "Ac primum, quod imago possit coli improprie eo cultu, quo ipsum exemplar, 
 proiatur; nam aliquando imago accipitur pro ipso exemplari, et ea, quae fiere7it circa 
 ipsum exemplar si adesset praesens, fiunt circa imaginem, mente tamen defixa in 
 exemplari. Sic concionatores alloquuntur imaginem crucifixi, eique dicunt tu nos 
 redemisti, tu nos Patri reconciliasti ; ista enim non dicuntur imagini, nee ut lignum, 
 est, nee ut imago est, sed ut accipitur loco exemplaris, id est, dicuntur ipsi Christo, 
 eujus tamen imago vicem gerit, quemadmodum etiam in die Parasceves cum crucifixus 
 paulatim detegitur, et ostenditur, et adorandus proponitur, ilia omnia per imaginem, 
 ipsi Christo vero exhiberi intelliguntur, tunc autem proprie nullus honor defertur 
 imagini, sed soli exemplari; tamen improprie did potest ipsa etiam imago honorari." 
 
 ' ' And first, it is proved, that an image might be worshipped, not on its own 
 account, with the same homage as the original, for sometimes, the image is looked 
 upon as in 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 
 heing, however, fixed firmly 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 the place of the original, 
 that is, they are said to Christ himself, whose place, however, 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 honour 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 show that the mind is also frequently drawn 
 through the image to the original, so that this latter only is viewed, not 
 indeed as in the place of the first, but represented by it, and if clothed 
 with the image : in such a case the image is adored ; per accidens tamen, 
 quia ipsa nee est suppositum quod adoratur, ncc ratio adorationis, sed 
 quiddam adjunctum, "indirectly, because it is not the object which is 
 adored, nor the cause of adoration, but it is something joined to what 
 is adored:" he gives as an example: when a king clothed with his robes 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 53 
 
 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 the 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 Cardinal in this very 
 chapter in the paragraph next but one after this latter explanation, 
 mentions the opinion of this angelic writer, and after examining his 
 statements, shows that this very explanation agrees with the position 
 laid down in his work: and in chapter xxv., after stating the opinion 
 of St. Thomas and other writers, as explained by Gabriel, he 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 homage which is paid is directed exclusive- 
 ly to that original, and by no means whatever to the statute or image 
 from which the mind received its impression and direction. The various 
 modes of expression in different authors, must be construed by the gen- 
 eral character of their age, and style, and education; there will fre- 
 quently be found a difference of phrase, but not a difference of senti- 
 ment. Thus the Council of Trent viewing the subject in the same 
 light agrees with both of those writers, when it states that "through 
 the images" "we adore Christ, and venerate the saints whose likeness 
 they bear." 
 
 But images might be considered in another light, viz., as they are 
 memorials of their prototypes or originals. In this view they are more 
 than their materials, but less than their originals: as the statute 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 attachment 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 regard for the image as a work of art, but that regard blended with 
 respect and love for the memory of the great original, that urged the 
 legislature of North Carolina in 1821 to pass the following statute. 
 
 "Chapter 1088. An act making it an indictable offence to injure 
 or deface the Statute of General Washington. 
 
 "Be it enacted, and so forth, That if any person or persons here- 
 
54 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 inafter shall knowingly spit upon, or in any way stain or designedly in- 
 jure, or in any manner deface the Statute of General 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 Bevisal. page 18. 
 
 Thus family pictures and images, are memorials which naturally 
 create a claim upon the affections, even viewed in themselvees and with- 
 out actual recollection of their originals. Cardinal Bellarmine in chap- 
 ter 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, and so forth, a proper veneration : but not adoration, or latria. 
 His proposition is in the following words ; I print in Roman letters the 
 parts omitted by your correspondent. 
 
 "Imagines Christi, et sanctorum venerandae sunt non solum per accidens, vel 
 improprie, sed itiam per se proprie, ita ut ipsae terminent venerationem, ut in ee 
 considerantur, et non solum ut vicem gerunt exemplaris." 
 
 ' ' 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, considered as ivhat they really are, and not only as they hold' 
 the 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 adoration ; 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, and so forth. Such as was paid to the ark of 
 the covenant with the images of cherubim, and so forth, in the old law. 
 Yet, still, in the same chapter, Bellarmine remarks, that the veneration 
 paid to the image is because 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 2ge. qujBst. article ii., you will find that he takes a wide distinc- 
 tion between the images of Christ and those of the saints; and keeping 
 this distinction in mind, turn over to 3tia. quest, xxv. article iii., for the 
 image of Christ, and article v., for the principle respecting the images 
 of the saints, by analogy from the answers regarding their relics, — you 
 will find how completely 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 assembled about 260 years after his death. 
 
 I shall now state our doctrine, which your correspondent has en- 
 deavoured 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. 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 55 
 
 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 represents, an intrinsic value which makes it venerable 
 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 direct- 
 ly to our Redeemer, or to his friend, but through the image, which is, 
 thus indirectly to receive the homage due to the original. Such is the 
 doctrine of the two councils and the two writers whom ' ' Protestant Cath- 
 olic ' ' 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 a "perplexing light" produced 
 by his own shiftings. 
 
 But I have not yet cleared away all his misrepresentations, 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 were a quotation. From what does he quote it? 
 The creed of Pope Pius has, even upon his own showing, in paragraph 
 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 of the 
 decree?" I shall exhibit his crotcheted 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 believing that the blessed Vir- 
 gin 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 sup- 
 pose 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 ommitted. I shall now state facts, and I think I need scarcely make 
 an inference to exhibit the dishonesty of intention. 
 
 In paragraph 23, the writer states that "Thomas Aquinas asserted 
 for the images of Christ, and so forth, placed in churches the direct 
 worship of Latria,^' the and so forth, placed after the word Christ evi- 
 dently conveys an idea of some adjunct, and the reader naturally asks 
 what that adjunct is. And as naturally concludes it must be what fol- 
 lowed the word Christ in the two former passages which is, "of the 
 
56 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 Virgin Mary and the saints," so that without printing the proposition 
 at full length, the and so forth leads him to believe that Thomas Aquinas 
 asserted the direct worship of Latria for the images 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 the 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 insid- 
 ious nature of an and so forth which the convocation introduced in their 
 sixth canon, at the end of a clause in an oath tendered to the clergy; 
 of which the poet Cleveland writes : 
 
 "I cannot half untruss 
 Et coetera, it is so dbominous." 
 
 In paragraph 24, omitting all mention of the images of Christ, he 
 merely mentions what his and so forth unwarrantably introduced, to- 
 gether 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 and 
 veneration, ' ' and the religious honour due to them is by some of our own 
 writers considered to be Latria, honor sive cultus soli Deo exhihendus, 
 "the worship or honour due to God alone." 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, and so forth .... 
 to publish this, is looked upon as a holy and zealous man ! ! ! The miser- 
 able little compilation, which gave rise to this discussion, was innocence it- 
 self 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 
 honesty. I address you as gentlemen ; Editors of the Gospel Messenger, 
 do you not blush at having permitted 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 didia, or the honour, or worship, or service, which 
 is paid to man by reason of some dignity, holiness, virtue or goodness: 
 or, as the words of Aquinas thus literally rendered, define it, honor, 
 vel cidtus, vel servitus quae exhihetur homini, ratione alien jus dignita- 
 tis, sanctitatis, virtutis, vel honitatis. 
 
 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 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 57 
 
 what he describes as dulia, is such homage as we believe might be law- 
 fully paid to the saints ; and that, if not the image itself, but the saint 
 through the image, be considered, 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 cannot find in the Sum of St. Thomas, which I have 
 carefully examined, 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 edition of Thomas Aquinas differs 
 so widely from those to which I have recourse, I shall describe these 
 latter. One is a thick folio, 1 vol., Parisiis, mdcxxxix, and the other 
 18 volumes, 12mo, Patavii, mdcclx. 
 
 In paragraph 25, he appears to stand upon more solid ground. He 
 had hitherto been only constructing gradually what he now rests upon 
 with confidence. "In his adoration, then, this due honour and venera- 
 tion 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 com- 
 mandments?" 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 a decree of the Council of Trent; that decree laid 
 down that they were not to be worshipped, because of a belief that there 
 was any divinity in them, nor was any trust to be placed in them, as the 
 Gentiles placed trust in their idols, but Christ was to be adored through 
 the image : the honour shown the image was to be referred to Christ, the 
 original, who was really, truly, and properly adored, because he is God : 
 the honour shown to the images of the blessed Virgin and other saints 
 was to be referred to their originals, the saints, who were venerated, not 
 adored. Here, then, the Council gave us two classes and two acts: 
 Christ to be adored, and the Virgin and other saints to be venerated. 
 The first dishonesty was in making three classes, instead of those two. 
 Father Paul omitted the word other, by which the Virgin and other 
 saints were shown 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 
 substituting a generic verb, which embraces adore and venerate, viz., 
 worship; and thus, by this trick, was the distinction of the Council de- 
 
58 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 stroyed. Your correspondent 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 
 adoration 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 and so forth, 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 show the 
 meaning of the verb worship, exhibits St. Thomas teaching that they are 
 to be adored with Latria, or the adoration due to God alone. The next 
 piece of dishonesty consists in omitting the word Christ in the conclu- 
 sion, 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 premises, and images of the saints, 
 with which it was not connected by any true assertion in the premises, 
 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 showing from St. Thomas, that worship meant "adoration," 
 latria. This process reminds me of a French distich, which I recollect 
 somewhat imperfectly ; and a better Eastern scholar, perhaps, can supply 
 the old Arabic word, which has totally escaped 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 derived the Spanish word ca- 
 hallo, "a horse," from the Arabic one for the same animal. 
 
 "Caballo vient A' Almacra, sans doute, 
 
 Mais il y a ete bien change dans sa route." 
 
 "Catallo is derived from Almarca, -vrithout doubt. 
 
 But it has been strangely metamorphosed on its route." 
 
 As Sancho would say, "the mother that bore it, would not know 
 it." Indeed, gentlemen, we can scarcely ever recognise our own doc- 
 trines 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 him- 
 self to determine which is the true Sosio. 
 
 "Now the honour and veneration of the images of Christ, and so forth, thus 
 provided for by the highest authority of the Roman Catholic Church, as indispensably 
 obligatory, we know to be held and taught in that church to be not such as is due 
 to God."— (Par. 23, p. 74, March.) 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 59 
 
 "They are required to give them (the images or pictures of the Virgin Mary, 
 and other saints) in their churches, 'due honor and veneration;' and the religious 
 honour due to them is considered by some of their own writers to be Latria 'honor 
 sive cultus soli Deo exhibendus,' the worship or honour to be given to God alone." — 
 (Par. 24, p. 75, March.) 
 
 "The second was treated as a continuation of its subject prohibiting the worship 
 of image gods; and as images were not worshipped as gods by the church." — (Par, 
 25, p. 76, March.) 
 
 ' ' Venite adoremus is the express language of the Boman Missal : Come, let us 
 adore. Thou shalt not adore nor serve them, is the language of their translation of 
 Scripture. Koman 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 not 
 serve, not adore and serve." — (Note to par. 25, p. 76.) 
 
 Now, good gentlemen, if our writers, to the knowledge of this man, 
 required for those images the honour to be given to God alone, how 
 could he know that our Church held and taught that it was not honour 
 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 direct worship of images; declaring, at the 
 same time, that it should not be Latria, which is due only to God, but merely au 
 honorary adoration." — (Par. 23, p. 74, March.) 
 
 In my last letter I enumerated twelve propositions upon which he 
 and I appeared to be fully agreed, and I showed 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. That 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 diS' 
 tinguish it from any other." 
 
 "Christians under the denomination of Roman Catholics, like other 
 Christians, worship the one true God of the Scriptures. But their 
 Church has authorized 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 Jehovah demands for himself." — 
 (Par. 23, p. 73, March.) 
 
 "Do Catholics, then, thus dishonour 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."— (Par. 9, p. 49, February.) 
 
 ' ' 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 
 
60 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 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 canonized saints, arbitrarily determined to be capable of hearing 
 and answering prayer, and as arbitrarily pronounced to be the blessed 
 attendants of the Divine presence."— (Par. 9, p. 50, February.) 
 
 I shall at present adduce but one or two other passages. I first 
 give two propositions from my last letter, 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 which the worship 
 of images 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." 
 
 "His dulia might be an inferior worship: but if it was worship at 
 all it was idolatry."— (Par. 23, p. 75, March.) 
 
 ' ' And the religious honour due to them is considered by some of their 
 own writers to be Latvia, 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 reason of some dignity, holiness, virtue or goodness." — 
 (Par. 24, p. 75, March.) 
 
 This is rather a bold stroke, where we are told that there are de- 
 grees of worship superior and inferior; 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 correspondent to reconcile his own assertions, as 
 consistency 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 
 show how very widely different are his notions of mythology and of 
 theology from those of, gentlemen, 
 
 Your obedient, humble servant, 
 
 B. c. 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 61 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 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; 
 
 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. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, June 20, 1829. 
 To the Editors: 
 
 Gentlemen : — Since much of what follows in the essay of your cor- 
 respondent, 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 sub- 
 jects of which we treat, should we at once investigate the nature of pagan 
 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 Aeneid and the Pantheon, in support of his asser- 
 tion, which is contrary to that of the council. 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, respecting the nature 
 of pagan idolatry, and any person who doubts the accuracy of my trans- 
 lation, can, by applying at the Miscellany Office, consult the original. 
 
 "It is to be said, as was before stated, that an undue excess in the mode df 
 divine worship is to be classed under the head of superstition. But this is princi- 
 pally 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 religion, this divine worship 
 
62 ^ DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 ought to be given only to the supreme, uncreated God. And therefore, it is super- 
 stitious to bestow it upon any creature whatever. But since worship is paid to God 
 by some sensible signs, for instance by sacrifices, exhibitions, and others of this sort: 
 so also it is used to be given to a creature represented by some sensible form or 
 figure, which is called an idol. Yet this divine worship was given in various ways 
 to idols. 
 
 "Some persons indeed, by a certain wicked art, constructed a sort of images, 
 which by the power of devils had certain effects: whence people thought that in the 
 images themselves there was some divinity; and consequently that divine worship was 
 due to them. And this was the opinion of Hermes Trismegistus, as Augustine says 
 in his book viii, Of the City of God. 
 
 "Others did not pay the worship of the Divinity to the images themselves, but 
 to the creatures whose images they were. And the Apostle touches each of those. 
 (Earn, i.) "And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God, into the likeness 
 of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of 
 creeping things. ' ' And as regards the second, he adds, ' ' and worshipped and served 
 the creature rather than the Creator." The opinions of those were of three sorts. 
 Some indeed thought that certain men whom they worshipped through their images, 
 were gods; such as Jupiter, Mercury, and such others. But some persons thought 
 that the whole world was one God, not by reason of its bodily substance, but, by 
 reason of a soul which they thought was God; saying that God was nothing else but 
 a soul governing the world by motion and reason: as man is said to be wise by 
 reason of his soul, not by reason of his body. Whence, they thought the worship of 
 the divinity should be paid to the whole world, and to all its parts; to the heavens, 
 to the air, to the waters and to all other portions of this description. And to these, 
 as Varro said, they used to refer the names and the images of their gods; and as 
 Augustine relates in his seventh book. On the City of God. 
 
 "But others, to wit, the Platonists, laid down that there was one supreme God 
 as the cause of all things: after whom they placed, that there were certain spiritual 
 substances created by the supreme God, which they called gods, by reason of their 
 participation of the divinity, but we call them angels. After whom, they placed 
 the souls of the heavenly bodies, and under those demons, who were, they said, 
 certain airy animals, and under those they placed the souls of men, which through 
 the merit of virtue, they believed to be assumed to the fellowship of gods or of 
 demons; and they paid the worship of the divinity to all those, as Augustine relates 
 in his book viii. Of the City of God. 
 
 "But they said that these two last opinions belonged to physical theology, 
 which the philosophers considered in the world, and taught in the schools. But 
 they said that the other, regarding the worship of men, belonged to fabulous theology, 
 which according to the feigning of the poets was represented in the theatres. But 
 the other opinion concerning images, they said belonged to civil theology, which 
 was celebrated by the pontiffs in the temples. But all these belonged to the super- 
 stition of idolatry, whence Augustine says, in his second book, 'Of the doctrine of 
 Christ,' All this is superstitious, whatsoever has been instituted by men to make and 
 worship idols, leading to worship, or worshipping as God, any creature, or the part 
 of any creature." — 2da 2d8e, qusest. xciv. 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, 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 63 
 
 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 companions and friends : and pre- 
 viously to his becoming a Christian, Augustine 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 com- 
 piled as a reply to the pagans who endeavoured to attribute to Chris- 
 tianity 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 not only its contrast to Christianity, but 
 its folly and criminality. It was published in the midst of pagans, and 
 when several eminent scholars warmly advocated the mythological prac- 
 tices 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 Aeneid, and the Pantheon as equivalent to the testimony 
 of such a writer. They indeed give us the fabulous theologly or mytho- 
 logy 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. ! it 
 is sickening to behold the intoxicated conceit of those who have been 
 forced in childhood to sip the shallow draughts, boastingly brought by 
 meagre empirics, from the stream of knowledge ! What a contrast is 
 exhibited in the calm, dignified, and consistent demeanour of the sages, 
 whose lives have been spent under the shadow of those venerable oaks 
 that surround the fountain. One views in astonishment the collection of 
 splendid and accurate charts that have been flung aside in the spirit 
 of overweening pride, by the hardy and courageous adventures, who 
 infected with the mania of indiscriminate reform, launch out as stran- 
 gers, 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 predecessors ? 
 St. Augustine shows in this work, that the pagans were all poly- 
 theists, if not in belief, certainly in practice: he shows that even the 
 followers of Plato paid divine honours to created spirits, whom they 
 called gods, and clearly shows that Cicero was a polytheist, though he 
 condemned the extravagance and absurdity of the civil as well as the 
 
64 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 mythological ritual. Besides this, he shows that when the pagans wor- 
 shipped their gods through images, they paid divine honour to created 
 beings, and though the adoration should not have been directed to the 
 image itself, yet being directed to a creature; and generally that crea- 
 ture was a devil, or some wicked mortal, the act was highly criminal. 
 There is another class of pagans also exhibited, which paid the divine 
 honours to the image itself, by reason of some divinity which they be- 
 lieved to be residing therein as in a body after its consecration, and this 
 divinity was either an imaginary being, a devil, or a deceased human 
 being, w'hich they believed to be invoked to occupy, or evoked to desert 
 the image. Towards the close of his eighth book, he, in chapter xxvii., 
 finely vindicates the Christian honour of the martyrs and of their re- 
 mains, contrasting the veneration which is shown 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 hun- 
 dred and twenty years later, men had but one language, but at this 
 period, they became divided in their tongues, and formed separate na- 
 tions. The most ancient 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 show that the first error which was generally admitted after 
 the corruption of the original traditions, consisted in a belief that there 
 existed a 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 productiveness 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 circumstances gave direction to the 
 mind of the worshipper, and whilst the Chaldean adored the soul of the 
 universe in the stars which he observed, the Egyptian 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 
 necessary to an unsheltered and agricultural people, as well as the regu- 
 larity of the phases and motions which those stars exhibited, added to 
 
two DEFENCE OP PRECEDING SECTION 65 
 
 the brilliancy of their aspect, made "the army of heaven," as they were 
 soon called, an object of the earliest wonder and veneration 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 promi- 
 nent light as an individual, 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 admit to be read for 
 instruction of life and manners, and which you of course believe to be 
 at least the testimony of a respectable and well-informed witness, regard- 
 ing an important and public fact, the existence of which he was then 
 more competent, than we now can be to ascertain. 
 
 "1. But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of 
 God ; and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand 
 him, that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who 
 was the workman : 
 
 "2. But having imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the 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 mightier than they : 
 
 "5. For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, 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 per- 
 haps err, seeking God, and desirious to find him. 
 
 "7. For being conversant among his 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 judg- 
 ment of the world : how did they not more easily find out the Lord there- 
 of." {Wisdom, chap, xiii.) 
 
 Here now was a crime, 1st, because of not giving adoration to the 
 true God ; 2d, because of multiplying gods ; and 3d, because of giving to 
 a creature the homage which was due only to the Creator. This crimi- 
 
66 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 nality existed before an image was made ; Job mentions this as criminal 
 conduct, in chapter xxxi., as regarded the sun 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 emblematic devices representations of the object of their 
 worship, Baal, Ashtaroth, Anubis, Isis, and so forth. These representa- 
 tions had no real prototypes, nor were the invented figures similitudes 
 or copies of any of the objects 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 fitted to express the qualities of the 
 god whom they adored. 
 
 EiSoXov or "idolum^^ is a likeness, and so is etKos ^' 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 original in nature. Hence the words soon came in common usage 
 to be differently appropriated, idolum to the representation of a ficti- 
 tious God, and imago to the representation of that which had a natural 
 prototype. The worshipper of the fictitious deities was criminal in those 
 times before an image was made, and now when he paid divine honour 
 to his imaginary god, through the idol, his crime was not thereby dimin- 
 ished, 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 besot- 
 ted, if not more criminal. The worship due to the deity was generally 
 designated latria, and hence the worshipper of idols was called an idol- 
 ater. 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, xiii., 
 and in the commencement of his chap. xiv. down to verse 14, to describe 
 this mode of making and of worshipping 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 honours to the image of his son : and the next process was paying 
 divine honours to other statues by the wicked custom of law, and by 
 the order of tyrants. The history of the Egyptian, the Grecian, and the 
 Roman people will exhibit the same series of facts; as well as those de- 
 scribed in the 22d and subsequent verses of chapter 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 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 67 
 
 of Jupiter the king of the gods : and when we follow up the explanations 
 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 var- 
 ious 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 creatures 
 through the idols, and frequently to the idols themselves: heroes and 
 demi-gods were next assumed 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 cor- 
 respondent should take it into his head, from his knowledge of the Iliad, 
 the Aeneid, and the Pantheon, to call any part of this statement into 
 question, I beg to inform you that it is not thoughtlessly hazarded ; there 
 is abundant evidence to sustain its averments, but I do not deem it now 
 necessary to exhibit an array of testimony, which is at his service. 
 
 In this view of pagan idolatry are included, first, the ommission of 
 worshipping the true God; secondly, polytheism; thirdly, paying divine 
 honour to created beings, or to imaginary beings ; fourthly, the cere- 
 monial of worship was, in its own nature, and in its necessary conse- 
 quences, generally of the most demoralizing tendency. The created be- 
 ings were animate, or inanimate; but when this worship was paid to 
 an inanimate idol, 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 shrines and idols, especially at Delphos, bear ample 
 testimony. I acknowledge they were impositions, whether merely 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 distinct notion of pagan idol- 
 atry. 
 
 The Theogony of Hesiod, as well as the other ancient pieces of the 
 Greeks, will confirm this view. I 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 their knowledge has reached 
 our day. Socrates, if he know the nature of God, certainly was deficient 
 in one great point of duty, for he had sacrifice, which is the greatest 
 act of divine worship, paid to the god Esculapius. His disciple, Plato, 
 
68 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 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 Theism, like the Great Spirit of our 
 aborigines, is the idol of modern infidelity. St. Augustine had no extra- 
 ordinary respect for this best production of the philosophical research 
 of antiquity. Let us observe a mere outline of Plato's system. In his 
 Timaeus he lays down as a principle, that the soul or spirit should exist 
 before the body which it is to animate or to govern ; from this principle, 
 also, in the 10th Book of Laws, he concludes that God must have existed 
 before matter was arranged, for by his intelligence it was made harmo- 
 nious in its movements. He exhibits to us the whole matter of the uni- 
 verse as animated and moved by a universal soul, without informing us 
 whether this Psyche is God, 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 ani- 
 mals," ''celestial gods," and so forth. Those celestial gods have pro- 
 duced beings who generally invisible, yet have power of manifesting 
 themselves; they are genii, demons, and other spirits, and those lower 
 spirits are the beings commissioned to form man and terrestrial animals, 
 to animate them with portions of soul derived from the stars, and so 
 forth. He states, that we can neither conceive nor explain the origin of 
 the celestial gods, but that we ought to respect the accounts which we 
 have received 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 previously existed, that is, existed 
 before that which was eternal ! Were I to enter into any examination, 
 it would occupy space and time which this present object does not re- 
 quire. 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 genii." But when Christianity was 
 established, and the early Christian writers assailed this idolatry, then, 
 for the first time, the able and ingenious pagans of the Platonic school 
 endeavoured to take shelter under the shield of Christianity itself, by 
 adopting the doctrine of minor and relative veneration, which was ulti- 
 mately referable to "God the eternal," "the supreme God," and so forth. 
 Celsus was one of the first who had recourse to this strategem ; Origen 
 gives us his statement; Julian the Apostate 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 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 69 
 
 assertions, and those assertions were then new and inadmissible. And 
 since truth must continue 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 should intro- 
 duce 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 abun- 
 dant, and at hand. Origen, in his Homily 8, on Exodus, in expounding 
 the meaning of the phrase "graven thing," or "graven image," which 
 the Septuagint, long before Christianity, translated in Exodus xx. by 
 the word «8oAov, 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 falsehood," "a lie," "a lying thing," "a deceit," and so 
 forth, as it is frequently called by sacred writers. Theodoret gives the 
 same distinction in Qua?s. 38, upon the same passage. Tertullian states 
 that ctSoXov is a diminutive of «Sos, '^ forma/' or appearance, to show, 
 by the use of the diminutive, there was no expression of the prototype; 
 for those diminutives were used either to denote extraordinary affection, 
 or such imperfection as created contempt, {lib. de idolatria.) Hence, 
 Lucian also calls the shades of the dead etSoXa, phantasmatic delusions, 
 unreal mockeries : thus St. Augustine informs us, in Psalm cxxxv., that, 
 what the Greeks called eiSoXa^ the Latins called simulacra, which word 
 is derived, not from similis, "like," but from simulare, "to pretend;" 
 whence St. Jerome, 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 Col. i. 15, styles the incarnate Son "the image of the 
 invisible God," not eiSoXov, but €txov tov Oeov tov aoparov- and in 
 Hebrew i. 3, "the express image of his person," not €l8oXov^ but char- 
 acter; 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 ciSoAov ^'idolum/' an idol; and then ofxoioixa.^ which is by some 
 rendered "similitudo," likeness, by others ''simulacrum,'' the meaning 
 of which we have seen above: in Leviticus xix. 4, repeating the pre- 
 cept, Moses tells the Israelites not to follow etSoXoi?, idols, and imme- 
 diately adjoins "nor gods made by fusion," or "molten gods." In 
 Numbers xxiii. 21, your version gives us, not the translation of the He- 
 brew, according to St. Jerome, 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 
 
70 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 there be no distinction between idols and images, I believe it would be 
 very hard to reconcile those various readings ; but if we only admit this 
 distinction, the reconciliation is at once effected. St. Jerome 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 iniquity in Jacob: neither hath he seen perverseness in 
 Israel. ' ' 
 
 Both translations agree in the next phrase. 
 
 ' ' The Lord his God is with him, ' ' and so forth. 
 
 Now, according to our translation, this was a declaration 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 w^ere 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, and so forth,) . From the view already taken, 
 as well as from an inspection of Exodus xxv. 18, and so forth, as also 
 of / 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 synonymous with the iniquity of idolatry: the word w^hich sig- 
 nified an "image-god" also signified perverseness, so that I do not object 
 to your translation as wanting in literal correctness, provided the 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 pro- 
 perly said by the Chaldaic paraphrase to be "a worker of falsehood."' 
 Thus the Samaritan has the words "iniquity," 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 "iniquity" to mean 
 idol, and "perverseness" image-god, the translations at once are recon- 
 ciled: 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 show that an idol or image- 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 71 
 
 god was alwaj's designated 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 representa- 
 tion; or "iniquity," as idolatry is called in Osee vi. 8, "work of in- 
 iquity," and hence in the New Testament, St. Paul (/. Cor. viii. 4) 
 writes, "we know that an idol «SoXov, 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," and so forth. That is "idols lead 
 to polytheism, 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 used in the old Scripture, for those objects of pagan worship, 
 and of Jewish prevarication. Bahalim, "masters or lords," Elilim, 
 "imaginary beings," Schedim, or Sckoudim, "wicked or destructive be- 
 ings, or iniquitous," Tsijjim, or Scharhirim, "monsters, or ugly ani- 
 mals, or wild ferocious beasts." Again in our version, Psalm xcv. 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 was 
 
 neglected by the Gentiles, or I shall take your own version of the same 
 
 passage. Psalm xcvi. 5 : 
 
 "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 shows 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 doctrine and practice then are, that divine 
 honour is to be paid only to the one God, the 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 written would be more 
 than enough, but as there appears to be a disposition to force us into 
 the ranks of idolaters, whether we will or not ; and, as many very strange 
 assertions are made respecting the belief and practice of the ancients, 
 probably it would be as well to resume the subject in my next. 
 I am, gentlemen. 
 
 Your obedient, humble servant, b. c. 
 
72 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 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 I. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, June 27, 1829. 
 To the Editors: 
 
 Gentlemen: — In my last, I have exhibited an outline of the idola- 
 trous 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, under strange figures fash- 
 ioned 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 arrogate 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 established my first position. Your corre- 
 spondent 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 coincide with me therein, for in his essay 2, paragraph 
 23, he admits a wide distinction in favour of "Christian 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 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 73 
 
 and the Indian who "through his idols" "worshipped the unknown 
 God." Now they who neither luaew nor believed an}i;hing of the one 
 Jehovah could not worship him through an image, or without one. 
 
 The supreme god Avorshipped by the idolatrous Greeks and Romans 
 was Jupiter, or Jove, who certainly was not the eternal God, because 
 he was the son of Saturn, who was himself the son of Coelus, and so 
 forth, neither was he the "Creator," because 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 information 
 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 Je- 
 hovah, or "God the Creator," and Neptune, Pluto, and so forth, in the 
 situation of our saints? Verily, the good simple men need to be taught. 
 But if they have been taught, 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 
 asserters? Yea, — of a truth then, is their religious integrity a noble 
 phenomenon ! ! 
 
 But, gentlemen, your curious correspondent might easily have refer- 
 red 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. 
 
 Quern 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 : 
 
 Eather a rude and indigested mass: 
 
 A lifeless lump, unf ashion 'd unf ramed, 
 
 Of jarring seeds; and justly Chaos named." 
 
 Thus Ovid gives us matter, or chaos in the first instance, before all 
 things; he then proceeds to inform us of its subsequent distribution or 
 arrangement. 
 
 "Sic uhi dispositam, quisquis fuit ille Deorum, 
 Congeriem secuit, sectamque in membra redegit." 
 ' ' Thus when the God, whatever God was he, 
 Had formed the whole, and made the parts agree. ' ' 
 
 We have thus found his testimony in the first book of his Metamor- 
 phoses, for the pre-existence of chaos, or matter increated ; and some one 
 of the gods, — one whom they did not know, subsequently regulating the 
 parts, of which this chaos was composed. 
 
74 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 " Postquam, Saturno tenetrosa in Tartara misso, Sub Jove mundus erat." 
 ' ' But when good Saturn, banish 'd from above, 
 Was driven 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. 
 
 My theme th' immortal gods, a race divine. 
 
 Of Earth, of Heaven which lamps of light adorn, 
 
 And of old sable Night, great parents, born," and so forth. 
 
 I make but such few extracts as are necessary for my purpose, but 
 am careful not to garble, so as to misrepresent any idea of the original, 
 or to suggest any not contained therein. I shall quote from Cooke's 
 translation and refer to the lines. 
 
 "Chaos, of all the origin, gave birth; 
 
 First to her offspring the wide-bosomed Earth, 
 
 The seat secure of all the gods, who now 
 
 Possess Olympus ever clothed with snow : 
 
 Th' abodes of Hell from the same fountain rise, and so forth. (Line 190.) 
 
 And Erebus, black son, from Chaos came, 202. 
 
 Born with his sister Night, a sable dame. 
 
 Night born, 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, and so forth. 
 
 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 'rf ul monarch, hence detive their birth 
 
 With Neptune, deity who shakes the earth: 
 
 Of these great Jove, the ruler of the skies 
 
 Of gods and men the sire, in council wise, 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 75 
 
 Is born; and him the universe adores, 
 
 And the earth trembles when his thunder roars. 
 
 Saturn from Earth and Heav'n adorned with stars, 
 
 Had learned the rumor of approaching wars, 
 
 Great as he was, a greater should arise 
 
 To rob him of his empire of the skies. 
 
 The mighty Jove his son," and so forth. 
 
 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 
 might 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 description if you need them. I here quote from your own 
 version, unless I state otherwise. 
 
 ' ' 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," and so forth. — (Levit. xvii. 6, 7.) 
 
 Catholic version. {Deut. xxxii. 15, 16, 17, 18.) "He forsook God who made 
 him, and departed from God his Saviour. They provoked him by strange gods, and 
 stirred 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 wor- 
 shipped 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 provoked him. 
 
 Protestant version. ' ' Then he forsook God that made him, and lightly esteemed 
 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 Eock 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." 
 
 Catholic version. (Psalm cvi. Catholic Psalm cv.) "19. They made also a 
 calf in Horeb: and they adored the graven thing, and they changed their glory into 
 the likeness of a calf that eateth grass," and so forth. 
 
 Protestant version. ' ' 19. They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped the 
 molten image. 20. Thus they changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that 
 eateth grass. 21. They forgot God their Saviour, which had done great things in 
 Egypt." 
 
 Catholic version. "They were also initiated to Beelphegor, " and so forth. 
 
 Protestant version. "28. They joined themselves also unto Baalpeor and eat 
 the sacrifices of the dead. 29. Thus they provoked him to anger with their inven- 
 tions. ' ' 
 
 Protestant version. (Numbers xxv.) "1. And Israel abode in Shittim, and 
 the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. 2. And they 
 
76 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 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, " and so forth. 
 
 The idols that they adored were dead and the sacrifices offered them 
 were by way of contempt called the "sacrifices of the dead," to show 
 the vanity of idols, in contrast with "the living God," who necessarily 
 possesses life and communicates it. The Psalmist proceeds to show who 
 were the objects of adoration through the images of those idolaters. 
 
 Protestant version. (Psalm cvi.) "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 vrith 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 Fantheon, as your 
 correspondent seems to like the book. 
 
 Section 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. 
 
 ' ' 2. And Ahaziah fell down througli a lattice that was in his upper chamber in 
 Samaria, and was sick: and he sent messengers, and he said unto them, Go, and 
 inquire of Baalzebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover of this disease. 3. 
 But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up and meet the mes- 
 sengers of the king of Samaria, and say unto them, Is it not because there is not a 
 god in Israel, that ye go to inquire of Baalzebub the god of Ekron?" — Kings 11. 
 or IV. chap. i. 
 
 ' ' 24. But when the Pharisees heard it, they said. This fellow doth not cast out 
 devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of devils." — Matthew xii. 
 
 "25. But some of them said. He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief 
 of the devils. ' ' — Lulce xi. 
 
 I should hope that we are no longer to be annoyed by the unlettered 
 folly of those who assert, that in worshipping Jupiter, 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 reader 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 sumirons 
 them to his council, and after the consultation, which is not always 
 marked by kindness for each other, he takes the votes and ratifies the 
 decision, often against his own private inclination. — Thus, they are not 
 obsequious adorers, created by him, dependent upon him, and whom he 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 77 
 
 might annihilate, but they are turbulent and frequently vicious reprovers 
 and opposers of his wishes. Towards 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 exchanged between the 
 loving pair, when the queen of gods makes the discovery, but her white- 
 armd 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 shows us the gods mixed with the opposite armies in bat- 
 tle. Passing over the various other places 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 passage which your correspondent quotes from 
 Cicero, paragraph 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 idola- 
 ters ! ! ! 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 backward, 
 
 three steps." 
 
 "4. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, of silver, of brass, of iron, 
 of ■wood, and of stone." — Daniel, chap. v. 
 
 ' ' 26. Moreover, ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost through- 
 out all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much peoplo, 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 temple of the great goddess Diana 
 should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the 
 world worshippeth. " — Acts xix. 
 
 "5. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, 
 (as there be gods many and lords many.") — / Corinthians viii. 
 
 "8. Howbeit, then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which 
 by nature are no gods. ' ' — Galatians iv. 
 
 Besides those passages, we have several others in various parts of 
 the Holy Scriptures, which distinctly mention the polytheism of idola- 
 ters. 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 chapter 
 XXXV. 2, we find Jacob commanding the household to put away strange 
 gods, as he was preparing by the divine command to erect an altar ; and 
 in V. 4, we find that Jacob buried the gods and their appendages. That 
 the family of the patriarchs were with great difficulty preserved from 
 
78 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 the polytheism of Mesopotamia and of Egypt, is evident from the neces- 
 sity which Josue found, after so long an interval, to give the solemn 
 injunction, {Josue xxiv. 14, and so forth). 
 
 ' ' Now, therefore, fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and truth : and put 
 away the gods which your fathers served 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 Amorites, 
 in Avhich they were each given in the plural, gods, or to serve the true 
 and only God, given in the singular, the Lord : in verse 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 shown 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 tabernacle 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 Prophets, which teem with evidence equally 
 strong, as do the words of the pagans themselves ; and yet some of our 
 good, sleek, modern Christians, will say this was not polytheism ! ! ! Ju- 
 piter was the supreme god, and the other gods were saints ! ! ! Let them 
 read the fifteenth book of the Iliad. 
 
 I now proceed to allude to a few facts out of many, that show the 
 belief which the pagans had in the virtue of idols : and, though it might 
 happen that Cicero, or a few others formed an exception, I shall easily 
 show 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, Helenus tells Hec- 
 tor 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 direction 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 laboured o'er with gold. 
 
 Before the goddess' honoured knees be spread. 
 
 And twelve young heifers to the altar led. 
 
 So may the power, atoned by fervent prayer. 
 
 Our wives, our infants, and our city spare, and so forth. 
 
 Soon as to Ilion 's topmost tower they come, 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 79 
 
 And awful reach the high Palladian dome, 
 Antenor's consort, fair Theano, waits 
 As Pallas' priestess, 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 km es, and thus she prays : 
 
 So prayed the priestess in her holy fane; 
 
 So vowed 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 Aeneid, on the same subject. 
 
 Interea at templum non aequae PaUadis ibant 
 
 Criniius Iliades passis, peplumque ferebant. 
 
 Suppliciter tristes, et tunsae pectora palmis, 
 
 Diva solo fixos oculos aversa tenebat. 
 
 1 Aeneid, 483. 
 
 ' ' Meantime, a pensive, supplicating train 
 
 Of Trojan matrons, to Minerva's fane. 
 
 In sad procession with a robe repair, 
 
 Beat their white breasts, and rend their golden hair. 
 
 Unmoved with prayers, disdainfully she frowned. 
 
 And fix'd her eyes, relentless, on the ground." 
 
 We have another instance in the next book of the Aeneid, where 
 he is describing the desolation of the ruined city, and the carnage. 
 
 Aedibus in mediis, nudogue sub aetheris axe 512 
 
 Ingens ara fuit, juxtaque veterrima laxirus, 
 
 Incumbens arae, atque umbra complexa Penates, 
 
 Hie Hecuba, et natae nequicquam altaria circum, 
 
 Praecipites atra ceu tempestate columbae, 
 
 Condensae, et Divum amplexae simulacra tenebant. 
 
 ' ' Within the courts, beneath the naked sky. 
 
 An altar rose, an aged laurel by; 
 
 That o'er the hearth and household-gods displayed 
 
 A solemn gloom, a deep majestic shade: 
 
 Hither, like doves, who close embodied fly 
 
 Prom some dark tempest, black 'ning in the sky, 
 
 The queen for refuge with her daughters ran. 
 
 Clung and embraced their images in vain. ' ' 
 In the beginning of this book, Sinon, in imposing upon the Tro- 
 jans, must have spoken to them in a manner that was according to their 
 mode of thinking; and he, line 171, and so forth, states: 
 
 Nee dubiis ea siqna dedit Tritonia monstris. 
 
 Vix positum castris simulacrum; arsere coruscae 
 
 Luminibus flammae arrectis, salsusque per artus 
 
 Sudor at, terque ipsa solo (mirabile dictu) 
 
80 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 Emicuit, parmamq; ferens hastamq, trementem. 
 
 "And many a dreadful sign 
 To trembling 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 bedewed her limbs 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 Schoolboy ^s Fantheon: 
 
 ' ' The Palladium was an image of Pallas, preserved in the castle of the city of 
 Troy; for, while the castle and temple of Minerva were building, they say, this image 
 fell from heaven into it, before it was covered with a roof. This raised everybody'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 impossible 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 sewers, and bring away the fatal 
 image. When they had performed the task, Troy was taken without diflSculty. 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 
 Aeneas recovered it, after it had been taken by the Greeks from Diomedes, and car- 
 ried it with him into Italy, where it was laid up in the temple of Vesta, as a pledge 
 of the stability of the Eoman 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 Dio- 
 medes took, and the other Aeneas carried with him. ' ' 
 
 The dedication of the statues, their consecration, and so forth, are 
 so well known, as scarcely to need even reference. 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. Iv. 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 of Delphos, for the purpose 
 of learning from the oracle of Apollo, 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 per- 
 formed, by which Juno, their tutelar deity, is, through her statue, in- 
 vited to Rome ; and it being supposed that she gave her assent by some 
 visible sign, the image was borne along, and Camillus dedicated her 
 temple on the Aventine hill. The lectisterniiim, which Livy mentions 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 81 
 
 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-fur- 
 nished 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 twelve chapters — we have the history 
 of the quantity of provisions given every day to be consumed 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 necessary for 
 the idol. 
 
 Suetonius tells us, that when Augustus lost a number of ships in a 
 storm, he was so angry with Neptune, 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 EzeUel, 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 Del- 
 phos, nor so many others, I shall exhibit a passage from the prophet 
 Zachary, chapter 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 translation of verse 35, chapter xix. of the Acts 
 of the Apostles, in w^hich Demetrius is made to say, that the statue of 
 Diana at Ephesus, was let down from Jupiter. St. Augustin, in lib. 
 iii., De Doct. Christ., chapter 7, says: "I confess, they are more besot- 
 ted who look upon the works of men's 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 thousand 
 gods on earth, but I see that there are many more wooden and stone 
 creators of men." Hermes Trismegistus, as quoted by St. Augustine, 
 lib. viii., chapter 23, De civit. 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 fore- 
 know," and so forth, "bestowing good and evil," and so forth. Amo- 
 bius writes, 1. 6, chapter 27, that the heathens did not adore the metal 
 
82 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 of the idol, but the divinity which came to dwell in it upon its dedica- 
 tion ; and upon this ground the various statements of the speaking and 
 acting of images were not so revolting to these people, as they necessarily 
 must be to us. 
 
 I have now shown 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, hiunble servant, 
 
 B. c. 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 Not so the mind that has been touched 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 acknowledged Sovereign, finds at once 
 
 Its only just proprietor in Him. 
 
 Much conversant with heaven, 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 graduate the new created earth. 
 
 Sent forth a voice, and all the sons of God 
 
 Shouted for joy. Cowper. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Aug. 3, 1829. 
 To the Editors: 
 
 Gentlemen: — Upon the present occasion, I prefer being tedious, to 
 being indistinct. I shall, therefore, now restate summarily the criminal 
 characteristics 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 wor.ship to idols. 
 
 5. Giving divine worship to imaginary beings. 
 
 6. Using unnatural, immoral, and indecent rites. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, in the Roman Catholic invocation and honouring 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 83 
 
 of saints, and veneration of images, no one of those ingredients is found. 
 Your curious correspondent acknowledges that we do pay homage to 
 God, the eternal Creator; and I believe we may assume that we are not 
 charged as guilty under the sixth head. Our attention is therefore con- 
 fined to the intermediate four. To understand 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 diffi- 
 culty is at an end. Now the pagans made no distinction between the 
 worship due to any two of their superior gods, for instance, Neptune 
 and Pluto. So far as the mental act is concerned, they gave divine wor- 
 ship to each; that is, the worship due to God, by praying to him as an 
 independent and original deity, who immediately, 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 his votary, nor did that votary ask of Neptune to 
 intercede, or to pray with him to Jupiter, for what was considered Nep- 
 tune '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 wor- 
 ship due to the divinity, due only to God. And this homage 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 of 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 with- 
 out that mental act itself, would not be worship, but hypocrisy; so far 
 from being true homage, it would be mockery. Thus, the source of wor- 
 ship, the seat of worship, must be found in the mind. The etymology 
 of the word itself will here, as in many other cases, greatly help us to dis- 
 cover the exact idea which it expresses. It is a compound word, — worth, 
 with the old Saxon termination, ship, which signified "office," "em- 
 ployment," or "condition;" the worth signified "value," "excellence," 
 ' ' importance : ' ' hence worship is properly ' ' a condition of excellence, ' ' 
 and to worship is of course mentally to appreciate the excellence 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 gen- 
 eric one, and regards various beings in their several degrees of excel- 
 
84 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 lence: hence Johnson gives its first meaning, as a verb active, "to adore," 
 "to honour or venerate with religious rites," — its second "to respect," 
 "to honour," "to treat with civil deference," — its third "to treat with 
 amorous respect. ' ' Hence it is obvious that worship in the English lan- 
 guage, either as a noun or as a verb active, denotes a mental act, in 
 which one reasonable being regards the various excellence of others, and 
 treats them accordingly: that it means various kinds of respect to those 
 others, as their 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 divine 
 worship to any other being; hence 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 Cath- 
 olics. This condemnation and explanation ought, in common justice, 
 form a good 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 ado- 
 ration to be "the external homage paid to the divinity, distinct from 
 mental reverence;" but it is lawful to differ even from the great biblio- 
 grapher himself, and I humbly apprehend that neither of the examples 
 which he adduces will bear him out ; the following are the passages : 
 
 "Solemn and serviceable worship we name, for distinction sake, whatsoever 
 belongeth to the church (or public society) of God, by way of external adoration." 
 — Hooker. 
 
 "It is possible to suppose, that those who believe a supreme excellent Being, may 
 yet give him no external adoration at all. ' ' — Stillingfleet. 
 
 Now in each of those instances, if Johnson is correct, Hooker and 
 Stillingfleet were guilty of very glaring tautology, for if adoration be 
 the external act, as distinct from the mental, each of those very accurate 
 writers has given us the very curious phrase of an "external, external 
 act," by prefixing the word external to adoration. I apprehend the exam- 
 ples would go to show that adoration was the mental act of reverence to 
 the Divinity, which, when manifested by "solemn and serviceable wor- 
 ship," 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 divinity, in the strict and prim- 
 itive meaning of the term. The word is one adopted from the Latin, 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 85 
 
 ^'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 approached or saluted the idols ; hence the 
 homage of the divinity was known by the phrase apponere manus ad ora, 
 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 mouth hath kissed my hand; this also 
 were in iniquity to be punished by the judge: for I should have denied the God that 
 is above. ' ' 
 
 I suspect you will find a slight mistake, and perhaps 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. {Ill Kings xix. 18). "And I will leave me seven thousand 
 men in Israel, whose knees have not bowed before Baal, and every mouth that hath 
 not worshipped him, kissing hands. ' ' 
 
 I apprehend, gentlemen, that you would find some difficulty in show- 
 ing, that the worshippers of Baal 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, passing through fire, and so 
 forth. 
 
 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, preferring him infinitely beyond all his works, humbling itself 
 in his presence, acknowledging its dependence upon him, desiring to be 
 united to him as the source of perfection, believing his declarations, 
 anxious to fulfill his will, and ready to use all efforts in its execution. 
 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 mental act, had several 
 objects, indeed it must be of as many kinds as there were classes of 
 reasonable beings in various conditions of worth or excellence, and 
 yet in the manifestation of those several corresponding 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 he 
 stood in very different relations. I shall here adduce a few instances. 
 
 1. Abraham, respecting three angels, appearing as men. 
 
 Catholic version. {Genesis xviii, 2). "And as soon as he saw them, he ran 
 to meet them from the door of his tent, and adored down to the ground. ' ' 
 
 Protestant version. ' ' And when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the 
 tent door, and bowed himself towards the ground. ' ' 
 
86 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 2. Lot, respecting the two angels, coming to Hodom. 
 
 Catholic version. {Genesis xix. 1). "And seeing them, he rose up and went 
 to meet them: and worshipped prostrate to the ground." 
 
 Protestant version. "And Lot seeing them, rose up to meet them, and bowed 
 himself with his face towards the ground." 
 
 3. Abraham, respecting the children of Heth. 
 
 Catholic version. (Genesis xxiii. 7). "Abraham rose up, and bowed down to 
 the people of the land." 
 
 Protestant version. "And Abraham stood up and bowed himself to the people 
 
 of the land. ' ' 
 
 Catholic version, (v. 12). "Abraham bowed down, before the people of the 
 
 land." 
 
 Protestant version. "And Abraham bowed down himself before the people of 
 
 the land. ' ' 
 
 4. Abraham on the mountain going to sacrif.ee. 
 
 Catholic version. (Genesis xxii. 5). "And after we have worshipped will re- 
 turn to you." 
 
 Protestant version. "Will go yonder and worship and come again." 
 
 5. Abraham's servant in Mesopotamia. 
 
 Catholic version. (Genesis xxiv. 26). "The man bowed himself down, and 
 adored the Lord." 
 
 Protestant version. "And the man bowed down his head and worshipped the 
 
 Lord." 
 
 Catholic version, (v. 52). "Which when Abraham's servant heard, falling 
 down to the ground, he adored the Lord." 
 
 Protestant version. "When Abraham's servant heard their words, he wor- 
 shipped the Lord bowing himself to the earth." 
 
 Now, in those several passages we have in the Hebrew, the self-same 
 verb for the several acts of respect, 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. 4 we have 
 the supreme or divine worship due to God, as in both parts of No. 
 5 ; in both of No. 3, we have only the worship due to the children of 
 Heth, 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 variations in the mode of bowing down, which are to 
 be seen upon comparing your translation with the original and some of 
 the ancient versions. I shall content myself with stating what I believe 
 is evident, that the external act which is described by an unchanging 
 verb, was the same in all cases, but that the nature of the internal act 
 varied, with the mental respect intended to be paid by him who gave the 
 homage. When Abraham bowed down to the people of the land, it was 
 human worship, not divine worship, when he or his servant bowed down 
 to God, it was di\ine worship, not human worship, and when Abraham 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 87 
 
 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 Abraham 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 dispute the assertion : 
 and will argue upon its supposed 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 discrimination as to their mode of treat- 
 ment : nor have we sufficient scriptural evidence to sustain the assertion, 
 that one was the Son of God, but there is indeed a vague tradition to 
 that effect. It is true that in the course of the chapter Abraham con- 
 verses with the Lord ; and only two angels subsequently appear to Lot ; 
 if, then, the eternal Son had sent his two angelic companions 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 every- 
 thing which can be demanded, that Lot mistaking them for men, paid 
 only human worship ; I 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 
 sufficient evidence of the same description of homage or worship being 
 paid in those cases. When to this consideration we add the fact, that 
 in early languages, especially 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 Hebrews who, 
 by the outward act of ''bowing down," manifested their respect for 
 God, for men, and for intermediate or angelic beings, should express all 
 those several degrees and sorts of respect by the verb "to bow down," 
 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 worship, and it is law- 
 ful to give to human beings, by reason of their excellence, human wor- 
 ship, as it is lawful to give to God, because of his excellence, divine 
 worship. The second is demanded by religion and 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 
 
88 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 civil worship. They might both in several instances be expressed by 
 the same external act, which being equivocal, is explained in each case 
 by the circumstances. It is clear then that although divine worship be 
 due to God alone, yet inferior worship 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 ilodatry, is by endeavouring to prove that though they 
 worship God, yet that they also give divine worship to creatures. It is 
 said by our opponents, and among others by your curious correspondent, 
 that every species of religious worship is di\ane worship, and that our 
 acknowledgement, that we do give religious worship to creatures, is 
 evidence that we do give them divine worship. This is as good logic as 
 any miserable play upon a word can exhibit. Our answer is short. If 
 all religious worship be divine worship, then we do not give them re- 
 ligious worship ; but if there be various descriptions of religious worship, 
 of which divine worship is the principal, then we, in giving a different 
 description from that which is divine, do not pay divine worship, so that 
 the whole question resolves itself into the inquiry, 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 inquire what is the meaning of the word religious. 
 Religion, properly speaking, means "a double or repeated bond;" 
 it is that strict tie, by which we are bound to the service of God. Thus, 
 Johnson defines it, "virtue as founded upon reverence of God, and ex- 
 pectation 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 there- 
 fore, if they be in their own nature good, they will also be religious acts. 
 Thus a man who sees his fellow-creature in distress, 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 of God, 
 and in accordance with his precept of mercy, bestows the necessary 
 aid, it is then an act of religion. Religious is, therefore, that which is 
 done through reverence for God. When we worship God himself, it 
 is an act of religion, and is divine worship ; but if through reverence 
 to God, we pay worship to some excellent being nearly connected with 
 the Almighty, it clearly is religious; but not being such as we would 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 89 
 
 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 ver- 
 sions, that Josue saw one whom he thought to be a man, standing op- 
 posite him with a drawn sword : 
 
 Catholic version. "13. And he went to him, and said. Art thou one of ours or 
 of our adversaries? 
 
 "14. And he answered: No: but I am a prince of the host of the Lord; and 
 now am I come. 
 
 ' ' 15. Josue fell on his face to the ground, and worshipping said : what saith 
 my lord to his servant? 
 
 ' ' 16. Loose, saith he, thy shoes from thy feet ; for the place whereon thou 
 standest is holy: And Josue did as was commanded him." 
 
 Protestant version. ' ' 13. Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou 
 for us or for our adversaries. 
 
 "14. And he said, nay ; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. 
 And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship and said unto him, What 
 saith my lord unto his servant? 
 
 ' ' 15. And the captain or the Lord 's host said to Joshua, Loose thy shoe from 
 off thy foot ; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And J oshua 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 wor- 
 ship: 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: thus it is religious worship, though not divine wor- 
 ship, 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 ven- 
 eration. 
 
 It was religious worship, not divine which Balaam paid to the 
 angel, {Numbers xxii. 31). In like manner when your version informs 
 us, {Daniel ii. 46), that King Nebuchodonosor "fell on his face and 
 worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation 
 and sweet odours to him," they paid him religious worship, as God's 
 friend and messenger, 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 pro- 
 vinces of Babylon," and so forth. 
 
 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 
 
90 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 the name, a poor humble man, and yet we read in your book, / Kings, 
 our III ; 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 gentlemen, 
 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 pro- 
 cessions, 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 respect 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 // or IV Kings ii. 15. 
 
 ' ' And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they 
 said. The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and 
 bowed themselves 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 
 coming to meet him they worshipped him. falling to the ground." 
 
 Here we have the very same Hebrew and Greek words, for the wor- 
 ship, that were used in the places before cited, as well as in Exodus 
 XX. 5, in the commandment of forbiding "to adore strange gods," and 
 in Exodus xxiii. 24, forbidding the worship of the gods of the Gentiles; 
 in the same book xiv. 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 mean- 
 ings of divine, religious and civil worship. I should hope, that, after 
 those few instances and explanations, I may be permitted to assert, 
 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 hu- 
 man friends, and ultimately referable to himself; and honour, as well 
 as civil worship paid to people, and rulers, and others in civil offices, 
 not specially referable to God, nor to his honour, but to the courtesies 
 of ciivilized life and civil society; 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 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 91 
 
 Hebrew, but also in Greek of the Septuagint, and generally in the 
 Chaldaie paraphrase. Thus, there is a lesser kind of religious wor- 
 ship than that which is due only to God, and which, though given to 
 creatures, is referable to God; for it is given, because of reverence for 
 him. Thus, the Lord himself cautions the Israelites {Exodus xxiii. 20, 
 and so forth) respecting their conduct towards the angel who was to 
 guide them, for not only was he his messenger and friend, but his "name 
 was in him." 
 
 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 holy place, and to that which God commanded to 
 be paid to his sanctuary. {Levit. xix. 30). 
 
 ' ' Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary, I am the Lord. ' ' 
 In fact, we do not pay to sacred images any veneration 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 pagan idolatry, and 
 the nature of the lawful practices of the Israelites, and seen something 
 of the genius of their language, it only remains to inquire what their 
 peculiar situation w^as, and whether they were forbidden to make images. 
 They had come from Egypt, which was pre-eminently a land of 
 gross idolatry, in which several of themselves had indulged, and to which 
 they had still so strong an inclination, that we find them easily drawn 
 into its practice, as well by their own propensity, as by the persuasions 
 of the idolatrous women with whom they associated ; and they were going 
 to occupy a land from which a most proflgately idolatrous race was to 
 be ejected ; and were to be surrounded, still, by hosts of inimical and in- 
 sidious idolaters. God was desirous of preserving amongst them the 
 knowledge of his pure, spiritual nature, and to guard them from con- 
 tamination. He showed not himself to them under any bodily shape, 
 for he desired to impress upon their minds his pure spirituality; yet 
 Ee did not forbid their making images, because he showed Moses a pattern 
 of some which he was to make, and to place upon the ark in the sanctu- 
 ary, and which he did so make and place ; but they were not likenesses 
 of God, but of his attendants and friends. 
 
 Let us now see the precept as recorded in Exodus xx: 
 Catlwlic version. "1. And the Lord spoke all these words: 
 "2. I am the Lord thy God who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of 
 the house of bondage. 
 
92 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 ' ' 3. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. 
 
 "4. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any- 
 thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are 
 in the Tvaters under the earth. 
 
 ' ' 5. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them ; I am the Lord thy God, mighty, 
 jealous." 
 
 Protestant version. ' ' 1. And God spake all these words, saying, 
 
 "2. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, 
 out of the house of bondage. 
 
 ' ' 3. Thou shall have no other gods before me. 
 
 "4. Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any- 
 thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water 
 under the earth. 
 
 "5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself- to them, nor serve them; for I, the Lord 
 thy God, am a jealous God," and so forth. 
 
 Roman Catholics look upon all this to form one law or precept, 
 in which the preamble is a declaration of the right and claim of the 
 great legislator, which is contained in verse 2; then a general pro- 
 hibition, in verse 3, of polytheism, and of abandoning his worship; 
 then, in verse 4, is a special enumeration of the particulars in which 
 they were most likely to be tempted, and those are specially pro- 
 hibited: these specialties 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 classes — objects 
 in the heavens, the stars, and so forth; in the earth, such as men, 
 beasts, and so forth; in the waters, such as fishes, and so forth. After 
 this, follows the prohibition in verse 5, which, unless it be considered 
 as restraining the terms of verse 4, will cause the enactment therein 
 to prohibit what God orders, in Exodus xxv. 18, And thou shalt make 
 two cheribums of gold; and would thus make God contradict himself. 
 But this difficulty ceases as soon as we view verse 5, restraining the 
 general expression of verse 4, for, in that case, the precept will be, ' ' you 
 shall not make idols nor images for the purpose of giving them divine 
 worship ; ' ' and it will be admirably in keeping with verse 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, or copies of known prototypes ; and the regarding them with 
 that respect and veneration which was demanded from the people of 
 Israel, towards the ark and its images, would be permitted ; for we read 
 in your version, I Samuel, or / Kings vi. 19, that fifty thousand and 
 threescore and ten of the men of Bethshemesh were smitten by the Lord 
 because they looked into the ark; and in II Samuel vi. 7, that the 
 anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah or Ozias, so that the Lord 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 93 
 
 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 venera- 
 tion for our images; and yet it was not only lawful in Judea, but re- 
 quired by God himself; and, consequently, his precept must not be ex- 
 tended to forbid what he plainly requires. 
 
 One remark more upon your translation of verse 4 might not be 
 amiss. If the original bore you out, in giving us "graven images" 
 and "likenesses," and they both mean the same thing, the original 
 precept would have two serious legal faults ; first, there would be unmean- 
 ing repetition ; and next, there would be no clause prohibiting the making 
 of those fanciful figures which had no prototypes, and which are pecu- 
 liarly 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 Pentateuch, nor is it in the Vulgate, nor in the Chaldiac. The 
 whole merit and credit is due to persons who, after an interval of fifteen 
 centuries, were, perhaps, specially gifted to discover what has previously 
 escaped the observation of the world. 
 
 I shall, in my next, again pay my respects to your friend with the 
 contradictory name, and remain, gentlemen. 
 
 Your obedient, humble servant, 
 
 B. C. 
 
 LETTER XL 
 
 And furious Albion flings his hasty dart: 
 
 'Twas feathered from a bee's transparent wing, 
 
 And its shaft ended m a hornet's sting; 
 
 But tossed in rage, it flew without a wound, 
 
 High o'er the toe, and guiltless pierced the ground. 
 
 Ticlcell. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Aug. 10, 1829. 
 To the Editors: 
 
 Gentlemen: — It is now clearly seen to be the doctrine 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, because of their intimate connexion with God, as deriving from 
 him their sancity and glory ; and that the honour paid to them is refer- 
 able to God, and like every other act of religion, is dictated by reverence 
 for him. Civil worship is paid in civil society ; that of the highest grade, 
 to presidents, governors, kings, emperors, and so forth; then to the var- 
 
94 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 ious subordinate officers, according to their rank and the regulation 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 shown by any citi- 
 zen to a public officer of the country, is looked upon as shown to the 
 state itself. No sophistry, 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 perfection. There are various acts of the mind 
 which we can feel to be very distinct, for which we have scarcely 
 as yet, distinct, appropriate expressions: in early times, in the in- 
 fancy of language, this imperfection was much greater. Hence it 
 was, that although in Hebrew, and other old dialects, we have ex- 
 pressions which signify the external act of adoration, we have no word 
 which peculiarly and exclusively 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 distinct mental acts, for expressing each of which 
 only two words "bow" and "serve" were used, one signifying a cere- 
 mony, the other signifying a state of occupation, 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 irpos 
 "to" and Kvo) "I kiss," their expression then Trpoo-Kwjjo-is was used 
 as the translation of the Hebrew. It might be a question whether the 
 second part of the compound might not have been a corruption of 
 KVTTTO) "I bow down." Be that as it may, the word expressed a cere- 
 mony, and not a mental act. The Greeks used also the word Xarpevo), 
 "I serve," w^hich some derived from Xarpts, an acquired servant, others 
 from Xa which signifies excess, and rpevw "I tremble," hence this was 
 also an external act. In process of time those two words came amongst 
 the Greeks to signify di\'ine worship, and were correlative to the Heb- 
 rew words; they also used the word SotjAcuw, "I serve," from SovXos, 
 "a menial servant." They had no word to express the mental act. 
 
 Amongst the Latins we find the same dearth : adoratio, 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, 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 95 
 
 veneror was quite usual : this was supposed to be a compound of veniam, 
 "favour," and oro, "1 ask:" upon the same ground, I was greatly 
 inclined to suspect that adoratio, might be a compound of ad "to," and 
 oratio, "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; its 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 "worshipping the gods" were 
 added. St. Augustin, who was an excellent grammarian informs us, 
 that even in his day, a. d. 420, there was in Latin, no special word to 
 signify the peculiar worship due to God alone. Hence, though there was 
 a distinction of worship, there was not precision of language. That pre- 
 cision in religious language was generally the consequence of disputes 
 arising from difference of doctrine or of opinion. 
 
 Those differences in the Christian Church, gave rise to an appro- 
 priation of the words more by common usage, than by authoritative ap- 
 pointment ; and hence, as the Xarpis was a higher servant than the 
 8ov\os, his services were of a more honourable kind, and Xarptux 
 was considered a higher worship than SouXeia. Amongst the Latins, 
 colo was a sort of generic expression, of which adoratio was the 
 highest description, veneratio was a lesser ; and thus the former 
 words Xarpeia and adoratio were used to express divine worship ; 
 and the latter SovXetu and veneratio, to express that lesser religi- 
 ous worship which we give to angels and saints. Thus at present 
 we feel that the origin of worship is in the mind : the understanding 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 devotion, such as prayer, 
 gratitude, pure love of charity, praise, and so forth, which all are done 
 in the recesses of the heart; or they may be subesquently expressed by 
 outward acts, such as vocal prayer or ceremonial worship. In English 
 we give the common name of religious worship, to all that which is paid 
 to God, or to what is immediately connected with him. When it is paid 
 to himself, the understanding appreciates him, alone, eternal, the source 
 of all good, above all estimable value, with no equal ; 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 
 
96 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 and appreciates him as a created, 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 by charity, partaking in a limited degree of his 
 holiness, protected, loved, cherished and upheld by God, and a benevo- 
 lent fellow-worshipper with us, who can intercede on our behalf with 
 that God, to whom we both pray, — whom we both adore. The will 
 then desires to honour this friend of God, though reverence for God 
 himself; and therefore religiously; we call this religious honour or ven- 
 eration, and if we ask the intercession of the being whom we thus honour, 
 we call it invocation : thus we say that ' ' angels and saints may be hon- 
 oured and invoked, and that they offer prayers to God, on our behalf;" 
 the 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 extension of dulia, and is called hyperdulia, or, an hon- 
 our 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 wor- 
 ship to those whom they represent: we do not look upon them as pos- 
 sessing any virtue in themselves, nor as able to help or hear us ; they are 
 not therefore idols. 
 
 When we worship before an im.age of Christ, if the mind be carried 
 away to Christ himself, the worship we pay is latria or adoration ; we 
 only regard 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 repre- 
 sents. 
 
 If we consider the image itself, as in some degree connected with 
 the service of God, and formed to aid us, in elevating our mind to contem- 
 plate heavenly things, it acquires in our estimation, a sort of value like 
 that of the ark with its cherubim, like that which you j'ourselves give 
 to your communion cups, wliich you would not place upon your table 
 for every day use, through reverence for God, in whose service 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 venera- 
 tion, as we call family veneration, that respect and attachment 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 Washington, 
 of William Penn, and other great benefactors of the civilized world. 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 97 
 
 As through civil respect, and not for mere decoration, our Congress 
 has placed in its Hall of Representatives, the picture of General Lafay- 
 ette, the benefactor of our country; so through religious respect, for 
 a purpose beyond that of mere decoration, we place in our churches, 
 the pictures of holy men, and holy women ; the benefactors of the Chris- 
 tian community, whom they edified by their virtues ; whom they instruct- 
 ed by their examples. 
 
 I now return to your correspondent. In his 23d paragraph, he 
 has the question: 
 
 "Now whether it be Latria, or anything else, does not the sense of the Eoman 
 Catholic Church seem plainly to be, that religious honour should be paid to images!" 
 
 And further 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 honour, 
 in the first. Nay, your correspondent himself admits the sufficiency 
 of our distinction, in the following passage of paragraph 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 Eoman Catholic worshippers are not thus subjected to a temptation of having their 
 spiritual conversation more on earth than in heaven." 
 
 Then in fact, provided we be "capable of the elevated 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 crea- 
 ture." 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, gentle- 
 men, you may soothe his troubled soul; for our multitude are taught 
 either in w^ords or substantially, the following chapter of the Catechism, 
 which they are made distinctly to understand. 
 
 LKSSON 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 divine 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? 
 
98 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 A. Of God alone they beg grace and mercy ; and of the saints they only ask thp 
 assistance of their prayers. {Tobias xi. 12). 
 
 Q. Is it lawful to recommend ourselves to the angels and saints, and to ask 
 their prayers? 
 
 A. Yes; since by doing so, we may be heard by them, 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 behalf? 
 
 A. Yes; and have frequently done so, with great zeal and effect. {Zach. i. 
 10, 12). 
 
 Q. Does it not take from the honour due to God and infringe 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 before them, forbidden 
 by the first commandment? 
 
 A. The making of images is not forbidden by the first commandment; for God 
 ordered Moses to make images. — {Exod. xxv).— and the people bowed down before 
 them in prayer in the Jewish Temple. (2 Paralip. iii). 
 
 Q. What use of images is forbidden by the first commandment? 
 
 A. That use which idolaters made of them when they served them as gods. 
 Q. Is it proper to show any mark of respect to the crucifix, and to the pictures 
 of Christ and his saints? 
 
 A. Yes; because they relate to Christ and his saints, being 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 relics of the saints? 
 A. By no means; for they have neither life nor sense, nor power to hear or 
 
 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 anything else forbidden by the first commandment? 
 
 A. Yes; all attempts at dealing and communication with the devil; and inquir- 
 ing 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 
 superstitions? 
 
 A. Yes; and all incantations, charms, and spells; and superstitious observa- 
 tions of omens; and such foolish remarks, are also very sminl"— Catechism of the 
 Roman Catholic Faith. 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 99 
 
 Now at least his holy anxiety may cease, and perhaps 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 opportunity of mixing 
 amongst the young and the ignorant of various Catholic nations, never 
 yet found one of them who had not "elevated abstraction of enlighten- 
 ed 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 pain- 
 ful avowal. He has more than once had occasion to inquire, 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 rep- 
 resented to be, and he uniformly 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, New York ; that they found with 
 one family, believed to be Irish, a Catholic Bible, 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 Society, 
 or to any person who would produce such a Bible. The propagators 
 of the falsehood did not accept the offer, nor retract the falsehood. 
 The notions of our multitude upon this subject, are more accurate 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. 
 I shall bring his assertion to a practical test. I hereby pledge myself, 
 that if within three months from the date of this letter, he shall point 
 out any one of our multitude, black, brown, or white, that has had the 
 opportunity to sufficient instruction, or been admitted to confirmation, 
 or communion, who shall upon examination, be found to believe that the 
 honour which is due exclusively to God, may be lawfully paid to any 
 creature, living or dead ; I shall, through the hands of the printer of the 
 Miscellany, who will give my name if I fail, pay one hundred dollars 
 to you, to be disposed of as your correspondent may please. Gentle- 
 men, your correspondent might in his own estimation take this aristo- 
 cratic assertion regarding the multitude, as a proof of his superior in- 
 tellect; I beg to inform him, that with me at least, it always passes 
 as a mark of quite another kind, — and the distinction which some of your 
 writers affect to draw between our enlightened and our illiterate Cath- 
 olics, is taken amongst us, by no means as a compliment : rich and poor, 
 learned and unlearned, our doctrine is the same; we have no genteel 
 belief, no aristocratic orthodoxy; we are all, whether emperors, kings, 
 
100 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 popes, beggars, or slaves, members of one church, holding fast the same 
 faith ; and when any man grows so fastidious as to imagine that God Al- 
 mighty 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 un- 
 founded distinction that 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 of those most ignorant 
 of our tenets. I have known poor children not ten years of age, who 
 have more clear notions of the nature of idolatry, and the meaning of 
 what you call the first two commandments, than your correspondent 
 appears to possess. 
 
 Then if the meaning of this phrase "that all Roman Catholics in- 
 tentionally violate this commandment, in rendering the due honour and 
 veneration, which their church requires, to the images of the Virgin Mary, 
 and so forth, 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 capable of that abstraction which con- 
 siders God and the image distinct and distinguished, do not give to the 
 image the honour due to God, thus do act according to the true spirit of 
 the Church. He only fears that the multitude are not capable of this 
 abstraction. If these things be so, the spirit of the church and the 
 conduct of its enlightened members 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 exist, it is all 
 fancy; it will cost me one hundred dollars if it be anything more than 
 a mere, unfounded surmise of your correspondent. Now, since we have 
 our own experience against his surmise, every good logician would tell 
 us, that we must reject his conclusion, and hence, even upon his own 
 showing, the precept is not violated in our church. 
 
 Yet still, your correspondent will not acquit us of violating the com- 
 mandment, for he concludes his paragraph 25, wuth the following pas- 
 sage. 
 
 "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 
 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 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 101 
 
 they not, as a body, violate the second commandment 'without scruple?' I see not 
 how it can be otherwise. ' ' 
 
 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 commanded ; 
 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 endeavors to sustain his position is, 
 that the commandment 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 interpretation, the following texts. 
 
 Catholic version. (Levit. xxvi. 1). "I am the Lord your God: you shall not 
 make to yourself any idol or graven thing, neither shall you erect pillars, nor set up 
 any remarkable stone in your land to adore it : for I am the Lord your God. ' ' 
 
 Protestant version. "Ye shall make no idols, nor graven image, neither rear 
 up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow 
 down unto it : for I am the Lord your God. ' ' 
 
 Catholic version. (Deut.iv). "15. Keep therefore your souls cheerfully. You 
 saw not any similitude in the day that the Lord God spoke to you in Horeb fro)m 
 the midst of fire: 
 
 ' ' 16. Lest perhaps being deceived you might make to you a graven similitude, or 
 image of male or female. ' ' 
 
 Protestant version. "15. Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for 
 ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spoke unto you in Horeb 
 out of the midst of the fire: 
 
 ' ' 16. Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude 
 of any figure, the likeness of male or female. ' ' 
 
 Having previously examined the text of the original 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 religiously held those which 
 were made by God's command in high esteem and reverence, not for 
 any inherent sanctity which they possess, but because of their relation 
 to God himself ; I now proceed to examine whether the text of Leviticus 
 does prohibit more than that of Exodus appears to do. The words print- 
 ed 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 
 
102 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 new enactment, but is a repetition 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 Exo- 
 dus. 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 palliate the absurdity 
 of such a construction. You, gentlemen, cannot do what your church 
 declares she cannot do. Article 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 partic- 
 ulars, which though not therein specially expressed, came under the 
 general 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 Exodus 
 XX. 5, as in Leviticus xxvi. 1. 
 
 The Catholic version exhibits to me four distinct objects of speci- 
 fication, idol, and graven thing, which we have previously found speci- 
 fied and described 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 distinguish the specifications of your text 
 in its imagery, 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 
 remarkable and consecrated stones, provided they did not erect them for 
 the purpose of adoring them, which the heathens did, I shall show by 
 one or two Scriptural instances, and I shall adduce an outline of evi- 
 dence sufficient to show that the purposes of the heathen were idolatrous, 
 and altogether dissimilar 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 version of Genesis 
 
 xxviii. 
 
 ' ' 18. And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had 
 put for his pillow 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," 
 and so forth. 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 103 
 
 God did not command an idolatrous act, yet we read Joshua iv. 
 
 ' ' 1. And it came to pass, -when all the people were clean passed over Jordan, 
 that the Lord spake unto Joshua, saying, 2. Take you twelve men out of the people, 
 out of every tribe a man. 3. And command them, saying, take you hence 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 those 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 memorial 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 exciting to his 
 worship. Probably you may think that the Scriptures were evidence 
 enough, and that those 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 shown, that neither 
 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, lig. i., writes : Si quando con- 
 spexeram ruhricatum lapidem, et ex olivi unguine lubricatum, tanquam 
 inesset vis presens, adidahar, affahar. "Whenever I had seen a red- 
 dened stone, and make smooth with the ointment of olives, I used to speak 
 to it, I used to address it soothingly, as if a power was present in it." 
 
 Eusebius, {Praepar. lib. i. c. 10) informs us that the old Pheni- 
 cians used to call stones thus prepared for worship, Bethules. It would 
 be very curious to trace the history of one of those from Phenieia to Spain, 
 thence to Ireland, thence to Scotland, and since the conquest by Ed- 
 ward I., preserved even for the use of the head of the English Protest- 
 ant Church, after the change in religion, for the coronation chair, with 
 which I believe it may now be found in the tower of London. San- 
 choniathon traces the origin of those stones to the God of heaven, and 
 says several of them which lived and were animated were worshipped 
 near Libanus. Apuleius describes some of the pillars [Florenorum 
 initio] which received worship. Strabo, (book xvii), describes for us 
 
104 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 remarkable stones in all parts of Egypt as well as in Syria, which were 
 objects of worship, like the Grecian heaps of iMercury. From the des- 
 cription of some of those in ancient authors, many of them appear to 
 have been large aerolites, w^hich 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 special mention by INIoses, of the 
 pillars and remarkable stones, w^hich 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 Catholic version. (Numbers xxxiii. 52). "Destroy all the inhabitants of the 
 land, beat down their pillars, and break in pieces their statues, and waste all their 
 high places." 
 
 Protestant version. ' ' 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 a quotation from Deuteronomy iv., as it appears in the essay, 
 there is undoubtedly the appearance of an absolute prohibition of mak- 
 ing the similitude of any male or female; however, it is perhaps, only 
 because your correspondent feared to occupy too much 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 inter- 
 rupted by a comma, whereas he gives us a full stop. But you know, 
 that he and I never quarrel about points. 
 
 Catholic version. "17. The similitude of any beasts, 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 waters 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, which the Lord thy God hath created for the service of all the nations that are 
 under heaven." 
 
 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 anything that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any 
 fish that is in the waters beneath 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 na- 
 tions under the whole heaven." 
 
 We see that the prohibition is not absolute : and as soon as the en- 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 105 
 
 tire passage is produced, we find it to contain no more than an enumera- 
 tion of the special objects, which they were particular aly cautioned not 
 to adore; together with a substantial repetition of what he commanded 
 in Exodus xx. 22 and 23. You have seen that I have spoken to you from 
 heaven. You shall not make gods of silver, nor shall you make to your- 
 self gods of gold. And lest they should imagine he had a bodily shape, 
 he did not exhibit himself to them under any bodily appearance, but 
 only in fire, that they might be kept better 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 eter- 
 nal 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 human 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 the Holy Ghost under 
 the appearance of a dove, as you do yourselves. In fact my impres- 
 sion is that you have more images of the Holy Ghost and of angels in 
 your churches in the United States that we have, and some of them so 
 well-fed and so fat, as to testify 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. Phillip's or St. Michael's to spit upon one of the shin- 
 ing 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 onr angels are indeed spiritual 
 and invisible ! Is it then come to this, that our churches have changed 
 sides? The churches of the Romans are bereft of image-gods, and the 
 churches of the Protestants possess them! ! ! This probably is only a 
 piece of Jesuitical policy. No. I must say, that I have Imown the 
 Catholic Bishop use upon the occasion, the words of Shakespeare's 
 Apothecary, "my poverty, but not my will consents." If he had the 
 means, he says, that he would have the sacred images. 
 
 Are the Catholics of Charleston then not out of the pale of that 
 church which as your correspondent says, makes it "obligatory on them 
 to render honour and veneration to images of the Virgin and of the 
 saints?" (Paragraph 25.) No! Because there is no such obligation; 
 the practice is useful, but neither 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 
 
106 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 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 seek salvation through 
 his merits. 
 
 In the outset of his 25th paragraph your correspondent asserts what 
 is not the fact, when he makes adoration and veneration synonymous 
 terms: when he changes the meaning of our expressions, he misstates 
 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. 
 
 LETTER XII. 
 
 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 devotion's meed; 
 
 And simple Faith in iron chains did mourn. 
 That could on wooden image place her creed; 
 
 And lawny saints in smould'ring flames did burn: 
 Ah! dearest Lord! forefend thilk days should e'er return. 
 
 Shenstone. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Aug. 17, 1829. 
 To the Editors : 
 
 Gentlemen: — Allow me to state what I believe has been shown. 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 divine honour or adoration to him 
 alone. 3. Of course they do not pay divine honour to devils, 4. nor to 
 imaginary beings, 5. nor to idols, 6. nor to human beings, living or dead ; 
 7. nor to the images of any being, nor to any creature. 8. That they do 
 not believe there resides any divinity or divine virtue in any image what- 
 ever. 9. That the worship of dulia or hyperdulia, or honour which 
 they give to angels and saints is not divine honour, or adoration, but 
 that honour which one reasonable being owes to another, because of its 
 excellence: 10. and that the excellence of the angels and saints con- 
 sists in the perfection of that nature and those graces which they re- 
 ceived from God the Creator and Redeemer, and therefore, 11. that the 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 107 
 
 honour given to them is ultimately referable to God whose creatures 
 they are. Hence, 12. the honour paid to them is not derogatory to that 
 of the Creator or Redeemer, but 13. it is rather an enhancing of the 
 same. I have also shown 14, that when our writers mention the adora- 
 tion of an image, the expression 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 homage : and 15, that when they use 
 the expression of paying the worship of dulia or hyperduUa 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 16, that those inanimate 
 representations, or images, are to be treated with a degree of religious 
 respect, which we call veneration, 17, not because of any inherent sancti- 
 ty which they possess, but because of their connexion with the service 
 of God, and through reverence for him. 
 
 I believe I have also fairly shown that almost every one of those 
 propositions which is true of Roman Catholic worship, would be false 
 if predicated of the worship of the heathens. 
 
 I believe I have also fairly shown that neither the text from Exodus 
 XX. 4, nor that from Leviticus 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 the mother of God, ever Vir- 
 gin, and also of other saints, may be had and retained; and that due honour and 
 veneration is 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 instance ? ' ' Yet still we can easily state what has been the 
 general practice, and the general sentiment 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 paint- 
 ers attempt a representation founded upon the description given in var- 
 ious parts of the sacred writings ; to omit many others, I shall merely 
 refer to Isaias vi., Ezekiel i., Daniel vii. The sentiment is, that if their 
 intention be to represent God as really possessing that peculiar and 
 proper appearance, it would be criminal ; and to yield to such an impres- 
 sion would be folly; but if the painting be considered as merely emble- 
 matic 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 appearances which spiritual beings as- 
 
108 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 sumed, as described in the sacred volume; not that we believe these to 
 be their natural and usual modes of appearance, but those assumed to 
 affeot our senses, and the sentiment is universal as to its being a lawful 
 practice ; otherwise we must condemn God for giving such a direction in 
 Exodus XXV. 18, and Moses and Bezeleel for making them in Exodus 
 xxxvii. 7, as also Solomon and his people, I or III Kings vi., and God him- 
 self, who in chapter ix. of the same book, accepts and approves of a 
 temple filled with such images. Our Episcopalian friends are mightily 
 censurable for this crime, if crime it be ; and I have been filled with awe 
 and wonder at beholding over the head of a zealous independent clergy- 
 man, whilst he was praying fervently against idolatry, a beautiful 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 enable any one to see 
 what value is due to the assertion of your correspondent, paragraph 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 footing, in one ease 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. "27. The next is, that Protestants say, 'Roman Catholics exculpate them- 
 selves from the charge of idolatry, not otherwise than as the heathens did. ' The 
 Council of Trent, it is true, will not allow the heathen to have even pretended to 
 worship anything above their idols. It may, on the contrary, be safely asserted, that 
 there is abundant evidence that they did — and that the i)cr 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." 
 
 Contra. "23. It may be true that some Protestants, in an intemperate zeal 
 of dissent from Popery, have considered Eoman Catholics equally as idolatrous as the 
 heathens either are or were. I believe, however, that a wide distinction is generally 
 considered due in favour of Christian worshippers of the one only God, however in- 
 cumbered their worship may be with erroneous appendages from those who, with 
 no knowledge or belief of the one Jehovah, may worship infinitely various fictitious 
 deities, in idols, in which they may be supposed to reside." 
 
 "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 Eevieio. There is a difference, and we should admit that 
 it is important. The poor Indian either honoured his idols with a worship terminat- 
 ing in them, or, through them, worshipped the unknown God. Christians under the 
 denomination of Roman Catholics, like other Christians, worship the one true God 
 of the Scriptures." 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 109 
 
 When your correspondent shall have reconciled these passages, it 
 will probably be necessary to support his character for honesty, to ex- 
 plain why, in urging this argument, in his first note to paragraph 25, 
 he made two serious faults, in alluding to the texts mentioned in a note 
 to the Doway Bible — and makes a very serious mistake by printing 
 "chapter iii. 8, 7," for, "chapter xxxviii. 7," which is in the American 
 stereotype edition, instead of xxxvii. 7, which is correct, and usual; I 
 acquit him of all intention of dishonesty in this portion, 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 
 anything like the Roman Catholic use of images in their churches. Venite adorentus 
 is the express language of the Boman Missal : Come let us adore. Thou shalt 
 not adore or serve them, is the language of their translation of Scripture. Roman 
 Catholics Avill 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 a uni- 
 versal conclusion from particular premises — which denotes either a de- 
 fect in the head, or one in the heart of him who uses it. The words 
 venite 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 what- 
 ever be applied to any other. They are used on Good Friday at uncov- 
 ering the image of Christ crucified. Now from his construction of this 
 paragraph, the application is made to appear general for all images, 
 of "the Virgin and other saints," and his context appears 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 images 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 jus- 
 tified by every rule of fair criticism to restrain the meaning 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 against 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 different. 
 
 His second fault was, that with the evidence before him of the mean- 
 ing 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 sug- 
 gested the very opposite. In pages 228, 229, of the Missal from which 
 he quoted, the following note is appended at the very passage which he 
 quotes. 
 
110 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 ' ' The intention of the Church in exposing the cross to our veneration on this day, 
 is, that we might the more effectually raise up our hearts to him who expired thereon 
 for our redemption. Whenever, therefore, we kneel or prostrate ourselves before a 
 crucifix, it is Jesus Christ only whom we adore, and it is in him alone that our re- 
 spects terminate. ' ' 
 
 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, adoreynus; 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," (par. 23), and therefore it was, that he laboured in par- 
 agraph 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 propose to him another 
 effort at reconciling himself to himself. In paragraph 27. The heathens 
 are very much upon the same footing with the Roman Catholics, because 
 he says, the assertion of the Council of Trent is not true, that they 
 "worshipped anything 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 worshipped 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 show that Catholics do adore images, and 
 pictures, and in paragraph 25, he asserts that they violate the second 
 of God's commandments in this adoration given to the images: and in 
 the note, he triumphantly 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 reconcile two others, viz. : that in paragraph 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 paragraph 27, thereby preferring the hea- 
 then worship as more pure than ours. 
 
 The only topic of his second essay which I have not now disposed 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 111 
 
 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 show that we are not misrepresented when it is alleged "that sen- 
 sible 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 exceeded in length my 
 original plan, by taking up this question at large. I shall merely remark 
 in the first place, that neither God nor Moses divided the law, containing 
 the precepts, in the one way or in the other, and that if we give the 
 entire of the law itself, as Bishop Stillingfleet attests, or as your corre- 
 spondent attests — I care not which, (par. 26,) in our Vulgate and Doway 
 Bibles, which are our standards of Latin and English, it cannot be fairly 
 said that we omit that which we actually print. "But we omit it in our 
 Catechisms." Our object could not be to mislead, for if it was, we 
 would act very absurdly by printing it in our Bible. But does your 
 correspondent mean to assert by the words, "and as it is printed in the 
 Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the DoM-ay Bible, and so forth," 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 divi- 
 sion, no Bible ever exhibited the division. In the next place ; the division 
 of this law into ten heads was a human 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 w^ould divide the law into the precepts regarding the worship 
 of God, the external conduct of man to his neighbour, and the regulation 
 of his own desires. In the second case, I 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 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 a part of the first, a meaning which I have 
 showTi it cannot sustain. Fourthly, our Catechisms do not profess to 
 give the words, but the substance of the law, and therefore, as we con- 
 ceive what you call the first and second to be only one ordinance, com- 
 manding the worship of God, which the pagans neglected, and forbidding 
 
112 DOCTRINE VoL 
 
 idolatry which they practised, 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 prohibition of impure 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 moral 
 nature, as are the external acts. Sixthly. Whether we be right or wrong 
 in this mode of division, we are not the originators of the division or 
 omission. I need only to take your own evidence or that of your cor- 
 respondent to acquit us; for he tells us, (note 2, to par. 25), that others 
 had done so before us, both in the Jewish and early Christian churches. 
 "Why then make us the criminals if the crime was committed before we 
 were born? We 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, "whether Eoman Catholics omitted the second com- 
 mandment, 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 divine law, were criminal, because the au- 
 thority of the Jews was not paramount ! ! ! And the early Christians 
 innocently did it, but yet the Roman Catholics are criminal in doing 
 so, and it was the Roman Catholics who alone were guilty of the omis- 
 sion, because the authority of the early Christians was not paramount!!! 
 Who will now dare to say that your correspondent is not pellucid? — I 
 must match paramount if I can. Really, a person who does not after 
 this, clearly see, that the Catholics were the persons 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 according to the paragraph, is proof that the 
 Roman Catholics, M'ho afterwards did it, were the only persons guilty of 
 omission ! ! ! Call you this logic ? Really, this puts to shame the wolf, 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 113 
 
 who, when he was obliged to acquit the lamb because of non-age, alleged 
 that his father committed the crime, for which he should suffer ; you will 
 not admit that Jews or Christians are to save us, though both have inno- 
 cently 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 condemn 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 Eoman Catholics, that Protestants should say they 
 make this omission, because they are sensible that it is called for in aid of the author- 
 ity of their church, in ordering such adorations as they are required to pay to images; 
 and Protestants may possibly err in assigning 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 patience 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 worship due to 
 God alone, and are thus guilty of direct idolatry. 
 
 "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 pictures of the 
 Virgin Mary, and of other saints. 
 
 "6. That Roman Catholics violate the second of God's command- 
 ments 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 Cath- 
 olics 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 
 
114 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 in their image worship, say no more for their exculpation than the hea- 
 thens said for themselves, and therefore, 
 
 *'10. That Roman Catholics are equally idolatrous as the heathens 
 are or were." 
 
 I now come to this third essay, in your number for March, where 
 he attempts to show that our adoration 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 show that it 
 is a 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 
 legate's cross. To this I can only answer, that when he vouchsafes to 
 tell me in what part of the Pontifical 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 care- 
 fully every word in any part which the index showed 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 forgery of his own, or who is its author? 
 The third passage is from St. Thomas of Aquin. Did your correspon- 
 dent forget what he wrote in his second essay, paragraph 23, of St. 
 Thomas Aquinas, that he asserted "that to worship the image with any 
 other act than that by which the original was v\'orsliipped, would be to 
 worship it on its own account, which 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 Vv-e must worship it on its o\\ti 
 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 substantially 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 mean- 
 ing. The passage is found in his Summa Theol., paragraph 3, qu£est 
 XXV., article ix. To explain his proposition, he writes as follows : 
 
 " Bespondeo dicendum, ut supra dictum est, 'honor seu reverentia non debetur nisi 
 rationali naturae; unde creaturae insensibili non debetur honor vel reverentia nisi 
 ratione rationalis naturae. Et hoc dupUciter. Uno modo, in quantum repraesentat 
 rationalem naturam; alio modo in quantum ei quocumque modo conjungitur." 
 
 "1 answer, it must be stated, as vras previously said, honour or reverence is not 
 due but to a reasonable being, wherefore honour or reverence is not due to an insen- 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 115 
 
 sible being, except on account of one that is reasonable. And that might be in two 
 ways. In one way, inasmuch as it represents a rational being: in another way, inas- 
 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 throughout this article, and as explained 
 before in my Letter 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 recollection 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 address to the cross is, as Bellarmine shows 
 in the quotation in letter vii., made to Jesus Christ crucified, 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 means 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, whether correct or 
 not, that no man who has the least pretensions to education or common 
 sense, ever seriously believed that we prayed to the crucifix; and hence, 
 the moment I find the assertion made by any person, who has common in- 
 tellect, 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 speaking 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." 
 He partially inserts the note from the translation of the Missal, as I 
 have previously given it, which shows that it is Jesus Christ whom we 
 adore, and not the cross itself. 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 crucifix, it is Jesus Christ 
 only whom we adore." The omission of this word did not satisfy him, 
 but after the garbled insertion, he adds : ' ' 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 lis wor- 
 ship. ' ' I beg leave to inform him that the note was altogether unneces- 
 sary for Catholics; and so far as my own individual opinion might be 
 expressed, I would prefer the translation be neither worship nor vene- 
 
116 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 rate, which are both generic, but adore, which is special and appropriate. 
 I cannot say why the note was introduced, but I should naturally believe 
 that it was to guard others than Catholics from being misled by writers 
 as dishonest as your correspondent. For Catholics it is totally unneces- 
 sary. 
 
 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 salva- 
 tion. 
 
 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 respec- 
 table body of our fellow Protestants sunk into idolatry. It is true, they 
 say themselves, that their intention is not idolatrous ; and being, as they 
 are, worshippers of the only Jehovah of the Scriptures, we must draw 
 a favourable distinction between them and the heathen, who, though 
 he bows down or kneels down, as they do, to mere inanimate creatures, 
 still is a worshipper of the unknow^n God, if not of fictitious deities. 
 But, whatever may be the declaration of our brethren of the Episco- 
 palian Church, w-e cannot leave the word of God, w^hich is our common 
 standard, acknowledged by themselves as paramount. They even ac- 
 knowledge that God alone is to be worshipped; but this only aggra- 
 vates their infatuation, and renders them more the objects of our com- 
 passion. 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, although 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 kneel 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 ? It is painful 
 to see the proof in their own books, and in their own practice — in their 
 communion service, where they meet to eat bread and drink wine, they 
 kneel, whereas Christ and his disciples remained seated at table ; the 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 117 
 
 Scripture does not inform us that they worshipped, or kneeled or bowed 
 down; nay, even to guard against the supposition of such worship, it 
 is specially recorded that it was whilst they were at table. Yet, read 
 the rubrics of the Episcopal Prayer-book, and be moved with compas- 
 sion for this degeneracy of Protestants; of brethren of our Reforma- 
 tion ! ! ! 
 
 " 'Then shall the priest first receive the communion in both kinds himself, and 
 proceed to deliver the same to the bishops, priests and deacons, in like manner (if 
 any be present,) and after that to the people in order, into their hands, all devoutly- 
 kneeling; and when he delivereth the Bread, he shall say,' and so forth. 
 
 "It is true, they say, that they only worship God, but do they not 
 kneel down devoutly to that bread? God forbid that we should assert, 
 that there are not amongst them some whose abstraction of enlightened 
 piety does lead to spiritual worship, but for the multitude! The Lord 
 says, "You shall not bow down," the Church says, "You shall devoutly 
 kneel down." We must, painful as it is, say that the idolatry is pal- 
 pable. 
 
 When your correspondent can feel what he ought to think of one 
 who would address your church in such language, he can estimate the 
 feelings entertained regarding himself by, gentlemen, 
 
 Your obedient, humble servant, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XIIL 
 
 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, 
 And yet 'tis flat idolatry to bow. 
 Because the godhead 's there they know not how. 
 Her novices are taught that bread and wine 
 Are but the visible and outward sign, 
 Receiv'd by those who in communion join. 
 But the inward grace or the thing signified 
 His blood and body, who to save us died; 
 The faithful this thing signified receive: 
 What is 't those faithful then partake or leave? 
 For what is signified and understood. 
 Is, by her own confession, flesh and blood. 
 Then, by the same acknowledgement, 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 Hind and Panther. 
 
118 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Aug. 24, 1829. 
 To the Editors: 
 
 Gentlemen: — ^Your correspondent undertakes, in the paragraphs 33, 
 34 and 35 of his third essay for April, to show that we commit idolatry 
 by adoring the Eucharist. Though such be his avowed object, he wan- 
 ders most egregiously from the subject into one totally distinct, but into 
 which I shall scarcely follow him. He attacks the doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation, to show, that in the Eucharist there 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 
 Avere proved to be a mistake, his proposition would not necessarily fol- 
 low as the result, for the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, which 
 implies the real presence of Christ together with the bread and wine, 
 might yet be true, even if ours were 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 Protestants still adore Christ present in the Eucharist. Will 
 the gentleman call his fellow Protestants idolaters? 
 
 I shall now suppose the Roman Catholics, the whole of the Eastern 
 separatists, and the Lutherans, to be in error; and that the true doc- 
 trine, as to the nature of the Eucharist, is held only by the followers 
 of Zuinglius, or the sacramentarians, principally consisting of the Cal- 
 vinists, Baptists, Church of England, and their several branches and 
 separations — in all probably scarcely approaching, at most, to forty 
 millions. They form not one-sixth of the Christian community; I be- 
 lieve, from close calculation and enumeration, that they are, more prop- 
 erly 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 Eucharist ; 
 which would indeed be a very strange supposition ! I ask a simple 
 question of any one of those persons, "Pray, to whom, or to what, do 
 you direct j'our 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 sacrament is 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 power of God 
 to place one substance under the appearance of another, or, if he be a 
 Lutheran, to conceal one substance in another; that God's word is to 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 119 
 
 us the most ample evidence ; that when he says anything has been done 
 by him, it is certainly done; that he declared the body and blood, and 
 so forth, of Christ would be really present in the sacrament at the con- 
 secration 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 satisfactory evidence of 
 the presence of Christ ; and that his adoration is intended for the Sav- 
 iour, and only for him, and not for the 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 for you, but 
 it is not my body," 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 in- 
 tention 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 mistaking a spy of the enemy for the com- 
 manding officer of the army of his state, would sedulously, and respect- 
 fully, 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 inten- 
 tion is to adore Christ the eternal God, and not bread. This would 
 suffice to rescue us from the imputation so thoughtlessly repeated. But 
 as your correspondent has seen proper to accompany the imputation 
 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 worship 
 the consecrated elements, paragraph 33. He makes the same assertion 
 in paragraph 35, in which he states that, ' ' according to a decree passed 
 on this subject in the 13th session of the Council of Trent, latria or 
 divine 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 and wine, consecrated it is true, but still naturally and substantially 
 only bread and wine. The decree to which he refers is the following, 
 which declares it to be a departing from the communion of the church ; 
 
 (Sess. xiii. Can. vi) : 
 
 "Si quis dixerit, in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei 
 filium non esse cultu latriae, etiam externa adorandum; . . . . et ejus adoratores 
 esse idololatros." 
 
 "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 
 
120 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 Paul that led your curious correspondent into 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. 
 
 But he says, that "if Protestants find it impossible 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," (par. 33.) The same semblance of argument 
 is used in paragraph 35, and because he, a Protestant, says they are bread 
 and wine, this Catholic who adores Christ must be an idolater! ! ! In 
 the first place I must remark, the question was not whether our doc- 
 trine was wilfully misrepresented, but whether it was misrepresented. 
 The dragging in therefore the word wilfully is changing the question 
 and giving up the field. Now for his argument, I leave its ansAver to 
 himself; and when he shall refute the Unitarian, I will answer him. 
 By the by, it is to me one of the most extraordinary spectacles that I 
 have ever witnessed, to see the self-important orthodoxy of one class 
 of Protestants condemning another class for anti-Christian conduct, in 
 merely helping to carry their common principle of Scripture interpre- 
 tation, to its just and natural extent. It is a melancholy amusement to 
 behold your Church, for instance, turn upon the Roman Catholics and 
 accuse them of tyranny and dictation, because they say, "These texts 
 respecting the Eucharist, have always been thus understood, and it is 
 an unwarrantable act on your part, now to force upon them a meaning 
 different from the faith of all antiquity;" then 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 same 
 "right" as she calls it, respecting texts concerning 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 chargable with idolatry in your ador- 
 ation 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 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 121 
 
 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 rea- 
 sons assigned in my eighth letter to that prelate. But as the gentle- 
 man probably is anxious for employment, I shall again have recourse 
 to my Unitarian acquaintance, with whom I differ most widely in doc- 
 trine, 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 instruct me how to answer himself by refuting 
 the Unitarian who thus applies the principle so very thoughtlessly adopt- 
 ed 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 in para- 
 graph 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 Chi'ist "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 sagacious juggler, they 
 say no such thing. — I call juggler, a person who endeavouring to keep 
 the semblance of the same expression, substitutes one having a totally 
 different meaning. Roman Catholics say that Christ had bread at 
 first; that without changing its appearance, he changed its substance, 
 so that bread ceased to be there, but a totally different substance came 
 in its stead, which latter however, retained 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 
 bread, 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 one, "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 testi- 
 mony 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 appearance 
 covers. The general rule is that we ought to judge it to be bread; but 
 the special testimony of Christ makes this case an exception when he 
 
122 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 says, "This is my body." Upon this, two questions only can arise: 
 first, "Did he mean his body in our senses?" We say there is ample and 
 satisfactory evidence that he did; and next, "Is his testimony sufficient 
 ground for our belief against the general 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 cor- 
 respondent has altogether overlooked a material fact that in his asser- 
 tion that the Sacrament remained bread, he begged the question. He 
 has honoured 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 wallingly 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 philosophi- 
 cally correct, be differently construed. I am not one of those who admit 
 that it is by sight the nature of substance is ascertained : sight will tes- 
 tify 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 readily 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 special interference of God, the body of 
 Christ now clothed ^vith 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 distinction between the 
 mystery of the Eucharist and "the Holy Trinity, and other mysterious 
 doctrines of Christianity," upon the principle that "these doctrines re- 
 late to the invisible and incomprehensible nature of operations of Deity," 
 and that "the Eucharistic elements are matter of sensible observation 
 and acts." lie 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 ac- 
 cording 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 incomprehensible operations of Deity." Tillot- 
 son's phrase has been before considered in its principle. Our sight does 
 not deceive us, we are certain that the appearances which we see, are 
 there; our sight takes cognizance of nothing more. — Josue's sight did 
 not testifv to him that it was the angelic substance which was present, 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 123 
 
 but what it testified, was truly testified, and Josue was correctly certain 
 that the appearance of a man was there, though in truth he was sub- 
 sequently 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 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 senses, but to the conclusion 
 usually drawn from that testimony; 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 hack- 
 neyed and often refuted objections of the vine, the shepherd, 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 parabolic 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, shows the one expression to be 
 a mere figure, and the other to be literally and plainly meant, that we 
 are to reject this evidence, and to say that both are figures. We, be- 
 sides, 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 actually ' ' the good shepherd, that giveth his life for his flock ' ' 
 (/&. 11) ; in the same way, do we believe him to be actually "the vine, of 
 which his disciples are the 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 import 
 which they carry with them ; nor do we make suppositions, as Archbishop 
 Synge does in paragraph 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 Archbishop Synge "sup- 
 poses" 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 always 
 considered a sublime mystery, wrought after the "invisible and incom- 
 
124 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 prehensible 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 dis- 
 ciples, when they heard this, said : This is a hard saying ; who can hear 
 it?" {lb. 60). As to Elfric's pastoral homily, it would perhaps be 
 Avell, before you again quote him, to inform us who he was, of what 
 see he was bishop, and what reason you have for knowing that his hom- 
 ily 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 whether the note be yours, or your 
 correspondent's. When this has been done, I shall enter, if you will, 
 into a discussion of the meaning of the homily itself ; until then, it would 
 be only Avaste of time. 
 
 In his paragraph 34, your correspondent boldly asserts : 
 
 ' ' The evidence of Scripture, however, is by learned and candid Eoman Catholics 
 themselves, admitted insufficient for the faith, which the doctrine of transubstantiation 
 implies, 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., chapter xxiii. This is, unquestion- 
 ably, the most unfortunate reference he could have made. Bellarmine, 
 in chapter xix., clearly proves the doctrine from the Scripture, without 
 any reference to the explanation or interpetation 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 amhiguitas, ea 
 tamen suilata est, per multa coiicilia Catholicae Ecclesiae, et Patrum consensum. 
 
 "Add to this, that even though there should be any obscurity 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 scriptural evidence 
 which he has proved to be sufficient: but asserting, that even though 
 it were not as strong as he showed it to be, still the doctrine could be 
 proved as that of the Scripture, from the testimony, that such was al- 
 ways the meaning attached to those passages. In his chapter xx., he 
 adduces the testimony of the fathers; in chapter xxi., he adduces the 
 testimony of councils and writers subsequent to the age of those 
 fathers; in chapter xxii., he shows the doctrine of transubstantiation 
 from special reasoning : then comes chapter xxiii., whose title is Refel- 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 125 
 
 hoitur Kemnitii ohjectiones, "The objections of Kemnitz are refuted." 
 
 The third of these objections is, that Andradius, Scotus, and Cameracen- 
 
 sis, Catholic writers, admit the insufficiency of the evidence of Scripture 
 
 to support the doctrine. Answering this, Bellarmine writes: 
 
 Quod autem ex Andradio et Scoto, atque Cameracensi Kemnitius refert, mala fide, 
 
 tit ei solemne est, refert. 
 
 * ' But, what Kemnitz quotes from Andradius, Scotus, and Cameracensis, he quotes 
 
 dishonestly, as is his solemn custom. ' ' 
 
 He then adduces the passages, and shows that Kemnitz was more 
 than a match for your curious correspondent: 
 
 "Thus Kemnitz makes the hypothetical opinion of Andradius absolute, that he 
 might take the occasion of calumniating 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 I have not known him, I shall be like to you, a liar. ' ' 
 
 The only ground which afforded an\i:hing like the shadow of sup- 
 port for the assertion, is a passage of an individual, Scotus, upon which 
 Bellarmine, 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 {coget) the conviction of its truth, without the testimony of the 
 church, that such was always the doctrine derived from Christ, and de- 
 livered 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 
 idolatry. Let them grant, what is not the fact, that no one text of 
 Scripture evidently proves transubstantiation, still Scotus and the Lu- 
 therans 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 support. Hence, under any circumstances, 
 even if we should grant him Scotus, and transform an individual into 
 "learned and candid Roman Catholics," it will not aid his object. 
 
 In the same paragraph 34, he asserts, that Protestant writers have 
 abundantly sho^vn from the early fathers, that they held the doctrine 
 of the Eucharist, without that of the real bodily presence. He must 
 not be displeased at my asserting, that no Protestant writer has shown 
 it, though several have attempted it; nor is it true, that it is an his- 
 torical fact, though endeavoured by various attestations 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 the 
 Eucharist was not accounted an article of faith until the twelfth. He 
 must also permit us to think, that the learned Doctor Wharton has 
 
126 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 made a complete failure in his attempt. But I do not undertake to 
 enter upon any controversy upon this point, my object 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 misrepresenting our tenets. Nor is it a 
 fact, that it was Innocent III. in the Council of Lateran, established 
 transubstantiation as to doctrine, though I admit the word was adopted 
 by that Council, as consubstantial respecting the divine nature of Christ, 
 was in the first Council of Nice, but in each case, the doctrine 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 bring Bossuet to 
 his side, but it is one of those efforts which had better be omitted. Bos- 
 suet does not object to the word spiritually so as absolutely to reject it, 
 as describing the eating and drinking of the Eucharist. But why does 
 he not explain to us exactly what was the meaning of the Bishop of 
 Meaux? Upon the question whether the Eucharist contained the body 
 of Christ in its natural state of existence, he says: No, but in a state 
 which is called spiritualized, such a state as it Avas in after its resur- 
 rection 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 and 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 paragraph 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 resurrec- 
 tion." 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 there are two distinct bodies, but it is the same identical body in two 
 very different states. So the body of Christ, in its mortal and natural 
 state, is the same identical body as in 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, 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 127 
 
 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 pass- 
 over, ' ' and so forth. From this, it is evident that he endearours 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 dispute between the cor- 
 ruptibles and incorruptibles reminds me of the manner in which Gib- 
 bon and his fellows mention that between the Homousians and Ho- 
 moiousians, 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 "blasphemy" against the Unitarians. 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 the same party in the church, that is, the entire church, 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. If you did, your assertion about 
 the Council of Lateran would go by the board, and this was what you 
 should not consent to. 
 
 It might, indeed, be very true, that we know nothing, by inspired 
 information, of the presence of the spiritualized and supernatural body 
 of Christ in the sacrament, if you mean to say that it is a different body 
 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 apparently incompatible properties of that body in coexist- 
 ence: thus, gentlemen, when he used the words quoted, Handle and see 
 that a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see I have, we have equally 
 strong evidence that, both in coming into the room and going out there- 
 from, that palpable flesh and those palpable bones were carried in a 
 supernatural way, through solid enclosures {John xx. 19, 26) ; because 
 they were in that mode of existence 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 according to the maxims of the world, flesh and blood, cannot 
 enter the kingdom of heaven. This is, undoubtedly, very profound the- 
 ology! ! ! 
 
128 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 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 ques- 
 tion occurs, how can this idea accord with the creed of Pius IV. ? ' ' and 
 so forth. I do not know. Nor is it necessary for me to answer; be- 
 cause 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 misrep- 
 resents our tenets. 
 
 Had he asked how the doctrine agreed with the creed of Pius IV., 
 I should have answered, "Exactly." 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, and so forth, and united per- 
 sonally with the soul and divinity, really, truly and substantially 
 present, but visible under the appearance of a different substance. 
 
 How many misrepresentations of our tenets are in this third essay? 
 Yet we are told that we have no cause to complain. 
 
 I remain, gentlemen, 
 
 Your obedient, humble servant, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XIV. 
 
 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. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Aug. 31, 1829. 
 To the Editors: 
 
 Gentlemen : — Your curious correspondent, in his Essay No. 4, in 
 your May issue, commences with an enumeration, in his first two para- 
 graphs, 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 anything but correct. It is apparently but a softening of 
 the phrase, yet, in truth, it is a restriction of the extent of his terms, 
 the substitution of some for many : 1 pass this over, and come to the 
 defence which he sets up for the misrepresentation. 
 
 In paragraph 41, he undertakes to show that our doctrine of pen- 
 nance is not misrepresented. Before I proceed further, allow me to re- 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 129 
 
 mind 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 person 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 satisfac- 
 tion." Thus, a person is said to have done or performed penance. If 
 your correspondent 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 paragraph 41, he informs us that "contrition, 
 confession, and satisfastion, are equally parts of the sacrament of the 
 penance, and together 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 the council, when, in truth, it is not, and the 
 very word equally, upon which he subsequently rests chiefly for his con- 
 clusion, 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 actually necessary, and so essential, 
 that nothing else can supply its want ; actual confession is sometimes im- 
 possible, the sincere intention and disposition of satisfaction is always 
 Bu,fiicient, and penance scarcely ever is actually performed before 
 or at the administration of the sacrament. Thus, the words which 
 he quotes are not those of the council; and they imply what the coun- 
 cil 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 decree : 
 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, and so forth. 
 
 "But truly the thing, and the effect of this sacrament, so far as relates to its 
 force and efficacy, is reconciliation to God, ' ' and so forth. 
 
 The res, "thing," is not "the thing signified," but the "thing ob- 
 tained." Our notions of the nature of a sacrament are very different 
 from those of several of your divines, and their expressions do not con- 
 vey our doctrines. 
 
 "The express language of the second decree of the thirteenth ses- 
 sion of the Council of Trent, is precisely of this tenor. It exhibits con- 
 fession and satisfaction as inseparably allied, in order to that end or 
 effect of penance, ' ' and so forth. I am convinced that your correspond- 
 ent would never expose himself as he does, had he read the decrees 
 
130 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 which he affects to quote. Now, neither the second chapter nor the sec- 
 ond decree nor the second canon, has one syllable 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 cannot find any- 
 thing even in that author to justify his expressions. 
 
 So far from the council exhibiting confession and satisfaction as 
 inseparably allied, to the effect of penance which is reconciliation to God, 
 it distinctly states in chapter iv. of this session. 
 
 Docet praeterea, etsi contritionem hanc aliquando charitatem perfectam esse 
 contingat, hominemque Deo reconciliare, priusquam hoc sacramentum actu suscipiatur; 
 ipsam nihilominus reconciliationem ipsi contritioni, sine sacramenti voto, quod in ilia 
 includitur, non esse adscrihendam. 
 
 "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, 
 nevertheless, the reconciliation itself is not to be ascribed to the contrition itself, with- 
 out 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 statement given almost in the very words of the council. 
 
 The council in chapter xiv. of the sixth session declared, as by 
 reference to it you will perceive, that temporal punishment is not al- 
 ways 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 re- 
 mitted by God, together with the guilt and the eternal punislmient, 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" (2d 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 studious- 
 ly 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 omission in Father Paul, that most accurate historian! 
 As the passage is short, I might as well exhibit this as a specimen of 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 131 
 
 various readings, and an instance of what a change the omission of one 
 or two words will make. 
 
 Father Paid. ' ' Of satisfaction the synod doth declare, That the sin being 
 remitted, the punishment is not pardoned, it not being convenient that he should be 
 so easily received into grace who hath sinned before baptism and after, and be left 
 without a bridle which may draw him from other sins," and so forth. 
 
 Protestant Catholic. ' ' The synod doth finally declare concerning satisfaction, 
 that sin being pardoned by God, the punishment is not altogether remitted, it not being 
 consistent with divine justice, that they who sin after baptism, should so easily and 
 so soon be received to grace, as those who through ignorance sinned before baptism. ' ' 
 
 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 
 says absolutely, and unrestrictedly, that sin being remitted, the punish- 
 ment is not pardoned, whereas your correspondent gives us a very dif- 
 ferent proposition, the punislunent is not altogether remitted. I shall 
 now make a few extracts of the phrases used by the council, but I can- 
 not discover any passage which leads me to find what part the above 
 were intended to represent, unless it be the following. 
 
 "Demum quoad satisf actionem, quae ex omniius paenitentiae partibus, quemad- 
 modum a patribus nostris Christiano populo fuit perpetuo tempore commendata, ita 
 una maxime nostra aetate, summo pietatis praetextu, impugnatur ab iis, qui speciem 
 pietatis habent, virtutem autem ejus abnegarunt: sancta Synodus declarat falsum 
 omnio esse, et verbo Dei alienum, culpam a Domino nunquam remitti, quin universa 
 etiam poena condonetur: perspicua enim et"^ illustria in sacris litteris exempla reper- 
 iuntur, quibus praeter divinam traditionem hie error quam manif estissime revincitur. 
 Sane et divinae justitiae ratio exigere videtur, ut aliter ab eo in gratiam recipiantur, 
 qui ante baptismum per ignorantiam deliquerint; aliter vero, qxd semel a peccati et 
 daemonis servitude liberati, et accepto Spiritus Sancti dono scienter "* templum Dei 
 violare, et " Spiritum Sanctum contristare non formidaverint. Et divinam elementiam 
 decet, ne ita nobis absque ulla satisfactione peccata dimittantur, ut, occasione accepta, 
 peccata leviora putantes, velut injurii, et " contumeliosi Spiritui Sancto, in graviora 
 labamur " thesaurisantes nobis iram in die irae. Proculdubio enim inagnopere a 
 peccato revocant, et quasi fraeno quodam coercent hae satisf actiorae paenae, cau- 
 tioresque et vigilantiores in futurum paenitentes efficiunt; medentur quoque pecca- 
 torum reliquis; et vitiosos habitus, male vivendo comparatos, contrariis virtutum 
 actionibus tollunt," and so forth. — Sessio xiv. cap. viii. 
 
 ' ' At length as regards satisfaction, which of all the parts of penance as delivered 
 at all times to the Christian people by our fathers, is alone chiefly assailed in our age 
 
 "'Gen. iii. 16, 17, 18, 19; Numb. xii. 10; xx. 12; 2 Samuel or Kings, xii. 13, 14. 
 "I Cor. iii. 17. 
 ''''Eph. iv. 30. 
 "ffeb. X. 29. 
 ''^ Eom. ii. 5. 
 
132 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 under the greatest pretext of piety, by those -vvho have the appearance of piety, and 
 have rejected its virtue; the holy Synod declares, that it is altogether false and for- 
 eign to the word of God, that guilt is never remitted by the Lord, unless he also be- 
 sto^ys full pardon from every kind of punishment; for there are very clear and illus- 
 trious examples found in the sacred Scriptures by which, as well as by divine tradi- 
 tion, this error is most plainly refuted. And truly, the reason of divine justice ap- 
 pears to require, that they who through ignorance sinned before baptism should be 
 received in one manner into grace ; but in another manner, they w^ho 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, thinking 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 recall from sin and 
 restrain as with a bridle; and do make penitents more cautious and vigilant in fu- 
 ture; they do also remedy the remains of sins; and take away by the performance of 
 the acts of contrary virtues, the habits of vice contracted by living badly," and so 
 forth. 
 
 The person who has had the patience to compare the Latin given 
 in the essay and its translation with that of the council and its transla- 
 tion, as given here, cannot but observe how grossly defective and how 
 palpably wrong was Father Paul ; and though better than this same ac- 
 curate and honest Father Paul, how defective was your correspondent. 
 Neither of them represents the meaning of the council. I have marked 
 in roman letters the parts of the original which correspond to the 
 garbled extract given by "Protestant Catholic." I shall now lay be- 
 fore you, the exact difference between the several doctrines. 
 
 Doctrine of the Council. — When God remits the guilt of sin to the 
 
 repentant sinner, he always remits the eternal penalty of hell, but does 
 
 not always remit altogether the temporal punishment due to the offence. 
 
 Stated hij "Protestant Catholic." — When God remits the guilt of 
 
 sin, he does not remit the punishment, altogether. 
 
 Stated ly Father Paul.—^herx God remits the guilt of sin, the 
 punishment is not remitted. 
 
 In the view of the coimcil, the sinner, having contracted the guilt 
 of mortal sin, is liable to punishment 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 poenam 
 universam, "entire punishment," meaning temporal and eternal, which 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 133 
 
 words your correspondent gives, but insists that in all eases the tem- 
 poral punishment remains due, bj' suppressing the word semper; and 
 Father Paul, by omitting semper and universam, is still worse. This 
 is abominable dishonesty, yet efifected merely by suppressing two words. 
 Gentlemen, it is such conduct as this, so palpably exhibited as we un- 
 fortunately find it generally to be, which caused the Reverend Doctor 
 Whitaker, Protestant Vicar of Blackburn, in England, in his Vindica- 
 tion of Mary (vol. iii., p. 2,) to write: "Forgery — 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 imposi- 
 tion amongst the disciples of Popery. ' ' 
 
 In this same forty-first paragraph, your correspondent again un- 
 truly asserts: "the temporal penalty inflicted by the church as the satis- 
 faction, which is 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 
 council : That the sinner who, having received from God the divine gift 
 of perfect charity, and dying in this disposition of true and perfect 
 contrition, should have desired the sacrament of penance, without hav- 
 ing been able to obtain it, and without having been able to any satis- 
 factory w^ork of penance, will, through the merits of Jesus Christ, be 
 reconciled to God, and will enter the kingdom of heaven without suf- 
 fering 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 "Protestant Catholic," 
 I merely refer him to the places where the doctrine is found. So far 
 from its 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 conclusion will hold good 
 that the temporal punishment must be indispensably undergone by every 
 sinner, 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 
 described 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 indulg- 
 ence. It is very troublesome to have to do with a man who is ignorant 
 of his subject. 
 
 Equally untrue is his assertion in the same paragraph, that we 
 
134 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 "consider some temporal pimishment to await the sinner in purgatory, 
 by way of satisfaction for his sins." If, as it is plain he and the com- 
 piler of the Catechism did mean, it is meant to assert that every sinner 
 who is saved must, previously to entering heaven, pass through purga- 
 tory, we hold no such doctrine. AVe believe that several of the saints now 
 in heaven never were in purgatory. Even your curious correspondent 
 feels that this assertion of his was not true; for he immediately adds: 
 "Protestants may, perhaps, err in saying that every sinner, in order to 
 make satisfaction to God for his sins, must suffer some temporal punish- 
 ment in purgatory." Yet he did say it, and reasoned upon the sup- 
 position 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 show 
 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 w^ite 
 the nonsense, in order to try and create a feeling of ridicule 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 
 suffers 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 ex- 
 plicitly state our doctrine; and his gross inaccuracy will be seen, and 
 his many blunders will be easily counted up. 
 
 We believe, 1. That sin is a violation of God's law. 2. The sinner 
 becomes guilty upon its violation. 3. The consequence of guilt is pen- 
 alty. 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 eter- 
 nal punishment in hell. 7. Persons guilty of venial sin are liable to 
 temporal 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 application of the merits of Christ, after the repentance 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 pun- 
 ishment wholly and fully remitted, and without any application of an 
 indulgence. 12. The temporal punishment might, through the merits 
 of Christ and the mercy of God, be removed by satisfactory works of 
 penance, performed in this life by the repentant sinner, who has ob- 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 135 
 
 tained pardon of guilt and remission of eternal punishment. 13. 
 Should he die before he has fully suffered what God had allotted, or been 
 able to obtain its remission, he will suffer the unremitted 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 are partakers, and by which 
 our prayers are enriched, God will alleviate the sufferings of those who 
 may be detained in purgatory, upon the prayers of those who with 
 proper dispositions intercede for them. 
 
 Such is our doctrine, which your correspondent has grossly mis- 
 represented; whether wilfully or not matters nothing to us, but much 
 to him. As to the suffeing being by fire or not, we have no certain knowl- 
 edge of faith, neither are we bound to believe without stronger evidence 
 than we possess, that such is the mode of suffering ; but such is the gen^ 
 eral opinion of the western division of the Roman Catholic Church. 
 Others, fully in our communion, are of the opinion that the suffering is 
 by darkness: 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 forty-second and forty-third paragraphs, as they relate to pen- 
 ance, are but unbecoming rant and illogical inference. In the forty- 
 second 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 complain, have been introduced and are 
 continued by such persons, under the alleged warrant of the church's 
 teaching, and the Pope 's permitting. Is, then, the allegation of a knave, 
 of a fool, or of a hypocrite, the evidence upon which a church of nearly 
 two hundred millions of Christians is to be condemned as holding doc- 
 trine which she disavows, and which her upright and intelligent mem- 
 bers "indignantly 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 demeanour 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 sophister, that which 
 is least honourable is, after avowing that "many virtuous and enlight- 
 ened Roman Catholics, especially in England and the United States, in- 
 
136 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 dignantly refuse to recognise in them (the imputed doctrines and prac- 
 tices) anything belonging to their system of institutions;" still, with the 
 knowledge that their doctrine is the same as that of every other Cath- 
 olic 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 corres- 
 pondent. He makes groundless assertions 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 assertts that they 
 may be everywhere 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 visited Catholic coun- 
 tries, and which he refers to, I shall probably in my next letter examine 
 the value of the special instances which he adduces, and it is only 
 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 their acquaintances than I have been ; though perhaps, not many have 
 had much more extensive opportunity. I have known some of the best- 
 informed and most liberal Protestants, men who would have done honour 
 to any circle of society, and many of whom have been conspicious in 
 public and private life, who have visited Catholic countries. Several 
 have had prejudices removed, many have had them extended and con- 
 firmed, and others had them scarcely in any respect modified. But of 
 the entire number, I cannot now bring to my recollection a single indiv- 
 idual who was fitted to give testimony to others, or to form a correct 
 judgment himself, 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 expect a cor- 
 rect judgment of our conduct, character and institutions, from an 
 English traveller who had prepared for a visit to these States by read- 
 ing as a correct and accurate statement Paulding's JoJui 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 Kal- 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 137 
 
 muc Tartar to comprehend the process of carrying a bill through Con- 
 gress, or of conducting a suit through our courts, or to comprehend 
 the purport of our festive national celebrations, as to find a well-disposed 
 and well-informed Protestant, who has only the notions which you and 
 yours generally give of our religion, comprehend a single religious 
 celebration of the Catholic Church. I never 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 (Mountcashel I believe) gravely to state, as 
 your correspondent relates, that "Popery was little understood in 
 England," where the premier-earl-marshal, and a number of the aris- 
 tocracy, and nearly a million of the people were Roman Catholics? It 
 is true the Protestants did not then know as well as they do now, what 
 that religion is. But was it not 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 archbishops of Ireland and two or three of her bishops, 
 at that very period, were prelates who had learned and taught theology 
 in Spain ! and your curious correspondent has the assurance to tell 
 us that we in America understand very little about our religion. I 
 suppose he means as it exists in the Catholic nations of Europe, though 
 our prelates and clergy and laity, are not only composed of native Amer- 
 icans North and South, but of citizens adopted from Ireland, from 
 England, from France, from Spain, from Italy, from Portugal, from 
 Germany, from Holland, and so forth. 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 extraordinary 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 for- 
 eign nations, severed not only by seas and mountains, but by language 
 and customs, and yet they are all found most harmoniously to agree 
 in doctrine and practice ! — This is an exhibition which is peculiar to 
 "the Church 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 
 
138 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 42, by Menclham. We desire to be judged by the decisions of the Coun- 
 cil of Trent, why do our adversaries fly from its application ? — The mis- 
 erable sophistry, that individuals cannot disclaim, because individuals 
 cannot decide, is too peurile. 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 modify 
 it. Our church decides, and we know and can apply its decisions. 
 
 In paragraph 43, the writer, w^ho, in the preceding one had the indel- 
 icacy to charge us without evidence, and against evidence, with priest- 
 craft and Jioly immorality, now avows that what he charges "is not our 
 doctrine and practice as required by the highest authority of our church 
 to be taught and inculcated, nor as they are everywhere taught and in- 
 culcated;" now his note-writer, Mendham, stated that it was to this 
 faith and discipline one ought to look for the "true and genuine char- 
 acter" of the Roman sect. Thus, your correspondent avoids the very 
 mode w'hich his own associate whom he quotes with approbation, points 
 out. And what mode does he follow? He looks to "what is known and 
 observed to be in some portion of the Roman Catholic communion," 
 and to what might be ' ' anyw^here within its limits. ' ' That is, as he told 
 us before, "There might be hypocrites and knaves and fools anywhere 
 in your church, and in fact there are some in various portions of it. 
 But your governing authority everywhere teaches and inculcates, and 
 good members adhere to doctrines and practices, opposed to the conduct 
 of those fools and knaves; but you must have the character of your 
 church depicted from the misconduct of the fools and knaves, and not 
 from the uniform teaching of your tribunal. ' ' — Such is the avow^ed prin- 
 ciple on which we are calumniated, such the mode in which we are rep- 
 resented ! And you do not blush and hide your heads in shame at the 
 avow^al ! ! ! There is a point in misconduct at which shame and honour 
 cease to be found! It is not for me to apply the observation. 
 
 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 misrepresentation by 
 introducing the word adequate before "satisfaction," 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 satisfaction is made only by Christ. I also 
 assert, that in no country does the Roman Catholic Church permit, nor 
 could she permit the medicinal penance, or medicinal satisfaction im- 
 posed in the sacrament of penance by the priest upon the penitent to be 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 139 
 
 performed by another, and I lay claim to some information 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 decla- 
 mation. 
 
 I remain, gentlemen, 
 
 Your obedient, humble servant, 
 
 B. c. 
 
 LETTER XV. 
 
 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 ravished ear. 
 
 And still to smile the mimic beauties seem. 
 Though now the visionary scenes appear 
 
 Like the faint traces of a vanished dream. 
 
 Langhorne. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Sept. 7, 1829. 
 To the Editors : 
 
 Gentlemen : — It was very kind in your correspondent to warn us to 
 be discreet. We do not every day meet with so generous an opponent. 
 Others, less charitable than he is, would have encouraged us to do those 
 deeds of indiscretion which would tend to their advantage; but "Pro- 
 testant Catholic,"!! 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 Cath- 
 olics to say much." I shall take his advice and write but little. How- 
 ever, I shall vie with him in generosity, 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 sometimes 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 sometimes remits all penances of 
 such sins as shall be committed during a man 's whole life. 
 
 ' ' That those indulgences are considered by many Eoman Catholics as licenses to 
 commit sin. 
 
140 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 ' ' That the public sale of those licenses to commit sin, is practised by the author- 
 ity of the Roman Catholic Church, or of the Pope. ' ' 
 
 He makes scarcely an effort to prove the truth of one of the propo- 
 sitions. He merely declaims. 
 
 He states that "It (the subject of indulgences) is too plain and uni- 
 versally known an instance of the corruption of the Church." But this 
 assertion is not disproving the truth of any one of my propositions. 
 He says: "which (corruption) even the Council of Trent left very im- 
 perfectly remedied." The doctrine of indulgences and the abuse of 
 indulgences are two very different subjects; as different as the use of 
 medicine and its abuse; the use of meat and drink is not their abuse. 
 Your correspondent does not vouchsafe to inform us whether he looks 
 upon an indulgence to be in any way useful 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 mean, then, by saying that penance is a satisfac- 
 tion for sin? 
 
 A. I mean, that when by the merits of Christ, the guilt of sin and 
 -its consequences, damnation, are remitted, a temporal punishment re- 
 mains due, of which w^e may procure remission, by penitential works, 
 which also have their value from the merits of our Redeemer. 
 
 Q. Will the penance enjoined in the confession, always satisfy for 
 our sins? 
 
 A. No; but whatever else is wanting may be supplied by indul- 
 gences, and our own penitential endeavours. 
 
 Q. What does the church teach concerning indulgences? 
 A. That Christ gave power to the church, to grant indulgences; 
 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 God often 
 visits our sins ; and which must be suffered in this 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 ; // Cor. 
 ii. 10). 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 141 
 
 Q. To whom does the church grant indulgences ? 
 
 A. To such only as are in the state of grace, and are sincerely de- 
 sirous 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 license to com- 
 mit sin? 
 
 A. No; nor can it remit past sins, for sin must be remitted by 
 penance as to the guilt of it, and as the eternal punishment due to mor- 
 tal sin, before an indulgence can be gained. 
 
 Q. Why does the church grant indulgences? 
 
 A. To assist our weakness; and to supply our insufficiency in sat- 
 isfying the Divine Justice for our transgressions. 
 
 Q. When the church grants indulgences, what does it offer to God 
 to supply our weakness and insufficiency, and in satisfaction for our 
 sins? 
 
 A. The merits of Christ, which are infinite and superabundant, 
 together with the virtues and good works of his Virgin Mother, and of 
 all his saints. 
 
 Q. What conditions are generally necessary to gain indulgences? 
 
 A. A good confession and communion, and a faithful compliance 
 with the other good works which the church requires on such occasions. 
 
 Q. What are the other good works which the church usually pre- 
 scribes, in order to gain indulgences? 
 
 A. Prayer, fasting, and alms deeds; which good works, besides 
 confession and communion, are recommended by indulgences ; and on this 
 account also, they are most useful to Christian people." — Catechism, 
 Lesson xxx. 
 
 Now, the Council of Trent did not decide, as perhaps, he would 
 wish, that an indulgence was a corruption, or a superstition ; but as 
 there did exist several abuses, it applied a remedy in the following de- 
 crees : In the twenty-first session, held on the 16th of July, 1562, chap- 
 ter ix., "On Reformation," after adverting to the decrees of the Coun- 
 cils of Lateran, of Lyons, and of Vienne, having applied remedies 
 "against the wicked abuses of quests," and complaining of the inef- 
 ficacy of those remedies, and the scandals which those continued abuses 
 perpetuated, "totally abolished their use and name throughout Christen- 
 dom:" after having then commanded that they should under no colour 
 be permitted, it proceeds to regulate that the indulgences or spiritual 
 benefits, shall be published by the ordinaries accompanied by two mem- 
 bers of the Chapter, and forbids any renumeration to be given or re- 
 ceived for the publication : but any alms which might be bestowed, are 
 
1-12 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 to be fully and faithfully applied to pious uses, so that no profit or gain 
 shall arise from the practice of piety. In the twenty-fifth session, cele- 
 brated on the 4th of December, 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 benefit of the Christian people, and con- 
 demning 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 facility, 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 indul- 
 gences is blasphemed by heretics, should be amended and corrected, it 
 generally enacts by the present decree : that all wicked gain, for obtain- 
 ing them, whence great cause of abuses flowed upon the Christian people, 
 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 them, and relate 
 them in the first provincial synod, so that the opinion of other bishops 
 being known, they may be immediately referred to the Pope, by whose 
 authority and prudence, that might be enacted which would be expedient 
 for the Universal Church: so that the grace of holy indulgences, might 
 be dispensed to all the faithful, in a pious, holy, and uncorrupted man- 
 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 omits that which is its chief ingredient, viz., "the super- 
 abundance of the merits of Christ." Such is but a specimen of his dis- 
 honesty. 
 
 Your correspondent makes a serious mistake if he imagines that I 
 shall dissent from one syllable which "the amiable and ingenuous 
 Fleury" has written 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 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 143 
 
 declaimed; so that here Fleury and he were fully opposed. Although 
 it is a pretty long discussion, still I shall give the translation of a por- 
 tion to show what Fleury thought of indulgences, and to exhibit that 
 his meaning 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 the facility of gaining (grant- 
 ing) 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 
 thirteenth centuries granted indulgences for all sorts of pious works. ' ' 
 
 Here your correspondent stops, as usual, at a comma, in an unfin- 
 ished sentence. I have marked in italics, where my translation of the 
 word gagner, corrects his granting; and mine for les racheter, corrects 
 his huy it off. But I suspect the object of his stopping was to leave the 
 impression on the reader's mind that the money paid in the buying off 
 went into the pocket of him who granted: why else did he not continue 
 the sentence which proceeds? — 
 
 "Such as the building of a church, the endowment of an hospital, in fine every 
 description of public work, a bridge, a causeway, the paving of a high road. The 
 indulgences, iu truth, were nothing more than a part of the penance; but if many 
 of 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 ex- 
 ceed one year, even though many bishops should be present, for each used to under- 
 take 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 "in- 
 genuous" to garble. The church then does not recommend, nor ap- 
 prove, nor sanction even such disproportionate indulgences, but calls 
 them abuses. But the writer generally condemns the church for what 
 she herself condemns, and imputes 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 person granting the 
 indulgence, but for 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. Fleury, whilst he upholds 
 the doctrine of the church on each point, differs in his view of expedi- 
 ency from the bishop, and after a considerable discussion adduces the 
 
144 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 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 manner. 
 
 ''We must then go back to the maxim of St. Paul, that everything which is per- 
 mitted is not expedient. Because this prince who would pardon 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 them: nor that she ought to do in certain cases, what she has always done: 
 but it is the duty of her ministers to dispense these favours with wisdom, and not to 
 create a useless profusion, or perhaps a pernicious one. ' ' 
 
 Your notably candid correspondent, however, instead of giving us 
 Fleury's explanation and application, flies off from his fourth discourse 
 which he quotes, and adds a passage of his sixth, which is also distorted 
 by its unnatural juxtaposition 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 pro- 
 priety of which I shall not now dispute. Another time perhaps, and a 
 more fit occasion, might induce me to give my reasons for differing very 
 widely wnth him upon this subject. But even this passage he garbled 
 also. Fleury begins his paragraph by stating that it was not Pope 
 Urban alone, but the council of two hundred bishops assembled at Cler- 
 mont, that for reasons previously assigned, looked upon it as the will of 
 God that the expedition should be undertaken, and then continues: 
 
 ' ' To carry it into execution, and to put the people in motion, the great resource 
 was a plenary indulgence; and it was then that- this commenced. At all times, the 
 church had left to the discretion of the bishops, to remit some part of the canonical 
 penance, according to the fervour of the penitent, and other circumstances; but until 
 now it had not been seen, that in favour of one single work the sinner was discharged 
 from all the temporal punishment for which he might be amenable to the justice of 
 God. It required no less than a numerous council, at which the Pope presided in 
 person to authorize such a change in the usage of penance; and doubtless it is be- 
 lieved that there existed good reasons for it. For more than two hundred years, the 
 bishops had found it very difficult to bring sinners to submit to the canonical pen- 
 ances: it had been even made impracticable by multiplying them according to the 
 number of sins, whence arose the invention of commuting them, so as to redeem entire 
 (buy off many) years, in a few days. Because amongst the commutations of pen- 
 ance, for a long time were used, pilgrimages to Rome, to Compostella, or to Jerusalem ; 
 and the Crusade added to these the perils of war. Persons, upon this ground, be- 
 lieved 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 church, 
 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 indulgence 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 
 
tAvo DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 145 
 
 [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 remedies 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 propo- 
 sitions which he undertook to confute, has garbled Fleury, quoted ]\Ios- 
 heim, and concluded wnth a notorious falsehood, "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 
 usages of the Church." 
 
 It is no argviment, it is no proof, to write, "Will any pretend to 
 question this?" when we not only question 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, misrep- 
 resentation, 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 statements upon his 
 responsibility for their truth. That he 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 the cathedral notices from him 
 of 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 exhibited as to give any pretext for such a charge upon 
 him. Number 236 of the Miscellany, published on the 5th of July, 
 1828, contains some documents 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 re- 
 turning from a European tour, report the occurrence of a church in Italy ? 
 
 The Bishop also authorizes me to state that the indulgence men- 
 tioned in paragraph 46, is one of which he has full and intimate knowl- 
 edge. 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 secretary, and all the 
 details of the exercises were superintended by him, and not one cent of 
 money was looked for, upon any pretext whatever, save the usual col- 
 lections applicable to the usual purposes, except one extra collection 
 
146 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 which he made by his 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 spir- 
 itual benefits of the indulgence exhibited 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 never did, and probably never will, wit- 
 ness 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 Dr. 
 England. Upon what then does your correspondent found his assertion, 
 that indulgences might now be had for money ? 
 
 In paragraph 44, your correspondent introduces, "in relation to 
 the prayers for the dead in purgatory as well as indulgences," a pas- 
 sage from Daubney's Protestant Companion. But "the respectable 
 author of our own times, ' ' has really made a very curious exhibition of 
 himself. Were I 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 "receiving the prayers of a mass," intelligible amongst us: and you 
 may go through half Christendom asking how a man "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 nothing more than 
 the following. That this was not a public church of a parish, but one 
 maintained by a 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 various duties, so that persons desirous of having the benefit of the 
 services therein performed, must contribute accordingly, either monthly, 
 or as life members, and that the benefactors would also be specially 
 prayed for and remembered in the services after their death, with a 
 recommendation to persons rather to join the society of that church, 
 than to depend 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 pray- 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 147 
 
 ing — ^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 remain 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." I profess myself completely unable even to 
 guess at what is meant by "his 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 Breviary 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 expressions 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 practised and understood as well as it is in Rome. We will 
 ourselves give you our books and explain our doctrine and practices, 
 upon your application, and then when you assail us, you will do so with- 
 out making yourselves ridiculous. 
 
 In paragraph 47, your correspondent founds his conclusion upon a 
 false assumption, that "the confessing penitent may buy himself off 
 from the necessity of that which is imposed to satisfy the divine justice," 
 hence the conclusion that "it operates 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 gratuitous discharge 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 
 eternal punishment, and that sometimes, he afterwards, in considera- 
 tion of some acts of virtue, remits 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 respecting indulgences to be incorrect. The 
 whole of your charges are day-dreams of fancy. 
 
 I remain, gentlemen. 
 
 Your obedient, humble servant, b. c. 
 
148 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 LETTER XVI. 
 
 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. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Sept. 14, 1829. 
 To the Editors: 
 
 Gentlemen: — I am now arrived at the fifth essay in your number 
 for June. The object of your curious correspondent was stated by him 
 not to be controversy, but to show that what I called misrepresentations 
 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 forty-ninth 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, Praef. de Rom. 
 Pont., is not a translation of Bellarmine 's words, though crotcheted 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 accurately represented in the translation. 
 
 But what shall I say to the note which purports to be an extract 
 from A Pastoral Instruction of Archbishop Troy, the late Primate of 
 Ireland? Surely it is blasphemy for him to mention the celestial 
 primacy of the Pope! I shall only insinuate 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 the passage. I shall, 
 however, again refer to the testimony of the Bishop of Charleston, who 
 authorizes me to state: ''that he was during some years well acquainted 
 with Archbishop Troy, and was frequently in his company; that his 
 impression is that he was the last Irish prelate whose hospitality 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 
 instruction issued by that prelate; that he is confident no one that he 
 ever read contained such an expression 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, 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 149 
 
 which is the appropriate and usual expression, and the very word which 
 in a variety of similar cases he has known the Archbishop to have used. 
 It is true that such evidence 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 [please]. 
 
 The paragraphs 50, 51, and 52, are all very extraordinary negative 
 arguments to disprove the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. I have given 
 some time since, six letters, containing positive proofs to the contrary. 
 Whoever wishes to read them can, if he will, compare the negative and 
 the positive 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. Ignatius "delineated with the greatest minuteness the Christian 
 hierarchy." And it is an evidence of a want of acquaintance with our 
 doctrine to impute to us even by implication that we consider the papal 
 office to constitute a separate hierarchical order. The writer would have 
 done better had he informed us who was "the corrupt hand of secular 
 power" that gave to the Bishop of the imperial city "the title and pre- 
 rogatives of Universal Bishop," than so boldly to assume as fact, that 
 which we assert is a fable. It would have argued a little more knowl- 
 edge 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 Oecumenical Bishop as proof that the title itself was usurped by 
 Rome: for he ought to have known that in this case Rome rebuked, 
 because it possessed authority, and Constantinople submitted because of 
 its want. That Protestants never admitted the sufficiency of the evi- 
 dence is no better argument against its sufficiency, than is the non- 
 admission by Presbyterians, of the sufficiency of evidence of the Divine 
 institution of Episcopacy, a warrant for denying that such institution is 
 divine. Is Jesus Christ to be changed in his nature, because the Uni- 
 tarian 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 
 evidence upon which the majority rest their conviction? Dr. 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 before: many 
 candid inquirers, to my own knowledge, after full and deep examination 
 of the topics urged by him, have been convinced of their insufficiency, 
 
150 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 and upon that conviction, deliberately came back to that Christian unity 
 from which their forefathers had been led away. 
 
 In his paragraph 53, under the semblance of a concession, he in- 
 creases the previous misrepresentation. In my second letter to Bishop 
 Bowen, I stated that the following proposition was untrue, viz. : — 
 
 "Koman Catholics found their doctrine, that the Scriptures, though being the 
 word of God, are not the entire rule of faith, except as explained by their unwritten 
 traditions, and the authority of their Church, on the pretended infallibility of their 
 Church. ' ' 
 
 He does not attempt to prove the truth of the proposition, but he 
 asserts that "the Scriptures are according to the Roman Catholic doc- 
 trine only one half, and that not the most important half of the word of 
 God?" It is not because of his incorrect most, nor because of his only 
 one half; how exactly he measured! but because of the whole scope of 
 this assertion that I now state it to be a misrepresentation of our doc- 
 trine : and his next two propositions are equally untrue viz. : ' ' The tra- 
 ditions 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 
 into any examination of the correctness or incorrectness of your mode, 
 or of your contrast: but your correspondent has here been guilty of 
 misrepresenting our doctrine, as also in this other proposition in the 
 same paragraph. Catholics "make the traditions, which while they ex- 
 plain 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 misrepresenta- 
 tions are first, the assertion "that we believe tradition to be the mode 
 by which we learn more important doctrines than are contained in the 
 Scriptures." Secondly, "that by it we learn as many doctrines as are 
 revealed in the Scriptures," and thirdly, in the equivocation respecting 
 the word unwritten, which he exhibits as meaning "not committed to 
 writing," but which in our authors whom he quotes is always under- 
 stood 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, 
 and so forth. I had intended to pass over this without farther remark, 
 until I recollected the playful manner in which a former distinction 
 was disposed of, for the purpose of destroying which, it is possible that 
 celestial was substituted for ecclesiastical: you will therefore excuse me 
 if I now show glaring misrepresentation by a more detailed reference. 
 That your correspondent alleges our traditions to be not written as con- 
 tradistinguished to written in any book, and not merely in the Holy 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 151 
 
 Scriptures, is apparent from his calling them oral in paragraph 53, in 
 his first and fourth reasons for the dissent of Protestants. He thus 
 represents us, as raising mere oral tradition 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 
 unwritten word of God. 
 
 Vacatur autem doctrina non scripta, non ea quae nusquam scripta est, sed quae 
 non est scripta a primo auctore: exemplo sit haptismus parvulorum. Parvulos hap- 
 tizandos vacatur traditio Apostolica non scripta, quia non invenitur hoc scriptum in 
 ullo Apostolico libro, tametsi scriptum est in libris fere omnius veterum patrum. 
 
 "That is called unwritten doctrine, not which is nowhere found written, but 
 which is not found written by an original author: for example the baptism of in- 
 fants. That infants are to be baptized is called an unwritten Apostolical tradition, 
 because this is not found written in any Apostolical book, although it is written in 
 the books of almost all the ancient fathers." 
 
 In his twelfth chapter of the same book from which your correspon- 
 dent affects to quote his passage, the following is found, as the first of 
 the modes by which tradition is preserved. 
 
 Prima est scriptura. Etsi enim non sint scriptae traditiones in divine litteris, 
 sunt tamen scriptae in monumentis 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 "written tradition" we do not mean "mere 
 oral tradition." 
 
 It is to me truly painful to be perpetually obliged to show how 
 unfaithful, and little worthy of confidence is "Protestant Catholic." 
 He places together 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 re.gula fidei, est verbum Dei, sive revelatio Dei Ecclesiae facta, 
 quae dividitur in duas regulas partiales, scripturam et traditionem. Et quidem Scrip- 
 tura, quia est regula, inde habet, ut quidquid continet sit necessario verum et creden- 
 dum, et quidquid ei repugnat, sit necessario falsum et repudiandum: quia vero, 
 non est regula totalis sed partialis; inde illi accidit ut non omnia mensuret, et prop- 
 terea aliquid sit de fide, quod non in ipsa continetur. Et hoc modo intelligi debeant 
 verba S. Augustini, nusquam enim dicit Scripturam solan esse regulam, sed dicit 
 Scripturam esse regulam, ad quam examinari debent scripta patrum, ut ea recipiamus, 
 quae Scripturae stmt consona; ilia rejiciamus quae Scripturae adversantur. 
 
 "For the total rule of faith is the word of God, or his revelation to his church; 
 which is divided into two partial rules, scripture and tradition. And indeed Scripture 
 
152 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 because it is a rule has this property, that whatsoever it contains is necessarily true 
 and ought to be believed; and whatsoever is repugnant thereto must necessarily be 
 false, and should be rejected: but because it is not a total but a partial rule it is a 
 consequence that it does not measure all things, and therefore something might be of 
 faith which is not contained therein. And in this manner should the words of St. 
 Augustine be understood, for he nowhere says, that the Scripture 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 tra- 
 ditions are, concerning which the decree was made; they are found in 
 the decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures, passed April 8th, 1546, 
 and are thus described: 
 
 Hoc siU perpetuo ante oculos ponens. Ut suhlatis erroribus puritas ipsa Evan- 
 gelii in Ecdesia conservetur, quod promissum ante per prophetas in scripturis Sanctis, 
 Dominus noster Jesus Christus Dei filius, propria ore primum promulgavit; deinde 
 per sues Apostolos, tanquam fontem omnis salutaris veritatis, et morum disciplinae, 
 omni creaturae praedicari jussit; perspiciensque hanc veritatem, et disciplinam con- 
 tineri in libris scriptis, et sine scripto traditionihus, quae ipsius Christi ore db Apos- 
 tolis acceptae, aut ab ipsis Apostolis, Spiritu Sancto dictante, quasi per manus tra- 
 ditae, ad nos usque pervenerunt, orthodoxorum Patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros 
 tarn veteris, quam novi testamenti, cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, nee non tradi- 
 tiones ipsas, turn ad fidem, turn ad mores pertinentes, tamquam vel ore tenus a Christo, 
 vel a Spiritu Sancto dictitatas, et continua successions in Ecdesia Catholica conser- 
 vatas, 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 pro- 
 mulgated 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 un- 
 written traditions, which having been received by the Apostles from the mouth of 
 Christ himself, 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, re- 
 ceives and venerates 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." 
 
 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 w^hat 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. 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 153 
 
 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 record of 
 the revelation that was made, I must have said that such communications 
 were more important than any delivered to the churches by the Apostles 
 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 intended to convey, "numerous," as that which he 
 attached to it, "important." But probably both meanings might be 
 sustained by verse 3, of chapter 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 misstatements. 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 hot written to be more important, what is written to be 
 less important. — All 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 disciples" articles of belief of which they had the knowledge 
 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 as theirs, and we do find in 
 their wi'itings allusions and references to unwritten teaching. One or 
 two passages will suffice for present reference. (7 Cor .xi. 2 ; II Thess. 
 ii. 15.) 
 
 His third begs the question. 
 
 His fourth assumes a false basis, oral. 
 
 His fifth is extremely unfortunate in its specifications. The mil- 
 lenarian error was founded upon Revelations 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 Catholics, that the saints would not see God until the resurrec- 
 tion. The necessity of giving the Eucharist 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 contro- 
 verted by me, nor sufficient for his purpose; the second part is untrue 
 in fact, as might be easily shown in several instances. 
 
154 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 His last reason, as applied to doctrine, is altogether untrue, — let 
 him show the particulars. 
 
 Upon his quotation from Bishop AVhite, 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 legislature 
 and courts of any civilized nation to be fully competent, not only to 
 declare that the statutes and usages which are by them recognised 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 Gospel, and that she taught her doc- 
 trines before the Gospel was written, and that it was only by her testi- 
 mony, the fact of their inspiration and divine authority has been estab- 
 lished. Her public tribunals give this testimony not only to the written 
 Gospel, but to more than is written in the Gospel. I believe with Bishop 
 White, that there is no species of evidence more generally acted on, or 
 less liable to be deceptive. 
 
 My complaint against the Catechism and against your correspon- 
 dent is, for having misrepresented what we mean by tradition ; and for 
 having misrepresented us in the attempt to show that we preferred 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 body 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 Apos- 
 tles, and so forth, held the words of Christ in relation to his mission, 
 offices, and nature," and so forth, — 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 considered necessary by 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" "for ever," {John xiv. 16, 17), it has the full appear- 
 ance of evidence that such influence 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 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 155 
 
 attended with insuperable difficulties." I acknowledge, gentlemen, that 
 to a Protestant, if he desire so to continue, it must; for if such influ- 
 ence be once admitted, he must become a member of "the great body 
 of the faithful." But to a Roman Catholic it presents no difficulty, 
 but it removes all doubt, and creates perfect repose in his certainty of 
 the guidance of the spirit of truth. 
 
 The topic in his paragraph 57 is not worth a remark. 
 
 The fifty-ninth adduces motives to prove that the statement in fifty- 
 eight 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. 
 
 If it be a denial of the free use of the Scriptures to declare that the 
 meaning of the books and passages is that which 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 as 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 Pro- 
 testants "regarded as of high and inestimable authority," and this ac- 
 count 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 away 
 the free use, unless free use and abuse be synonymous. 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, 
 comparatively speaking, very few. The note here is, therefore, an un- 
 true 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 
 accurately translated or perfect copies, because they are neither. 
 
 My object not being a controversy upon the merits of the question, 
 but a vindication of my former statements, I shall not proceed, as I 
 might, to show that, in the English Protestant Church from which you 
 are sprung, the same principle exists and is frequently enforced. Why 
 do you call other Protestants heretics, for merely making the free use of 
 their own judgment in the interpretation of the Scripture? The Uni- 
 tarian only makes free use of the Scripture, yet you condemn him with 
 
156 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 equal decision, but not with equal scurrility as we are condemned for 
 merely the free use of our own judgment, in determining 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 pro- 
 fesses that, in the exercise of his judgment, he cannot believe Jesus 
 Christ was an incarnate 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 why you assert that bishops are superior to priests, or that pres- 
 byterial ordination is invalid, or that the administration of the sacra- 
 ments 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 member of your church. He is a good moral man, 
 zealous for the free use and distribution of the Bible, of splendid intel- 
 lect, of winning manners, of estimable and extensive benevolence, de- 
 sirous of offtciating for a vacant church of yours, by the great body of 
 whose members he is held in high esteem. Will its pulpit be open for 
 him? Yet he addresses you. ''Gentlemen, it is true, you tell me, that 
 I am free to use the Scriptures, but not my understanding in order to 
 know what they teach and require." "Can any" Protestant Episco- 
 palian ' ' on earth deny this to be true, and the only true account of the 
 matter?" 
 
 Gentlemen, whatever the effect of the restriction may be, one effect 
 of the abuse of the Scriptures certainly has been more sectarian hatred, 
 animosity, ill-will, malice, misrepresentation, strife, envy, contention, and 
 falsehood, than has proceeded 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 interpretation, 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 regulations. "No, no!" you answer, "let 
 everybody interpret for himself, and act upon his own interpretation." 
 You have thus tiung the document abroad, and proclaimed the license: 
 why will you condemn those who act upon your principle? Why con- 
 demn even us, who take the document and judge for ourselves? Gen- 
 tlemen, you may declaim against our ignorance as your correspondent 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 157 
 
 does in paragraph 60, but you mistake: the Bible is better known 
 amongst Catholics than is any other book in existence, 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 arguments, with infinitely more accu- 
 racy than you know those of our church. In other countries, where Pro- 
 testants are not found, it does frequently happen that the great body of 
 the people have as little knowledge of your particular tenets, of your 
 special discipline, and of the nature of your institutions, 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 Eutychians, 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 contents of the Bible. 
 Nor would a study of the Bible supply a knowledge of the nature and 
 practices of a church whose characterfstic peculiarities are mere denials 
 of what those persons believe to be authorized by that religion which the 
 Bible upholds. 
 
 I shall endeavour to conclude my remarks next week, and remain, 
 gentlemen, Your obedient, humble servant, B. c. 
 
 LETTER XVII. 
 
 But this, -whatever evil she conceived, 
 Did spread abroad, and throw in the open wind; 
 
 Yet this in all her words might be perceived, 
 That all she sought was men's good names to have bereaved; 
 
 For whatever good by any said, 
 Or done, she would straightways invent 
 
 How to deprave, or slanderously upbraid. 
 Or to misconstrue of a man 's intent. 
 And turn to ill the thing that well was meant. 
 
 To hark what any one did good report. 
 To blot the same with blame or wreck in wicked sort. 
 
 And if that any ill she heard of any. 
 She would it take, and make it worse by telling 
 
 And take great joy to publish it to many. 
 That every matter worse was for her melling. 
 
 Spenser. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Sept. 21, 1829. 
 To the Editors: 
 
 Gentlemen: — There now remain but few topics to be disposed of; 
 and upon those few topics there is not much discussion required by the 
 
158 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 principle under which I act, for the misrepresentations which they 
 contain are comparatively few and easily rectified. The sixty-first par- 
 agraph of your correspondent well and pathetically laments the conse- 
 quences of your principle; and naturally resolves itself into the doctrine 
 of infallibility as the only efficient remedy. We say that the Saviour 
 of the world was influenced by the view of those consequences to pro- 
 vide thus against the evil: we have, on our side, the example of the 
 precept given by God in Deuteronomy xvii. to the people of Israel; as 
 well as of the precept given by the Saviour himself in Matthew xviii. 
 17, together with the promises of his special abiding to preserve his 
 church in truth all days to the end of the world, and many other evi- 
 dences which it is here unnecessary to adduce. But your correspondent 
 is pleased to say, that "it were vain, perhaps, to expect, in the present 
 day, to secure the attention of any intelligent reader to an argument 
 either for or against the Eoman Catholic doctrine of the church's in- 
 fallibility." I, of course, will call this prejudice, or judgment made 
 up before its grounds are examined ; he will, perhaps, give it some other 
 name. Is he aware of the anathemas used by St. Paul? (7 Cor. xvi. 
 22; Gal. i. 8, 9). I need not go to any higher authority to support the 
 declarations of the church, that whosoever corrupts the doctrine of 
 Christ is anathema. The church condemns no one to eternal penalties, 
 because she has no such power. But she does declare, for she is com- 
 missioned by Christ so to do, the doctrine which he taught, and the 
 penalties under which he commands it to be received; and she would 
 be unfaithful to her commission, if she did not proclaim what she was 
 commanded to teach all days to the end of the world. If she proclaims 
 a falsehood, it is folly to believe that God will be bound to execute the 
 judgment which she declares; the eternal or temporal penalty, in a 
 future state, must be enacted and inflicted by God, and by him alone. 
 The church claims no such power. Your curious correspondent adds 
 to his misrepresentations when he asserts she does. Let him adduce the 
 laws w'hich enact temporal penalties. There is no such law of the 
 Catholic Church. Catholic nations and Protestant nations have had such 
 laws. Does he desire their abolition? Let him begin amongst our- 
 selves. Let him make North Carolina and New Jersey cease to be a 
 reproach amongst us. Catholics first introduced the principle and the 
 practice of religious liberty upon our consecrated soil: let Protestants 
 complete what Catholics began. Let them tell the North Carolinan 
 Catholic, and the New Jersey Catholic, that they shall no longer pay 
 the penalty of exclusion from office for the profession of their faith. 
 In that same paragraph he misrepresents us, when he says, that 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 159 
 
 "a few multiplied by their own will into the Catholic or universal 
 church/' can make "an absolute and unchangable determination of the 
 sense of Scripture." Because, in the first place the determination 
 cannot be made by "a few," but by a large body, lawfully representing 
 the entire millions of the universal church; because it is not "their own 
 will that multiplies them," but the general will which recognises them 
 as the proper organs of its expression; and thirdly, because even those 
 representatives of the general will of the universal church cannot alter 
 the sense which has been received from the days of the Apostles, and 
 testified 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 in 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 correspondent 
 would be content, were we only to declare that it was of indispensable 
 necessity to conform to the decisions of the Church until she shall change 
 or qualify her doctrines. We have, however, this very serious objec- 
 tion, that we do not believe the Church has power to change or qual- 
 ify 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 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 will never 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 
 
160 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 to the "probable reason" for our 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 fathers, as taught by our 
 Saviour Jesus Christ, and we find the same evidence in the Scriptures. 
 
 In viewing the paragraph 62, 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 Cath- 
 olic Church neither now teaches, nor did she ever teach "that the Pope 
 can absolve subjects 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 undeniably 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 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, because he says, "these things 
 are matters of historical 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 England, 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 
 Europe at several periods, when they were members of a common church ; 
 they appointed him, who was their spiritual head, as their common ar- 
 biter, and armed him with power to execute the common law of nations 
 which they had enacted in congress, and one of which laws did em- 
 power Pius to issue this sentence. The only question which could, 
 therefore, arise was whether the church taught as a portion of her doc- 
 trine, that the Pope had such a power in virtue of his succession to St. 
 Peter, as the head of the Church ; or whether he had it by the constitu- 
 tion 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 absolved 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 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 161 
 
 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. Elizabeth herself, had such serious 
 doubts of the sufficiency of the reasoning, that she preferred applying 
 to Pius for the revocation of the sentence, which, however, she did not 
 obtain. Her subjects, Catholic and Protestant, were satisfied with the 
 reasoning, 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 invaders, should they effect 
 a landing; and thej^ were never considered by this act of opposition to 
 Sixtus and Philip, to have swerved from the doctrine or duties of their 
 church. Thus the fact of the publication 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 allegiance 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 royalty above discipline, such is not, I will avow, the spirit 
 of our Church. Our Chrysostoms, and Ambroses, and Gregories, and 
 Beckets, and Langtons, had the spirit, as they had the faith of John 
 the Baptist, and they were as ready to say to an emperor 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 corres- 
 pondent 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 expect him to inform me how they may be just- 
 ly and 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 vindicators 
 of public liberty in their day, against the lawless 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 re- 
 peat the libels 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 
 
162 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 claim no superiority over their fellow-citizens of any other place or de- 
 nomination, 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 
 Roman 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 these states; 
 they acknowledge in their tenets nothing which endangers either that lib- 
 erty, or the tranquillity of the land. By you and by others, their feel- 
 ings have been wounded, their doctrines misrepresented, their practices 
 vilified, their ceremonial ridiculed, and themselves held up to contempt. 
 Anti-Clunst, idolater, heathen, persecutor, intruding stranger, slave or 
 corruption, unclean thing, and vicious, are phrases with which they have 
 been assailed in a state which boasts of its liberality, and vaunts its super- 
 ior civilization, purity of taste, and its chivalrous honour. God forbid 
 that I should deny that South Carolina is entitled to those characteristics ! 
 But the more elevated her dignity, the more humiliating is the reproach 
 of and 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 the invasion ? Did we conspire 
 against their domestic peace, and following our own notions of Scrip- 
 ture liberty, whisper aught that might overwhelm us in unf orseen ruin ? 
 Was our blood or our treasure withheld in any day of peril ? Is the char- 
 ter of your liberties perfect without our name ? Did we preach against 
 the acts of your Congress, in the midst of a conflict with the enemies 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 Heaven, is the cause of the continual allusion to the dangers 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 correspondent refer to the 
 history of our common country, which perhaps he understands, in place 
 of dragging us to feudal times, in Europe, of which he knows so little. 
 
 I cannot and will not stoop to notice the miserable and dishonour- 
 able 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 tran- 
 sactions 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 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 163 
 
 anathema to damnation," as the translation of anathemate damnentur, 
 "should be eondenmed by anathema," the common modes of expression 
 for persons convicted of holding erroneous doctrines. 
 
 He has modestly half-abandoned the charge, "countenancing and 
 commanding persecution, massacre, and murder." 
 
 He asks, why do not our councils or Popes disclaim 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 calumniated body should volun- 
 teer a useless disclaimer. To disclaim, would imply that there was an 
 apparent ground for the calumny. Why does not the calumniator re- 
 tract? This is a most natural question. But they who gave origin and 
 currency to the falsehoods, 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 power and right to punish temporarily for 
 religion's sake, and pursue heresy and schism with spiritual denuncia- 
 tions." 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 refer him to New Jersey. 
 I need not cross the Atlantic ; if I did, I would go to some of the Protest- 
 ant 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 character of Protestant per- 
 secutor, which his predecessor had well deserved for two centuries and a 
 half. He ought now to recollect what a powerful effort the prelates and 
 pastors, of the Protestant Church made to perpetuate the persecution. 
 He ought not to force me to remind him of the part which was acted here 
 by several of the Protestant clergy, in favour 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 nor generosity exist. 
 
 With his concluding remarks, I have no concern; I have been too 
 tedious and too diffuse ; I am anxious to lay down my pen. Truth and 
 principle demanded much from me : assailed as my positions have been, 
 I know not my assailant ; I therefore could have had no personal feel- 
 ing against him ; though, if I should discover who he is, I trust my char- 
 ity for him will be perfect ; but I cannot say that my respect for him 
 would be enhanced by the merit of his production. 
 
 Should any expression unkind, uncharitable, or unnecessarily severe, 
 
164 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 have escaped me, I regret it; and pray you, gentlemen, to believe that 
 none such was intended to annoy you, or your fellow-religionists. 
 In the spirit of charity, peace, and truth. 
 
 Your obedient, humble servant, 
 
 B. C. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Sept. 11. 
 To the Editors of the United States Catholic Miscellany : 
 
 Gentlemen : — In the number of the Gospel Messenger for the present 
 month, I have read the following paragraph, which is satisfactory evi- 
 dence of the candour and honesty with which the editors conduct that 
 press : 
 
 ' ' The quotation wliicli was made by a writer, whose numbers appeared in our 
 work, under the signature of a 'Protestant Catholic,' from the translated Missal used 
 in this city, in connexion with his remarks on the Koman Catholic worship of saints 
 and angels, was made, we are satisfied, in perfect fairness, and without the least in- 
 tention 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 translator, we are since perfectly satisfied. The Latin Missal, 
 and other translations which we have seen, of the part of the Eoman Catholic Offices 
 referred to, have, make intercession for us. The prayer here addressed to the men 
 and women saints, is for their intercession, and not for their mercy. The prayer to 
 canonized saints, for their intercession in behalf 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 Eoman Catholics, a wrong translation of a passage of their 
 Missal." 
 
 Had the "Protestant Catholic" correspondent taken the trouble 
 to instruct himself on what he wrote, I would have been spared consid- 
 erable labour, and you, sirs, would have been relieved from loading your 
 pages with the weekly refutations of insipid 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 letters, I will dismiss the "Protestant Cath- 
 olic," in the hope that he will, in future, study and prepare himself 
 on Catholic doctrine, before he shall again hazard such charges against 
 us. 
 
 Yours, sincerely, 
 
 B. C. 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 165 
 
 [From the United States Catholic Miscellany of July 5, 1828. Referred 
 to in the preceding Letters.] 
 
 To the Right Reverend Doctor England, Bishop of Charleston: 
 
 Right Reverend Sir: — The Editors of the United States Catholic 
 Miscellany, beg leave to call your attention to a curious and extraordin- 
 ary piece of information of which they have been put in possession, and 
 hope you will have the kindness before they proceed to make any further 
 use of it, to elucidate the circumstances in such a manner as to remove 
 the unfavourable impressions which such a report is calculated to make 
 on the minds of persons unacquainted with the doctrines of the Cath- 
 olic Church. 
 
 They have heard it asserted as a fact, and they know it is believed 
 by many, that you, Right Reverend Sir, had advertised indulgences 
 for sale, and that the advertisement 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 there 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 Reverend Sir, 
 
 Your most obedient, humble servants. 
 
 Editors of the U^iited States Catholic Miscellany. 
 
 Wentworth Street, July 1, 1828. 
 To the Editors of the United States Catholic Miscellany: 
 
 Gentlemen: — ^You had, indeed, good cause" to designate as curious 
 and extraordinary the piece of information 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 unqualified an untruth as was ever 
 whispered about. However 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 the situation he might 
 fill, I cannot so far mock truth as to admit that it would be even charit- 
 able to suppose that he did see upon the church door any advertise- 
 ment 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 concern- 
 ing indulgences that has ever been published by advertisement on the 
 
166 DOC T R I N E Vol. 
 
 church doors by me, or by my authority, or with my knowledge, is that 
 of the Jubilee — j'ou have the copy and can use that and this letter as 
 you please. 
 
 I have been the instrument of communicating indulgences to thous- 
 ands of persons during the twenty years that I have been in the ministry, 
 and have known hundi"eds of clergjTncn similarly circumstanced, and I 
 never have myself received, nor have I known one of them to receive 
 directly or indirectly the value of one cent for such ministerial duty. 
 Yet my denial 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 novelty to me : I have 
 yesterday been told by a respectable Protestant lady, that she had to 
 defend me from the charge of trafficking in the sale of indulgences upon 
 my arrival here, but that finding the people too well informed, and the 
 profits small, I thought proper to lay aside the commerce. You can 
 w^ell conceive how mortifying it must be to me to know that frequently 
 the religion of our blessed Saviour, and even my humble self should be 
 thus treated in the highest circles of our society ; and by persons whose 
 information on other subjects I respect and admire, but who, where our 
 Church is concerned, speak unmeasuredly and mercilessly of what they 
 have never studied, and therefore do not understand. I assure you, 
 gentlemen, that the hardihood of assertion 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 assert, and I have long been enabled patiently to know 
 myself described as guilty of such acts as if perpetrated by me would 
 stamp my character as that of an unprincipled, sacrilegious, dishonest, 
 simonaical deceiver, and my flock as the most egregious simpletons. I 
 have been insensibly led on, without feeling that I have far exceeded the 
 limits within w'hich I intended to confine myself. I regret to find that 
 your statement of public report is considerably under 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 discover the truth. 
 Yours, John, Bishop of Charleston. 
 
 This unqualified disavowal is nothing more or less than we ex- 
 pected, so perfectly satisfied were we in our mind, from the general 
 
two DEFENCE OF PRECEDING SECTION 167 
 
 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 Journaliyts, respon- 
 sible 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 informa- 
 tion we received, and thus afford him an opportunity of vindicating his 
 character and his religion, before the tribunal of public opinion, and of 
 covering with merited confusion, an injudicious, careless being, who 
 reported as a fact, what he never examined, or having axamined, cir- 
 culated as truth what he knew to be a falsehood. We are well aware 
 the trafficked indulgence alluded to, is the one which was published 
 together with the Jubilee in the Cathedral Church of this city, on the 
 5th of November, 1826. Now, we ourselves have conversed with hun- 
 dreds, 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 pub- 
 lished from more than four altars in this Diocess; we have seen manu- 
 script copies of them, sanctioned by the signature of the Bishop of 
 Charleston, we have seen printed ones of them confirmed by the same 
 authority, and signature ; and from all that we could gather from those 
 with whom we have spoken, from all we could hear, from all we 
 could see, and from all we could read, we could learn nothing of money, 
 or bartering, or traffic; we never could ascertain that Bishop England 
 proposed changing the temple of the living God into a simoniacal count- 
 ing-house, the altar of his penniless Master, into a vile money-table, nor 
 the Missal of his creed into a mercenary ledger. "We fortunately have 
 lying before us on our table a printed copy of these conditions ; we glad- 
 ly insert them for the gratification of our readers, and if they, or our 
 trust-worthy reporter, can extract anything in the shape of money 
 from the duties here prescribed, we despair not, that in a short time, by 
 some other unheard of experiment, they may be able to discover the 
 maximum desideratum, or the philosopher's stone. 
 
 *' Conditions to he fulfilled in order to obtain the benefit of the Indul- 
 . gence 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, 
 
168 DOCTRINE Vol. 
 
 at any time of the day which may be most convenient, each of the fol- 
 lowing three altars, viz. : that of the Church of Hassell Street, the 
 large altar at the Cathedral, and the small altar at the Cathedral, repeat- 
 in at each of them, at least, the Lord's prayer and the Hail Mary, each 
 five times, and the Creed once, at each visit, to beseech God for the con- 
 version of all those who are in error of faith, or in 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 there is a serious 
 obstacle to prevent attendance at the mass, either the five decades of 
 the Rosary, or the Litany of Saints may be substituted therefor. 
 
 "4th. In any special case in which, through sickness or infirmity, 
 or other reasonable cause, it will not be in the power of the person de- 
 sirous of obtaining the benefits of the Indulgence to comply -odth either 
 of the conditions No. 2, No. 3, the confessor is empowered to substitute 
 some other condition which may be performed. 
 
 ORDER OF PROCEEDING DAILY. 
 
 "Meditation read after morning prayer, which prayer shall com- 
 mence at 6 o'clock — Mass at 7 o'clock. 
 
 "Ten o'clock. Mass, and exhortation. 
 
 "Half-past 6 o'clock, p. m. short prayer, short instruction, longer 
 prayer and sermon, after will be a h\Tnn and music. These exercises 
 to continue during this week. 
 
 ^JoHN, Bishop of Charleston. 
 
 Nov. 5, 1826. 
 
PART II 
 CONTROVEESY 
 
CONTROVERSY 
 
 JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 
 
 Letters addressed to the Bev. Hugli Smitli, A.M. 
 
 [From the United States Catholic Miscellany for 1826.] 
 
 LETTER L 
 
 Charleston, S. C, July 25, 1826. 
 To the Rev. Hugh Smith, A.M., Rector of St. Paul's Church, Augusta. 
 
 Rev. Sir: — I am not, I trust, disposed to turn from my path to 
 assail persons who permit me to pass unmolested ; but neither am I very 
 willing to allow myself to be assailed by an unprovoked aggressor. You, 
 Sir, preached at the opening of the late Convention of your Church, 
 (the Protestant Episcopal,) at Macon, in Georgia; and the Editors of 
 the Gospel Messenger in this city, considered your Sermon worthy of 
 the first place in their publication for this month. 
 
 Had you not unnecessarily waged war upon my religion, I should 
 have laid down the pamphlet without an observation ; but your language 
 has urged me to the remarks which I shall take the liberty of making 
 through the columns of the Miscellany. 
 
 If I am correctly informed, Reverend Sir, you are no novice in 
 polemics, and you have frequently ere now, given to the religion of my 
 choice the full benefit of your opposition ; though, if report speaks truly, 
 you have not always been successful. I have heard it said of you, that 
 not very many years since you asserted that the General Councils of 
 Popery, (as your politeness has designated the religion of the vast 
 majority of Christendom,) could not be infallible in their decisions 
 upon articles of faith, because they were contradictory; and that w^hen 
 invited to point out the contradictions, you were not prepared to do 
 so, because you had forgotten them, and could not then lay your hand 
 upon the books which exhibited what they were. This, perhaps, is but 
 a mere unfounded report, and I am the more inclined to believe so, from 
 the circumstance that your present assault is upon the same doctrine 
 
172 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 of infallibility in the attempt to destroy which you are said to have 
 been formerly so notoriously unsuccessful ; because it would appear to 
 be a singular fatality which would lead you into the same field, with only 
 the same weapons, against the same doctrine. 
 
 However, Sir, I may be in error: — you are probably now much 
 better armed; and you shew at least more caution. Still, your caution 
 has not, I believe, saved you from exposing how you might be advan- 
 tageously assailed ; but this was probably more a misfortune arising from 
 your position, than a fault arising from your want of skill. I must 
 avow that I should not know how" to defend the ground you occupied: 
 but as our acquaintance must be of some duration, I had better proceed 
 at once to my business. As I love open dealing, I shall give the portion 
 of your sermon of which I complain, and also those parts which will be 
 necessary to place you fairly before my readers. 
 
 Your text was — "With one mind, striving together for the faith of 
 the Gospel." Philippians i, 29. 
 
 You alluded to the occasion of your holding a Convention in a place 
 which, not long since, was a wilderness. You enforced the necessity of 
 having the Gospel defended by some when attacked by others. You 
 enforced the obligation as considered in its reference to Christianity 
 generally, in concluding which topic you said : 
 
 "Thus, then, it appears, that there has been but one sentiment in 
 the Christian world as to the duty of 'contending earnestly for the 
 faith once delivered to the Saints,' when that faith was assailed; and, 
 that in reference to this general defence, those who differ from each 
 other on minor points, may and ought to 'strive together;' not, however, 
 by attempting that union or coalition, which, from the infirmity of our 
 nature, and from a warm attachment to different views, never can exist ; 
 that union which forced, and almost unnatural, instead of tending to 
 harmony, too frequently ministers to strife; not by being 'unequally 
 yoked together, ' by a yoke that will prove galling to both. No, not thus, 
 brethren, are they who believe in Christianity, but differ as to its pe- 
 culiarities; not thus, are they to strive together; but by marching in 
 separate columns to the defense of the truth, by separately directing 
 their efforts to one and the same point, and causing them to meet in the 
 same centre ; thus, securing the benefits of combined exertion, while they 
 avoid the dangers of collision. 
 
 "There is a general coincidence, then, brethren, as to what is the 
 faith of the Gospel, viz: the Revelation of God, contained in the Bible, 
 and, for this faith, it is admitted that all should, in a certain sense, strive 
 together. But when we leave this general ground; when we ask what 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 173 
 
 the 'faith of the Gospel' is, in all its parts, coincidence of sentiment is 
 at an end, and many contradictory replies meet our ear. How, then, are 
 we to choose amidst all these conflicting opinions of men ? ' How is this 
 faith of the Gospel to be more minutely ascertained ? ' This is our second 
 inquiry. What is to be our standard of appeal ? We point you, in reply, 
 to the Book of God. We ask you, 'What is there written? how readest 
 thou ? ' Yes, to the Bible we make our first apeal ; for, in the language 
 of the great Chillingworth, 'The Bible is the Religion of Protestants.' 
 In exact accordance with which, we find the Church declaring in her 6th 
 Article, 'Holy Scripture eontaineth all things necessary to salvation; 
 so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is 
 not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article 
 of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. ' 
 
 "You may ask, however, are there not many who appeal to this 
 standard, equally honest in purpose, and equally earnest in seeking, and 
 who return from its perusal with widely different impressions? Does 
 not every Christian sect profess to hold the pure 'faith of the Gospel,' 
 and to have derived its doctrinal compend or digest from the Bible. 
 
 "It is indeed so, brethren ; nor should this fact excite our surprise, 
 or drive us from that most safe position, that to the Bible must be our 
 first apeal. But, be it remembered, that it must be the Bible interpreted 
 by enlightened reason ; by the comparison of its several parts with each 
 other; and in entire subserviency to the unquestionable axiom, that a 
 revelation from God cannot contain an;^d;hing that will impugn his known 
 attributes, or detract from his infinite perfections. 
 
 ' ' Had it always been thus interpreted, notwithstanding the varieties 
 in the structure of the human mind, the Christian world would not have 
 been called to witness so many divisions and sub-divisions, modifications 
 and remodifications of doctrinal incorrectness. Nor would the Bible it- 
 self have been insulted, by being given as the authority for so much that 
 is absurd in theory, or demoralizing in practical tendency. Perfect uni- 
 formity of sentiment, even were all the circumstances of spiritual prepa- 
 ration, and of biblical investigation equal, could scarcely be expected. 
 Nor is this more surprising than that God has permitted men to receive 
 different impressions from the same sounds, the same views, the same 
 subject ; and the want of this uniformity in the inferences honestly drawn 
 from Scripture must never drive us back to that main pillar, and main 
 error of Popery, that the Church is the authorized interpreter of Script- 
 ure. Against this, the Church of which we are members has entered 
 her own protest ; declaring in her 20th Article, ' It is not lawful for the 
 Church to decree anything contrary to God 's word written ; neither may 
 
174 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 it so explain one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. 
 "Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and keeper of Holy Writ, 
 yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so, beside the 
 same, ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of 
 salvation. ' 
 
 "Scripture, then, being our first witness as to the faith of the Gospel, 
 we may next appeal to primitive antiquity, either for information in 
 regard to things indifferent, or illustration of things not clearly revealed. 
 We must suffer the Saints of the first ages to declare ' what form of doc- 
 trine had been delivered unto them;' what was generally believed and 
 practised in their day; and the natural presumption will be, that this 
 belief and this practice were derived from the Apostles. Their testi- 
 mony to facts we deem it reasonable to receive ; their opinions we would 
 test with caution. The first rests upon the basis of their unimpeached 
 honesty, and actual observation, and, consequently, may not be consist- 
 ently rejected ; the latter may be erroneous, for they themselves were not 
 infallible. Thus then, brethren, would we arrive at a knowledge of the 
 faith of the Gospel, by a reference to Scripture as the standard of doc- 
 trine ; to primitive antiquity as a model of practice. With us, the Bible 
 is authoritative; and other evidence admitted is but collateral or con- 
 firmatory. This, brethren, is the ground assumed by the Church of 
 which we are members, and it is precisely that high and vantage ground, 
 on which she can be safe from the assumptions of Papal power on the one 
 hand, and the fury of untempered innovation on the other. Let then, 
 the Church be the witness and keeper of Holy Writ; for so hath God 
 ordained. Let her have authority to judge and determine in contro- 
 versies of faith ; not that absolute authority which is predicated on the 
 claim of infallibility, not that authority which would fetter the minds 
 and consciences of her members; yea, fetter the word of God; but that 
 authority, which, resting upon the possession of concentrated wisdom 
 and piety, and upon the peculiar benediction of her Divine founder and 
 head, is all that she arrogates to herself, inducing her not ' to go beyond 
 the word of the Lord, to do either less or more.' Give to her less than 
 this, and you make her a mere nullity ; give to her more than this, and you 
 then make the Bible the mere creature of her will : you magnify the ark 
 itself above the law and the testimony, which it only enshrines. Script- 
 ure, then, in connection with the testimony of the first ages, having 
 guided us, to what we, as a body, deem the faith of the Gospel, the 
 faith, as it 'once was delivered to the Saints,' the question next occurs, 
 whether we are to strive for this very faith, and it only, in opposition 
 to any other modifications of it? In, other words, whether the obligation 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 175 
 
 we are under, to contend for the faith of the Gospel, generally, should 
 constrain us to contend particularly, also, for each one of its doctrines ? 
 Unhesitatingly we answer, that it should. And for this reply, we urge 
 the plainest considerations of necessity and duty. 
 
 "Proceeding on the principle, that it is commendable to strive for 
 the Gospel as a whole, but to be indifferent to its specific doctrines ; and 
 it is no improbable supposition, brethren, considering the proneness of 
 man to novelty, that if we strove at all, it would be for something in 
 which there was not one feature of the original Gospel left. If you strive 
 not for the integrity of the parts, what, my brethern, is to become of the 
 whole? Let each attack that doctrine or duty which is exceptionable 
 in his eyes ; and what part of the body of doctrine will not be wounded ? 
 Let one level the doctrine of the Saviour's Deity; another, that of his 
 atonement ; another, that of the influence of the Spirit ; another, that of 
 our present depravity; another, the justice and impartiality of God; 
 another, the fact that the Church is a divinely constituted body, the min- 
 istry and ordinances of which owe their efficiency solely to the appoint- 
 ment of Christ. Stand by, calm spectators, while different enemies thus 
 take fortress after fortress, suspending your efforts because in each case 
 it is only a part and not the whole of the Gospel that is assailed; and 
 assuredly, brethren, your spiritual weapons will not be brought into 
 exercise, until there is nothing left for them to protect, or defend. No, 
 brethren, it becomes us not thus to act. All doctrines or duties may not 
 possess precisely the same importance, but it is dangerous to prefer one 
 thing to another; to dwell upon the distinction between greater and 
 minor points in Christianity. All its truths are sacred. Each one of 
 them is worthy of notice and of maintenance. For each one of them are 
 we bound to strive. The popular voice may condemn all attachment to 
 the peculiarities of system; but, he, who, unconvinced v/ould sacrifice 
 at the shrine of popularity, one doctrine, or one view of doctrine honest- 
 ly held, might well be expected to sacrifice more, if not all, at the same 
 shrine. If he is not faithful 'over few things,' how shall he be faithful 
 over 'many things?' My brethren, if we would not go all lengths in 
 seeming liberality, until it terminates in indifference, or absolute infidel- 
 ity, we must firmly maintain even the smallest known truth; we must 
 strive for every 'jot and tittle' of the Gospel." 
 
 In the first part of this, Reverend Sir, I understand you to mean 
 that they who believe generally in the truth of the Christian Revelation, 
 but differ from each other as to what are many of the peculiar doctrines 
 of that revelation, ought each to contend in his own way, that God re- 
 vealed the Christian system ; that when they meet, they will have to settle 
 
176 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 between themselves much of -what that system is: — because, in truth, 
 their differences are very numerous. Next, however, you inform u.s, 
 that they all agree that whatever the system may be, it is to be foimd in 
 the Bible : but when asked what doctrine the Bible contains, again they 
 unfortunately have a conflict of opinions. You next approach to a 
 solution of the difficulty, by saying, that the Bible must be interpreted 
 by enlightened reason, and you complain of the evils which have been 
 caused by neglecting this mode of interpretation ; but you avow that 
 under no circumstances could it be expected that all persons should 
 agree as to what are all the peculiar doctrines contained in this book; 
 and you say that as Popery teaches, that by receiving the authorized in- 
 terpretation of the Bible from the Church, there would be an end to 
 this conflict of opinions respecting the peculiar doctrine which God has 
 revealed; we must never be driven back to this main error. You say 
 the 20th Article of your Church protests against this main error of 
 PoperJ^ That is. Reverend Sir, you say it is a main error, to assert 
 "that the Church is the authorized interpreter of the Scriptures" — and 
 that your article protests against the same. I would feel happy, for 
 many reasons, at your avowing that your last assertion was hasty and 
 inconsiderate, because obviously, the article as quoted by you does not 
 protest against, nor in any way contradict, the error as described by 
 you ; and it should be very well to allow it to be supposed that you did 
 not know the force of your own articles, though you might be excused 
 from knowing the meaning of mine. 
 
 Scripture, (which even with the aid of enlightened reason you said 
 was insufficient to give full information as to the peculiar doctrines 
 which God had revealed,) being the first witness, we may now, you say, 
 appeal to primitive antiquity, to be informed concerning indifferent 
 things — and to have illustration of what was not clearly revealed. The 
 Saints are competent to inform us what doctrine they received and 
 knew to exist. You distinguish between their testimony of facts, which 
 you deem it reasonable to receive, and their opinions, which you test 
 cautiously. The Bible is authority — other evidence is only collateral 
 or confirmatory. 
 
 The Church is the witness and keeper of the Scripture, having 
 authority to judge and determine in controversies of faith; but not 
 authority founded upon infallibility — not authority to fetter minds and 
 consciences. [The authority which it has is] authority to give the word 
 of God and not to give more, nor to give less. 
 
 We are bound to keep all the doctrines of God, for all truths are 
 sacred — it is dangerous to make distinctions between greater and minor 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 177 
 
 points of Christianity — we are bound to strive for them all — we must 
 firmly maintain the smallest known truth — we must strive for every 
 jot and tittle of the Gospel. 
 
 Such, Reverend Sir, are your assertions. I have been tedious, but 
 it was necessary. The more I reflect upon your mass of contradictions, 
 the more I am at a loss to know what could have led you unnecessarily 
 in the maze of your perplexity to lay so lustily upon Popery, unless it 
 was yielding to a disposition which is very common, when we find our- 
 selves disappointed, [under the influence of which] we feel an inclina- 
 tion to quarrel with those who have been more fortunate than ourselves. 
 Perhaps, Sir, you do not yet believe that you have been palpably con- 
 tradicting yourself. I shall, in my next, aid you to see it very clearly. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, 
 
 A Roman Catholic. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, July 31, 1826. 
 To the Rev. Hugh Smith, A.M. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — The System of Christianity is nothing but the collection 
 of the doctrines which Christ has taught to man ; this collection of doc- 
 trines is the object of man's belief; the foundations of that belief are 
 the truth and authority of Christ. Knowing that he can neither be 
 himself deceived, nor deceive those to whom he speaks, man is perfectly 
 certain that whatsoever Christ has declared must be infallibly and un- 
 changeably true ; there can be no possibility of error, and time cannot 
 change the essence of truth. Knowing that Christ has authority to 
 require his belief of what is in itself true, and has been proposed by 
 the Creator to the creature for his belief, man feels that it is his duty to 
 receive this truth so made manifest, or revealed to him. This dutiful 
 belief is faith. Faith, then, is not founded upon the mere discoveries 
 of unaided reason, but upon the authoritative declarations of God. But 
 faith cannot contradict reason : for God, who is the source of truth, 
 cannot contradict by revelation what he teaches us by our reason, — ^the 
 usual aid which he has bestowed on us for the discovery of truth. We, 
 however, know by daily experience that our reason is very imperfect; 
 and it is a self-evident maxim, that God 's reason is perfect : hence, when 
 man has the testimony of the perfect reason of God on one side, and 
 the imperfection of his own opinions on the other side, the plain dictate 
 of wisdom teaches him which deserves the preference. 
 
 The perfect reason of God, to which man's opinion should yield. 
 
178 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 can and does reach to the knowledge of many plain but sublime truths, 
 to which our imperfect minds not only could not reach, but which to 
 us would appear altogether impossible. You will agree with me Rev- 
 erend Sir, in looking upon God's own eternity, his immensity, his sim- 
 plicity, his unity, his trinity, and a variety of his attributes in this light. 
 I will not presume to assert that your expanded mind cannot conceive 
 them ; but, I assure you. Reverend Sir, that mine does not ; neither have 
 I ever yet had the good fortune to meet with any person who admitted 
 that he could comprehend any one of them, much less the whole; nor 
 is the Unitarian one whit more fortunate in this respect than I am ; for, 
 if he can understand the nature of the eternal and self-existent Being 
 in whom he believes, he certainly is more highly gifted than is your cor- 
 respondent. Nor is the mathematician exempt from the difficulty, for 
 it meets him in a thousand shapes, and in a multitude of cases. I shall 
 instance only one amongst the most obvious. He believes that two lines 
 can be continued to infinity, that those lines are perpetually approxi- 
 mating, and that, continued to eternity in this approximation, they will 
 never meet ; this he demonstrates most clearly, fully, and satisfactorily. 
 Still, Reverend Sir, how many persons would exclaim that it is the as- 
 sertion of a palpable absurdity. 
 
 I suppose, then, that we are agreed upon the admission, that the 
 reason of Christ is perfect, and that of man imperfect ; that, in conse- 
 quence, since Christ has authority to teach, it is man's duty to believe 
 his revelation; though the truth which he teaches not only surpasses 
 man's reason, but even frequently appears to imperfect human beings 
 to be an impossibility, perhaps an absurdity. Thus, you will, I trust, 
 agree in my conclusion, that, when man knows that Christ teaches, it 
 is his duty to believe the doctrine, without waiting to examine whether 
 what the Saviour has so taught, will be approved of by man's own reason ; 
 because, if man was free to reject the doctrine, unless it was sanctioned 
 by his owa reason, the office of Christ would not be that of a teacher, 
 but of a propounder ; and man would be placed over Christ, as the judge 
 who was to decide w^iether what the Saviour propounded, was true ; so 
 that man would, in fact, believe doctrines solely upon the authority of 
 his own reason, and not upon the authority of his revealing teacher ; and, 
 in this case, it would be an absurdity for man to believe any mystery. 
 In this case, there could be no fault. 
 
 Faith is, then, the belief upon the authority of God, of what reason 
 cannot by its own force discover. Christian faith, or the faith of the 
 Gospel, is the belief upon the authority of Chirst, of all that he has 
 revealed. You, Reverend Sir, very properly reject upon this principle, 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 179 
 
 the distinction between greater and minor points of Christianity. By 
 points, I suppose you mean doctrines. You very properly say — "If we 
 would not go all lengths in seeming liberality, until it terminates in in- 
 difference, or absolute infidelity, we must firmly maintain even the small- 
 est known truth; we must strive for every 'jot and tittle' of the Gospel." 
 And, Eeverend Sir, for this you give a very excellent reason: "All its 
 truths are sacred, " i. e. they have been revealed by Chi-ist ; for. Reverend 
 Sir, if there be in that Gospel any thing not revealed by him, it must 
 have been an interpolation; and if there is an interpolation which I 
 cannot with infallible certainty separate from what is genuine, I cannot 
 be infallibly certain which part is genuine, and if I cannot be infallibly 
 certain what part is genuine, I cannot by the Gospel have certain evi- 
 dence of what Christ has taught; and, if I cannot have certain evi- 
 dence of what Christ has taught, I am no longer bound to believe any 
 doctrine as revealed by Christ. In this case, there is an end to Christian- 
 ity. To assert that I would be bound in such a case, would be to assert 
 that a man is bound to believe what he has neither the certain evidence 
 of God, or of his own reason to believe. Hence, Reverend Sir, I agree 
 fully in your conclusion ; and say, that Christian faith consists in believ- 
 ing the whole and every part of what has been revealed by Christ ; and 
 thus the "faith once delivered to the saints" evidently consists in the 
 [summary of] doctrines delivered by Christ, to be by them believed and 
 transmitted to after ages. And the abandonment of one "jot or tittle" 
 thereof, necessarily leads to infidelity ; because it destroys the principle 
 that our belief must be upon the authority of our teacher, and not ac- 
 cording to our own choice. Upon this, you remark very well : 
 
 ' ' If you strive not for the integrity of the parts, what, my brethren, 
 is to become of the whole ? Let each attack that doctrine or duty, which 
 is exceptionable in his eyes, and what part of the body of doctrine will 
 not be wounded? Let one level the doctrine of the Saviour's Deity; 
 another that of his atonement ; another that of the influence of the Spirit ; 
 another that of our present depravity; another, the justice and impar- 
 tiality of God ; another, the fact that the Church is a divinely constituted 
 body, the ministry and ordinances of which owe their efficacy solely to 
 the appointment of Christ. Stand by calm spectators while different 
 enemies thus take fortress after fortress, suspending your efforts because 
 in such case it is only a part and not the whole of the Gospel that is 
 assailed; and assuredly, brethren, your spiritual weapons will not be 
 brought into exercise, until there is nothing left for them to protect or 
 defend. No, brethren, it becomes us not thus to act. All doctrines and 
 duties may not possess precisely the same importance, but it is dangerous 
 
180 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 to prefer one thing to another; to dwell upon the distinction between 
 greater and minor points in Christianity. All its truths are sacred. 
 Each one of them is worthy of notice and of maintenance. For each one 
 of them are we bound to strive. ' ' 
 
 And thus you very fully and forcibly prove, by exemplification to 
 which daily experience, adds melancholy confirmation of truth, the cor- 
 rectness of your leading assertion, viz : 
 
 "Proceeding on the principle, that it is commendable to strive for 
 the Gospel as a whole, but to be indifferent to its specific doctrines ; and 
 it is no improbable supposition, brethren, considering the proneness of 
 man to novelty, that if we strive at all, it would be for something in 
 which there was not one feature of the original Gospel left." 
 
 You did then, Reverend Sir, "urge the plainest considerations of 
 necessity and duty ' ' to support your reply to your query : 
 
 "Whether we are to strive for this very faith, and it only, in oppo- 
 sition to any other modifications of it? In other words, whether the 
 obligation we are under to contend for the faith of the Gospel, generally, 
 should constrain us to contend particularly also for each one of its doc- 
 trines? Unhesitatingly we answer that it should. And for this replj'', 
 we urge the plainest considerations of necessity and duty." 
 
 Now, Reverend Sir, the sum of our reasoning amounts to this : Chris- 
 tian faith is the belief upon the authority of Christ, of all the doc- 
 trines which he has revealed. The essence of faith consists in the prin- 
 ciple that we must believe upon the authority of Christ ; and as his 
 authority is equally great in the revelation of any one doctrine as of 
 another, faith cannot admit any distinction between his doctrines, be- 
 cause the admission of any such distinction would be the rejection of 
 his authority, as far as that doctrine Avhich w^e undervalue is concerned ; 
 and if we undervalue his authority in any one point, we destroy it al- 
 together; for if in any, even the least point, Christ could deceive us or 
 be himself deceived, the same could occur in a variety of other cases, 
 and we could have no certainty from the testimony of our Saviour of 
 the truth of any doctrine revealed by him. To escape this blasphemous 
 alternative, we assert, with good reason, that as he neither is capable of 
 deceit, or liable to be deceived, his testimony in all things, great and small, 
 is the testimony of Infallible Truth; and that man is bound to believe 
 every one of his doctrines, and that Christian faith consists in believing 
 them all. This result of reason and basis of religion, Reverend Sir, is 
 the only principle of the Roman Catholic Church. How then does it 
 happen that we differ so very widely in its application to practice, if 
 you and I are agreed as to its truth? I assume that one of the causes 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 181 
 
 of our difference arose from your frequently contradicting- the principle 
 itself; whilst I adhere to a Church which has never deviated from its 
 letter or spirit. Allow me to shew you how you have done so in some 
 instances in this same sermon. The very commencement of the extract 
 which I made in my former letter furnishes me with a palpable instance 
 of this description. 
 
 "Thus, then, it appears, that there has been but one sentiment in 
 the Christian world, as to the duty of ' contending earnestly for the faith 
 once delivered to the Saints, ' Avhen that faith was assailed ; and that, in 
 reference to this general defence, those who differ from each other on 
 minor points, may and ought ' to strive together. ' 
 
 Now, Reverend Sir, we agreed, that no distinction "between greater 
 and minor points in Christianity ' ' could be allowed without the destruc- 
 tion of the principle of faith, or ' ' absolute infidelity, ' ' yet here, you not 
 only allow the distinction, but you assure us that "those who differ from 
 each other on minor points may and ought to strive together ' ' in defence 
 of what their difference destroys. To your erudition, Reverend Sir, I 
 consign the reconciliation of your own assertions. 
 
 According to our former view of Christian faith, it was the belief 
 of all the doctrines which Christ revealed. It is manifest that truth is 
 in unison with truth : Christ could reveal only truth : his revelation must 
 then have all its parts in perfect union ; they must coalesce into one con- 
 sistent system. His revelation was the teaching us facts or doctrines 
 which could not admit of different views. The fact cannot be changed 
 by any view, the doctrine must under every view be the same doctrine. 
 From the first quotation I make from you in this letter, it is clear that 
 you could not admit any part of his revelation to be rejected, — from the 
 second it is plain that you do not admit any specific doctrine to be a 
 matter of indifference. And from common reason you must say the God 
 of truth must give a system of revelation in union with itself, all the 
 parts [of which] are in union with each other. I believe you will find 
 all those positions contradicted in your following passage, which is the 
 sequel of that which I have above taken. 
 
 "Not, however, that union or coalition, which from the infirmity of 
 our nature, and from a warm attachment to different views, never can 
 exist ; that union, which, forced and almost unnatural, instead of tending 
 to harmony, too frequently ministers to strife; not by being 'unequally 
 yoked together' by a yoke that will prove galling to both." 
 
 Because here you say it is impossible for those who strive together 
 for the truth of the Christian system, to be in union or coalition: you 
 say they must be ' ' warmly attached to different views ' ' of the same facts 
 
182 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 or doctrines. I assure you, Sir, that I cannot reconcile you to yourself. 
 
 View calmly your next passage. 
 
 "No, not thus, brethren, are they who believe in Christianity but 
 differ as to its peculiarities ; not thus are they to strive together ; but by 
 marching in separate columns to the defence of the truth, by separately 
 directing their efforts to one and the same point, and causing them to 
 meet in the same centre ; thus, securing the benefits of combined exertion 
 W'hile they avoid the dangers of collision." 
 
 Pray, Reverend Sir, if there exists a belief of all that Christ has 
 taught; if there be no distinction admissible between greater and minor 
 point ; in what will consist the difference as to the peculiarities of what 
 he taught? How can they strive together who differ as to the object for 
 which they strive? Different divisions have different systems of doc- 
 trine, which systems are contradictory, and they have been divided be- 
 cause of the incompatibility of their contradictory systems: — the estab- 
 lishment of one system inevitably destroys what that system contradicts. 
 How can you make two contradictory propositions be true together? 
 Sir, when you marshalled your columns upon the circumference, and 
 gave the command to march upon the centre, you indeed were a thought- 
 less general, or you intended a merciless carnage; because each di- 
 vision was armed against the other. For instance, you say that Christ 
 established Episcopal government in the Church, and that Presbyterial 
 ordination is invalid. The leader of a Presbyterian column denies that 
 Christ taught either of those propositions, but asserts that he taught the 
 necessity and validity of infant baptism. The leader of another of your 
 columns denies that he taught either the necessity or the validity of this 
 baptism, but assures us that Christ taught that he was God — co-equal 
 with his Father. The Unitarian assures us that this is a mistake, for 
 that if we examine the Bible, with the aid of enlightened reason, we shall 
 be convinced that this contradicts the doctrine of the Saviour. M}'" 
 leader declares that St. Peter was constituted head of the Church by the 
 Redeemer, who taught that we should all be one visible body on earth 
 under one visible head, and all believing in the same doctrines, which are 
 all those, and only those, which Christ has taught. "We are assailed on 
 every side, and called idolaters and full of error. "We are told, even by 
 you, Reverend Sir, that a difference upon minor points is not only al- 
 lowable but unavoidable — though you assured us that this difference, if 
 allowed, would be destructive of Christianity ; as I verily believe it would. 
 And now, Reverend Sir, having left your columns striving together in 
 a not very enviable state, I leave you to make peace between them if you 
 can, without having recourse to one of two modes. Either admit the 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 183 
 
 distinction between greater and minor points of faith, and you [will] 
 destroy Christianity ; or, admit no such distinction, and be consistent in 
 reducing your principles to practice, and you will infallibly become a 
 Roman Catholic. I am aware the state in which this places you is not 
 the most enviable ; but, Reverend Sir, you would have been spared from 
 this, had you, at Macon, left untouched that main error of Popery, which 
 alone can save you from scepticism and doubt. I remain, Reverend Sir, 
 yours, and so forth, 
 
 A Roman Catholic. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Aug. 7, 1826. 
 To the Rev. Hugh Smith, A.M. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — In my second letter, I showed that you asserted that 
 Christian faith requires of us firmly to maintain even the smallest known 
 truth; that we must strive for every ''jot and tittle" of the Gospel; and 
 that you also assert, that they who differed as to the peculiarities, that 
 is the peculiar truths of the Gospel, who were warmly attached to differ- 
 ent views of the same revelation, who differed from each other on minor 
 points, were bound by duty to contend earnestly for the ' ' faith once de- 
 livered to the saints;" although in doing so there was not one of them 
 who, in the estimation of the rest, did not omit striving for many jots 
 and several tittles of the Gospel — and who, in the opinion of his fellows, 
 did not in several instances contradict that Gospel. I leave to yourself 
 the task of reconciling those assertions. Perhaps you have succeeded in 
 so doing. You will, therefore, have leisure for much similar employ- 
 ment. 
 
 In the second paragraph which I quote from you, is the following : — 
 
 "There is a general coincidence then, brethren, as to what is the 
 faith of the Gospel, viz : the Revelation of God contained in the Bible ; 
 and for this faith, it is admitted, that all should, in a certain sense, strive 
 together. But when we leave this general ground; when we ask what 
 the 'faith of the Gospel' is, in all its parts, coincidence of sentiment is 
 at an end, and many contradictory replies meet our ear. How, then, are 
 we to choose amidst all those conflicting opinions of men ? How is this 
 faith of the Gospel to be more minutely ascertained?" 
 
 With your own expressions then, Reverend Sir, you confirm the 
 concluding assertion of my second letter— that those who strive together 
 according to you, are in truth and in fact, not one body professing the 
 same doctrine, but several sects holding contradictory opinions. And 
 
184 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 who besides yourself, Reverend Sir, would expect to produce a consistent 
 system of revelation, merely from the declarations of those who teach 
 contradictions? You who tell us, "Let each attack that doctrine or duty 
 which is exceptionable in his eyes, and what part of the body of doctrine 
 will not be wounded?" Thus, you support the Christian system upon a 
 plan which wounds every portion of the Christian doctrine ! ! ! 
 
 We now proceed. Reverend Sir, to a new topic. Here you tell us 
 with Chilling-worth, that the Bible is the Religion of Protestants. 
 Now Sir, with all deference to Mr. Chillingworth and to you, I will, on 
 behalf of Protestants, protest against this proposition. Religion, Rever- 
 end Sir, is a disposition of the soul, and not a book. What would be 
 thought of me if I asserted, because a profligate blasphemer and robber 
 kept a Bible always in his pocket, that he was a man who always pos- 
 sessed and carried the Protestant religion about with him. No, Sir, 1 
 Avill not so far libel my Protestant fellow-citizens, as to say that their 
 religion is not an interior disposition of the soul. I have often heard 
 and still believe that it is criminal for a man to sell his religion, or to 
 give it away. But, if INIr. Chillingworth and you are correct, the Protest- 
 ant religion is hourly bought and sold, and given away by the very best 
 Protestants. What dreadful crimes have not the Bible Societies to an- 
 swer for, if Mr. Chillingworth and you be correct? Religion, Reverend 
 Sir, is obedience to God; whosoever has the sincere disposition to obey 
 him is religious, whether he has a Bible or not ; whether he profess to be a 
 Protestant or not. Your sixth article does not say that the Bible is the 
 Protestant Religion ; but it asserts one fact, and draws one consequence — 
 and if the fact be stated correctly, the consequence which is well and 
 logically drawn must also be true, and the whole article be a sound prin- 
 ciple for religion. It asserts, that all which God made neces- 
 sary for man to know, in order to be saved, is to be found in the Bible ; 
 and concludes therefore, [that] no man is to be required to believe any 
 doctrine which is not found in the Bible, or may not be proved from the 
 Bible ; nor to do any thing, as necessary to salvation, unless it is so found 
 or so proved. This certainly states, that all the principles of religious 
 doctrine and of religious practice, are to be found in that book ; but it 
 does not assert, that that book itself is the disposition to believe those 
 doctrines, and to practice those duties ; and if it did make such an asser- 
 tion, it would be the assertion of an absurdity, viz. that a book was a 
 disposition of the soul. 
 
 But, Reverend Sir, you and your article have been a little too 
 hasty; because you both forget to tell us how we are to know either 
 that any thing contained in the Bible was revealed by God, or that all 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 185 
 
 which he revealed was contained in the original Bible ; or that the original 
 Bible has come down to us ; if it did, which of the different kinds of 
 books called Bibles is that which came from God: because there is not 
 one of those topics upon which we have intuitive evidence. For my own 
 part, I assure you I can at any moment you think proper, exhibit to you 
 some very serious difficulties upon each of those heads, all of which, and 
 many more you have, it seems, forgotten. But, Eeverend Sir, a difficulty 
 does not vanish, because the Reverend Hugh Smith thinks proper to 
 overlook it : nor is it destroyed for not having been removed by the com- 
 pilers of the sixth article of his Church. Let us, Reverend Sir, in imagi- 
 nation, clear all those difficulties. I take up any Bible you please, and 
 I assent to your proposition — that this identical book contains all that 
 God has taught, and only what God has taught : I shall allow you in this 
 case to speak for yourself. 
 
 "You may ask, however, 'are there not many who appeal to this 
 standard, equally honest in purpose, and equally earnest in seeking, and 
 who return from its perusal with widely different impressions? Does 
 not every Christian sect profess to hold the pure ' ' faith of the Gospel, ' ' 
 and to have derived its doctrinal compend, or digest, from the Bible?' 
 It is indeed so, brethren: Nor should this fact excite our surprise, or 
 drive us from that most safe position, that to the Bible must be our first 
 appeal." 
 
 Thus, Reverend Sir, the Bible alone is insufficient to bring man to 
 a certain knowledge of what God has taught ; because equally honest 
 men return from its perusal with widely different impressions ; that is, 
 as you said before, "coincidence of sentiment is at an end, and many 
 contradictory replies meet our ear. ' ' Alas for us then ! Reverend Sir ! 
 so, after the mighty mound of difficulties which we have cleared in a 
 bound and left behind us, we have not from the Bible alone, that is from 
 Mr. Chillingworth 's Protestant religion, any certainty of what God has 
 taught ; and yet this is what you call a most safe position : viz. ' ' Truth is 
 in this book, but I cannot find it without aid besides the book. ' ' Are all 
 those contradictory replies of honest men truths of Christianity ? Is the 
 Christian Faith in contradiction to itself? But the Reverend Hugh 
 Smith cannot say so. The Bible alone will not suffice ; enlightened rea- 
 son must be added. This will draw out the truth which was always in 
 the book, but which lies hidden until enlightened reason discovers it. 
 
 "But be it remembered, that it must be the Bible interpreted by en- 
 lightened reason ; by the comparison of its several parts with each other ; 
 and in entire subserviency to the unquestionable axiom, that a revela- 
 tion from God, cannot contain any thing that will impugn his known 
 
186 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 attributes, or detract from his infinite perfections. Had it been always 
 thus interpreted, notwithstanding the varieties in the structure of the 
 human mind, the Christian world would not have been called to witness 
 so many divisions, and subdivisions, modifications and re-modifications 
 of doctrinal incorrectness. Nor would the Bible itself have been in- 
 sulted by being given as the authority for so much that is absurd in the- 
 ory, or demoralizing in practical tendency." 
 
 This is very well, if I could know what was meant by enlightened 
 reason, and discover where it was to be found. If every human being 
 has it, then the Bible alone being given to each individual will suffice, 
 because he has enlightened reason, and we shall have no contradictions: 
 and the principle of the indiscriminate distribution of the sacred volume, 
 is one of the best and most salutary which ever was recognized. But 
 since you have informed us that the Bible has not been always inter- 
 preted by enlightened reason, it is clear that it is not universally pos- 
 sessed: it becomes necessary to know where enlightened reason is to be 
 found, because where that and the Bible are conjoined, I shall find with 
 certainty the doctrine of the Christian faith ; where it is not, though the 
 Bible should be there, I am likely to get only absurd theory, and what 
 is demoralizing in practical tendency, ' ' and modifications and re-modifi- 
 cations of doctrinal incorrectness." Do, pray, good Sir, inform me 
 where this enlightened reason is to be found, that I may use its aid. But 
 that you may at once see my difficulty, I shall make a short statement of 
 my case. 
 
 In this city, many persons whom I very highly respect, say that 
 Bishop Bowen and his clergy are gentlemen of enlightened reason ; I my- 
 self esteem them highly ; I have equal esteem for the enlightened reason 
 of Bishop England and his clergy : there are many highly enlightened, 
 reasonable Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Lutheran, Baptist and Me- 
 thodist clergymen in this city : no one claims to be more closely guided 
 by enlightened reason, in the explanation of the sacred volume, than 
 does the gifted and tasteful pastor of the Unitarians. Yet, all of those, 
 having the Bible and enlightened reason, and comparing the several 
 l)arts with each other, and holding to the maxim which you lay down, 
 are perpetually contradicting each other. Thus, Reverend Sir, I fear 
 your remedy of helping the Bible with enlightened reason is no remedy. 
 And indeed in the very next passage you appear to me to saj^ so your- 
 self. 
 
 "Perfect uniformity of sentiment, even were all the circumstances 
 of spiritual preparation, and of biblical investigation, equal, could 
 scarcely be expected. Nor is this more surprising than that God has 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 187 
 
 permitted men to receive different impressions from the same sounds, the 
 same views, the same subjects." 
 
 So, Reverend Sir, we are to hold to this most safe position, from 
 which we are never to be driven ; ' ' that to the Bible must be our first 
 appeal." But the appellants are clamorous in their contradictions, all 
 drawn from the Bible: you say — "call in enlightened reason to inter- 
 pret the Bible." I have called in several, who said they had it, and 
 that their interpretations were all made by it, and the Babel of their 
 contradiction is worse than ever. You now tell me "you cannot expect 
 perfect uniformity of sentiment, you must not be surprised at it any 
 more than you are surprised that men receive different impressions from 
 the same sounds." Why, Reverend Sir, I thought that all men called 
 sweet sound, sweet sound, and that any person who called discord, con- 
 cord, would be said to have miscalled it : for it will be concord, though he 
 should call it discord; nor do I believe Reverend Sir, that you could 
 persuade your congregation, that the mingled sounds which assailed the 
 ears of Hogarth's enraged musician, would be an exquisite oratorio. I 
 am sorry for your own sake, that you should adduce a comparison, which 
 so completely destroys your own theory. But to return, Reverend Sir, 
 I do think it will be thought surprising that you should assert, that if 
 the Bible had always been interpreted by enlightened reason, the Chris- 
 tian world would not have been called upon to witness so many divisions 
 and subdivisions, modifications and re-modifications of doctrinal incor- 
 rectness; nor would the Bible itself be insulted, by being given as the 
 authority for so much that is absurd in theory, and so forth. And, in the 
 very next line to tell us, that with all the help of enlightened reason, we 
 must expect contradictions ; for such is the true meaning of your phrase ; 
 however, softened in expression, it means doctrinal incorrectness. How 
 many "jots and tittles" of the Gospel will be lost in this jargon of 
 sounds — in those different views of the same subject! We found, that 
 there could not be two views : for either God revealed the doctrine, and 
 then it is true, or he did not reveal it, and then we are not bound to 
 believe it — so that this is not a subject of opinion, but a matter of fact, 
 which does not admit any difference of view. Thus, Reverend Sir, en- 
 lightened reason is a phrase, which here has no meaning, it is a delusive 
 sound, which misleads ; and after much wandering, leaves us where we 
 originally were, in perfect uncertainty as to what is the doctrine of 
 Jesus Christ: we have indeed expressions in a book, but no agreement 
 as to their meaning. 
 
 As you may observe. Reverend Sir, I am now drawing near that 
 part where you dealt me the unprovoked blow. I shall therefore con- 
 
188 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 elude for this day, leaving to my next to parry it as well as I can; 
 meantime allow me to remind you of our progress. You have told us, 
 that faith admits of no distinction of greater and minor doctrines, and 
 yet you admitted the distinction. You told us that any man who con- 
 tended for only some of the doctrines of Christ, to the exclusion of 
 others, established a principle which would lead to absolute infidelity, yet 
 you brought forward those who thus contended, to be the destroyers of 
 infidelity. You told us, that whoever did not strive for every jot and 
 tittle of the Gospel, did not act according to the obligation under whicli 
 we are, to contend for the faith of the Gospel generally ; yet you placed 
 in this field of contention, striving together, all the sects which differed, 
 by striving for and against those jots and tittles. You told us, the Pro- 
 testant religion was the Bible ; yet you told us the Bible alone, and con- 
 sequently the Protestant religion alone, would never bring us to the cer- 
 tain knowledge of Christ's doctrine. You said, that well disposed per- 
 sons having all this Bible, that is, all the Protestant religion, would still 
 be replying in contradictions, when asked, what was the faith of the 
 Gospel. You said, enlightened reason and its accompaniments inter- 
 preting the Bible, would save us from divisions, and so forth ; yet you 
 told us, that with all those aids, you could not expect uniformity of senti- 
 ment, as to what was the true doctrine of Christ. You perceive, that 
 amongst Protestants this doctrinal union does not exist, cannot exist. 
 But you tell us, we must not take up the principles of the Popish Church, 
 which has secured this uniformity, though you must acknowledge the 
 doctrine of Christ is not contradictory, but is uniform. 
 
 I cannot aid you to reconcile these assertions, but I shall exhibit to 
 you some others of the same description, which are to be found in your 
 sermon. And I remain. Reverend Sir, yours, and so forth, 
 
 A Roman Catholic. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Charleslon, S. C, Aug. 14, 1826. 
 To the Rev. Hugh Smith, A.M. 
 
 Rev. Sir — I may now assume, as fairly proved, that you admit 
 Scripture alone will not be a sufficient giiide to us in ascertaining what 
 is the Christian doctrine. Neither will Scrpture, when interpreted by 
 enlightened reason, for you will not. Reverend Sir, I suppose, assert that 
 the Reverend Mr. Swiney, the Reverend Mr. INIoderwell, the Reverend 
 Mr. Whitaker, and the respectable gentlemen who are your confreres in 
 the ministry of the word, they for instance, who now communicate in 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHUKCH 189 
 
 the Baptist and Methodist Churches of Augusta, the faith once delivered 
 to the Saints, are all bereft of enlightened reason. How, then, are we to 
 know the Christian doctrine ? In your own words : ' ' How is the faith 
 of the Gospel to be more minutely ascertained ? ' ' Indeed, Reverend Sir, 
 this is the only material question in all religious controversy : and a 
 question towards the solving of which you have not, so far as we have 
 yet got through your sermon, made a single step. However, you ac- 
 knowledge, that although we cannot ascertain with certainty what the 
 doctrine of Christ is; for this is the only construction which can suit 
 your expression, "Want of uniformity in the inferences honestly drawn 
 from Scripture," yet this "must never drive us back to that main pillar 
 and main error of Popery, that the Church is the authorized interpreter 
 of Scripture." Now, Reverend Sir, all other modes latterly substituted 
 having utterly failed, and this old mode plainly having succeeded in 
 preserving, through so many ages and nations, and uniformity of doc- 
 trine, which is of the essence of faith, I am at a loss to know why you 
 should have so dogmatically rejected it. 
 
 The only reason you can give, is indeed apparently a very Popish 
 one : ' ' The Church of which we are members, has entered her own pro- 
 test against it." Which means: "you are not to have recourse to this 
 mode, because the Church of which you are members, protests that you 
 should not." If you gave any other reason, I have not seen it; it is 
 omitted in your printed sermon. Reverend Sir, I leave to you to recon- 
 cile these two propositions, which are your own, "You must not be- 
 lieve that the Church is the authorized interpreter of the Scriptures." 
 "You must not look for the meaning of the Scriptures in any way 
 against which your Church protests." Not only are your two asser- 
 tions perfectly in opposition to each other, but the last is the most arbi- 
 trary and despotic in its principle, of any that ever fell under my obser- 
 vation. It is as unlike the principle of the Catholic Church, of which 
 Protestants complain, as any principle can be unlike another. I shall 
 exhibit both. Catholic principle: God has constituted the Church a 
 tribunal, to give with authority the true interpretation of the Scriptures ; 
 therefore, you ought to receive her interpretation, in order to pay due 
 homage to him who created and gave power to the tribunal. Reverend 
 Hugh Smith's principle; God has not constituted the Church a tribunal, to 
 give with authority the true interpretation of the Scriptures; neverthe- 
 less, you must not have recourse for their interpretation to a mode 
 against which she protests. Despotism, or arbitrary rule. Reverend Sir, 
 is using power which has not been properly and sufficiently granted, and 
 he who says, that "he will use that power, although he believes it has 
 
190 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 not been granted, ' ' is, in grain and constitution, knowingly and willingly 
 an arbitrary despot in the fullest meaning of the word ; not so the man 
 who uses a power which he conscientiously believes has been properly de- 
 rived to him, from a competent source: though he might err as to the 
 fact, he is not a despot, he is not arbitrary, when he uses it only because 
 he believes he is empowered, but is not disposed to use it, if he should 
 discover that such power had not been granted. Need I make any ap- 
 plication of the facts to the principles, to prove that you must either 
 assert, that your Church is divinely authorized to give with infallible 
 certainty the true interpretation of the Scriptures, or that her assuming 
 to do, what she says, is not in her grant from Heaven, viz. to give us with 
 precision and certainty the true interpretation of the Scriptures, and 
 thus the knowledge of what Christ taught in articles of belief : is an arbi- 
 trary, despotic and tyrannical usurpation ? Those expressions, Reverend 
 Sir, are not applied to the individual members of your church ; they are 
 applied as the natural and inevitable results of your assertions ; they are 
 applied to the system which you wovild establish: a system not only in 
 direct opposition to the first principles of the Christian religion; but 
 moreover fitted to excite disgust and indignaton amongst a people who, 
 being justly jealous of their rights and liberty, are not disposed to ad- 
 mit the exercise of any power except what is evidently derived from 
 their God, or from themselves. 
 
 I have assumed, Reverend Sir, that your Church did protest against 
 what you stated to "be the main pillar and the main error of Popery.'* 
 But is the fact so ? Let us examine your ground for the assertion. The 
 error you say is, ' ' that the Church is the authorized interpreter of Scrip- 
 ture." I shall not here compare yourself with yourself, that hon houche, 
 I shall reserve ; but I will compare your assertion with your proof — 
 
 ' ' And the want of this uniformity in the inferences, honestly drawn 
 from the Scripture, must never drive us back to that main pillar, and 
 main error of Popery, that the Church is the authorized interpreter of 
 Scripture. Against this, the Church of which we are members, has en- 
 tered her own protest ; declaring in her 20th article, ' It is not lawful for 
 the Church to decree any thing contrary to God's word written; neither 
 may it so explain one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. 
 Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and keeper of Holy Writ, 
 yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so, beside the 
 same, ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of 
 salvation.' " 
 
 Now, the 20th article, as given by you, consists of several propo- 
 sitions, not one of which contradicts that which you called "the main 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 191 
 
 error of Popery." It says 1st, "It is not lawful for the Church, to de- 
 cree any thing contrary to God's word written." I, a firm Papist, as 
 you would probably have the politeness to call me, not only do believe 
 this proposition to be true as here given, but even more than this, I 
 would strike out the word written, or I would add the words, or unwrit- 
 ten, and thus extending the proposition, I would uphold it. 2d, ' ' Neither 
 may the Church so explain one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant 
 to another." Granted. 3d, "Although the Church is a witness and 
 keeper of Holy Writ, it ought not to decree any thing against the same. ' ' 
 Granted. The wherefore, shows this to be a conclusion drawn from the 
 first two propositions. I allow the truth of the premises, and the ac- 
 curacy and the truth of the conclusion. 4th, ' ' The Church ought not to 
 enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation, beside the 
 Holy Writ. ' ' From this proposition I dissent for sufficient reasons. But 
 now I do not give them, for the only question is — which of those four 
 propositions denies the assertion, "that the Church is the authorized in- 
 terpreter of Scripture?" How could you. Reverend Sir, have so far 
 committed yourself, as to draw a conclusion not contained in your prem- 
 ises, as this evidently is not? Nay, I go farther, and say, that the three 
 first propositions evidently imply the power of this authorized interpre- 
 tation to be in the Church ; so that you have been doubly unfortunate, 
 for you have not shown that your Church protests against this error of 
 Popery, and you have produced an article, which you assert does what it 
 does not, viz : protests against this error, and which, moreover, actually 
 supposes what you call error, to be the practice of your Church, and 
 only gives rules for regulating that practice. It does not assert, that the 
 Church is not authorized to interpret the Scripture, but says, she is not 
 authorized to interpret it absurdly, nor to teach any thing as necessary 
 for faith, besides its contents : thus your Church rescues herself in a 
 great measure from that charge of despotism and tyranny which you 
 would, in your zeal against Papists, so thoughtlessly fasten upon 
 your own respectable society. 
 
 I would here, disclaiming all "intention of disrespect or obtrusion, 
 ask you. Reverend Sir, whether your own practice is not in opposition 
 to the principle which you lay down." I know you are an officiating 
 clergyman, who preach the interpretation of the Scriptures to your con- 
 gregation ; w^hence, I would ask you, as an Episcopalian, do you derive 
 authority to give this public interpretation ? Is it not from your Church, 
 through the bishop w^ho gave you ordination? Did the Church then, 
 through the bishop, give you a power which she had not herself? It is 
 not a private, but a public fact, that you hold weekly meetings of pious 
 
192 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 ladies, who, together with you, search the Scriptures, for the purpose oE 
 interpretation, and that your researches are generally directed to the 
 most abstruse and difficult questions. Do they conceive that the opinion 
 of each lady is equal in value to yours? Do you believe, that, if the 
 most highly gifted amongst those ladies, was to discover, that ' ' this is my 
 body," means, "this is my body," you would consider she had equal 
 authority so to interpret it to your congregation on the succeeding Sun- 
 day, as you would, to tell them, "this is my body," means, "this is not 
 my body." How often. Reverend Sir, if report says truly, have you 
 not been obliged to repress the zeal of some fair disputant, by the as- 
 surance, that if she persisted in her favorite interpretation, it would be 
 "heresy," because it was in opposition to the authorized interpretation 
 of the Church? I have been assured, that this main error has frequently 
 been your main pillar, to preserve you from being borne away to every 
 side by the unsteady torrent of your impetuous, yet gentle, your docile, 
 yet dogmatizing assailants and supporters. Your Church herself, Rev- 
 erend Sir, disclaims not this power, for she judges what is heresy, and 
 what is true doctrine, and therefore assumes to be an authorized inter- 
 preter of the Scriptures, so that she either must condemn her practice, 
 or your assertion. 
 
 Thus baffled in discovering a rule, by which you will "minutely as- 
 certain the faith of the Gospel, ' ' you proceed to make new assertions. 
 "Scripture alone, is insufficient." How often has the Catholic been 
 charged with blasphemy, and held up to execration by the English 
 Church and the Bible Societies, for merely making this assertion, which 
 now forms a basis of the system which you endeavor to defend ? ' ' Scrip- 
 ture, interpreted by enlightened reason, is not sufficient. ' ' But still ' ' to 
 the Bible must be our first appeal" — "this is a most safe position." You 
 then proceed: 
 
 "Scripture, then, being our first witness as to the faith of the Gos- 
 pel, we may next appeal to primitive antiquity, either for information 
 in regard to things indifferent, or illustration of things not clearly re- 
 vealed. We must suffer the Saints of the first ages to declare, 'What 
 form of doctrine had been delivered unto them ; ' what was generally 
 believed and practised in their day; and the natural presumption will 
 be, that this belief, and this practice, were derived from the Apostles. 
 Their testimony to facts, we deem it reasonable to receive ; their opinions 
 we would test with caution. The first rests upon the basis of their unim- 
 peached honesty and actual observation, and consequently, may not be 
 consistently rejected: the latter may be erroneous, for they themselves 
 were not infallible. Thus then, brethren, would we arrive at a knowledge 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 193 
 
 of the faith of the Gospel, by a reference to Scripture, as the standard 
 of doctrine ; to primitive antiquity as a model of practice. ' ' 
 
 Now, Reverend Sir, I assert that your latter mode leaves us exactly 
 where we were before you gave us this unmeaning passage. I call it un- 
 meaning, and it is precisely, because it is so. I make the assertion, that 
 we are still as far as ever from ascertaining the faith of the Gospel. In 
 the first place. Scripture alone, that is what you here call our first wit- 
 ness, you already said was sufficient. You next appeal to primitive an- 
 tiquity. Now I should like to know where this primitive antiquity is to 
 be found — you appear to say it is to be found in the testimony of the 
 Saints of the first ages. I am still at a loss — because you neither tell me 
 to what period the first ages reach, nor who were the Saints. Thus you 
 send me to witnesses of a very vague description, who live in time un- 
 defined. For instance, I appeal to the testimony of St. Augustine in the 
 fifth age, who testifies to me that the doctrines of praying for the dead, 
 and of offering up the holy sacrifice of the Mass were, in his day, re- 
 ceived as derived from the Apostles. I deem it reasonable to receive this 
 testimony as to facts. You deem it unreasonable. I appeal to the Scrip- 
 ture — you deny one of the books to be canonical, and you say I do not 
 give a proper interpretation to the other. I bring the testimony of St. 
 Augustine to uphold my position. How am I to know that he is a saint 
 of the first ages ? I can decide for myself. I say that you are at liberty 
 to deny that he was a saint, or that the fifth was one of the first ages. 
 Suppose you make either denial, how far have we got any mode of de- 
 ciding our difference ? — I see none. Therefore I call your passage vague, 
 unmeaning, useless and deceptive, not that I charge you with intention 
 of deceit. I believe you think your passage does convey precise ideas. 
 Though I look upon you to have been very imprudent. Reverend Sir, I 
 should be sorry to ascribe to you conduct unbecoming a gentleman or a 
 Christian. But I must write as freely as you preach. 
 
 When you send me to primitive antiquity, then, you delude me with 
 an empty name ; when you tell me of the testimony of the saints of the 
 early ages, you send me to a tribunal which is undefined. But I pass 
 over this. "Why shall I go to them ? ' ' Either for information in regard 
 to things indifferent : ' ' — Reverend Sir, I thought we agreed that though 
 ' ' all duties and doctrines may not possess precisely the same importance, 
 it is dangerous to prefer one thing to another; to dwell upon the dis- 
 tinction between greater and minor points in Christianity. All its truths 
 are sacred. Each one of them is worthy of notice, and of maintenance. 
 For each one of them we are bound to strive. We must firmly main- 
 tain the smallest known truth; we must strive for every 'jot and tittle' 
 
194 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 of the Gospel." Then, why call any part indifferent? We also are 
 sent to the saints of the early ages for ' ' illustration of things not clearly 
 revealed." Am I awake, when I read this in the sermon of a Pro- 
 testant clergyman? So then to use the phrase which has been so long 
 flung at Popery, we are, by direction of the Reverend Hugh Smith, to 
 go to the fallible tribunal of mortal man, for illustration of that in- 
 fallible book which alone is to be the rule of our faith — and this be- 
 cause the book is not clear as to what God intends to teach ! ! ! Hear this, 
 all you who vituperate Papists, for saying that St. Peter was inspired 
 when he wrote, that in St. Paul's Epistles are some things hard to be 
 understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest as they do the other 
 Scriptures to their own destruction. Hear this, you who tell us that 
 the Bible is plain to the meanest capacity! ! ! Why, good Sir, what 
 would Mr. Chillingworth say to this? "The Bible, that is the 
 Protestant religion, is not so clear as to God's revelation, but that 
 it needs the illustration of the saints of the first ages, though we know 
 of no authority which is to tell us exactly who are those saints, and 
 which are those ages." Therefore we cannot know exactly what God 
 has revealed in the Bible. Why, Reverend Sir, this is making the 
 meaning of the Bible depend upon the interpretation of a tribunal, 
 which cannot be ascertained, and which, if ascertained, would consist ot' 
 poor miserable mortals. Is this the anti-popery? Is this the genuine 
 Protestantism of the Reverend Hugh Smith, rector of St. Paul's, in 
 Augusta ? 
 
 From this we would imagine your plain theory was, that Scrip- 
 ture, either alone or with enlightened reason, being insufficient to lead 
 us to ascertain minutely the faith of the Gospel, that is, the doctrines 
 which it contains; that difficulty would be removed, and the doctrines 
 would be ascertained by the aid of primitive authority, which would il- 
 lustrate what was not clearly revealed in the Scriptures. The primi- 
 tive antiquity was the testimony of the saints of the first ages, declar- 
 ing "what form of doctrine had been delivered to them," what was 
 generally believed and practised in their days ; this belief or doctrine 
 we naturally suppose to have come from the Apostles. The saints of the 
 first ages would testify the fact, of what was given to them, the fact of 
 what was generally believed : the force of this testimony rests upon their 
 unimpeached honesty and actual observation; therefore, the testimony 
 may not be consistently rejected. Such appeared to me to be your train 
 of reasoning, and the only difficulty in my way then appeared to be, how 
 I should know the saints and the times. I thought that here, at least, I 
 should find you consistent with yourself, and that, if we could fix upon 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 195 
 
 the special witnesses, all our difficulties would be over. But, alas! I 
 reckoned without my host. Because, after this mighty preparation, you 
 again threw me back where I originally was. "Thus, then, brethren, 
 would we arrive at a knowledge of the faith of the Gospel, by a reference 
 to Scripture as a standard of doctrine ; to primitive antiquity, as a model 
 of practice. ' ' Thus, are we flung upon Scripture only for doctrine, after 
 the fine display of its total inadequacy, without other aid, viz. the testi- 
 mony of the saints, as to the facts, "what form of doctrine was given 
 to them, what was generally believed in their day ! ! ! " 
 
 Reverend Sir, to speak with inoffensive candor, I believe you 
 have no distinct notions upon the subject, and that your contra- 
 dictions and inaccuracies arise from the peculiarity of your situation. 
 Your society says, that the Scripture alone is the rule of faith. Adopt- 
 ing this principle, you can restrain no person from so interpreting the 
 Scripture, as to produce what contradicts you. Then you call upon 
 the saints to protect you, but you do not like to give them power to 
 direct you, as your object is only that they should drive away your 
 assailants. 
 
 Of course. Reverend Sir, you have read of the old man, who, tired 
 of carrying his bundle of sticks, called upon death to release him; but 
 when the king of terrors appeared, the old gentleman's courage failed, 
 and he assured the grisly spectre, that he only asked his aid to place 
 the bundle once more upon his shoulders. The saints would be excellent 
 protectors against your friends the Reverend Doctor Whitaker or the 
 Reverend Doctor Moderwell; but as soon as they cast a friendly glance 
 of recognition at the Reverend Mr. Swiney, it is time to grant them 
 leave of absence — Scripture alone is then sufficient. 
 
 You perceive. Reverend Sir, that our work thickens. But I must 
 hasten to get through. Yours, and so forth, 
 
 A Roman Catholic. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Aug. 21, 1826. 
 To the Rev. Hugh Smith, A.M. 
 
 Rev. Sir — In my last I was obliged to conclude when I would have 
 preferred to continue, but the regulation for my letter required its not 
 exceeding a certain length. I shall therefore pursue the examination of 
 the passage which I was considering. I shall, however, keep my promise 
 of brevity, and discharge you with as much speed as I can. 
 
 You called upon the saints to illustrate those doctrines not clearly 
 
196 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 revealed in the Bible: thus it is manifest, you allow that in the Bible 
 there are doctrines not clearly revealed ; you admitted this long before : 
 viz. ^A'hen you said enlightened reason was necessary for its interpreta- 
 tion : and when you said that equalh^ honest men searching the same 
 passage for the doctrine, contradicted each other ; when you told us 
 that with all the aids of reason, of spiritual preparation, and of biblical 
 investigation, perfect uniformity of sentiment was not to be expected 
 among those who studied the Bible. Thus nothing can be more evident 
 than that you repeatedly asserted that the Bible alone, or even with 
 those aids, was not sufficient to bring us to an uniformity of doctrine. 
 Nothing is more evident on the other hand, than these two propositions : 
 "Uniformity of doctrine is essential for faith." "The doctrine of 
 Christ is perfectly uniform." The first of those propositions you 
 have yourself maintained: "That the obligation we are under to con- 
 tend for the faith of the Gospel, generally, should constrain us 
 to contend particularly also for each one of its doctrines." The 
 second is plain from the simple view that truth is uniform, and [that] 
 Christ is truth. As then. Reverend Sir, you have established that the 
 Scripture is not sufficiently clear to bring us to uniformity of sentiment, 
 you have most fully established that it is an insufficient rule of faith; 
 and that to be sufficient it needs some aid; and that [this] aid must be 
 something more than enlightened reason. Now, as I come to the main 
 error of Popery, to use your very kind and complimentary expression, I 
 request you to watch my assertions closely. 
 
 It is admitted by you that an honest man fully qualified to investi- 
 gate the Scriptures might, and that such men so doing every day, do 
 find it impossible to agree as to what are the doctrines of the Gospel. 
 Hence it is clear, that although the sacred volume does contain the law 
 of God, and nothing but what is his law, and has all the authority of 
 God himself; yet because of man's imperfection, though the book is 
 authoritative, no man can be certain without some farther aid, that he 
 can know the doctrines of God. Therefore unless farther aid than the 
 Bible and enlightened reason is obtained, the doctrines which God re- 
 quires of man to believe cannot be certainly known by man. A just 
 God cannot require an impossibility from man ; but it would be requiring 
 an impossibility from him to insist that he should firmly believe doc- 
 trines whose truth he cannot discover, from that reason which God has 
 given as his guide, or from revelation, which, though a sufficient motive 
 of belief, if clear, is so obscure in the Bible, that honest and enlightened 
 men cannot be certain, after their best investigation, what it teaches. 
 Therefore a just God cannot require of man faith or the firm belief of 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 197 
 
 doctrines above his reason, and for the belief of which he has no certain 
 knowledge from revelation, as given in the Bible. 
 
 This, Reverend Sir, is the difficulty, this the labyrinth, to extri- 
 cate yourself from which you called upon the saints: but as you re- 
 fused to follow them, yon are still bewildered in its mazes, and here you 
 are likely to remain. The destruction of faith is thus the inevitable con- 
 sequence of the first principle of Protestantism, viz. that the Bible alone 
 is sufficient to attain the knowledge of the Christian doctrine ; and when 
 you left this principle, you ceased to be a consistent Protestant. Now, 
 Reverend Sir, look through that portion of the world which has ad- 
 mitted this principle, and in the honesty of your soul answer the ques- 
 tions, — "How many hundreds of sects, has it produced?" "Can you 
 ever, admitting the truth of this principle, expect to diminish their 
 number ? " " Are all their contradictions contained in the Gospel ? " "If 
 the Gospel contains those contradictions, has it emanated from a God 
 of truth?" "If the plain words of the Gospel cannot bring them to 
 uniformity of sentiment, will any writing of any saint or number of 
 saints, be less liable to misconstruction than is the Gospel itself?" "Has 
 God then left us without any certain mode of discovering what he 
 taught and what we should believe ? " "Is faith or a firm belief of what 
 God has taught possible, if we admit the first principle of Protestant- 
 ism?" You seemed to say, and I say positively, that to know the doc- 
 trines of the Gospel, some farther aid beyond the Scripture and enlight- 
 ened reason is necessary. I write you seemed to say, because though you 
 did say that primitive antiquity was necessary to illustrate what was 
 not clearly revealed in the Gospel, yet afterwards you retracted the as- 
 sertion when you said — "Thus brethren would we arrive at a knowledge 
 of the faith of the Gospel, by a reference to Scripture as the standard 
 of doctrine; to primitive antiquity, as a model of practice." Before 
 this you had said, primitive antiquity would illustrate what was not 
 clearly revealed, so that as you in your latter passage, speak of Scrip- 
 ture only as the standard of doctrine by which we know the faith of the 
 Gospel — I must confine the word practice to mean acts and not extend 
 to primitive antiquity any authority respecting belief, though the saints 
 were, according to another of your passages, to give us testimony, which 
 we could not consistently reject, as to the fact of what doctrine they 
 did receive, and what doctrine was believed in their day. Thus, Rev- 
 erend Sir, until you shall make belief and practice have the same mean- 
 ing, I must look upon this passage of yours as involved, inconsistent and 
 contradictory; and unless you mean that you have some tangible aid to 
 bring you to a certain knowledge of the meaning of what is obscure m 
 
198 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 the Scripture, you have made no progress. If by practice you mean be- 
 lief, you have written badly, when you wrote, the natural presumption 
 will be that this belief and this practice were derived from the Apostles, 
 and thus your whole passage is delusive. If you do not mean belief by 
 practice, your passage is palpable, self-contradiction. 
 
 You produce against the Reverend Mr. Whitaker some passage of 
 the Scripture, suppose ' ' The Word was God, ' ' and ' ' The Word was made 
 flesh" — you assert, that it teaches the divinity of the Son. He pro- 
 duces against you, "the Father is greater than I," to show that our 
 blessed Saviour disclaimed equality with the Father; you appeal to the 
 saints of the early ages, who testify on your behalf. Mr. Whitaker asKS 
 you, whether they were infallible — you say, " No ; " but they were good 
 witnesses of the doctrine taught by the Church at that time. ]\Tr. W. 
 asks you whether that Church which so taught, was then infallible — you 
 answer, no. Suppose ]\Ir. W. then admitted the testimony of the saints 
 to be true, and asserted that the Church erred ; what have you gained ? 
 Would not the reverend gentleman take exactly the very ground against 
 you which you take against me? To make your argument good, then, 
 you should either prove that the saints infallibly testified the true mean- 
 ing of the passage : this you w411 not ; nor will I : or that their testimony 
 was true as to W'hat the Church taught; this we admit: but you must 
 now establish that the Church did with infallible certainty then teach 
 the true meaning of the Scriptures. This I wall uphold as a Catholic : 
 but how you as a Protestant can do that is to me inconceivable, and how 
 you without doing so could chaunt your lo triumphe at Macon, is to me 
 unintelligible. Pray, Reverend Sir, do you now imagine you were war- 
 ranted in asserting "This, brethren, is the ground assumed by the 
 Church of which we are members ; and it is precisely that high and vant- 
 age ground on which she can be safe from the assumptions of Papal 
 power on the one hand ; and the fury of untempered innovation on the 
 other." Indeed, Reverend Sir, had you lived in England about two 
 centuries and a half since, as perhaps some of your ancestors did, the 
 good Queen Bess, supreme head in earth of God's Church, would have 
 taught you to be more cautious in using the phrase "untempered in- 
 novation," which you now fling at the Reverend Mr. Whitaker, merely 
 because he acts with a little more consistency than you do upon the 
 principle which is common to you both, and which first gave being to 
 your Church. Neither, Reverend Sir, do I envy you the lofty eminence 
 to which you have attained ; but I would advise you to use your eleva- 
 tion with modesty, to bear your honors meekly. 
 
 Before I leave this topic, I must however advert to one difficulty 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 199 
 
 which you appear to have altogether overlooked. How shall we manage, 
 when we have found the saints and their books, to know the meaning 
 of their writings ? For instance, there is one passage in TertuUian, who 
 perhaps is no saint, yet is a good witness, which we say teaches plainly 
 the doctrine of the real presence, and some of your confreres quote the 
 very passage to prove the very opposite doctrine. — ^You and the Pres- 
 byterians differ, you and the Baptists differ, as to the meaning of the 
 passages from the saints and fathers. Thus, you have not as yet brought 
 us one step in advance of the Bible, nor have you proved the Bible, nor 
 any part of it, to have been revealed by God, nor given us a principle 
 upon which to found that proof. Reverend Sir, I have permitted you 
 to walk unmolested over many a miry pass, in which I could have made 
 you sink, by merely flinging upon you the load of your own incon- 
 sistency, and depriving you of the aid of my concessions. — I come now to 
 examine the most extraordinary passage that ever came under my eyes. 
 
 "With us, the Bible is authoritative: any other evidence admitted 
 is but collateral, or confirmatory. This, brethren, is the ground assumed 
 by the Church of which we are members; and it is precisely that high 
 and vantage ground on which she can be safe from the assumptions of 
 Papal power on one hand, and the fury of untempered innovation on 
 the other. Let then the Church be the witness and keeper of Holy 
 Writ ; for so hath God ordained. Let her * ' have authority to judge and 
 determine in controversies of faith; not that absolute authority which 
 is predicated on the claim of infallibility; not that authority, which 
 would fetter the minds and the consciences of her members ; yea, fetter 
 the word of God ; but that authority, which, resting upon the possession 
 of concentrated wisdom and piety, and upon the peculiar benediction 
 of her divine founder and head, is all that she arrogates to herself, ^ in- 
 ducing her not 'to go beyond the word of the Lord, to do either less or 
 more.' Give to her less than this, and you make her a mere nullity; 
 give to her more than this, and you then make the Bible the mere crea- 
 ture of her will : you magnify the ark itself above the law and the testi- 
 mony, which it only enshrines." 
 
 Authority, Reverend Sir, may be defined, power properly derived 
 to do some act. Now I am as perfectly at a loss as ever I was in my 
 life, to know what is the meaning of your assertion, unless it is the fol- 
 lowing: "God has established the Church as the keeper of the Scrip- 
 tures, and the witness of their having been kept unadulterated and en- 
 tire. " If this be your meaning, you are to all intents and purposes. 
 
 'Vide Article 20th. 
 
200 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 so far, a Roman Catholic. I suppose you would not assert, that God 
 ordained the Church to have the high and important charge here de- 
 scribed, without his also doing what was further necessary, and what 
 it is clearly in his power to do, viz. to make that keeper faithful, to 
 make that witness sufficient. Indeed, it would be arguing gross stupid- 
 ity in the eternal God, to suppose he would give the sacred deposit of 
 heavenly truth to a keeper incompetent to its preservation ; to a witness 
 who would be incapable, inefficient, useless. For, if this keeper per- 
 mitted the adulteration of the deposit, how should it become purified? 
 If this witness could testify a falsehood, where would be our security 
 for the knowledge of truth? It inevitably results, that we can have 
 no certainty of the identity, the integrity and the purity of the sacred 
 books, except from our certainty of the infallible fidelity of the keeper, 
 and the infallible accuracy and honesty of the witness. Thus, Reverend 
 Sir, I am extremely happy to find you and I are fully agreed, that we 
 must depend upon the infallibility of the Church for the authenticity anrl 
 accuracy of the present copies of that Bible, whose authority does not 
 spring from the high power of the trusty keeper and infallible witness, 
 which has preserved the sacred deposit, but from the supreme power and 
 dominion of the great God, who gave these works to the care and keeping 
 of the infallible Church. Of course. Reverend Sir, we will also agree, 
 that the Church so commissioned, must have been that which was origin- 
 ally in existence, and spread through all nations, having but one doctrine, 
 not contradictions of opinion, and which through all ages continued 
 her regular succession and unbroken integrity, and that the commission 
 could not be communicated to any portion, however numerous, or re- 
 spectable, which in any nation broke away from this Church, separat- 
 ing from her communion, opposing her authority, vilifying her officers, 
 decrying her practices, and charging her with being a faithless and 
 traitorous keeper of the divine records, and a lying witness, testifying 
 that God gave to her keeping, books which he never ordained her to 
 keep. To suppose, the great Church of all nations, which had been 
 originally established the keeper and the witness, which you so properly 
 point out, and to suppose that during eight hundred years and upwards, 
 she was thus unfaithful, as your book of homilies asserts, would destroy 
 the principle you lay do\^Ti, and would establish against the eternal 
 God, ignorance, want of power, or want of care, for the preservation 
 of truth. Of course, Reverend Sir, you will not make such blasphemous 
 charges; you would prefer holding to your OAvn principles, "Let then 
 the Church be the witness and keeper of Holy Writ; for so God hath 
 ordained. ' ' 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 201 
 
 "We now come to another, and a very important topic. We have 
 before seen, that even when the Church gives to us the sacred volume, 
 and by reason of her divine commission, we are infallibly certain that 
 what we read is truly the sacred treasure of divine truth, still, even 
 with the aid of enlightened reason, and all the other circumstances of 
 spiritual preparation and biblical investigation, equally honest persons 
 diligently inquiring, "What is the doctrine that God teaches," can not 
 agree as to the fact, but actually contradict each other. We consulted 
 the Saints of the early ages, but as they were not infallible, though their 
 opinions deserved respect, we are not bound to be led by them. In all 
 this, Reverend Sir, you and I are perfectly agreed. I agree with you 
 in your assertions : ' ' Their testimony to facts, we deem it reasonabl-^ 
 to receive." "We must suffer the Saints of the first ages, to declare 
 what form of doctrine had been delivered to them; what was generally 
 believed and practised in their day; and the natural presumption will 
 be, that this belief and this practice were derived from the Apostles." 
 "Their testimony as to facts, rests upon the basis of their unimpeached 
 honesty and actual observation, and consequently may not be consis- 
 tently rejected." In all this I agree fully with you; I find them testify, 
 that controversies of faith arose, that is, that several persons interpreted 
 the Scripture, so as to say, that it contained a special doctrine, whilst 
 others, equally honest, contradicted them and said, that it did not con- 
 tain that doctrine, but that it contained exactly what contradicted it. 
 Thus you, I suppose would say, that the holy Scripture contained the 
 doctrine of the divinity of our blessed Saviour, [while] your confrere 
 in the ministry, the Reverend Mr. Whitaker, with equally honest pur- 
 pose asserted, that it contained the doctrine, that our blessed Lord was 
 not God. You said, it plainly contained the doctrine, that bishops and 
 priests are different orders, and your confrere. Rev. Mr. Moderwell said, 
 it contained the very contradictory doctrine. Such differences have oc- 
 curred in the early ages ; controversies arose : were all those contradic- 
 tions contained in the Book? Impossible! How shall we know its 
 meaning? You tell us, Reverend Sir, "Let her, that is, the Church, 
 have authority to judge and determine in controversies of faith." Had 
 you stopped here, we would still be fully agreed, but I cannot agree with 
 you in what you have added ; for I do not like to add glaring inconsis- 
 tencies and palpable contradictions to my other faults. 
 
 As these. Reverend Sir, are strong expressions, and such as ought 
 not to be used without very good cause, I feel myself bound to justify 
 them. It is impossible for me to do so in the compass of this letter, 
 but I shall make some preparation for my next, by giving here what I 
 
202 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 conceive to be the plain meaning of that phrase, in the use of which we 
 are agi'eed. 
 
 We found that God bestowed upon the Church authority to be th<3 
 keeper and the witness of Holy Writ. This Writ contains His doctrine, 
 which He requires man to believe; the firm conscientious belief of this 
 doctrine is faith; faith is a mental act, not a mere oral declaration; a 
 declaration of belief, contrary to mental conviction, is an act of hypoc- 
 risy, which is irreligious and displeasing to God, and can not therefore 
 ever be pleasing to Him, or received by Him ; and no man who makes 
 such a profession can be honest, because, in making it he solemnly asserts 
 w^hat is not the fact. 
 
 Faith is the belief of what God has revealed; what the Bible con- 
 tains has been revealed by Him; two persons differ as to the doctrine 
 which it contains; this is a controversy of faith. How is it to be ter- 
 minated? That is, in other words, how are we to know what is the con- 
 tained doctrine? You tell us, "let the Church have authority to judge 
 and to determine." Authority is power properly derived to do some 
 act: the act in this place is, after examination to form a judgment; 
 the judgment is, to assert and to testify which is the doctrine revealed 
 by God, or contained in the Book ; and to determine that, is to put an 
 end to the controversy, by removing the doubt which existed : that doubt 
 can not be removed, but by giving certainty ; certainty can be given only 
 by creating e^ndence of truth; evidence of truth, in this case, is clear, 
 infallible, certain evidence, as to what doctrine revealed by God is con- 
 tained in that passage or in that book. Thus, if the Church is to have 
 such authority, she must have powder properly derived to her, to do those 
 acts ; such power can be properly derived to her only from one source, 
 which is the Diety himself. Therefore, unless God himself has given 
 to her power to decide with infallible certainty what is the doctrine which 
 God has revealed in that book, or that passage, she can have no authority 
 to judge and to determine in controversies of faith. And if she has no 
 such power, we have no mode of knowing with certainty what God has 
 taught ; because, no other body or individual lays claim to this authority 
 except herself, and if her claim is unfounded, we have no ground of 
 certainty, because all are liable to error : and God requires us to believe 
 with a firm faith what He teaches, and yet leaves us without any certain 
 mode of ascertaining what w^e are to believe. Of course, it would be 
 preposterous to assert, that he requires of us to be hypocrites, by pro- 
 fessing to believe, what we may or may not believe: and it would be 
 equally preposterous to assert that his Church could have a power to 
 judge and to determine what he has taught, and yet we not be bound in 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 203 
 
 conscience mentally to believe what the tribunal to which he gave the 
 authority had proposed to us as being revealed by him. 
 I am, Reverend Sir, yours, and so forth, 
 
 A Roman Catholic. 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Aug. 28, 1826. 
 To the Rev. Hugh Smith, A.M., 
 
 Bev. Sir: — In my last I agreed with you in saying, "Let then the 
 Church be the witness and keeper of Holy Writ ; for so God hath ordain- 
 ed. Let her have authority to judge and determine in controversies of 
 faith. ' ' We saw, Reverend Sir, if she had such authority, it must have 
 been derived from God, and must bind the conscience of man ; because it 
 would be folly to say that a controversy had been determined, when 
 the parties were left at liberty to profess what they pleased; and it 
 would be irreligious to assert that God could bind man to be a hypocrite, 
 by requiring of him to profess the belief of what he did not consci- 
 entiously assent to be truth. The Church can therefore have no author- 
 ity to judge and to determine controversies of faith, unless her decisions 
 will bind the consciences of her members: and God cannot bind any 
 person to receive and to obey a judgment and determination of a tri- 
 bunal which might as easily lead man to error as to truth; if God then 
 binds man to obedience he must himself lead the tribunal to give an 
 infallibly true judgment ; his command of obedience is a pledge that he 
 will so direct ; therefore it was, that in my last I wrote that you must 
 ultimately come to maintain the infallibility of the Church. But no; 
 you will not: for you immediately add, "not that absolute authority 
 which is predicated upon the claim of infallibility." Really, Reverend 
 Sir, you appear to me to wax worse in your contradictions, because you 
 now deny what you before asserted. You asserted that the Church 
 has authority ; now you say she is not to have that authority ' ' absolute. 
 Good Sir, between the absolute possession of just power, and the absolute 
 want of just power, there is no medium : for if a tribunal has power to 
 decide, it absolutely has the power of decision: and if the tribunal has 
 not absolute power of decision, it has no power to judge and to deter- 
 mine. I will allow that in some cases, and under certain conditions, a 
 tribunal might have power, and in all other cases, and when those con- 
 ditions do not exist, be without any power. In this case, however, there 
 is an absolute power, so far as it goes, or there is none. For instance, 
 the Governor of Georgia has power, in case he thinks a man unjustly 
 
204 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 condemned to death, to grant him a respite until the Legislature shall 
 decide upon his case; thus he has the absolute power of the respite, 
 though not the absolute power of liberating the condemned; but if the 
 Legislature shall decide upon pardoning the convict, then the Governor 
 has the absolute power of liberating him altogether. Where there is 
 authority, it is absolute to its extent ; where it is not absolute, there is 
 no authority. Your assertion that the Church has authority to judge 
 and to determine, but that this is not an authority which is absolute, is 
 to me unintelligible. ' ' Not that authority which would fetter the minds 
 and the consciences of her members." If it does not bind the mind, 
 it is no authority regarding faith, for faith is a mental act, not an exter- 
 nal profession. Let us suppose a case. The Church is about to decide 
 a controversy of faith: you and your friend, Reverend Mr. Whitaker, 
 appear before her. You both say she has authority to judge and to 
 determine; that is, you say, "Our Saviour taught that he was co-equal 
 God with his Father." Reverend Mr. W. says, "Our blessed Saviour 
 taught that he w^as not co-equal God with his Father." You both state 
 your reasons: the Church decides that she has full evidence that the 
 Saviour taught your proposition. You call upon Mr. "Whitaker to sub- 
 mit. He answers, "I cannot, for this would be giving the Church 
 authority to fetter the mind and conscience." If he may lawfully thus 
 answer, of what value is her authority to judge and to decide your 
 controversy ? Reverend Sir, it would be much better to do as Mr. "Whita- 
 ker does, to deny altogether the existence of any ecclesiastical tribunal, 
 than to be thus increasing your difficulties, and making your positions 
 ridiculous. If she has authority, say so, and obey it; if she has not, 
 boldly say so at once, but never speak again of such a thing as an 
 ecclesiastical tribunal. 
 
 But at least, though she has not authority to fetter Mr. Whitaker 's 
 mind and conscience, he ought to pay external respect to a constituted 
 tribunal by giving an open profession of doctrine, though his mind and 
 his conscience may still preserve freedom and remain unfettered. I 
 differ indeed very widely from your Reverend confrere in doctrine and 
 in discipline; and upon this point he needs not my advice; but that 
 advice would be, never to be guilty of hypocrisy by professing to belong 
 to a body which adopts a code of doctrine that he does not in his con- 
 science believe to be true. 
 
 As to fettering the word of God, it is an expression which. Rev- 
 erend Sir, I did not expect from you, nor from any reasonable person. 
 How many meanings has the word of God ? Has it more than one ? If 
 the Saviour says, ' ' This is my body, ' ' the phrase has some definite mean- 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 205 
 
 ing. When I have fully ascertained what that meaning is, do I fetter 
 God's word by saying, "He meant what he said?" I really blush, Sir, 
 whilst I write, and for the first moment since I took up my pen to address 
 you, I feel almost indignant when I find it sought to degrade the eternal 
 word of the Most High God, by assimilating it to the vile production of 
 some pettifogging attorney, who, anxious to cheat, strives to hide the 
 meaning of his phrases in ambiguous expressions, that he may escape 
 being fettered to an inconvenient construction. Sir, the word of God has 
 but one meaning, and that meaning is eternal truth, and its perfection 
 would be fettering the expression to the display of that and only that ; to 
 effect this. Sir, would be to rid the world of those evils of which you 
 affected to complain when you wrote. 
 
 "Had it been always thus interpreted, notwithstanding the varieties 
 in the structure of the human mind, the Christian world would not 
 have been called to witness so many divisions and sub-divisions, modi- 
 fications and re-modifications of doctrinal incorrectness. Nor would the 
 Bible itself have been insulted, by being given as the authority for so 
 much that is absurd in theory, or demoralizing in practical tendency." 
 
 There is no species of science, the acquisition of which does not 
 fetter the mind by restricting it to what is discovered to be truth. Such 
 fettering is a blessing. There is. Sir, a species of pulpit-talk sometimes, 
 indeed too often, mistaken for preaching and substituted therefor, which 
 gives words without ideas; but it is worse than nonsense, because it 
 deludes by the very sound having a semblance to reason: there is one 
 excuse for him who uses it : he might himself be the dupe of the simili- 
 tude. I should regret. Sir, to charge you with a deliberate intention to 
 deceive your hearers, when you asserted that to fix the meaning which 
 God intended his word should convey, would be what bears the appear- 
 ance of a crime in the expression; "fettering the word of God." Sir, 
 the Council of Nice fettered it, when they decided that those texts which 
 Arius adduced to prove that the Son was not consubstantial to the 
 Father, did not mean what he taught; the Council of Ephesus fettered 
 it, when they decided that the texts which Nestorius adduced to prove 
 that there were two persons in Christ, did not mean what he taught; 
 the Council of Chalcedon fettered it, when they decided that the texts 
 which Eutyches adduced to prove that there was only one nature in 
 Christ, did not mean what he taught; the first Council of Jerusalem 
 fettered it, when they decided that the texts adduced to prove the neces- 
 sity of circumcision in Christianity, did not mean what some of the very 
 first Christians contended was their meaning; the blessed Saviour him- 
 self fettered it, when he taught the disciples upon the mountain, and on 
 
206 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 a thousand other occasions. Explanation of the true meaning of any 
 law is not fettering the law, but applying it to its proper purpose, after 
 having pointed out what that purpose is. Teaching mankind the law 
 of God, and explaining precisely what he has revealed, is not fettering 
 the mind, but is enlightening and instructing and freeing the mind from 
 the fetters of ignorance. Do not, then. Reverend Sir, imagine that be- 
 cause you have culled from some former writers, of the modern English 
 Church, a few of their phrases, the people of America will be led to 
 imagine that the echo of delusive and refuted jargon contains sound 
 reason. If the Church has authority to decide controversies of faith, 
 that authority must be absolute, and must be founded upon her posses- 
 sion of a power to tell us with certainty what God has revealed; the 
 instant man is taught Avith certainty what God has revealed, that moment 
 his conscience is bound, in virtue of God's dominion only, it is true, but 
 by the judicial testimony of the Church. So when I bow to the decision 
 of the Supreme Court of the State, I do it, not because the judges have 
 any inherent power of their own to bind me to obedience, but because 
 I owe that obedience to the State, which commissioned the court to give 
 me judicial testimony, as to what is the meaning of this passage of its 
 law. The court possesses no odious power to fetter me or to fetter the 
 law, but it has a wholesome and necessary authority to judge and to 
 determine what is that law which is superior to the court and to the 
 suitor: and it would be a strange plea to set up, that the court had 
 authority to decide, but not to decide with certainty, not to fetter men 
 nor the law, but still to decide. 
 
 But you will tell me that you do not contradict yourself, because 
 you allow the Church "that authority which, resting on the possession 
 of concentrated wisdom and piety, and upon the peculiar benediction of 
 her divine founder and head, is all that she arrogates to herself, inducing 
 her not to go beyond the word of the Lord to do either less or more." 
 If I could know what you mean, I should be able in a word to dispatch 
 your whole phrase. This quotation of yours, in my apprehension, should 
 mean that the Church has the power of giving an infallibly correct 
 judgment — ^yet that cannot be your meaning, because you said before, 
 "not that absolute authority which is predicated on the claim of infal- 
 libility. ' ' You say here, the authority of the Church in her decisions in 
 controversies of faith, is to judge and determine, not going beyond the 
 word of God either for less; that is, giving us the doctrines whole and 
 entire; so that we do not get less than the revelation and law of God; 
 nor more ; so that we get no more than the law of God. Then, if we get 
 neither less nor more, we must get precisely the law of God. If she has 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 207 
 
 got a peculiar benediction of God for this purpose, that peculiar bene- 
 diction must be infallibly efficacious, and so I shall by her testimonial 
 judgment and determination, get precisely and infallibly the whole word 
 or revelation of the Lord, neither more or less. If this is not authority 
 predicated upon infallibility, I know not what it is: and if it be not, I 
 have no certainty, because if she is not infallible she may err; and if 
 she may err, I cannot be certain but she does actually err in this special 
 instance. But you will ask, has she not God's peculiar benediction? I 
 answer, by asking : will it infallibly lead her to truth ? If it will, I have 
 certainty, and her authority is predicated on infallibility. If it will 
 not, I have no certainty, and bereft of that, I can have no faith, because 
 faith is founded upon certain and not upon probably true testimony. 
 It would be a novel mode, Reverend Sir, of commencing a Christian 
 creed, to say: "I believe it is highly probable that there is one God. 
 I believe that it is hightly probable that his only Son became man; I 
 believe it is extremely probable he died on the cross. I believe it is very 
 likely, indeed I am almost certain, that he will reward the good and 
 punish the wicked." No, Sir, there can be no reasonable faith except 
 upon the basis of infallible certainty; and the infallible certainty that 
 the Church will give us the doctrine of God, rests upon her concentrated 
 wisdom and piety, uniting the testimony of such a host so congregated 
 from every quarter of the globe, as renders it impossible that they should 
 either he deceived as to what common doctrine received from 
 Christ was given by the founders of all the churches to the nations 
 of the earth, and makes it impossible that they should conspire 
 to corrupt that testimony. But, Reverend Sir, one would imagine 
 you should be extremely cautious in unfolding the record of this 
 tribunal, because the date of your change and all its circumstances, and 
 the testimony against it are indelibly clear upon it. The second ground 
 is, the peculiar benediction and promise to which you allude ; but which 
 certainly, if made, places you in no very enviable a station, because to 
 justify yourself, you must prove that the benediction was inefficacious, 
 and that the divine promise was forgotten; because unless the Church 
 erred in her doctrine, you are opposed to God's truth. No wonder then 
 that you instinctively shrink back and throw your old shield before you : 
 ' ' Give her less than this, and you make her a mere nullity ; give her more 
 than this, and then you make the Bible the mere creature of her will." 
 As for the figure of "magnifying the ark above the law and the testi- 
 mony which it enshrines," I do not understand it, unless you mean one 
 of two things, neither of which, even in your own statement, is true; 
 viz. either that the Church has no more to do with the Bible than has a 
 
208 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 box in which it is kept— or that the dead ark had authority to judge and 
 to determine controversies of faith, for which purpose it possessed con- 
 centrated wisdom and piety, and had received a peculiar benediction 
 from God. You have therefore retreated to final unintelligibility, from 
 multiplied contradiction. Here, at least from me, you may be secure. 
 
 And now in sober sadness I ask you, have you made one step towards 
 removing the appalling difficulty which has met you at every turn? 
 * ' But when we leave this general ground ; when we ask what the faith of 
 the Gospel is in all its parts, coincidence of sentiment is at an end, and 
 many contradictory replies meet our ear. How then are we to choose 
 amidst all these conflicting opinions of men? How is the faith of the 
 Gospel to be more minutely ascertained?" You told us enlightened 
 reason would lead us to knowledge ; then you said that even if we found 
 it, we still should not agree. You next answered, that primitive antiq- 
 uity wovild illustrate those things not clearly revealed in the book. The 
 saints would tell us what doctrines they derived from the Apostles : this 
 was our tradition ; of course you ran away from [it,] telling us that you 
 only sent us to them for the purpose of knowing what they practised. 
 The Bible was to give doctrine. Then you told us the Church had 
 authority to decide in controversies of faith. But you soon denied this, 
 for you told us that her decisions should not fetter our minds nor fetter 
 the word of God. Still you told us that she had wisdom and piety and 
 God's peculiar blessing, to establish her authority; and yet though so 
 established, she may err, although she could not give us more than the 
 word of the Lord, nor less than the word of the Lord, and yet, giving 
 precisely the word of the Lord, she might err. The whole conclusion 
 then seems by some magic brought to this, that by the Avord of the Lord 
 is meant the Bible. The old question then recurs: — suppose I believe 
 this to be God's book, how shall I know its meaning where there are so 
 many contradictory explanations ? And to this. Sir, you give no answer. 
 By what right then. Reverend Sir, do you presume to call me erroneous 
 in my interpretation of that book ? By what right, Sir, do you presume 
 to tell Mr. Moderwell or Mr. Whitaker, or any other human being, that 
 you or your society are right, and that any one who differs from you 
 is wrong? I differ. Sir, from Mr. Whitaker 's explanations of the sacred 
 volume, as much probably as does any other human being. I adore 
 the Son and the Holy Ghost with the self-same homage as I do the Father : 
 I believe, as firmly as I do that I now write, that he who was crucified 
 on Calvary was the eternal God, by whom all things were made, having 
 a body and soul personally united to his divine nature. But I am at 
 as perfect a loss as I ever was in my life to know how, when :\Ir. Whita- 
 
two JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 209 
 
 ker denies that those propositions are contained in the Bible, you can 
 prove with certainty that they are. You adduce texts ; and he adduces 
 texts in contradiction to you. You say he mistakes; he charges the 
 mistake upon you. You say that the Church in the first ages explained 
 them as you do, and that you therefore must be right. He asks you 
 whether the Church was then infallible in her explanations: you say, 
 "No, she was liable to error." He says that she erred in this explana- 
 tion if she gave it. Who is now to decide it between you? "Let the 
 Church have authority to decide this controversy," you say. He an- 
 swers, "But you said she was not infallible and had no authority to 
 fetter God's word." I have read some very fine sounding works which 
 would decide against you, upon the very ground that you followed the 
 opinion of the Church in those early ages ; because the blow-pipe had not 
 as yet been invented, nor was there a sufficient number of Greek names 
 given to plants and flowers; science was then only in its embryo — 
 America had not been discovered, and therefore the Apostles could not 
 testify the doctrines of the Saviour, nor could this testimony have been 
 secured and perpetuated, for the mariner's compass was not constructed, 
 neither gun-powder nor steam-engines were used; Luther had not writ- 
 ten, nor were the articles of the English Protestant Church enacted by 
 proper authority. Reverend Sir, I am tired, and so I suspect are you ; 
 and so I fear are my readers. I trust when you next hold a convention of 
 your Church, you will have the goodness to leave us unmolested; and 
 I shall on my part cease to subscribe myself. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, 
 
 A Roman Catholic. 
 
THE VICIOUS CIRCLE 
 
 [The following brief critique upon a sophism frequently made use 
 of against the Catholic argument, is extracted from the United States 
 Catholic Miscellany, for 1824.] 
 
 Dr. Watts, in his Treatise of Logic, and other writers of his descrip- 
 tion, charge Roman Catholics with gross and palpable absurdity in their 
 arguments, and exemplify the sophism of the Vicious Circle, by reference 
 to the arguments of Catholics, viz. 
 
 ''A vicious circle is when two propositions, equally uncertain, are 
 used to prove each other. Thus Papists prove the authority of the Scrip- 
 tures by the infallibility of their Church, and then prove the infallibility 
 of their Church from the authority of the Scriptures." 
 
 To a school-boy this appears a formidable barrier against Popery, 
 and many a sage professor has learnedly declaimed against Popish 
 absurdity, in the detail of the exemplification. Stamped with the au- 
 thority of a dictum of the schools, the example passes with equal cur- 
 rency as the definition. 
 
 Let us meet the mighty adversary. To do so we must take the fol- 
 lowing three several cases. 
 
 Case 1. A Papist argues with a person who believes in the authority 
 of the Scriptures, but who does not believe in the doctrine of the infal- 
 libility of the Church. No one will tell us that the said Papist is guilty 
 of bad logic and is a sophist, when he thus addresses such a person — 
 ''Sir, you acknowledge this book to be authority, I shall shew you from 
 several passages thereof, that the Church is infallible." This is not a 
 vicious circle, for there is no question between them of the authority of 
 the Scripture, and to such a person the Papist does not prove the author- 
 ity of the Scriptures, by the infallibility of the Church. Hence, in this 
 case, there is no vicious circle, for if he prove the infallibility of the 
 Church from the authority of the Scriptures, he only proves that which 
 has been questioned, from that of which there was no question. 
 
 Case 2, A Papist argues with a person who acknowledges the infal- 
 libility of the Church, but questions and doubts the authority of certain 
 Books. No one can say it would be sophistry to address such a person 
 in these words — ''Sir, you allow the body of true believers, that is the 
 
two THE VICIOUS CIRCLE 211 
 
 Church, does certainly know what God has revealed, and can point out 
 with infallible certainty the books which do contain his revelations. 
 Sir, that Church testifies to you that these books do contain his revela- 
 tion. Therefore, by your principle, you must receive these books as the 
 word of God." 
 
 This certainly is not proving one questionable proposition by an- 
 other, and then proving the second by the first. But it is proving that 
 which has been questioned and of which there was doubt, by that of 
 which there was no doubt. This is no sophistry. 
 
 Case 3. A Papist argues with a person who does not believe either 
 in the infallibility of the Church or in the authority of the Scriptures. 
 In this case he cannot assume either as a principle. What is he to do? 
 What would a Protestant do? The Catholic can do at least as much. 
 The Protestant says that without the authority of an infallible Church 
 he can prove the authority of the Scriptures. The same arguments 
 will, in the mouth of a Catholic, lead to the same conclusion. Therefore, 
 if it be possible for the Protestant, it is possible for the Catholic — thero 
 fore the Catholic needs not the infallibility of the Church, to do what 
 his neighbor can do without it. 
 
 Having proved the authority of the Scriptures thus, the Catholic 
 may next proceed upon what he has proved, now assuming as a principle 
 that of which there can be no doubt. Thus we are brought to case 1, 
 in which there is no sophism. 
 
 Or the Catholic may find, without the authority of the Scripture, 
 reasons to convince a person, that if God speaks he must establish some 
 mode by which man may infallibly find out what he teaches; and next 
 that this mode is by receiving the testimony of the great body of the 
 Church ; and thus we are brought to case 2, in which there is no sophism. 
 Thus, whether a Catholic or Papist argues with a person who allows 
 the authority of Scripture, but does not allow Church infallibility; or 
 argues with a person who allows Church infallibility, but does not allow 
 Scriptural authority ; or argues with a person who does not allow either ; 
 he proceeds to prove both points without sophistry: he does not argue 
 in a vicious circle — he is not a violator of the rules of sound sense or 
 good logic — and Dr. Watts and his imitators, either were very ignorant 
 of the manner in which Catholics argue, or very ignorant of what is 
 meant by the sophism of a Vicious Circle — or were dishonest men who 
 deceived their pupils upon an important subject, and who bore false 
 testimony against the best and most numerous, and most enlightened 
 society in the whole world. 
 
 We leave to their admirers and followers their choice of the several 
 
212 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 portions of this good disjunctive proposition, and we trust that each day 
 will add new lig:ht to the intellect, and new desires to the will, so that 
 true knowledge may increase, sophistry be detected and exposed, and 
 the most important concerns of men be brought more closely under the 
 eye of reason and the regulation of correct judgment. 
 
 A little learning is a dangerous thing; 
 Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. 
 Those shallow draughts intoxicate the brain; 
 But drinking largely sobers us again. 
 
 Pope. 
 
CALUIVINIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 
 
 Letters addressed to the Roman CatlioUcs of the United 
 States of North America 
 
 [From the United States Catholic Miscellany for 1826-8.] 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Sept. 4, 1826. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — I am a native of Ireland, but a citizen of America, 
 and of course, have resided during several years in this Union. I am a 
 Roman Catholic ; and one of the principal inducements which operated 
 on my mind in preferring this to any other part of the world was, not 
 merely the excellence of its political institutions, but, as I flattered 
 myself, the absence of bigotry. I was led to believe that, although men 
 differed from each other in religion, yet when there was no profit or 
 preference to be obtained by acrimony, I should not meet with any. 
 I was also led to think the American mind was candidly and sincerely 
 occupied in searching after truth; and that, as it was given to investi- 
 gation, it would speedily arrive at its discovery. I must confess, that 
 I have been disabused of some [part] of my error. I found that there 
 was in the general constitutions of most of the States, a principle which 
 restrained men from being tyrants over the consciences of their neighbor, 
 but that neither law nor constitution had effected what I now find can- 
 not be produced by mere political regulation — that cordial and affection- 
 ate feeling which is the result of true charity for each other, amongst 
 men who differ in religious belief. I found what I was altogether unpre- 
 pared for ; that, in many of our States, a Roman Catholic, though legally 
 and politically upon a level with his fellow-citiezns, was however too 
 often looked upon, by reason of his religion, as in some degree morally 
 degraded. I found that it was by no means considered a want of lib- 
 erality, on the part of the Protestants, to vilify the Catholic religion, 
 and to use the harshest and most offensive terms when designating its 
 practices; but that if a Catholic used any phrase however modified, 
 which even insinuated any thing derogatory to the Protestant religion, 
 he was marked out as a shocking bigot, and his offence was unpardonable. 
 
214 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 The newspapers, I perceived, were generally stuffed with extracts and 
 articles which were offensive to Catholics; but the editors were very 
 careful not to bring a hornet's nest about their ears by inserting a 
 paragraph offensive to any Protestant society. I had frequent oppor- 
 tunities of conversing with polite and well-informed Protestant gentle- 
 men, and they, though knowing my religion, used the most offensive 
 phraseology when speaking of our Church or our institutions, being, I 
 am convinced, totally unconscious that the language which they used 
 was originally constructed to offend us. They spoke to me of the 
 Romish Church, and of Popish priests, and of Romish bishops, and 
 adoration of images, as undisguisedly as if they were not using the most 
 insulting language. I knew they meant nothing unkind; I had abun- 
 dant evidence of their good will ; yet, though I felt that it would be indel- 
 icate in me to wound them, by requesting they would change their 
 phrases, I deemed it more than matter of curiosity to discover, why this 
 language was used, and why the Catholic was undervalued. 
 
 It struck me, as this had been an English colony, and as many of 
 the gentlemen whom I met had either been educated in England, or 
 under English teachers, that they had learned also some of the English 
 fabrications. I took an opportunity of asking a friend of this description 
 to inform me in sincerity whether he thought a good Roman Catholic 
 could be a good republican citizen. After such a request and explanation 
 as made him feel at full liberty, he very candidly told me that he did not. 
 I followed up my inqury, and soon discovered that the general impression 
 amongst the best informed citizens of the Southern States was altogether 
 unfavorable to Catholics, upon the principle that the Catholic religion 
 must produce effects, which w^ould be fatal to our state of society and 
 government. So far from condemning those gentlemen, my respect for 
 their kindness was increased, though I lamented the mistake into which 
 they had fallen as to our tenets, and the general character of our religion. 
 And, my friends, if our religion was what they were led to believe it 
 was, very few, if any, of us would continue in the communion of the 
 Holy See. More extended travelling gave me an opportunity of making 
 more extensive inquiry ; and every where in twelve of our States where 
 I had the means of knowing pretty accurately the general sentiment, 
 I have no doubt now upon my mind, that, as a body, we are undervalued 
 by our fellow-citizens ; and that this arises not from any bad feeling on 
 their part generally towards us, but from their mistaking our character 
 and tenets. I believe the great majority are well disposed to meet us 
 with cordial affection, but I fear there are some whose interest and whose 
 bigotry urge them to keep us estranged from each other. 
 
two CALUMNIESOFJ. BLANCOWHITE 215 
 
 Having convinced myself of the truth of these facts which I have 
 thus stated, my next inquiry was into their cause. I shall give you my 
 opinion and its foundation. I have not hastily formed it; nor have I 
 an unfriendly feeling towards my fellow-citizens. These States were 
 British colonies, now little more than half a century ago. In every one 
 of them except Pennsylvania, the penal laws against Catholics were in 
 full force, and in most of them they were executed with unrelenting 
 rigor. In Pennsylvania, though the Catholic was not legally persecuted, 
 he existed under that moral degradation which resulted as well from 
 the self-esteem of the Quaker, as from the Protestant's viewing him as 
 his inferior in the mother country and in the other colonies. Perhaps 
 it will he scarcely a digression here to remark, that Pennsylvania has 
 been amply repaid for her just benevolence. The rapid improvement of 
 that State has been generally attributed to the steady, sober industry of 
 the Quakers ; no one will deny that they are the prominent figures upon 
 the canvass, and they not only will bear inspection, but at distance will 
 appear alone. Yet he who examines closely, will, behind their large coats, 
 observe that much of the back scenery is concealed ; he will also discover, 
 that the Irish and the few German Catholics, whom their friends sent to 
 till the back country, are found, where that back ground is visible, to be 
 those upon whom the drudgery devolved, and they are painted busily en- 
 gaged at the plough and with the axe. When the drum called forth the 
 colonists to battle, the Pennsylvania line was consequently found to be 
 principally composed of Irish Catholics. New York then had her per- 
 secuting law; but since it has been repealed, the Irish Catholics have 
 wrought her up into wealth, as they previously did Pennsylvania. 
 
 I shall only state that, at the period of the Revolution, the Cath- 
 olic was by British policy, by British contrivance, by British example, 
 and by British law, degraded in every colony, persecuted in all but one. 
 The feelings of nations do not suddenly or very quickly subside, much 
 less become altogether different. Only half a century has passed awa}'' 
 since this was the case, and it could hardly be expected that all this 
 feeling could be forgotten by this time. Men will always be prone to 
 say, there must have been some good cause for legal oppression. Do 
 not mistake me; I do not intend to say, that the excuse will ever hold 
 good for the oppression of a Protestant by a Catholic, or if so, it can 
 only be in Spain. But in all other places, it is but reasonable, some 
 philosophers say, to suppose the Catholic gave cause, or if he did not, 
 the Protestant thought he did, which is equally sufficient. Now, you 
 and I probably believe that no cause was given ; but let us concede that 
 there was cause, and leave to those who made and executed the penal 
 
216 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 laws to settle their account with a just and merciful God. I think we 
 may fairly state this as one cause of the present dis-esteem in which I 
 believe we are held by many of our fellow-citizens; it operates silently, 
 imperceptibly, but efficaciously. It resolves itself into this soliloquy — 
 "My ancestors were obliged by circumstances to oppress Catholics, my 
 ancestors were good, they could not be guilty of cruelty or of injustice; 
 I have heard them say there was good cause; for, that formerly Cath- 
 olics were more dangerous than those of the present day are. We have 
 relieved them, I am glad of it; if their predecessors had been as good 
 as those now, the harsh laws would not have been necessary; but still 
 there is something not right about their system." In such a w^ay as this 
 does a good heart endeavor to indulge its feelings of affection for its 
 family and for its fellow-citizens ; for the fame of the family requires 
 an imputation upon the Catholic, and we are naturally the sufferers. 
 
 Thus that strongest bias to which the human mind is liable, that 
 bias arising from affection for one's kindred, respect for the cherished 
 memory of one's immediate ancestors, creates in good and amiable minds, 
 a powerful though unsuspected prejudice against us. There are no 
 minds over which this prejudice has a more extensive and a better estab- 
 lished dominion than those of generous and amiable females, for the very 
 excellence of their disposition leads them to cherish warmly those family 
 attachments from which it springs. This will, I believe, tend greatly to 
 explain what I have frequently observed to be an undoubted fact, and 
 still scarcely to be otherwise explained: that the prejudices against us 
 were strongest in the minds of those ladies who, either sprung from or 
 were connected with the old families who, under the British rule, held 
 stations or offices which made them, in some way or other, parties to the 
 approval or execution of the penal laws. That such is the fact in the 
 old country and in this, will scarcely be questioned by those w^ho have 
 had an opportunity of making the observation. Yet those ladies have 
 the very best dispositions and the kindnest hearts; they are humane, 
 generous, and affectionate; but their family affections necessarily hold 
 the first place, and they cannot believe that their fathers, and their 
 uncles, and their progenitors, in whom they have found so many good 
 qualities, could be persecutors of innocent people; there must, they 
 think, have been something bad, and of sufficient criminality in the Cath- 
 olics of that day to have provoked this oppression. Let the practical 
 error be only once in existence. Let men of a certain standing in so- 
 ciety be in the habit of oppression, and it becomes a necessary conse- 
 quence, that the most amiable portion of society becomes unconsciously 
 the preserver of prequdice, and indirectly the advocate of oppression. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 217 
 
 This has enabled me often to excuse what I lamented, and solve what 
 would be otherwise insoluble. 
 
 Another great source of prejudice arises from religious feeling. 
 Every mind, not actually infidel, views with more or less reverence the 
 edifice for public worship ; and generally the mind is prepared to receive 
 with scarcely a suspicion of falsehood, every statement made in this 
 sacred place by the man who is said and believed to bear the divine com- 
 mission, to announce saving truths to the world. In a land where the 
 law prevented the existence of a Catholic, the public teacher of a reli- 
 gion created upon the assumption, that the Catholic religion was grossly 
 erroneous, might safely indulge in what statements he thought proper; 
 and naturally he would be expected occasionally to inveigh against those 
 tenets, to destroy whose prevalence was the object of his ministry: and 
 to his declaration there would be no reply. That such was the fact, 
 there exists the most superabundant evidence. It was not only natural, 
 that the evils which were said to spring from those tenets should be 
 pointed out and emblazoned, but we have proof that they were. When 
 a century had thus passed away in repeated inculcations of this descrip- 
 tion, by the ministers of God, in his holy place, to a religious people, 
 can we wonder at the existence of strong prejudice in the minds of that 
 people, not only against the tenets, but also against those who hold them? 
 Eeligious prejudice is perhaps stronger than that of family affection; 
 either is very powerful ; but what must be that prejudice which is a com- 
 bination and a sublimation of both? 
 
 Had those holy men contented themselves with the mere statement 
 of facts, and argued fairly from those facts, we should have had no 
 reason to complain. But such was not the case. That which was of 
 dubious or equivocal appearance was, against every rule of charity, 
 exhibited in the worse manner to which any forced construction could 
 drag it; and when there were not sufficient facts to make out the case, 
 the defect was supplied by fiction. I do not charge all the sacred func- 
 tionaries with wilful misconstruction and with fabrication ; because there 
 were some who did not stoop to those means. Others had prejudices, 
 and were misled — they believed what they taught. Others cared not 
 for its truth or falsehood, but did what was in the routine of their duty ; 
 so that I am far from charging the body at large as fabricators, though 
 they made extensive use of fabrications. Thus, misrepresentation was 
 superadded to prejudice; and all obtained the name of religious truth. 
 Thus, the more of religious zeal existed, the more extensively was preju- 
 dice against the Catholic spread abroad. Before I close this series of 
 
218 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 letters, I shall exhibit to you such authentic facts to support my several 
 assertions, as shall well warrant every conclusion that I draw. 
 
 Not only then were affection and religion, the two finest sources of 
 human feeling, poisoned against us, but history was outraged, and the 
 unbiased judgment was flagrantly misled. I here make an assertion, 
 which if I shall not succeed in proving to its full extent, I consent that 
 all which I shall address to you in vindication of our character to our 
 fellow citizens shall be valueless. No nation ever was so guilty of a 
 systematic destruction of the truth of history for any purpose, as was 
 the English nation in order to create prejudice against the Catholics. 
 I would be content to put myself upon a trial for life and death, upon 
 the issue of the truth or falsehood of the following propositions, after 1 
 should have had the opportunity of proving their truth before an im- 
 partial, honest American jury. The British Protestant nation has been 
 almost continually employed in destroying the truth of history for the 
 purpose of bringing obloquy upon the Catholics ! ! The Government 
 aided in this work, and the Catholic was not allowed to answer, nor 
 allowed the means of refutation. Thus a new source of prejudice was 
 added. From the most voluminous histories to the mere chronological 
 tables; from the College to the Nursery, the labor was to create and to 
 perpetuate prejudice: and this has continued during centuries. The 
 principle having been adopted soon after the discovery of the art of 
 printing, those distortions of facts have the appearance of being the 
 original and authentic statement of what occurred, and the press having 
 been in the hands of only the opponents of Catholics, no counter state- 
 ment could be sent forth. 
 
 Besides the distortion of history, the sciences have been employed 
 by the* British nation against us. Her teachers of logic, in their ele- 
 mentary treatises, assume falsehoods as facts, to give as examples of 
 sophism what they state to be our mode of reasoning, when in truth we 
 do not so mock reason. In their metaphysics, every opportunity is 
 taken by many of their writers to turn us into ridicule or to exhibit 
 us as senseless; they turn aside from their astronomical observations to 
 lecture upon the inquisition, which they will make a constituent part of 
 our creed, against our will; the chemist uses his laboratory to analyze 
 our Sacraments; the professor of medicine harangues upon our super- 
 stition ; the surgeon dissects our saints ; the jurist laments the ignorance 
 of our councils. I have heard a man who knew not the first principle of 
 the civil code and could not give a rational definition of what was the 
 nature of a law, though he was a professor of law ! deliver flappant opin- 
 ions upon canons of our Church which he had never seen, and which, 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 219 
 
 had he read, he could not understand, because of his ignorance of his- 
 tory, whilst his audience gazed wisely upon each other as they applauded 
 the only part of the sentence which they could repeat, the despotism and 
 absurdity of Popery. The very principles of the British law as of force 
 in these States when they were colonies, were predicated upon the 
 assumption that our religion was an illegal superstition bordering upon 
 treason. Thus the very study of science in Britain and in her colonies 
 was calculated to create prejudice of a very formidable nature against 
 us. 
 
 In belles lettres, the same consequence was insured. The mythology 
 of the heathens was explained by an exhibition of its analogy with our 
 creed ; we were represented as the enemies of taste, the lovers of igno- 
 rance, the destroyers of the fine arts ; worse than Vandals and more 
 ferocious than Goths. Geography, as with an English tongue she de- 
 scribed the nations of the earth, was always sure to dwell upon the vices 
 and the crimes and the follies of every nation in which our religion was 
 established or prevailed, and she became hyperbolically eloquent, as she 
 glowed in her description of the virtues, the glories, the wisdom and the 
 superiority of the few Protestant states that concentered in themselves 
 every real and imaginary good which the mind could conceive. Even 
 Protestant England never persecuted, and Catholic Italy blazed with 
 the fires of the Inquisition. 
 
 I am tired of the enumeration. My object was to shew how it was 
 morally, I was about to say physically impossible for any American 
 Protestant, however high his rank, exalted his mind, extensive his read- 
 ing, or comprehensive his charity, to be free from violent prejudice 
 against Catholics at the period of the revolution, just fifty years ago. 
 My friends, if we were placed in the same situation as they were, would 
 not our prejudices be what theirs were? I would now bring your atten- 
 tion to another topic. We say they did not know us: but the present 
 generation ought to know what we are. This, I contend, is an error. 
 It is impossible that as yet they should know what we are, and there- 
 fore whilst we regret the prejudice which even as yet extensively exists 
 to our disadvantage, we should rather endeavor by proper means to 
 remove it, than blame those who are its victims, because they cannot do 
 what is impossible. I shall shew you briefly the obstacles which are as 
 yet in their way. 
 
 They are still subject to the operation to a certain extent, though 
 thank God, greatly diminished, of that prejudice which springs from 
 family affection ; to which is added the prejudice which springs from 
 that pride of adherence to party, to which we all are subject, from which 
 
220 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 it is extremely difficult to become disengaged. They are yet liable to 
 nearly the same extent to religious prejudices, with the diminution that 
 is caused by the greater caution of making an attack where a reply and 
 a retort may be expected, and in some places, but not very many, the 
 opportunity which is afforded for correcting mistakes. They have still 
 the same distorted histories, to correct whose statements so little has been 
 done; and that little so lately as to have yet scarcely excited curiosity; 
 much less, research; much less, change of opinion. Scarcely a change 
 has taken place in the mode of abusing science or literature for the 
 purpose of injuring us. I have once, not very long since, felt a kind of 
 melancholy amusement, in which however my reveries were occasionally 
 disturbed by a glow of involuntary indignation, at contemplating one 
 of the first graduates at the annual commencement of the College of this 
 State, pouring out as copious a collection of black vomit against our 
 creed as if he was upon the point of expiring of a religious yellow fever. 
 The poor creature could not be so much blamed, for he had probably 
 been infected in the library, if not tainted from his childhood; but I 
 can vouch that no professor of that institution was guilty of creating 
 his disease, nor had the simpleton himself the slightest opportunity of 
 becoming acquainted with several topics upon which he raved; but the 
 books too often contain what the teacher would not have written. How 
 many volumes of religious tracts ; how many Gospel and Evangelical and 
 Christian periodical pviblications, teem with misrepresentation and abuse 
 of our creed? Nay, look at the common newspapers of the day, whose 
 editors boast of their liberality, and confirm their claim to the title by 
 most copious and liberal quotations from every British hireling or 
 malevolent infidel ; in the midst of all this, how is it possible for us to 
 expect that we should be held in just estimation by our fellow-citizens? 
 It is then a duty which we owe to them and to ourselves, to attempt our 
 vindication. As we cannot assemble as a body to do this ; as our Bishops 
 do not find it convenient or expedient to act as the Irish Bishops and 
 English Vicars have done under similar circumstances, an individual 
 has taken the liberty of addressing to you his sentiments upon the sub- 
 ject. I shall therefore examine the charges made upon us, and give the 
 best answers that I can, in hope that some of our Protestant fellow- 
 citizens may examine the accusation and the defence, and that I may 
 thus happily, at least lessen the amount of that prejudice which I cannot 
 hope to destroy. I shall begin by examining the charges made by the 
 Rev. Joseph Blanco White; because I observe that his work is particu- 
 larly lauded by the clergy of the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Metho- 
 dist churches of the District of Columbia, and that strenuous efforts are 
 
two CALUMNIESOFJ. BLANCOWHITE 221 
 
 now making to disseminate the same, for the purpose of adding to the 
 prejudice which unfortunately exists. I know that I undertake a 
 weighty task, but labor does not discourage me. These pieces shall 
 appear in the Miscellany, addressed to you, and should I find that you 
 approve of them by patronizing the paper, and that they are thought 
 by my Protestant fellow-citizens to lead to a better feeling between them 
 and us, and that God should give me health and leisure, when I shall 
 have done with Mr. White, I have many more to succeed in turn. I am 
 my friends, 
 
 Yours, and so forth, 
 
 B. c. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Sept. 11, 1826. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My friends. — I stated that I would commence my investigation by 
 examining the charges which are made upon us by the Rev. Joseph Blanco 
 White. You will naturally ask who he is. I beg to inform you that I 
 know nothing more of him than the account which he gives of himself 
 in his evidence against our religion. That evidence, if I must so call it, 
 is contained in a book which he appears to have published in London, 
 in April or May, 1825 ; and which is dedicated to the Provost of Oriel 
 College, Oxford; as also in Letters from Spain under the signature of 
 Don Leucadio Doblado ; and which appeared in the New Monthly, (Lon- 
 don) Magazine. In the dedication, Mr. White very plainly exhibits his 
 object, in the following passages; to understand which, it is necessary 
 to know that the writer complains of having been the victim of Catholic 
 persecution in Spain. He states that his patron and he have a "similar- 
 ity of views as to what is called the Catholic question.''^ We are all well 
 acquainted with the sentiments generally entertained in England by the 
 reverend dignitaries and officials of the established Church, upon this 
 question : but Mr. White and his patron appear to be men of most liberal 
 and tolerant disposition, if the gentleman himself is worthy of credit. 
 He writes: 
 
 "From the friendly intercourse with which you have honored me, 
 I know that you hold it wrong to put down religious error by force, or 
 to propagate religious truth by degrading and branding those who do not 
 think with us. I have suffered too much from religious despotism, not 
 fully and cordially to hold the same doctrine. The fetters which, by 
 
222 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 God's mercy, I have been enabled to break, I would rather die than help 
 to rivet upon a fellow-Christian." 
 
 This would do very well, had it not the following tailpiece : 
 
 "But the power which made me groan in protracted bondage, is 
 striving to obtain a direct influence in this Government; and I cannot 
 regard such efforts with apathy. For myself, I have nothing to fear; 
 but I deem it a debt of gratitude to volunteer my testimony in the great 
 pending cause, that it may be weighed against the studied and colored 
 evidence of such writers, as w^ould disguise the true character of the 
 spiritual tyranny, whose fierce grasp I have eluded. Indeed I would 
 never have shown myself in the field of controversy, but for the appear- 
 ance of a book evidently intended to divert the public from the import- 
 ant, and, to me, indubitable fact, that sincere Roman Catholics cannot 
 conscientiously be tolerant. How far, my dear sir, you are convinced of 
 this, I cannot take upon myself to say : but I am sure you will allow, that 
 if such be the real character of Catholicism, the only security of Tolera- 
 tion must be a certain degree of intolerance, in regard to its enemies; 
 as prisons in the freest governments are necessary for the preservation 
 of freedom. ' ' 
 
 In this we observe that the reverend writer asserts it to be an in- 
 dubitable fact that sincere Roman Catholics cannot conscientiously be 
 tolerant ; that their religion is spiritual tyranny ; that it is trying to ob- 
 tain a direct influence in the British Government, that he cannot regard 
 its efi'ort with apathy, that he deems it necessary for him to serve in 
 the great pending cause, viz. the discussion of the Catholic's claims to 
 civil and religious liberty ; that he deems it as necessary to have a certain 
 degree of intolerance against Catholics as to have prisons. Thus his 
 object evidently, from his own declarations, is to prevent Catholic eman- 
 cipation; to keep the British Catholics politically incarcerated; and the 
 manner in which he will contribute to this end will be, by giving what 
 he calls the real character of Catholicism. 
 
 The reverend writer would find some difficulty in reconciling his 
 contradictions, "that he would rather die than help rivet fetters upon 
 a fellow-Christian," "that he has volunteered his services to help to keep 
 his fellow-Christians in civil and political incarceration under a free 
 and tolerant government, which has persecuted and still afflicts its sub- 
 jects for adhering to the ancient religion of the founders of that govern- 
 ment itself. ' ' 
 
 But, my friends, were I to dwell upon every contradiction of this 
 liberal persecutor, I should indeed have a long series of letters to write. 
 One specimen more, and I shall be done with this dedication. After 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 223 
 
 candidly stating in all appearance the truth, in the outset, viz. that his 
 principal motive was what he calls a generous impulse of gratitude to 
 save a generous country, he next tells us that such was not the motive ; 
 for in truth his work is only indirectly connected therewith; and al- 
 though his object was that "his tesimony in the great pending cause, 
 should be weighed against the studied and colored evidence ' ' of the advo- 
 cates of Catholics, yet "the parliamentary question about the claims of 
 the Roman Catholics is by no means the object he had in view whilst 
 writing. ' ' 
 
 "I have thus far thought it necessary to touch upon the political 
 question with which my work is indirectly connected. I say indirectly, 
 because the parliamentary question about the claims of the Roman 
 Catholics is by no means the object which I have had in view while writ- 
 ing. I will not deny that I should be glad if my humble performance 
 could throw any light on a question in which the welfare of this coun- 
 try is so deeply concerned ; but it is probable that it will not appear till 
 after the decision of the Parliament. Let this, however, be as it may, 
 still I humbly hope, that, whether the Roman Catholics are admitted 
 into Parliament, or allowed to continue under the disabilities which their 
 honest opponents lament, my labor will not have been thrown away. 
 For as the danger which may threaten this country in the admission of 
 Roman Catholic legislators, depends entirely upon their religious sin- 
 cerity ; I shall not have troubled the public in vain, if either I can con- 
 vince the conscientious of the papal communion, that a Roman Catholic 
 cannot honestly do his duty as a member of the British Parliament with- 
 out moral guilt; or, what I ardently wish, my arguments should open 
 their eyes to the errors of their Church. ' ' 
 
 I believe we may fairly conclude that the writer was sincere in 
 his declarations, that his object in writing was not the question of 
 the claims of the Catholics, but of his own recompense; that his book 
 is one of those compilations which has been got up just in time to be put 
 into the hands of members of Parliament, so as to influence votes, but 
 not in time to admit of any refutation before that vote is given : for it 
 was avowedly written in reference to the great pending question, at a 
 time when it was certain of being carried in the House of Commons, 
 and by no means certain that a majority could be got up in the House 
 of Lords to reject it ; and Mr. White and his patron, though very liberal 
 men, had determined to do their utmost to keep the Catholics in their 
 state of degradation. I give them very little credit, however, for their 
 bungling mode of keeping their own secret. 
 
 Mr. White's object, then, very clearly was, to write as forcibly as 
 
224 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 he conld, to prove that Roman Catholics ought not to be admitted to an 
 equality of civil and political rights with their Protestant fellow-subjects. 
 Can this be the object of Bishop Kemp of Baltimore, and the twenty 
 pastors of the Protestant Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Methodist 
 Churches of the District of Columbia and its vicinity, in procuring a 
 re-print of this book in Amerca ? They deserve the approbation of their 
 fellow-citizens for their zeal in promoting Christian charity. They de- 
 serve the lasting gratitude of their Roman Cathiloc neighbors for their 
 exertions on their behalf. 
 
 I have now to take Mr. White's account of himself. He is a Priest 
 in the English Protestant Church, who was formerly of the Roman 
 Catholic, and who received his orders in that Church, in Spain, of whicli 
 he is a native. He is now, I understand, a minister in some Church, in 
 or near London; he was a graduate of Seville, and took out his theo- 
 logical certificate of qualification at Osuna. He held a prebend's stall 
 in the Royal Chapel at Seville, and was a member of the collegiate 
 Churches of that city, a synodal examiner in the diocess of Cadiz, and a 
 member of some literary society : the whole of which is appended to his 
 name in the title page of his book, together with a statement that he 
 is the author of Dohlado's Letters from Spain. Of course the object is 
 to shew how great a man and therefore how good a witness is Mr. White. 
 Upon all this, I shall merely remark, that it is with titles sometimes as 
 with coat of arms in heraldry, the plain field which is without any em- 
 blazonment is evidence of the most remote and illustrious antiquity, antl 
 a single emblem of that which is next in dignity. The undecorated 
 name of the individual, when good, is the best recommendation: hence 
 George Washington sounds better than if six kings at arms lost their 
 breath in the sucessive enumeration of orders and decorations: and the 
 plain title of "virtuous man" or "good priest" would have raised Mr. 
 White more in our estimation, than if the whole title page were filled 
 with the offices which he had held, and the stations which he had de- 
 serted. To us, the enumeration of those places conveys no idea of any 
 superior acquirements in the individual, for with the exception of one, 
 they are all within the reach of any young man of very moderate capaci- 
 ty, much less than I believe Mr. AVhite to possess, though I rate his low 
 enough. The first two titles merely shew that he went through his usual 
 collegiate examinations, the third shews that he had license to preach and 
 had an appointment ; if the College of St. Mary a Jesu in Seville is, as 
 many such are, a mere sinecure benefice, or as several others in Spain 
 are, one next to a sinecure, the qualifications for its rectorship are merely 
 nominal ; the place of a synodal examiner in the Diocess of Cadiz would 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 225 
 
 indeed be some evidence of his good standing in the Church, if he lived 
 in that Diocess and discharged its duties ; but with him, living in Seville, 
 it was a mere honorary appointment, and no evidence whatever of theo- 
 logical standing. 
 
 Indeed, the gentleman gives us, himself, very clearly the value of 
 his titles, when he informs us, page 17, of the manner in which he ob- 
 tained his degree in Osuna. "He was not of sufficient standing" to 
 obtain it at Seville, it was necessary to have a diploma to take the place 
 in the College of St. Mary, at Seville, he therefore took it at Osuna which 
 was not strict. The value of a degree at Osuna is known in Spain, but it 
 sounds very well in England and America. In page 18, Mr. W. writes : 
 "I owed my preferment to a public display of theological knowledge." 
 To understand this, it is necessary to know what is required by the canons 
 of the Roman Catholic Church, on such occasions. When a benefice 
 is vacant, public notice is given, the candidates for the place are to pro- 
 duce their documents of qualification to discharge its duties, and they 
 who are admitted to be sufficiently qualified enter into contest before a 
 board of sworn examiners, who are generally appointed, by alternative 
 nomination, by the Bishop and by the Chapter : the clergymen who form 
 this board of examiners make a written return of the names of the can- 
 didates, arranged according to their respective merits. If the benefice 
 is in the gift of a patron or of electors, the selection is then made from 
 the three highest names upon the list ; the patron has the right of pre- 
 senting the selected individual to the Bishop, who if he approves of him 
 inducts him, or if he disapproves of the person presented requires another 
 name, which must be furnished within a given time, or the patron loses 
 his right for that time, and the Bishop fills the vacancy. This examina- 
 tion takes place in public. The principle was wisely laid down by the 
 Church, for those places in which there exists a right of patronage, to 
 prevent the introduction of improper persons; but frequently the prac- 
 tice, is very difi:'erent from what was contemplated by the theory. 
 By the contrivance of the patrons, it frequently has happened that a 
 person who would be a candidate was taught that contention would be 
 madness, because that the patron had already fixed upon the person who 
 was to fill the place, and that any other even successful opponent would 
 not be presented; but would earn the patron's ill-will, and that of the 
 friends of the designated candidate. Thus frequently the examination 
 was but a form. Again, in all the contests between young men for 
 lesser offices, such as Mr. White's, the examination was far from severe, 
 and contest was not difficult. From the gentleman's own shewing in 
 page 17, "the high rank which the author sustained as a minister of the 
 
226 
 
 CONTROVERSY 
 
 Vol. 
 
 Roman Catholic Cluireh," is not in point of fact equal to the rank of 
 any pastor of that Church in the city of Baltimore ; yet the Right Rev- 
 erend Dr. Kemp and his clergy put it forward as a very strong feature 
 to recommend the word. 
 
 ^'Becommendation. — The Letters of the Reverend Blanco White 
 contain a temperate and able exposition of the errors of Popery. The 
 high rank which the author sustained as a minister of the Roman Cath- 
 olic Church, eminently qualified him for the task which he had under- 
 taken and so well fulfilled; and his familiar acquaintance with all the 
 secret springs and movements of that wonderful system, has enabled 
 him to diversify his discussion with many highly interesting and im- 
 portant incidents. We therefore cheerfully recommend the work as 
 highly deserving of public attention. 
 
 Rev. J. P. K. Henshaw, 
 J. R. Keech, 
 C. B. Tippet, 
 H. N. Gray, 
 J. N. Campbell, 
 C. Harrison, 
 J. Guest, 
 
 Rev. S. B. Balch, D.D. 
 R. Post, 
 W. Nevins, 
 A. Helfenstein, 
 T. E. Bond, M.D. 
 S. K. Jennings, 
 M.D. 
 
 Rt. Rev. Jas. Kemp, 
 
 D.D. 
 Rev. W. H. Wilmer, 
 D.D. 
 
 Basil Keith, 
 
 S. H. Tyng, 
 
 W. Hawley, 
 
 E. Allen, 
 
 As a theologian we may find his qualifications, by his own account 
 of the manner in which he attended to his studies. The following ex- 
 tracts are from Letter V. Volume 2, for 1821, from July to December, 
 printed by Littel of Philadelphia, and Henry of New York, to the pages 
 of which edition I shall always refer, page 290: 
 
 "An imperfect knowledge of the Logic and Natural Philosophy was 
 all I acquired at the University before I began the study of divinity." 
 
 Page 292. "French philosophy had not found its way to the Uni- 
 versity of Seville at the time when I was studying divinity." 
 
 Page 293. "The greatest part of my time, wdth the exception of 
 that required for my daily attendance at the dull lectures of divinity 
 professors, was devoted to the French critics, Andre Le Bossu, Batteux, 
 Rollin, La Harpe, and many others of less note. The habit of analyzing 
 language and ideas, which I acquired in the perusal of such works, soon 
 led me to the French metaphysicians, especially Condillac." 
 
 The young gentleman is very angry with the ignorant theologians 
 who would decry the metaphysics of materialism, or attempt to insinuate 
 that man is a being composed of a spiritual soul and material body. 
 
 Page 289. "To acknowledge, on the authority of revelation, that 
 mankind will rise from their graves, is not sufficient to protect the un- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 227 
 
 fortunate metaphysician who should deny that man is a compound of 
 two substances, one of which is naturally immortal. ' ' 
 
 That Bishop Kemp and his venerable associates may know the full 
 extent of this gentleman 's high rank as a divine, I shall exhibit the com- 
 pletion of his theological studies in his own words, in the Letters of 
 Dohlado. 
 
 Pages 298 and 299. "The first taste of mental liberty was more 
 delicious than any feeling I ever experienced; but was suceeded by a 
 burning thirst for every thing, that by destroying my old mental habits 
 could strengthen it and confirm my unbelief. I gave an exhorbitant price 
 for any French irreligious books, which the love of gain induced some 
 Spanish book-sellers to import at their peril. The intuitive knowledge 
 of one another, which persecuted principles impart to such as cherish 
 them in common, made me soon acquainted with several members of my 
 own profession, deeply versed in the Philosophical school of France. 
 They possessed and made no difficulty to lend me all the anti- Christian 
 works of the French press. ' ' 
 
 "Pretending studious retirement, I have fitted up a small room, to 
 which none but my confidential friends find admittance. Here lie my 
 prohibited books, in perfect concealment, in a well contrived nook under 
 a stair case. The Breviary alone, in its black binding, clasps, and gilt 
 leaves, is kept upon the table, to check the doubts of any chance in- 
 truder. ' ' 
 
 I could give other extracts, but these will suffice to shew what learn- 
 ing and especially what extensive theological knowledge the writer pos- 
 sessed. How then, it will be asked, did he rise to such an eminent place ? 
 My answer is, the place was not eminent : and that he got it in the manner 
 which I have suggested he gives good reason to believe, for, in page 287 
 of his Spanish Letters, he states that those fellowships as he called them 
 were obtained by partiality, and in page 288 he shews how they who had 
 not interest to secure a strong party amongst the electors, could not 
 offer themselves "as champions at those literary jousts." 
 
 The standing of the author as to grade, in the Roman Catholic 
 Church, was therefore far from high. But of that I shall make no point ; 
 I shall treat him as if he was the most learned Pope that ever existed. 
 There is another criterion besides knowledge and talent required in a 
 witness : this writer coming forward to testify, must submit to the ordeal 
 of examination upon the score of character. I know nothing more of 
 him than is furnished by his own book ; and upon his own statements I 
 shall form my judgment. 
 
 He is the grandson of an Irish emigrant who was obliged to leave 
 
228 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 Ireland and to take refuge in Spain, because of that code, whose prin- 
 ciples the grandson of this refugee has returned from Spain to advocate, 
 (p. 15). The author's father was sent to Ireland in his childhood for a 
 time, that he might not lose the attachment to the land of his progenitors ; 
 and the son of that father returns to England to exhort the oppressors 
 of his father's land to continue their oppression: to call upon the British 
 Parliament in the name of the God of charity and justice to continue the 
 fetters of political and civil persecution on the score of religion, upon 
 the children of calumniated martyrs ! ! ! His mother was a Spanish lady, 
 whom he describes as decorated with every true virtue; of his parent 
 he says, " It is enough to say that such were the purity, the benevolence, 
 and the angelic piety of my father's life, that at his death, multitudes 
 of people thronged the house to indulge a last view of the dead body. 
 Nor was the wife of his bosom at all behind him either in fulness of faith 
 or sanctity of manners." Yet they were rigid Roman Catholics! He 
 informs us that his education was well attended to. 
 
 "At the age of fourteen, all the seeds of devotion which had been 
 sown in my heart sprung up spontaneously. The pious practices which 
 had been hitherto a task, were now the effort of my own choice. I be- 
 came a constant attendant at the congregation of the Oratory, where 
 pious young men, intended for the Church, generally had their spiritual 
 directors. Dividing my time between study and devotion, I went 
 through a course of philosophy and divinity at the University of Seville : 
 at the end of which I received the Roman Catholic order of subdeacon." 
 
 From the above extract, page 16, one would imagine that a more im- 
 maculate and holy young gentleman had never taken orders. If his testi- 
 mony be worth any thing, it will prove, that the education of a child of 
 virtuous parents in the Roman Catholic Church, has not any taint by 
 which virtue is contaminated by bad doctrine; it will prove that the 
 education of candidates for holy orders in the Catholic Church is one 
 which cultivates and develops the germs which the seeds of virtue shoots 
 forth ; our witness in his last letters has not made any charge of neglect 
 of cultivating learning or Christian virtue upon the Roman Catholics, 
 who have charge of educating youth. He gives a farther testimony on 
 this subject in page 140, [where] he writes — 
 
 "A more blameless, ingenuous, religious set of youths than that in 
 the enjoyment of whose friendship I passed the best years of my life, 
 the world cannot boast of. Eight of us, all nearly the same age, lived 
 in the closest bond of affection, from sixteen till one and twenty; and 
 four at least, continued in the same intimacy till that of thirty-five. Of 
 this knot of friends not one was tainted by the breath of gross vice, till 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 229 
 
 the Church had doomed them to a life of celibacy, and turned the best 
 affections of their hearts into crime. ' ' 
 
 Upon this, all I shall remark is, that it supports the testimony before 
 given that in the education, in the religious instruction, there was nothing 
 but the highest purity and most perfect virtue ; whether his crimes and 
 those of his companions were caused by the obligation of celibacy is a 
 different question. In page 143 he writes — 
 
 ' ' I have seen the most promising men of my University obtain coun- 
 try vicarages, with characters unimpeached, and hearts overflowing with 
 hopes of usefulness." 
 
 We have now from the reverend gentleman full testimony that the 
 education was excellent and the demeanor virtuous and the disposition 
 good, at the time of ordination. We have also his statement regarding 
 himself, that from fourteen to twenty-five he was most virtuous. Page 
 18, he says his religious doubts began, but still he was pious, and prayed, 
 and was devout, and they were dispelled. But to prove that unbelief 
 does not always arise from immorality and levity, he assures us that his 
 conscience did not then reproach him with any open breach of duty but 
 those committed several years before. He does not vouchsafe to say 
 how many years, but the gentleman was now in his twenty-sixth year, 
 and he has informed us that in his childhood ''no waywardness of dis- 
 position appeared in him to defeat or obstruct the labors of his parents 
 to educate him in virtue," and that afterwards, to wit, from fourteen 
 to this period, he and his companions were the most blameless and relig- 
 ious youths in the world. Still he had committed open hreaches of duty 
 several years before. Whichever side of this contradiction is true, mat- 
 ters very little ; the conclusion is inevitable ; the truth of both sides being 
 irreconcileable, one of them must be false; and our witness has conse- 
 quently under his ovm hand stated that which he must have known to 
 be untrue. I shall not dwell longer on exhibiting the witness's self- 
 contradiction, for of that abundance shall be furnished. I am now only 
 examining his credibility as a moral man, and from his own disclosures. 
 He exhibits himself as an imposter who would persuade the public that 
 up to his twenty-fifth year he was blameless, religious, and virtuous, 
 though he knew that several years before he had committed open breaches 
 of duty. 
 
 We shall however now give the same Mr. White's testimony, upon 
 the same subject, from another of his works. Speaking of his childhood, 
 he writes in his Letters from Spain, in the Magazine volume 2 : 
 
 Page 31. "The Church cannot be wrong, we know, but to say the 
 honest truth, all her pious contrivances, have, by a sad fatality, pro- 
 
230 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 duced in me just the reverse of what they aimed at. Though the clergy- 
 man who was to shrive this young sinner (himself at between seven and 
 eight years of age) had mild, gentle and affectionate manners, there is 
 something in auricular confession which has revolted my feelings from 
 the first day I knelt before a priest, in childish simplicity, to the last 
 time I have been forced to repeat that ceremony as a protection to my 
 life and liberty, with scorn and contempt in my heart." 
 
 In page 32, he informs us, that at making his first communion, he 
 was guilty of making it with the imaginary guilt of sacrilege for having 
 made a bad confession ; at fourteen, he made a good confession. He was 
 intended for the counting-house, to which he took a disgust at the age of 
 ten, and desiring to be a learned man, resolved to become a clergyman. 
 His mother was pleased at this, because amongst other reasons, he would 
 have no wife who would steal his affections from his parent. He does not 
 say that his mother used the expression ; but he thinks she must have had 
 this motive. In page 161, he tells us that at the age of sixteen, father 
 Vega, the superior of the Priests of the Oratory at Seville, discovered 
 that one of the associates of Mr. White had prohibited books, and 
 White being admonished to denounce this student of divinity ; either his 
 head or his heart, he knows not which, in spite of a frighted fancy, en- 
 dued him with resolution to "bafiSe the blind zeal of his confessor." 
 ''The development of his reason saved him from sinking into the dregs 
 of Aristoletic Philosophy." "The categories of St. Thomas were un- 
 savory food for his mind, and he never opened the dismal book." In 
 page 164, he finds in the second volume of Aristotelic Natural Philosophy 
 of the Dominicans that the reason why water rises in a pump is the 
 horror which nature has at being wounded and torn. (This is a dis- 
 covery which no other person has had the happiness of being able to make 
 during the last three hundred years.) He quarrels with his professor, 
 leaves the college and goes to the university. In the former part of his 
 letter I have shewn his account of his mode of studying theology. He 
 had been the associate of a number of concealed infidels, and had totally 
 neglected his studies, and baffled the blind zeal of his religious directors ; 
 left the old father Vega, and picked up a confessor more to his taste, 
 who was his literary and spiritual director. He now gives us an ac- 
 count in his Spanish letters of his disposition for subdeaconship. 
 
 Page 293. "I will not describe the misery that embittered my youth 
 and destroyed the peace of my maturer years, the struggles, perhaps 
 the crimes, certainly remorse, that were the consequence of the bar- 
 barous laws of my country." 
 
 All this arose from Catholicism he assures us, because she did not 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 231 
 
 bring love to her side, but forced him into an inseparable league with 
 immorality. We shall see the force. No one could compel him to enter 
 upon a clerical state ; and certainly neither his country nor the Church 
 compelled him. He has already been a criminal, why should he now 
 enter upon a state for which he knew himself to be unfit? Read what 
 he says — 
 
 "Often did I recoil at the approach of the moment when I was to 
 bind myself forever to the clerical profession, and as often my heart 
 failed me at the sight of a mother in tears. It was not worldly interests 
 — it was the eternal welfare of my soul which she believed to depend upon 
 my following the call of heaven, that made the best of mothers a snare 
 to her dearest child. ' ' 
 
 To this he adds the persuasions of the bad man whom he had chosen 
 as a guide : and therefore, the law is bad, because a man who knows he 
 ought not to enter upon the state, takes the advice of a man M'ho he knew 
 was misleading him, and acted against his conscience after other crimes, 
 because his mother cried. 
 
 My friends ; you will observe the innocent and studious young man 
 going with fine dispositions to ordination : and the idle student who in- 
 sults his teacher, neglects his regular studies, associates with infidels, is 
 criminal in his conduct, insincere in his confession, selects the worst 
 clergymen for his guides and binds himself to a state for which he has 
 made himself unfit. 
 
 Mr. Blanco White has given you the two pictures of himself, it is 
 for you to choose. I have only sketched the outline : when I shall have 
 laid on all my colors, I shall be happy to receive Bishop Kemp 's remarks. 
 
 Yours for the present, 
 
 B. c. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Sept. 18, 1826. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends — I shall continue my examination of Mr. White 's char- 
 acter, at some length; and that my object in so doing may be manifest, 
 I shall inform you what it is ; you will first bear with my stating to you 
 what that object is not. I do not examine his character to vilify him, 
 in exposing his faults, of which the best of us has enough, by way of re- 
 taliation for his deserting our Church, or for his having written a gross 
 attack upon our tenets. I should despise myself were I capable of such 
 misconduct: however deficient this priest might have been in ecclesias- 
 
232 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 tical knowledge, his ignorance could not make good any practice of our 
 Church, which in its own nature would be bad ; however bereft of faith 
 he might be, his infidelity could not make a foolish or vicious human in- 
 vention become a part of the revelation, or institution of God, and how 
 ever corupt or profligate his own conduct might have been, its criminal- 
 ity could not make the crimes of other profligates become virtues, nor 
 could they be excused because of his wickedness. My object then, is 
 not, by exhibiting the true character of Mr. White, to justify in our 
 Church, practices which deserve condemnation ; nor to excuse criminals 
 of our communion, because he who denounces them has deserted our 
 Church, and was himself a criminal ; no, my object is to shew that the 
 bare assertion of Mr. White is no evidence ; and I believe that I shall ef- 
 fect this by proving that from his character as given by himself, he is to- 
 tally unworthy of credit. This is my object in the very painful task which 
 I am performing. I consider this to be very necessary, because the chief 
 value attached to his publication arises from his being a credible witness 
 of facts which he alleges to have been under his own observation. 
 
 I believe that I have fully shewn that neither from his rank, nor from 
 his ecclesiastical information, does this priest deserve any of that extra- 
 ordinary attention which Bishop Kemp and his Episcopalian, Presby- 
 terian and Methodist associates so emphatically claim on his behalf. 
 Mr. White's rank w-as that of a mere possessor of a benefice without the 
 care of souls, having indeed a rank w^hich pre-supposed some attainment 
 of knowledge, a certificate of which attainment he could not obtain in 
 the university where he w^as educated; but to effect his purpose he at- 
 tained it at one of those places which by virtue of an old charter can 
 grant to any one, and does grant to the unworthy what was intended to 
 be given only to the learned. We see that he scarcely studied his treat- 
 ises whilst he was attending the dull lectures on divinity ; but that he read 
 light works of taste, and subsequently devoured the anti-christian pro- 
 ductions of the French school of infidelity. He in one book tells us of 
 his innocence and his religion, whilst in another he avows his criminality ; 
 and even in this testimony of his innocence, the recollection of his mis- 
 deeds involuntarily escapes from him. He in one place appears to be 
 filled with the spirit of virtue at the time of his ordination ; and yet he 
 testifies that it was against his will, and because his mother was bathed 
 in tears, [that] he became an ecclesiastic. He bound himself to celibacy, 
 because his mother cried; when he hated to bind himself, because if he 
 did so he could not lawfully cherish love. Do not, my friends, do not 
 turn away in disgust. It is unpleasant ; but you must bear more if you 
 will have correct information. I have as yet made no incision ; I am only 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 233 
 
 marking the surface. It is necessary for you to view the subject, and to 
 observe the dissection. 
 
 Mr. White having been ordained subdeacon, informs us, in his evi- 
 dence against Catholicism, page 17, that upon his receiving his benefice 
 about a year after his ordination to the priesthood, he felt it to be his 
 duty "to devote his whole leisure to the study of religion." He adds, 
 page 18, "I need not say that I was fully conversant with the system 
 of Catholic divinity; for I owed my preferment to a public display of 
 theological knowledge ; yet I wished to become acquainted with all kinds 
 of works which might increase and perfect that knowledge. ' ' 
 
 I have shown you what his studies were. Now allow me to say that 
 the writer of these letters has made theology his principal study during 
 twenty years ; that he has had patience to study for, and to attend to the 
 dull lectures of divinity professors ; that his love for that study so far 
 from being diminished, grows stronger every day, and that he still feels 
 his deficiency to be so great, that although he knows much ; he could not 
 presume to say that now he is fully conversant with the system of Cath- 
 olic divinity. It may be weakness on his part ; but he never can hear any 
 young man, let his attention to study have been ever so great, make srfch 
 an assertion as Mr. White has here made, without at once looking upon 
 him to be very superficially instructed, and impertinently vain: but in 
 this man's case, how could he have been fully conversant with a system 
 which he never studied? which he despised? Let us now from his other 
 letters (Doblado's) take his own account of the interval between his re- 
 ceiving subdeaconship and his being ordained priest. 
 
 In my last letter I stated from his own words the very improper 
 dispositions with which he approached to subdeaconship : allow me to 
 exhibit to you his mode of preparing for priesthood. 
 
 Pages 293 and 294— 
 
 "Often did I recoil at the approach of the moment when I was to 
 bind myself for ever to the clerical profession, and as often my heart 
 failed me at the sight of a mother in tears. It was not worldly interests — 
 it was the eternal welfare of my soul which she believed to depend upon 
 my following the call of heaven that made the best of mothers a snare to 
 her dearest child. The persuasions of my confessor, and above all, the 
 happiness which I experienced in restoring cheerfulness to my family 
 deluded me into the hope of preserving the same feeling through life. A 
 very short time, however, was sufficient to open my eyes. The inexorable 
 law that bound me was the bitterest foe to my virtue. Yet devotion had 
 not lost her power over my fancy, and I broke loose more than once from 
 
234 • CONTROVERSY ' Vol. 
 
 her thraldom, and was as often reclaimed, before the awful period which 
 was to raise me to the priesthood." 
 
 In page 293, he tells us that his confessor "was a sound Catholic 
 and a devout man," though in the preceding page he exhibits him to us, 
 holding principles completely subversive of faith and devotion, and as 
 having induced himself to read a work, which as the mind is prepared 
 for its reading, is one of the best or one of the worst books which a 
 theologian could study. But Mr. White was by no means sufficientl}' 
 well informed to read it with advantage, and the consequences are plainlj"- 
 exhibited by him in page 293, "Vague fears and doubts haunted my con- 
 science for many days," and again, "His abilities and affection to me 
 had obtained a most perfect command over my mind, and it was not long 
 before I could match him in mental boldness, on points unconnected 
 with articles of faith." Thus, before he received subdeaconship the 
 groundwork of infidelity was laid; and he had neglected a powerful 
 remedy, his attention to dull divinity. This "sound Catholic and de- 
 vout man," in pages 290, 291, 293, and 294 is, evidently, a covert infideJ, 
 who gradually sapped the faith of a club of unfortunate young men, of 
 whom White was one; this is the confessor who permitted this young 
 man to enter into a state for which by his contrivance he was thoroughly 
 disqualified. I cannot avoid making one extract, to show their systematic 
 progress. It may be useful, if for no other purpose than to show, if 
 this letter should fall into the hands of young men who study religion, 
 the great cause of infidelity; viz. the substitution of speculative theory, 
 for evident fact. 
 
 "It w^as the favorite amusement of myself and those constant as- 
 sociates of my youth that formed the knot of friends, of whom the often 
 mentioned ynajor collegian was the center and guide, to examine all our 
 feelings, in order to resolve them into some general law, and trace them 
 to their simple elements. This habit of analysis and generalization ex- 
 tended itself to the customs and habits of the country, and the daily in- 
 cidents of life, till in the course of time it produced in me the deceitful, 
 though not uncommon notion, that all knowledge is the result of de- 
 veloped principles, and gave me a distaste for every book that was not 
 cast into a regular theory. ' ' 
 
 "While I w^as thus amused and deceived by the activity of my 
 mind, without endeavoring to give it the weight and steadiness which de- 
 pends upon the knowledge of facts, Catholicism with its ten thousand 
 rules and practices, was mechanically keeping up the ill-contrived struc- 
 ture of devotion, which it had raised more in my fancy than my heart. 
 It had now to contend, however, with an enemy whom nothing but fixed 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 235 
 
 hope can keep within bonds — but religion had left me no hope. Instead 
 of engaging love on her side, she had forced him into an inseparable 
 league with immorality." 
 
 Now, with the materials before us, I shall give what I conceive the 
 author of both sets of letters to have been, at the period of his ordina- 
 tion. I believe him to have been originally a well disposed youth, who, 
 if he had fallen into proper hands might have been an intelligent, well- 
 informed, and pious clergyman, though more brilliant than learned; or 
 a useful member of society in some other station. But at an early period 
 he indulged his vanity and was insincere in his declarations. Of this 
 insincerity he repented, and his vanity would have been cured by God's 
 grace and his own experience. Unfortunately however for him, he en- 
 tered too early upon his more severe studies, than which perhaps a greater 
 literary misfortune cannot occur; whilst his fancy might have been cul- 
 tivated it was restrained : he became disgusted with the dry and abstruse 
 treatises which were prematurely made his task. A covert infidel of 
 ability, and taste, and ingenuity, who had disguised himself in a cassock, 
 won his affections, indulged his taste, cultivated his fancy, misled his 
 judgment, made him deceive and disobey his spiritual director, weaned 
 him from his classes, seduced him to scepticism, and usurped the place of 
 his confessor. He now was bereft of the religion of the heart, and ad- 
 hered to external observances which became tiresome and disgusting, 
 save when they amused the fancy. The young man himself did not sus- 
 pect that his faith was undermined. At the age when he was most sus- 
 ceptible of love, he desires to abandon a state for which he is now totally 
 disqualified; his treacherous guide urges him to undertake obligations 
 from which he should have recoiled as he actually did, and the tears of 
 a fond mother ignorant of the state of his soul, and his own desire of 
 gratifying his family, come to aid those importunities. In contradiction 
 to every principle of religion and prudence, he assumes the obligations 
 of a state to which he was averse and for which he was disqualified. I 
 believe Mr. White has no reason to complain of this view. If he has 
 acted improperly in selecting and freely entering upon such a state of 
 life, he has to blame his own indiscretion, not the laws of that state 
 which he freely, though improperly and perhaps criminally undertoolc 
 to observe. 
 
 Having freely entered upon the state, he ought to have observed its 
 laws ; and if he found any difficulty, that God, who always grants his aid 
 to those who avoid temptation and have recourse, with proper disposi- 
 tions, to prayer and to the sacraments, would have preserved him. But 
 this gentleman is one of those beings whose ardent minds too often mis- 
 
236 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 lead them; they believe momentary enthusiasm to to be the evidence of 
 unshaken resolution; and passing excitement to be the lasting fervor of 
 steady zeal ; they rely upon their strength ; they neglect precaution ; and 
 they quickly run from one extreme to another. Mr. White, before he 
 became a subdeacon, was a criminal deceived by the activity of his own 
 mind, and having occasional remorse, page 293. He made an effort to 
 prepare for orders, and indulged a hope of preserving some feeling of 
 religion through life. But how could he ? His faith was undermined— 
 his heart lost all religious sentiment — devotion had some power over his 
 fancy, page 294. But this is not religion ; this forms no foundation for 
 virtue ; this is merely a delusion. He consequently finds the law of his 
 state " a f oe to his virtue, ' ' he breaks loose more than once, and as often 
 is reclaimed before his elevation to the priesthood, page 294. This needs 
 no explanation ; but if it did, the next page furnishes it in abundance. 
 
 After describing, in page 294, another of those transitory illusions of 
 his fancy ; in page 295, describing his sentiments on the day of his ordi- 
 nation to the priesthood, and the celebration of his first mass, he has the 
 following passage: 
 
 ' ' I had still a heart it is true — a heart ready to burst at the sight of 
 my parents on their knees, while impressing the first kiss upon my newly 
 consecrated hands ; but it was dead to the charms of beauty. Among the 
 friendly crowds that surrounded me for the same purpose were those 
 lips, which, but a few months before, I would have died to press ; yet I 
 could but just mark their superior softness." 
 
 I believe we need no more proof to convince us, that a more im- 
 proper candidate for orders was seldom, if ever raised to the priesthood. 
 Just reflect, my friends ; you who know what we expect from our clergy, 
 reflect upon the prospects of a man who makes love and infidelity his 
 preparations for the priesthod; and whose mind, on the solemn day of 
 his ordination, could indulge such thoughts as those here alluded to. 
 Can you wonder that this man should become an apostate ? Did Bishop 
 Kemp read the Letters of Dohlado, and compare the two accounts which 
 his hero gives of himself, before he insults the Catholic Church by ad- 
 ducing this profligate man as a good specimen of her clergy ? Is this the 
 witness so eminently qualified to inform the world of the character of our 
 Church. 
 
 Having been ordained priest, he received no benefice until nearly a 
 year had elapsed. Evidence page 17. In page 18, he informs us that he 
 now conceived himself bound to devote the whole of his leisure time to 
 the study of religion. In his other letters, page 295, he tells us that, im- 
 mediately after his ordination, 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO AV H I T E 237 
 
 ' ' To exercise the privileges of my office for the benefit of my fellow- 
 creatures, was now my exclusive aim and purpose. I daily celebrated 
 mass, with due preparation, preached often, and rejected none that ap- 
 plied to me for confession. The best ascetic writers of the Church of 
 Rome were constantly in my hands. I made a study of the fathers ; but, 
 though I had the Scriptures among my books, it was, according to cus- 
 tom, more for reference than perusal. These feelings, this state of men- 
 tal abstraction, is by no means uncommon, for a time, among young 
 priests whose hearts have not been withered by a course of premature 
 profligacy. ' ' 
 
 To me it is matter of perfect indifference which of those two in- 
 compatible assertions is the truth, or whether either is true. My own 
 opinion is, that neither accords with the fact ; but I will suppose him to 
 have stated the truth in Dohlado's Letters, as it will be giving him that 
 position most favorable to himself. The question will then be, how long 
 this course of study continued. He tells us, page 295, ' ' I shall conclude 
 my narrative, by faithfully relating the origin and progress of the total 
 change which took place in my mind, within little more than a year after 
 I had received priest's orders." This accords pretty well with the 
 statement in page 18 of The Evidence, as to time. "My religious belief 
 had hitherto been undisturbed; but light clouds of doubt began now 
 to pass over my mind, which the warmth of devotion soon dissipated. 
 Yet they would gather again and again, with an increased darkness 
 which prayer would scarcely dispel." It is not, however, so easy to 
 reconcile light clouds of doubt, soon dissipated, to a total change of 
 mind; nor does this last agree with recurring darkness which prayer 
 could scarcely dispel ; nor can I reconcile this assertion, that his religious 
 belief had been hitherto undisturbed with his statement, Letters, page 
 293, that even three or four years before, "vague fears and doubts 
 haunted his conscience for many days. ' ' I care not which of those con- 
 tradictions is the truth. My object is only to learn Mr. White's moral 
 character, as a credible witness, from himself. He has now been ex- 
 hibited up to the period when his settled infidelity is about to com- 
 mence ; and by comparing his account of himself in his Evidence against 
 our Church, and that given by him in his Letters of Dohlado, we per- 
 ceive that nothing can be more natural than to calculate upon his infi- 
 delity,'unless it should be prevented by a miracle of grace. And nothing 
 is more palpable, than that much of what he wrote must to his own 
 knowledge be totally untrue. 
 
 He states in both productions, that his unbelief was a consequence 
 of the principles of our Church. This is not the time to examine that 
 
238 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 assertion ; we shall have it fully under our examination more than once 
 hereafter. In pages 18 and 19 of his Evidence is the following passage: 
 
 "That immorality and levity are always the source of unbelief, the 
 experience of my own case, and my intimate acquaintance with many 
 others, enables me most positively to deny. As to myself, I declare most 
 solemnly, that my rejection of Christianity took place at a period, when 
 my conscience could not reproach me with any open breach of duty, but 
 those committed several years before: that during the transition from 
 religious belief to incredulity, the horror of sins against the faith, deeply 
 implanted by education in my soul, haunted me night and day ; and that 
 I exerted all the powers of my mind to counteract the involuntary doubts, 
 which were daily acquiring an irresistible strength. In this distress, I 
 brought to remembrance all the arguments for the truth of the Christian 
 religion, which I had studied in the French apologists. I read other 
 works of the same kind; and having to preach, in the execution of my 
 office, to the royal brigade of carbineers, who came to worship the body 
 of St. Ferdinand, preserved in the king's chapel I chose the subject of 
 infidelity, on which I delivered an elaborate discourse. But the fatal 
 crisis was at hand. At the end of a year, from the preaching of this 
 sermon, the confession is painful, indeed, yet due to religion itself — I 
 was bordering on atheism." 
 
 I w^ould merely ask Bishop Kemp, in this place, what he thinks of 
 Mr. White's credibility in liis assertion of purity of conscience? or, if 
 his conscience did not reproach him, what sort of conscience must he 
 have had? Again, I shall object to his evidence being received in re- 
 spect to the feelings of others, whilst I am occupied in showing that he 
 is not worthy of credit in testifying his own. In his Letters, page 297, 
 he writes: 
 
 "The involuntary train, however, both of feeling and of thought, 
 which w^as to make me break out in complete rebellion, had long been 
 sapping the foundation of my faith, without my being aware that the 
 whole structure nodded to its ruin." 
 
 In the same page, he gives us as full evidence, that not only was his 
 faith during a long time in danger, but that it was actually destroyed: 
 
 "My heart sinks within me at the view of the interminable list of 
 offenses, every one of which may finally plunge me into the everlasting 
 flames. Everlasting! and why so? Can there be revenge or cruelty in 
 the Almighty ? Such were the harassing thoughts with which I wrestled 
 day and night. Prostrate upon my knees, I daily prayed for deliverance ; 
 but my prayers were not heard. I tried to strengthen my faith, by read- 
 ing Bergier, and some of the French apologists for Christianity. But 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 239 
 
 what can they avail a doubting Catholic ? His system of faith is indivis- 
 ible; whatever proves it all, proves absurdity. To argue with a doubt- 
 ing Catholic is to encourage and hasten his desertion. Chateaubriand 
 has perfectly understood the nature of his task; and, by engaging the 
 feelings and imagination in defence of his creed, has given it the fairest 
 chance against the dry and tasteless philosophy of his countrymen. His 
 book propped up my faith for a while. ' ' 
 
 With what feelings can the Right Reverend and reverend gentlemen 
 exhibit as peculiarly worthy of belief, a man who so frequently and 
 palpably contradicts himself? 
 
 Here is then the only proper explanation of his state of belief from 
 under his own hand. What is the doubt which tortures him? Purga- 
 tory? No — Hell. And the Roman Catholic Church is not so complais- 
 ant as to be satisfied with Purgatory alone. Will Bishop Kemp allow 
 Mr. White to strike out such doctrines as do not suit his taste? Will 
 the Presbyterian and Methodist patrons of this Book of Evidence give up 
 their doctrine of hell ? The Roman Catholic Church taught this amongst 
 other absurdities, and her faith was indivisible. Mr. White had long 
 been prepaTed for this change; his conscience still recollected the "lips of 
 superior softness, ' ' and all those desires to gratify which he ' ' could have 
 died;" that conscience recollected those "crimes," and that "remorse," 
 the "misery that embittered youth," and why should God be cruel? 
 Yet the Catholic Church could not give up one tittle. Is this witness to 
 be credited, when he asserts that his infidelity was not the result of a 
 troubled conscience ? After the exhibition which he has made of himself, 
 how could he assert as he does, page 20 of his Evidence, "When I ex- 
 amined the state of my mind previous to my rejecting the Christian faith, 
 I cannot recollect any thing in it but what is in perfect accordance with 
 that form of religion in which I was educated. ' ' In how many palpable 
 contradictions has he not been detected? And yet this man is to be a 
 witness against the Roman Catholic world ! Nay, he is to testify against 
 others also. Observe how kindly he treats his old Catholic friends, when 
 compared with some of his American patrons. Letters of Dohlado, 
 page 30: 
 
 "Enthusiasm — that bastard of religious liberty, that vigorous weed 
 of Protestantism — does not thrive under the jealousy of infallible author- 
 ity. Catholicism, it is true, has in a few instances produced a sort of 
 splendid madness; but its visions and trances partake largely of the 
 tameness of a mind previously exhausted by fears and agonies meekly 
 borne under the authority of a priest. The throes of the new birth har- 
 row up the mind of a Methodist, and give it all that phrenzied energy of 
 
240 CONTROVEKSY Vol. 
 
 despaii-, which often settles into the all-hoping, all-daring raptures of the 
 enthusiast. ' ' 
 
 "What say his Methodist patrons to this ? I shall now close this letter 
 with a statement of our progress. This redoubtable witness in his ac- 
 count of himself in his Evidence against Catholics exhibits for himself to 
 us, the picture of a well-disposed, pure, ingenuous, religious youth, led 
 through the path of virtue and learning to the altar, but becoming an 
 infidel because of the absurdities of Catholicism. In Dohlado's Letters 
 he exhibits himself the victim of infidelity, and a gross criminal, totally 
 disqualified in a moral, religious, and literary point of view, for the state 
 of life which he embraces; the profligate companion of profligate infidels, 
 yet not totally bereft of all learning to faith, until about a year after his 
 ordination. Already his character as a witness against the Catholic 
 Church is lower than despicable ; but as yet we do not see him as low as 
 he must appear. Yours, b. c. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 To the Roman CatJioUcs of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends: — I have disposed for the present of ]\Ir. White's claims 
 to ecclesiastical rank, ecclesiastical information, youthful piety, ordinary 
 purity, and religious feeling. That is, in other words, I have shown you, 
 from his own writings, that he was by no means a man of theological 
 knowledge or of respectable rank ; I have shown you that he exhibits him- 
 self to us an insincere, youthful profligate, who entered into orders with 
 every improper disposition, and who lost his faith because of his having 
 taken the most effectual means for its destruction ; I have also shown 
 you that his mind rejected, not the special doctrines of the Catholic 
 Church, but the doctrine of the existence of hell, which I suppose is held 
 by Bishop Kemp and the Reverend Mr. Post, to be good Protestant and 
 Presbyterian doctrine. Of course one would now suppose this gentle- 
 man would leave the ministry, and not pocket money for doing that 
 which he must condemn as imposture. Such would have been the advice 
 of St. Paul, and such was his practice — even this principle regulated the 
 practice of the Martyrs ; such is the principle which the Roman Catholic 
 Church enforces ; but it would indeed be a very extraordinary presump- 
 tion on our part to expect, that Mr. White, now discovering Catholicism 
 to be imposture, should act upon Catholic principles. We must not 
 look for it. No, Mr. White will aid the imposture and take that money 
 to which he has no title. In a Catholic, this would be a crime, but in Mr. 
 White, it would probably be reckoned a virtue. A Catholic who would 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 241 
 
 confess that he acted thus, would be obliged, before he could obtain abso- 
 lution, to refund all this ill-gotten pelf to the Church which he had 
 plundered: but as Mr. White thinks confession to be folly, if he went 
 to the tribunal, as he insinuates he did, he either concealed his crimes; 
 or again disobeyed his confessor ; or to deceive his superiors, he went to 
 some infidel with whom he was leagued, to add still more to his hy- 
 pocrisy. In page 22, he writes, 
 
 "To describe the state of my feelings when believing religion a 
 fable, I still found myself compelled daily to act as a minister and pro- 
 moter of imposture, is beyond my powers. An ardent wish seized me to 
 fly from a country where the law left me no choice between death and 
 hypocrisy. But my flight would have brought my parents with sorrow 
 to the grave." 
 
 Upon reading this, one would at all events say, the man is a hypo- 
 crite of the very worst description by his own avowal. But his love for 
 his parents keeps him in this state, because of the cruelty of his govern- 
 ment; thus, at least, though we cannot justify his "ten years' continu- 
 ance of daily hypocrisy, ' ' we must palliate it. I will admit no such ex- 
 cuse for Mr. White, because nothing can palliate hypocrisy. The mar- 
 tyrs of Christ, that is, his witnesses, were not hypocrites ; they laid down 
 their lives for truth. Mr. White, our Protestant martyr, declares he has 
 no such disposition, and I believe him in this. 
 
 I cannot then rank him with the ancient martyrs. Mr. White's 
 grandfather made sacrifices for truth, and if this priest inherited the 
 virtues of his house, he would not be a hypocrite, and a hypocrite who 
 deliberately every day, during ten years, was the promoter of impos- 
 ture. 
 
 It is a fair principle of commentary upon the testimony of such a 
 man, to take all his acknowledgements of guilt to the full meaning of the 
 words which he deliberately uses. He has avowed himself to have been 
 during ten years in the daily practice of "promoting imposture," that 
 during this time he was a "hypocrite," page 22. What degree of credit 
 is due to a man who thus describes himself, it is for those who receive his 
 testimony to determine ; for my ow^n part, if I was upon a jury to decide 
 in any ordinary case w^hich might come before a court ; and one of the 
 witnesses made such an avowal respecting himself, I would, in consid- 
 ering the case, discharge his testimony from my view altogether. Would 
 any person give it full credit ? I shall only say of Mr. WTiite at present, 
 that his testimony in his own favor is of an extremely equivocal char- 
 acter, and not to be admitted without extraordinary scrutiny and strong 
 corroboration. 
 
242 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 He says that he continued to be guilty of hypocrisy and imposture, 
 because there was no other mode left to him by the barbarous laws of 
 his country to save his life, except one which would bring down his 
 parents to the grave with sorrow. In the first place this is nothing short 
 of a plain untruth. If he resigned his clerical office, as very many 
 persons of eminent piety have done, he need neither leave his parents, 
 nor expose himself to that death of which he stood so much in terror. 
 In such a case he would cease to promote what he calls imposture, and he 
 could continue to soothe his parents. But if the gentleman made this 
 resignation, where would he have the means of support? An honest 
 man, a man who has any feeling of conscience, never asks such a ques- 
 tion. If our witness then kept his office by which he was obliged "daily 
 to promote imposture," in order to have the means of support, the result 
 is inevitably: that our informant continued during ten years to be a 
 hypocrite, and an impostor, for his support. Good God ! what a witness 
 has the conclave of discordant divines produced against Catholicism ! ! ! 
 Painful as is the alternate between want and systematic imposture, the 
 wretch who is brought to receive sentence for his crime under a verdict 
 of guilt in our courts, may indeed plead the temptations of want to miti- 
 gate the severity of the sentence. Humanity will shed a tear, and mercy 
 will sue with justice to alleviate the infliction which the laws of God and 
 man require. But Mr. White cannot have even this excuse, unless he 
 was guilty of deliberate fraud at the time of his ordination. His first 
 benefice was that which he calls a fellowship in the college of St. Mary a 
 Jesu, at Seville: because though as unlike as was the frog to the ox, it 
 would have the bloated appearance of the dignity of a fellowship of one 
 of the Oxford Colleges, and our witness would have the semblance of 
 erudition. Previously to this he had been ordained subdeacon, page 17. 
 In Spain he could not have received this order as a secular, unless he had 
 exhibited to the Bishop or to his official, his good title to a benefice, or to 
 a fixed patrimonial or personal property fully sufficient to support him 
 as a clergyman ; and on the day of his ordination he must have been 
 solemnly called to come forward for ordination upon the ground of that 
 special title. Mr. White was a secular, without a benefice, and conse- 
 quently must have been ordained upon the title of his patrimonial 
 property fixed upon him, and to which he had a good legal and equitable 
 claim, or having a good personal property: he then must have been 
 guilty of gross fraud upon the very day of his ordination, or he could 
 not have been driven by want to the necessitj^ of being a hypocrite and 
 an impostor, who repeated those crimes daily during ten years. I leave 
 to the Right Reverend Doctor Kemp, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 243 
 
 Church of Maryland, and to his Reverend associates to select which side 
 they please of the alternative ; but one or the other they must inevitably 
 take. I believe the gentlemen will hardly contest with me now the truth 
 of my assertion that their witness, who must have known his own mo- 
 tives, was guilty of a falsehood, when he asserted, that his filial affection 
 and the cruel laws of his country, left him no alternative; that it be- 
 came necessary for him to be an impostor and a hypocrite. 
 
 To catch such a man as this in trifling fibs, is only to pluck a leaf 
 from a forest : still there are some falsehoods which for their very appear- 
 ance will be sufficient to arrest our observation. Mr. White is continually 
 forcing upon our attention, his fine feelings of family affection. It may 
 not be amiss to examine a few specimens. I have drawn you to view his 
 hypocrisy by his insinuating that he was an impostor out of respect to 
 his parents ; the same motive he says, made him take orders when he 
 knew that he ought not. In a word, nothing was wrong in his whole 
 conduct which did not flow from affection for some one of his family. 
 
 In page 15, of his Evidence, he tells us that he "hallowed the pages 
 of another work {Letters from Spain, by Don Leucadio Doblado), with 
 the character of his parents, ' ' — ' ' that such were the purity, the benevo- 
 lence and the angelic piety of his father's life, that at his death, multi- 
 tudes of people thronged the house to indulge the last view of the dead 
 body." In page 29, of Doblado' s Letters he tells us of his father: "un- 
 der these unpromising circumstances (pecuniary losses) he married his 
 mother, who if she could add but little to her husband's fortune, yet 
 brought him a treasure of love and virtue, which he found constantly in- 
 creasing, till death removed him on the first approaches of old age. ' ' la 
 page 151, of his Evidence, he tells us of a younger sister, "at the age 
 of twenty she left an infirm mother to the care of servants and strangers, 
 and shut herself up in a convent. ' ' Of course if the old gentleman was 
 not living, and her good son Joseph, what a profanation of the name of 
 two venerable patriarchs ! would not look after her, she was left only to 
 servants and strangers. Mr. White gives us the account of his hearing 
 his sister's confession after she became a nun, and she was in the con- 
 vent when he left Spain. In page 26, this affectionate son is nearly 
 heart-broken at the separation from that father when he was leaving 
 Spain, and the more so, as the old gentleman was now bending I sup- 
 pose, with age and grief. ' ' I was too well aware of the firmness of my 
 resolutions, not to endure the most agonizing pain when I irrevocably 
 crossed the threshold of my father's house, and when his bending figure 
 disappeared from my eyes, at the first winding of the Guadalquiver, 
 down which I sailed. Heaven knows that time has not had power to 
 
244 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 heal the wounds which this separation has inflicted on my heart." This 
 is that same Mr. White who knew the firmness of his resolutions, but yet 
 who took orders against his resolution because this mother was in tears : 
 the same Mr. White who practiced systematic fraud, robbery, and hy- 
 pocrisy daily during ten years, lest his "flight would have brought his 
 parents with sorrow to the grave." But when the passages are placed 
 in juxta-position who can tell how the dead father came to life, or the 
 living father was dead, and his wife left to the care of only servants 
 and strangers? But this is not my object. I suppose all this reconcil- 
 able. I only wish to know whether Mr. White had this filial affection, 
 and whether it was necessary to be a hypocrite in order to save his parenrs 
 from sinking with grief into the grave. 
 
 This affectionate son has shamefully treated his virtuous parent.s 
 in his Doblado's Letters. In page 29, he indeed informs us, 
 
 "My mother was of honorable parentage. She was brought up in 
 that absence of mental cultivation which prevails to this day, among the 
 Spanish ladies. But her natural talents were of a superior cast. She 
 was lively, pretty, and sang sweetly. Under the influence of a happier 
 country, her pleasing vivacity, the quickness of apprehension, and the ex- 
 quisite degree of sensibility which animated her words and actions, would 
 have qualified her to shine in the most elegant and refined circles. ' ' 
 
 Of his father, he says, page 29, Doblado's Letters, 
 
 "Benevolence prompted all my father's actions; endued him, at 
 times, with something like supernatural vigor; and gave him, for the 
 good of his fellow-creatures, the courage and decision he wanted in 
 whatever concerned himself. With hardly any thing to spare, I do not 
 recollect a time when our house was not a source of relief and consola- 
 tion to some families of such as, by a characteristic and feeling appel- 
 lation, are called among us the blushing poor. In all .seasons, for thirty 
 years of his life, my father allowed himself no other relaxations, after the 
 fatiguing business of his counting house, than a visit to the general hos- 
 pital of the town — a horrible scene of misery, where four or five hundred 
 beggars are at a time allowed to lay themselves down and die, when 
 worn out by want and disease. Stripping himself of his coat, and having 
 put on a coarse dress for the sake of cleanliness, in which he was scru- 
 pulous to a fault, he w^as employed, till late at night, in making the 
 beds of the poor, taking the helpless in his arms, and stooping to such 
 services as even the menials in attendance were often loath to perform. 
 All this he did of his own free will, without the least connection, public 
 or private, with the establishment. Twice he was at death's door from 
 the contagious influence of the atmosphere in which he exerted his 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO W PI I T E 245 
 
 charity. But no danger would appal him, when engaged in administer- 
 ing relief to the needy. Foreigners, cast by misfortune into that gulf 
 of wretchedness, were the peculiar objects of his kindness." 
 In page 30, after describing his father, he adds: 
 
 ' ' The principle of benevolence was not less powerful in my mother ; 
 but her extreme sensibility made her infinitely more susceptible of pain 
 than pleasure — of fear than hope — and for such characters, a technical 
 religion is a source of distracting terrors. Enthusiasm — that bastard of 
 religious liberty, that vigorous weed of Protestantism — does not thrive 
 under the jealous eye of infallible authority. Catholicism, it is true, 
 has in a few instances, produced a sort of splendid madness; but its 
 visions and trances partake largely of the tameness of a mind previously 
 exhausted by fears and agonies, meekly borne under the authority of the 
 priest. The throes of the new birth harrow up the mind of the Methodist, 
 and give that phrenzied energy of despair, which often settles into the 
 all-hoping, all-daring raptures of the enthusiast. The Catholic saint 
 suffers in all the passiveness of blind submission, till nature sinks ex- 
 hausted, and reason gives way to a gentle visionary madness. The na- 
 tural powers of my mother's intellect were strong enough to withstand, 
 unimpaired, the enormous and constant pressure of religious fears, in 
 their most hideous shape. But, did I not consider reason the only gift 
 of heaven, which fully compensates the evils of this present existence, I 
 might have wished for its utter extinction, in the first and dearest ob- 
 ject of my natural affection. Had she become a visionary, she had ceased 
 to be unhappy. But she possessed to the last an intellectual energy equal 
 to any exertion, except one, which was not compatible with the influence 
 of her country — that of boldly looking into the dark recess where lurked 
 the phantoms that harassed and distressed her mind. ' ' 
 
 He then adds of both: 
 
 "It would be difficult, indeed, to choose two fairer subjects for ob- 
 serving the effects of the religion of Spain. The results, in both, were 
 lamentable, though certainly not the most mischievous it is apt to pro- 
 duce. In one, we see mental soberness and good sense degraded into 
 timidity and indecision — unbounded goodness of heart, confined to the 
 lowest range of benevolence. In the other, we mark talents of a superior 
 kind, turned into the ingenious tormentors of a heart, whose main source 
 of wretchedness was an exquisite sensibility to the beauty of virtue, and 
 an insatiable ardor in treading the devious and thorny path it was made 
 to take for the 'way which leadeth unto life.' A bolder reason, in the 
 first, it will be said, and a reason less flattered by sensibility in the 
 
246 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 second, would have made those virtuous minds more cautious of yield- 
 ing themselves up to the full influence of ascetic devotion. ' ' 
 
 Is this, then the affection of a son for his fond parents? Has that 
 man a heart, who seeks to degrade religion by mocking the virtues of his 
 amiable family? Can that man have a sense of religion, who violates 
 the command of heaven, and vents his malice against the Church of his 
 youth, by dishonoring the authors of his being, and publishing what 
 even a less ferocious enemy to them who gave him birth, would call the 
 interesting weakness of their virtue, but what this parricide of family 
 honor publishes as the criminality of their religion? Yet we shall find 
 this man, in several places, put on the semblance of affection to cry out 
 against a tribunal which, he says, obliges the parents to denounce their 
 criminal children, though his hand has struck through both his parents, 
 to endeavor to plunge his dagger into their Church! Yet, see what a 
 picture he has drawn of that father; occupied in the work of devoted 
 charity, whilst probably his wretched son was sneering, w^th his infidel 
 companions, at the religion w^hich gave such heroism; or ruining that 
 innocence which, tainted and degraded by criminals like him, was to 
 find its last earthly refuge in that hospital, and the last consolations 
 from that clergy w^hose name he has disgraced, and whose fame he has 
 libelled. Can this man have family affection? Not content with dis- 
 honoring his parents, he betrays his sister ; or he has added to the cata- 
 logue of his falsehoods, and mocked the best feelings of the human 
 heart. I believe the latter to be the fact. No brother could have writ- 
 ten as he does in page 151 of his Evidence. Had he a sister in the state 
 that he describes, he could not have heard her confession, as I shall after- 
 wards show, bj^ the strongest evidence ; and if he could, neither as a 
 priest, as a brother, or a man, could he have published to the world the 
 disease of her conscience, of which he had been informed under the 
 solemn pledge of religion, of affection, of honor, and of confidence in the 
 most inviolable secrecy. No person can for a moment, reflect upon the 
 statement without concluding, that it is the foul fabrication of a man 
 bereft of all feeling of affection ; or if by chance this is not the fact, the 
 alternative is worse. He has betrayed the confidence of his sister, and 
 published the weakness of her conscience to the world. Like a practical 
 dealer in fable, he has acquired the knack of killing off his sisters, his 
 parents and his friends, as they cease to excite interest ; he has, however, 
 bungled the mode of getting rid of his father. But no, I cannot — nature 
 herself will not allow me, when such a man as this is before me — I will 
 not unbend from my indignation and disgust, to exhibit him to ridicule. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 247 
 
 Mr. White weeps for that sister ! As we have nothing but the succession 
 of tears, it will be as well to admit more. 
 
 In page 73 of the Evidence is the following passage: 
 
 " I too ' had a mother, ' and such a mother, as did I possess the talents 
 of your great poet ten-fold, they would have been honored in doing 
 homage to the powers of her mind and the goodness of her heart. No 
 woman could love her children more ardently, and none of those children 
 was loved more vehemently than myself. But the Roman Catholic creed 
 had poisoned in her the purest source of affection. I saw her during a 
 long period, unable to restrain her tears in my presence. I perceived 
 that she shunned my conversation, especially when my university friends 
 drew me into any topics above those of domestic talk. I loved her, and 
 this behavior cut me to the heart. In my distress, I applied to a 
 friend, to whom she used to communicate all her sorrows; and to my 
 utter horror, I learned that she suspected my anti-Catholic principles. 
 My mother was distracted by the fear, that she might be obliged to ac- 
 cuse me to the Inquisition, if I incautiously uttered some condemned 
 proposition in her presence. To avoid the barbarous necessity of being 
 the instrument of my ruin, she could find no other means but that of 
 shunning my presence. ' ' 
 
 The good old lady must have been a better theologian than was 
 her son, or than he is at present ; and must be qualified to fill one of the 
 chairs of dull divinity, if she could so easily detect a condemned proposi- 
 tion ; or else Mr. White must have been openly and glaringly anti-Cath- 
 olic in his expressions. Why need he remain then a deliberate impostor, 
 detained by filial affection, "until the approach of Bonaparte's troops to 
 Seville enabled him to quit Spain, without exciting suspicion as to the 
 real motive which tore him for ever from everything that he loved?" 
 More than suspicion had been excited. Affection and honesty would 
 have warned him to the same course. 
 
 If Mr. White 's mother shunned his presence, and saw him only with 
 tears, because she feared he would speak, and she would denounce him 
 to the Inquisition, would it not be a greater alleviation to her grief, that 
 he should be out of the reach of this tribunal? Was it then affection 
 which detained him to practice imposture ten years? Was it affection 
 that kept him in view of that mother, who shunned his presence, whom 
 he forced to tears? 
 
 I have done with dissecting his heart, to search for what, if it ever 
 contained, it must have been long void of — aft'ection for his family. My 
 soul has been oppressed during the operation. I have risen from it with 
 feelings which no one need envy. I have been intimately acquainted 
 
248 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 with the base and the profligate: they have unfolded their secrets to me; 
 the assassin has led me through his history of crime ; in the dead of the 
 night, and in the depth of his dungeon, the murderer of his own child 
 has turned away from viewing the innocent companion of her upon 
 whom he once doted, but afterwards slew, to pour the story of his woe 
 into my ear. I have recalled to memory what I knew of their affections. 
 I have compared it with what I believe Mr. White's to be. I must un- 
 hesitatingly aver, that if that man's family affection, and that of the 
 worst of those, were weighed against each other, I doubt whether that 
 worst had less than I believe him to possess. Though they were great 
 criminals, no one of them attempted to palliate his own crime by defam- 
 ing even the victim which he slew. In my estimation, this hypocrite is 
 below any of them ; and I can only say, that there is but one alternative 
 which can bestow upon him a claim to any semblance of affection, and 
 which I hope is the fact : that is, that a considerable portion of his nar- 
 rative is fiction. I think I shall easily prove much of it to be palpably 
 false. But yet the man had at least a father and a mother. He tells us 
 that he hallowed the pages of a book by the record of their virtues ; and 
 then tells us those virtues, became the fears of superstitious weakness, 
 and the publication of [this] weakness to the world, in order to enslave 
 his father's father's country, is the filial affection of the Reverend Joseph 
 Blanco White ! ! ! Come, Bishop Kemp, take this man to your bosom — 
 cherish him who stung his mother — embrace him whose fangs have not 
 spared his father— hold forth to your flock, as a model of affection, the 
 reptile who has bedaubed his sister. Doctor Wilmer recognizes in him 
 some congeniality of feeling, as regards the ancient Church; the Rev- 
 erend Mr. Hawley is too modest to march in front to the attack; but 
 covered by you both, he believes himself secure. Before I close my ex- 
 amination of this apostate priest, I shall convince even you, if you do not 
 already know it, that he is as completely at variance with the doctrines of 
 the Church of England as he is with mine. I have already shown, that 
 he likes Methodists as little. I assure you, your Presbyterian associates 
 shall have no victory. Why then did you bring him forward? My 
 friends, this Right Reverend Gentleman and his associates shall get Mr. 
 White's character more fully developed in my next. 
 
 Yours, B. c. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 249 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Oct. 2, 1826. 
 To the Roman CatJiolics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends — The occupations of men are of such a nature, as gen- 
 erally to require from each individual his principal, if not his exclusive 
 attention to some one study or employment ; and as the human mind is 
 extremely limited in its faculties, it must generally happen that they who 
 are deeply engaged in any one department, can be only imperfectly ac- 
 quainted with all others. The common sense of mankind and the ex- 
 perience of ages and of nations, has therefore established the general max- 
 im, that the best judge of any science or art, is a person who has made 
 that science, or that art his principal study. The great body of mankind 
 will observe any glaring defect, or monstrous irregularity in a public 
 building ; others will frequently feel, even where no palpable error is seen, 
 that something is amiss, in the appearance, though they cannot partic- 
 ularize the fault ; but a skilful architect not only perceives the want of 
 symmetry, but can specify the exact seat and the extent of the blunder ; 
 and few if any, save they who are conversant with the object of the struc- 
 ture and the details of the business for which it is to be employed, can say 
 whether its apartments are judiciously and conveniently laid out. Prob- 
 ably, upon this principle, we may excuse the commendators of Blanco 
 White, except for their uncalled for interference. 
 
 Bishop Kemp and his associates, are pleased to call our religion, "a 
 wonderful system. ' ' And so it is. It is a system deriving its origin f roin 
 the Deity, who first planted it in the human heart ; he enabled our great 
 parent in the first development of his understanding to discover the only 
 principle which this whole system comprises, man is bound to adore his 
 creator. Yes, my friends! this is the only principle of our Church; this 
 is the summary of our religion. This was discovered by Adam in the 
 day of his innocence ; and it was recollected by Adam in the midst of the 
 gloom which succeeded to his fall ; it was transmitted by him as the most 
 valuable legacy to his children. Patriarchal tradition preserved it to the 
 days of the deluge. It remained with Noe in the Ark; and it came 
 forth to cheer him in the midst of the desolation with which he was sur- 
 rounded upon the hills of Armenia; he beheld its calm and peaceful 
 beauty in the rainbow ; it preserved his faith at the bloody sacrifice, and 
 enkindled his hope when the holocaust was consumed upon the blazing 
 altar. It was misapplied and misdirected at Babel ; and the roaming out- 
 casts who were spread over the face of the earth, still in their migration 
 preserved the principle though they mistook the object of adoration. 
 
250 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 But the young Chaldean who came out from his father's house and from 
 his kindred, brought it with him in purity, to the land of strangers which 
 was to be given as an inheritance to his descendants; in the valley of 
 vision and upon the hill of sacrifiee, he conversed with the God of his 
 fathers, who gave to him ordinances calculated to preserve the principle 
 from the corruptions of human speculation. That God went down with 
 Joseph into Egypt, and after exhibiting his might by the hand of 
 Moses, he brought his people through the ya\\Tiing valley of the Red Sea. 
 In the midst of wonders he proclaimed his law, and gave its sanction at 
 Sinai. He established then a priesthood and a tribunal for the careful 
 preservation of that original principle which the varying speculations of 
 restless men had so disguised throughout the world, as to make the ob- 
 jects of their adoration every real vice and every imaginary virtue; as 
 well as every material being, from the glorious sun of Persia to the 
 putrid leek of Egypt. Again at the appointed time; the heavens were 
 rent ; the great teacher descended, an incarnate God wrought wonders in 
 Judea; the Sun of Justice succeeded to that orb which had only an- 
 nounced his glories by reflection : the twinkling prophets were lost in the 
 brilliancy of his light. The new tribunal is established, that tribunal 
 whose commission was extended to every nation, and all days to the end 
 of time. In wonders, the Apostles go forth to victory, and to death. In 
 wonders, the world is convinced that God has directed how the great 
 principle should be carried into practice. But the human mind is rest- 
 less, and speculation again misleads from the evidence of fact : man be- 
 gins to inquire how can God do those things, instead of inquiring whether 
 he has proof of God's declaration that he has done them. Separations 
 are made, nations fall away, new nations are converted, empires are 
 overturned, kingdoms are destroyed, death sweeps dynasties from their 
 thrones, their monuments vanish at the touch of time; oblivion blots 
 their names from the memories of men: ages have passed away, every- 
 thing else is new, save that system which in the midst of wonders the 
 Son of God has permanently established: all the old separatists have 
 dwindled to almost shadows; but others of a different kind have suc- 
 ceeded; every civilized nation has embraced the system, and in every 
 civilized nation has it been opposed and persecuted; and still in every 
 age its adherents form the vast majority of the civilized portion of the 
 human race. It began in wonders, it has been established by wonders, 
 it has been propagated by wonders, its wonders are seen now, even now, 
 amongst ourselves, even before the eyes of the originators of the libel 
 against which I write. The very perpetuation of the system is a wonder, 
 and will continue so to be, until time shall be no more. Well then have 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 251 
 
 our opponents described ours as a wonderful system. I feel happy that 
 in this at least we are agreed. 
 
 But in describing the parts of this wonderful system; he who is 
 but slightly acquainted with them is liable to err. When Mr. White 
 has entered upon this description, he has exhibited to us at once his 
 rashness, his malice and his disregard of truth. Those my friends are 
 very serious charges, and very strongly expressed; I can, however, by 
 the abundance of proof, justify my assertion, or I would not thus delib- 
 erately make it. In looking over his pages, no Protestant, not even 
 Bishop Kemp, nor Doctor Hawley, nor any other of the zealous gentle- 
 men who volunteered his own exposure, is capable of forming an opinion 
 as to Mr. White's credibility upon those topics. Those gentlemen have 
 never studied either the system of the theology or canon law of the Cath- 
 olic Church; they are as little qualified to give an opinion upon the 
 merits of the work as they are to explain the composition of the ring 
 of Saturn. I write this without disrespect, I write it, with deep regret 
 that a sense of duty compels me to expose them, for my own protection. 
 The general body of Roman Catholics may feel, in reading the work, 
 that it is a foul, slanderous misrepresentation ; but, except to persons 
 who have made the canons and usages of the Church their study, the 
 greater portion of its falsehood will not be specially evident. To en- 
 deavor by the exhibition of a few of the most gross misstatements of this 
 sort to exhibit Mr. White as altogether regardless of truth, will require 
 from me a minute reference to some laws, customs and decisions of the 
 Catholic Church, in full force in Spain, which may have the appearance 
 of pedantry, and will be altogether a different description of style from 
 that which the subject would appear to demand. I however have 
 formed my opinion, which is, that my case will be best sustained, and 
 Mr. White best exposed by this mode. I shall therefore follow it at 
 present. 
 
 Mr. White tells us in page 151, of his Evidence respecting a young 
 sister, 
 
 "At the age of twenty she left my infirm mother to the care of 
 servants and strangers, and shut herself up in a convent, where she 
 was not allowed to see even the nearest relations." 
 
 "Disease soon filled her conscience with fear and I had often to 
 endure the torture of witnessing her agonies at the confessional." 
 
 Of his eldest sister he tells us, page 150, 
 
 "I saw my eldest sister at the age of two and twenty, sink slowly 
 into the grave within the walls of a convent." 
 
 "I saw her on her death bed. I obtained that melancholy sight at 
 
252 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 the risk of bursting my heart, when in my capacity of priest, I heard 
 her last confession. ' ' 
 
 Page 144. "The picture of female convents requires a more deli- 
 cate pencil: yet I cannot find tints sufficiently dark and gloomy to pour- 
 tray the miseries which I have witnessed in their inmates. Crime indeed 
 makes its way into those recesses, in spite of the spiked walls, and prison 
 gates which protect the inhabitants. This I know with all the certainty 
 which the self accusation of the guilty, can give." 
 
 That those guilty who made this self -accusation, which gave him 
 the certainty, were the nuns, is plain from the succeeding passage — 
 
 "It is besides a notorious fact, that the nunneries of Estremadura 
 and Portugal, are frequently infected with vice of the grossest kind. 
 But I will not dwell on this revolting part of the picture. The greater 
 part of the nuns, whom I have known were beings of a much higher 
 description — females whose purity owed nothing to the strong gates and 
 high walls of the cloister, and so forth. ' ' 
 
 One more passage is all that I shall now quote to place this side 
 of the case upon its proper ground, pages 138, 139 and 140. 
 
 "Of monks and friars, I know comparatively very little, because 
 the vague suspicions, of which even the most pious Spanish parents 
 cannot divest themselves, prevented my frequenting the interior of 
 monasteries during my boyhood. My own judgment, and the general 
 disgust which the prevailing grossness and vulgarity of the regulars 
 create in those who daily see them, kept me subsequently away from 
 all intercourse with the cowled tribes : but of the secular clergy, and the 
 amiable life prisoners of the Church of Rome, few if any can possess 
 a more intimate knowledge than myself. . . 
 
 "The intimacy of friendship, the undisguised converse of sacra- 
 mental confession, opened to me the hearts of many, whose exterior 
 conduct might have deceived a common observer. . . Such are the 
 sources of the knowledge I possess: God, sorrow, and remorse are my 
 witnesses. ' ' 
 
 From those passages the obvious conclusion may be embodied in th-^ 
 following propositions, viz. 
 
 1. That Mr. White had no intercourse with the regulars, that is 
 with monks or friars. 
 
 2. That few if any persons knew more intimately than he did, the 
 true state of the nuns. 
 
 3. That he derived his knowledge from the undisguised converse 
 of sacramental confession, and from the intimacy of friendship. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 253 
 
 4. That common observers might be deceived by exterior conduct, 
 but from his peculiar opportunities he could not be so easily deceived. 
 
 5. That in spite of walls and spikes, and so forth, nuns are crim- 
 inals ; of which he has all the certainty which the self-accusation of the 
 guilty can give. 
 
 6. That he calls God to witness that what he discloses is derived 
 from those sources. 
 
 7. That the greater number of the nuns whom he knew were fe- 
 males of purity. 
 
 My friends. — You are disgusted! — I solemnly assure you that in a 
 life of many trials, I have never suffered more exquisite torture than 
 I do, at being obliged to write in the manner, and upon the topic which 
 
 this wretched man, and his yes, I will use the epithet, uninformed, 
 
 compurgators have forced upon me. It has been my lot, in the dis- 
 charge of duty, to bury myself amidst the worst offscourings of immo- 
 rality. I have had during years to be made familiar with loathsome 
 disease and moral turpitude. You can scarcely name a moral or a 
 physical plague, with which I have not come in contact. I have shrunk 
 from none of these : but I do avow it ; I shrink back from Blanco White 
 and Bishop Kemp, and their heartless associates ! ! ! But truth and jus- 
 tice require of me to proceed. Away then with feelings — I shall do it. 
 
 This miserable man next asserts : 
 
 8. That he heard the confession of his eldest sister on her death- 
 bed. 
 
 9. That his younger sister shut herself up in a convent where she 
 was not allowed to see her nearest relations. 
 
 10. That he often heard her confession. 
 
 11. That to him it was a torture to witness her agonies at the con- 
 fessional, because of the fears with which her conscience was filled. 
 
 Now of those eleven propositions, seven must of necessity be pal- 
 pable and deliberate falsehoods, two others are the most improbable 
 which I can conceive, and the other two, viz. those marked 1 and 7, 
 may be true. 
 
 It requires no depth of theological learning to perceive the truth 
 of the following principles. 1. The person who imagining, even under 
 delusion, that she is obliged by the law of God to reveal what nothing 
 but obedience to that law could induce her to reveal, makes to her 
 brother under that impression a declaration which she is persuaded 
 no torture could drag from him, when he is pledged by every tie which 
 heaven and earth hold solemn, to the most inviolable secresy ; has upon 
 him the highest possible claim to preserve that secrecy, and should he 
 
254 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 violate it, and thereby expose the weakness of his sister ! ! can there be 
 upon earth a more mean and contemptible and wicked wretch ? 2. Sup- 
 pose the whole system of the Catholic religion to be erroneous and delu- 
 sive : is there not a bond which nothing can loose, upon him who receives 
 from a deluded being, whom his office brought to disclose to him the 
 troubles of her soul, that he shall preserve her secrets, though he and 
 she were in error when she confided in him ? If he betrays them, ought 
 he ever be received into society? The betrayer of a sister's religious 
 confidence ! ! ! — Could White have had a sister ? Impossible ! ! ! — or he 
 knew not how a brother ought to feel ! — A brother in such a situation ! — 
 It is folly to imagine one syllable of truth in the whole narrative. Na- 
 ture contradicts the self -accusing hypocrite, the avowed impostor! Re- 
 ligion unites with nature in the disclaimer — a sister to confess to her 
 brother is next to unheard of in the Church of God. In the medical 
 profession, there is a creditable delicacy which is a counterpart to what 
 exists in our Church. The intimacy of family connexion often requires 
 from delicate minds that a stranger shall be the depositary of some sec- 
 rets, the witness of some weaknesses, the healer of some imperfections; 
 and the heartless being who could make himself master of his sister's 
 religious terrors, in the station of her confessor, and publish them to the 
 world contrary to every law of the Church, of nature, and of God, is 
 
 only to be equalled by him who No, there is not a miscreant on this 
 
 earth of so deep a stain of iniquity. I shall rescue the remnant of this 
 man 's character from his own malevolence by proving that he had it not 
 in his power to be as great a wretch as he pretends he was. 
 
 The law of the Church was in full vigor in Spain at the time to 
 which he alludes. 
 
 Mr. White tells us, page 189, of his Evidence, "at the age of five 
 and thirty, religion, and religion alone, tore him away from his coun- 
 try." 
 
 Now I assert, that in Spain he never could have been a confessor 
 to a convent of nuns, and therefore that he was not: and consequently, 
 he called God to witness a foul falsehood in page 140 of his Evidence. 
 
 In Dohlado's Letters, volume 3, Magazine, page 321, Mr. White de- 
 scribes convents, particularly those of Seville. No person who had a 
 particle of delicate feeling could have written some of the passages con- 
 tained in this letter. Take one of the least objectionable as a speci- 
 men: 
 
 "But I cannot discover the least shadow of reason or interest for 
 the obstinacy which preserves unaltered the barbarous laws relating to 
 the religious vows of females ; unless it be that vile animal jealousy which 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 255 
 
 persons deprived of the pleasures of love, are apt to mistake for the 
 zeal of chastity : such zeal as your Queen Elizabeth felt for the purity of 
 her maids." 
 
 He calls the convents "Bastilles of superstition where many a vic- 
 tim lingers through a long life of despair or insanity." He then de- 
 scribes the nunneries as of two kinds, those under the jurisdiction of the 
 Bishop, and those under the jurisdiction of the Friars : the first he says 
 are comfortable: the latter horrible; of the latter, there are some w^hich 
 are Reformed, in those, page 322, the nuns see and converse with their 
 parents once a month. ' ' The religious vows of the Capuchin nuns how- 
 ever, put a final end to all communication between parents and children." 
 As he informs us that his younger sister "shut herself up in a convent, 
 where she was not allowed to see her nearest relations," she must have 
 become a Capuchin nun. The Capuchins are one of the regular orders — 
 in regular nunneries no priest often hears the confession of a nun except 
 the regular, ordinary confessor. By a regulation of the 10th Chapter, 
 Session xxv, of the Council of Trent, an extraordinary confessor must 
 sit to hear them three or four times in the year. Mr. White had no one 
 qualification, save his priesthood, to make him eligible either as ordinary 
 or extraordinary confessor of a Capuchin nunnery. It was decided by 
 the Sacred Congregation of Cardinals in the affairs of Bishops and Reg- 
 ulars, (or friars) which is the competent judicial tribunal in such cases, 
 on four several causes : 
 
 1st. That the nuns could not elect their confessor. 
 
 2d. That the Bishop was to appoint the confessor for the converts 
 subject to him. 
 
 3d. That the regular prelates, that is, friars, were to appoint con- 
 fessors for the nuns of their own order. 
 
 Those decisions were made, in a case from Loretto, on the 20th of 
 September, 1588 ; in a case from Tusculum, on the 15th of October, 1601 ; 
 in a case from Riga, on the 4th of September, 1602 ; and in a case from 
 Valladolid, on the 26th of October, in the same year. Now, he assures 
 us himself, that he had no intercourse with the cowled tribes, and yet he 
 wishes us to believe that the most rigid, and of course to him, the most 
 hateful of those tribes gave to him that place to which they always 
 appointed the most virtuous and respectable men of their own order ! ! ! 
 I suspect this is a sort bf reasoning which Bishop Kemp will not under- 
 stand, but to a person conversant with the laws and customs of the 
 Catholic Church, Mr. White's assertion will appear the most absurd 
 and preposterous. 
 
 In the second place this man is a secular priest; now by a multi- 
 
256 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 tude of canons and decisions, it has been regulated and is an universal 
 custom, that the confessor of a nunnery of a regular order generally is, 
 and ought to be, a friar of the same order. To this rule there is but one 
 exception in such a place as Seville, and this exception could scarcely 
 occur : viz. That the community of nuns could not be prevailed upon to 
 confess to a friar of their own order. But this must be for the com- 
 munity, not for an individual, as was decided by the congregation in a 
 case from Palermo, May 27, 1623, and one from Genoa, 27th April, 
 1657. 2 
 
 Mr. White tells us that about the age of twenty-five he became an 
 infidel; for he spent ten years in the hypocritical support of what he 
 calls imposture, before he left Spain at the age of thirty-five ; his conduct 
 did not escape suspicion, for he tells us, his mother avoided his presence 
 lest she should hear what would be against faith; both in his Evidence 
 and in Dohlado's Letters he informs us that profligate clergymen were 
 his companions; but if their conduct was not glaringly bad, it was at 
 least highly suspicious; he gives us abundant proof in his Doblado'.'^ 
 Letters, volume 2, page 291, of the Magazine, that it was, for he is found 
 openly the companion of men under censure. 
 
 ' ' I have visited Salamanca after the great defeat of the philosophical 
 party, the strongest that ever was formed in Spain. A man of first rate 
 literary character amongst us, whom merit and court favor had raised 
 to one of the chief seats in the judicature of the country, but whom 
 court caprice had, about this time, sent to rusticate at Salamanca, was 
 doing me the honors of the place, when approaching the convocation hall 
 of the University, we perceived the members of the faculty of divinity 
 strolling about, previous to a meeting of their body. A runaway slave, 
 still bearing the marks of the lash, at his return, could not have shrunk 
 more instinctively at the sight of the planters meeting at the council 
 room, than my friend did at the view of the cowls ''white, black, and 
 grey," which partially hid the sleek faces of his offended masters. He 
 had, it is true, been lucky enough to escape his imprisonment and subse- 
 quent penance in a monastery, which was the sad lot of the chief of his 
 routed party; but he himself was still suspected and watched closely." 
 
 Whether this is the same gentlemen who held an important place 
 in the provincial judicature, and who narrowly escaped the Inquisition ; 
 whom he mentions as an infidel companion in page 298, I cannot con- 
 jecture. But in that page he informs us that after the acquaintance 
 then formed, he "performed mass with a heart in open rebellion to the 
 Church that enjoined it : but he had now settled with himself, to offer 
 
 Vid. Ferrarius, Bihlioth. Jurid., etc. Voe. Moniales. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 257 
 
 it up to his Creator, as he imagines that the enlightened Greelcs and 
 Romans did their sacrifices. He was like them, forced to express his 
 thankfulness in an absurd language." The attempt which failed was 
 to introduce into the Spanish Universities the principles of French infi- 
 delity, as he himself informs us in page 291. The theses which were 
 introduced he describes as "genuine offspring of the French school, the 
 very turn of their phrases 'in spite of the studied caution of their lan- 
 guage, ' gave strong indications of a style formed in defiance of the Holy 
 Inquisition." That a man of this description should be selected con- 
 fessor to a nunnery, is an absurdity so palpable to any divine, that I am 
 only astonished how the man himself had the hardihood to make the 
 assertion. But he knew who his readers were likely to be ; persons, who 
 greedily swallow every libel against our Church, and neither know 
 whether its truth is even possible, [nor] perhaps care [whether it is or 
 not.] I am certain I do not judge rashly when I assert that amongst 
 the Right Reverend and reverend approbators of the work there are not 
 three, perhaps not one, who knows that ordinary approbation to hear 
 confessions, does not confer power to hear confessions in nunneries; 
 that approbation to hear them in one nunnery does not include approba- 
 tion to hear them in another, that approbation to hear the confession of 
 one nun, for instance upon the approach of death, does not include 
 approbation to hear another. And that one of the most unheard of 
 cases, though not absolutely impossible, is that a brother should be the 
 confessor of a nun who is his sister. 
 
 But suppose all those obstacles removed, suppose those all to have 
 been dispensed with; one other insuperable difficulty remains. By the 
 common law of the Church no special age is requisite in a priest to be 
 qualified generally to hear confessions. But the congregation before 
 mentioned, decided on the 2d of May, 1617, and on the 7th of June, 
 1620, in cases from the Patriarchate of Venice, that the confessor of a 
 nunnery ought to be at least over forty years of age. In the Franciscan 
 order, of which the Capuchins are a branch, there is a special statute, 
 {Sambuc. cap. 11, ? 17, n. 1,) of the minor Observantines, which requires 
 this age, and the force of this statute was decided to extend to the re- 
 formed of the order, by a decree of the congregation of the council, the 
 proper tribunal in this case, on the 26th of November, 1689, upon a 
 question from the Archdioeess of Cosenza. When the confessor goes 
 to the discharge of his duty he is accompanied by another clergyman, 
 who remains within view though not within hearing, and by a decision 
 of the congregation of the affairs of Bishops and regulars, on a case 
 from Nola, on the 21st of February, 1617, it is ruled that this com- 
 
258 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 panion must be over fifty years of age. And on the 16th of March, 
 1603, a papal circular order was issued, chiefly to the Bishops of Italy 
 and the adjacent islands, in which the qualifications which are every 
 where required for persons of this description, are enumerated in general 
 terms, aetate provecti, pnidentes, zelantes, et vita exemplari conspicui: 
 "advanced in age, prudent, zealous, and remarkable for their exemplary 
 
 life." 
 
 Let us now review the acknowledged, technical obstacles, if I may so 
 call them, which rendered it impossible ; legally and morally impossible, 
 that White could have been a confessor to any nun ; except perhaps he 
 might [have been], though in itself [it is] highly improbable, to his 
 eldest sister, at her own request, before her death : but, I believe it will 
 now be admitted that we have no evidence of his ever having had a sister ; 
 because, his assertion is no evidence. 
 
 First, his conduct was by no means such as to be conspicuous for 
 giving good example; next, he had no appearance of zeal! again, even 
 as a hypocrite, he was imprudent in his company; fourthly, he was a 
 virulent enemy to friars, who of course would not give him their highest 
 appointment ; fifthly, a priest who lived as he did, would no more under- 
 take such an office, than he would retire into a desert: again, a man of 
 his principles would infallibly betray himself, by some expression for 
 which he would be denounced to his superior; and a seventh reason, 
 which outweighs the whole, is that he had not attained the necessary age 
 until five years after he had left Spain ! ! ! Now I would request of his 
 compurgators, our Baltimore and Columbia canonists, to look back to the 
 eleven propositions, which this man swears a solemn oath were true. 
 He called God to witness their truth, and that truth is legally and 
 morally impossible ! ! ! And if there is any part of the Church in which 
 that law is most fully in vigor it is in Spain. 
 
 Was my expression too strong when I wrote that those men were 
 uninformed in volunteering an exhibition of their own ignorance, from 
 their desire of assailing Popery? 
 
 In my next, I shall exhibit some more of Mr. White's veracity, and 
 test the value of his unanswerable argument against Popery. 
 
 Yours, B. c. 
 
 LETTER VL 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Oct. 9, 1826. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends — Mr. White has been adduced against us as a witness 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 259 
 
 of extraordinary qualifications. We have seen that he had not the 
 proper theological knowledge to fit him for being a sufficient judge of 
 doctrine. We have seen that he was immoral in his conduct, deceitful 
 in his youth; an early infidel; a confirmed and steady hypocrite: pre- 
 tending to have affection in order to excite sympathy ; and falsely calling 
 God to witness that he filled places, which it was legally and morally 
 impossible for him to hold; and the solemn secrets of which, if he did 
 hold them, he had sacrilegiously betrayed. I now ask the Right Rev- 
 erend Dr. Kemp, and his associates, whether this is the witness upon 
 whose testimony they asked the people of America to condemn the great 
 Church of Christendom, and to despise its members ? I ask whether the 
 testimony of this man would be taken as of value, in any case of moment, 
 in any court? Whether his simple assertion is evidence? — I shall be 
 told, that Mr. White's character is not the true question.— That the true 
 question is the character of our Church. Yes! But Mr. White is the 
 witness who defames our Church, and the value of the defamation de- 
 pends upon the competency of the witness ; and therefore it was, that I 
 delayed so long in examining his competency, and took up so much of 
 your time in shewing, that as regarded knowledge and honesty, he was 
 an incompetent witness. Therefore whatever is supported only by his 
 testimony is to be disregarded. I shall examine all his charges, sep- 
 arating what rests only upon his testimony from that which has other 
 support, and thus, by this apparently useless examination of his char- 
 acter, we shall find our work greatly abridged. But I cannot consent 
 as yet to close my inquiry into the history of the gentleman himself. 
 To use his own words, I believe it very useful since he is one of a class 
 which presents a moral phenomenon "to proceed with his moral dissec- 
 tion however unpleasant the task may be." 
 
 I recommence his Evidence, page 20. 
 
 "When I examine the state of my mind previous to my rejecting 
 the Christian faith, I cannot recollect any thing in it but what was in 
 perfect accordance with the form of religion in which I was educated. 
 I revered the Scriptures as the word of God; but was also persuaded 
 that without a living, infallible interpreter, the Bible was a dead letter, 
 which could not convey its meaning with any certainty. I grounded 
 therefore my Christian faith upon the infallibility of the Church. No 
 Roman Catholic pretends to a better foundation. *I believe whatever 
 the holy mother Church holds and believes,' is the compendious creed 
 of every member of the Roman communion. Had my doubts affected 
 any particular doctrine, I should have clung to the decisions of a Church 
 which claims exemption from error; but my first doubts attacked the 
 
260 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 very basis of Catholicism. I believe that the reasoning which shook my 
 faith is not new in the vast field of theological controversy. But I 
 protest that if such be the case, the coincidence adds weight to the argu- 
 ment, for I am perfectly certain that it was the spontaneous suggestion 
 of my own mind. I thought within myself that the certainty of the 
 Roman Catholic faith had no better ground than a fallacy of that kind 
 which is called arguing in a circle; I believed the infallibility of the 
 Church, because the Scripture said she was infallible; whilst I had no 
 better proof that the Scripture said so than the assertion of the Church 
 that she could not mistake the Scripture. In vain did I endeavor to 
 evade the force of this argument ; indeed I still believe it unanswerable. 
 Was, then, Christianity nothing but a groundless fabric, the world sup- 
 ported by an elephant, the elephant standing on a tortoise? Such was 
 the conclusion to which I was led by a system which impresses the mind 
 with the obscurity and insufficiency of the written word of God. Whj'' 
 should I consult the Scriptures ? My only choice was between revelation 
 explained by the Church of Rome and no revelation. Catholics who live 
 in Protestant countries may, in spite of the direct tendency of their 
 system, practically perceive the unreal nature of this dilemma. But 
 wherever the religion of Rome reigns absolutely, there is but one step 
 between it and infidelity." 
 
 Before I proceed further, allow me to note the falsehoods of this 
 passage. 
 
 No. 1. Previous to his rejecting the Christian faith, he cannot 
 recollect any thing in his mind that was not in perfect accordance with 
 the form of religion in which he had been educated ! ! ! 
 
 Should you not recollect his avowals, multiplied and repeated dur- 
 ing years, and deliberately written in direct contradiction to this: look 
 back to my second, and third letters. 
 
 No. 2. "Had my doubts affected any particular doctrine, I should 
 have clung to the decisions of a Church which claims exemption from 
 error, but my first doubts attacked the very basis of Catholicism." 
 
 That this is a falsehood we have abundant evidence. In the first 
 place, in his Evidence, page 30, he writes, 
 
 "As my rejection of revealed religion had been the effect, not of a 
 direct objection to its evidences, but of weighing tenets against them 
 which they were not intended to support; the balance inclined in favor 
 of the truth of the Gospel, in proportion as I struck out dogmas, which 
 I had been taught to identify with the doctrines of Christ." 
 
 In this passage it is plain that he asserts that as soon as the particu- 
 lar doctrines to which he objected, that is concerning whose truth h:? 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 261 
 
 had doubts at first, and subsequently unbelief, were stricken out ; the old 
 evidences became strong, and he believed by virtue of their force. 
 
 Volume 2, of the Magazine, page 297, DoUado's Fifth Letter, he 
 shews that his first doubts, "against which he wrestled day and night," 
 affected the particular doctrine of hell. 
 
 No. 3. The pretended arguing in a circle from the infallibility of 
 the Church to the knowledge of the Scriptures, and from the knowledge 
 of the Scriptures to the infallibility of the Church, was the absurdity 
 the force of which he could not answer, and which of course made him 
 lose his faith. 
 
 In page 296, of Dohlado's Letters he gives as the cause one far 
 more rational, and as different from this as may be conceived. 
 It is substantially this, "The Church is the infallible teacher of the 
 doctrine of truth. I must then believe all that she teaches, or I am an 
 infidel. Let me prove that there exists a single flaw in the system, and 
 it will all crumble to dust. Catholic divines can see no medium between 
 rejecting her infallibility and rejecting revelation, and if she teaches as 
 faith one untrue doctrine, she cannot be infallible." In page 297, he 
 finds what he will not believe, what he looks upon to be an absurdity 
 taught by her as a doctrine of faith, viz. the existence of hell ; his words 
 then are, that as this is a part of her doctrine, what can arguments 
 avail a doubting Catholic ? "His system of faith in indivisible. What- 
 ever proves it all, proves absurdity." In page 298, he adds "what- 
 ever in this state could break the habit of awe, which I was so tenaciously 
 supporting — whatever could urge me into uttering a doubt on one of 
 the articles of the Koman creed, was sure to make my faith vanish like 
 a soap bubble in the air. ' ' After conversing with an infidel, ' ' utterance 
 transformed his doubts to demonstrations." What were the subjects? 
 "monks, ecclesiastical encroachments, extravagant devotion." "The 
 very hell I had just denied, appeared yawning before my eyes!" Not 
 one syllable of the vicious circle. No, — his argument was — "If the 
 Church is infallible all her doctrines must be true; but her doctrine of 
 hell cannot be true, because it would argue cruelty in God : to suppose 
 him cruel is an absurdity: therefore she is not infallible." Such, my 
 friends, was the process which he first described. Now he tells us, that 
 it was the argument of the vicious circle : whether you will believe him 
 in either case : or if in either, which is more credible, is for yourselves to 
 determine. Perhaps, however, another passage of his in page 298, 
 DoUado's Letters, might aid you to a third cause. He is describing the 
 mode in which he lost his faith; probably the scenes from which his 
 very modest figure is drawn could help you in forming your opinion. 
 
262 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 "I had been too earnest in my devotion, and my Church too pressing 
 and demanding. Like a cold and interested mistress, she either exhausts 
 the ardor of her best lovers, or harasses them to distraction. As for 
 myself, a moment's dalliance with her great rival freedom, converted my 
 former love into perfect abhorrence." 
 
 I shall not quarrel with his expressions, nor ask how Catholics liv- 
 ing any where can perceive that which does not exist. I shall leave 
 the remark which would suggest itself, to a more proper time, and bring 
 the gentleman to a delimma more practical for our present purpose. 
 
 No. 4. He says the argument of the vicious circle was, he is per- 
 fectly certain, the spontaneous suggestion of his own mind. — 
 
 Perhaps so.— But it only adds to the proof against his patrons, 
 because, if true, it will necessarily establish that he never studied a 
 treatise on the nature of the Church ; for there is not one such treatise, 
 in which this argument is not adduced against the conclusion: "that the 
 Church is infallible. ' ' Well may Bishop Kemp and his associates blush 
 for the "high rank" which they have so generously bestowed upon one 
 who by his total neglect of theological studies was so ' ' eminently quali- 
 fied for the task which he has undertaken and so well fulfilled." There 
 is not a tyro in theology to whom it is not familiar— and my own impres- 
 sion is that Mr. White was intimately acquainted with it before he lost 
 his faith: not from its having been spontaneously suggested by his 
 mind ; but read in his books. — We shall now see its value. 
 
 One of the most fallacious modes of exhibiting an argument which 
 is founded upon the observation of facts, is to change the relation which 
 the facts have to each other. Thus, if any effect flows from a particular 
 cause ; he must be inclined to deceive, instead of to instruct, who would 
 exhibit both cause and effect as always co-existing, because they do co- 
 exist after the effect has been produced ; when in truth there was a time 
 when they did not co-exist, for the cause existed alone, before the effect 
 was produced. An honest, w^ell regulated mind will view them in their 
 natural and historical order, and from the succession of their existence 
 will deduce the reasoning, giving the value of its priority to that which 
 first existed ; and never forgetting or concealing, that there was such a 
 relation as priority in one, and dependence, if I may so call it, or con- 
 sequence in the other. He must indeed be stupid, who because they have 
 co-existed for a long time, forgets that there still is, and always will 
 continue, the distinction of precedence between them to the end of time. 
 And he who knowing the fact of this precedence would labor to conceal 
 it, for the purpose of confounding cause and effect, would be dishonest. 
 This want of intellect or want of honesty must exist in every person who 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 263 
 
 charges upon the Roman Catholics the fallacy of the vicious circle : or 
 else he must fall into another mistake equally unfortunate. 
 
 There is scarcely a moral or religious truth which has not two sorts 
 of arguments in its favor; one which is strong, cogent, and sufficient, 
 and may be called properly and exclusively its proof; the other, not so 
 clear, full or satisfactory, and which rather tends to confirm that which 
 has received previous proof, than to be the motive for its credibility. 
 When both those modes are had recourse to, for maintaining a propo- 
 sition, it must argue no great share of love for truth in those who know 
 the fact, to speak and to write as if the latter mode only had been used. 
 Yet such is the conduct of those who knowing our doctrine charge upon 
 us the fallacy of the vicious circle. 
 
 Again, the connexion between the premises and the conclusion of 
 a sound argument, is so complete and perfect, that although the truth 
 of the former should be apparent, still when by their means the truth 
 of the conclusion becomes evident, though in reality the certainty of their 
 truth is not increased, still the satisfaction of contemplating it is en- 
 hanced, and the mind becomes more gratified from the exhibition. This 
 additional pleasure is, by several, mistaken for a new proof of the 
 premises themselves. Thus, though I should know a man to be wise and 
 good and generous, I feel additional pleasure from contemplating the 
 new exhibitions of his wisdom and his goodness and his generosity ; my 
 gratification, but not my conviction, is increased. Should I from a 
 Church, which I know to be infallible, receive books, of whose inspira- 
 tion I could have no knowledge, but for her testimony; should I find 
 in those books themselves, additional exhibitions of what I already knew, 
 viz. her infallibility ; my former knowledge is not derived from this late 
 discovery, though I feel my pleasure thereby augmented. And although 
 I cannot fairly use this late and gratifying discovery to prove my origi- 
 nal premises, it will not be the error of a vicious circle to apply it as a 
 confirmation of that for which I had already convincing evidence. 
 
 It not unfrequently happens regarding the proof and value of writ- 
 ten documents, that their authenticity can be proved only by the author- 
 ity of a tribunal ; the authority of which tribunal was evident without 
 the documents, and before they existed; but when by the authority o£ 
 the tribunal their value was established, the documents themselves were 
 found to contain new proof of the authority of the tribunal. Yet to 
 use this new proof in addition to that which was old and sufficient, and 
 which existed before the documents were written, would not be arguing 
 in a circle ; because though admitting their value, their testimony would 
 prove the power of the tribunal : still it was not by them it was originally 
 
264 CONTROVEKSY Vol. 
 
 proved. Thus if a stranger has the public testimony that the persons 
 who preside in one of our courts are the supreme judges of the state, 
 this testimony is evidence for him of their authority. 
 
 Having this knowledge of their power, he observes their proceed- 
 ings; he beholds them not only declare that certain books have legal 
 authority, but he finds that they interpret certain passages of those 
 books, as being good testimony in favor of their exercise of power ; they 
 never refer to the commission by virtue of which they sit, but they refer 
 to the book, which their decision explains. Surely, no person would, 
 say that this court was guilty of a vicious circle, by claiming their power 
 of decision from the book, and by their decision making the book to be 
 authority. For it is obvious that their power of decision existed and 
 was generally known, without the book: and the general tenor of the 
 book might be known before their decision, and might be valuable before 
 the decision; yet it was by the decision of what was the exact import 
 of the passages, the application became precisely fixed. 
 
 It now rests with me to show that it is not from the Scriptures 
 that Roman Catholics learn the infallibility of their Church, though 
 it is from that Church they do learn the inspiration of the Scriptures. 
 And, indeed, my friends, after deep and serious investigation, I hesitate 
 not to avow, with one whom I should not name in the same line with 
 myself, the great St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, "I would not believe 
 the Gospel, were I not induced thereto by the authority of the Church."-'* 
 
 In order to view the case fairly, and without prejudice, we must go 
 to its origin, in the mode of creating the ecclesiastical tribunal, and of 
 getting from that tribunal the testimony of the inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures. AVe must then take the facts in their historical order. We, in 
 such a case, have no Scriptures of either old or new law recognized as 
 being inspired, and we go back to Judea at the time previous to the 
 death of our Saviour. I know from history what I now assert. I know 
 the facts, also, from documents and monuments of the highest character. 
 The observant person would, at that time, have witnessed a vast number 
 of miracles performed by the Saviour; from the evidence of the mir- 
 acles, the truth of his doctrine, and his power to grant a commission, 
 and to state what the extent of that commission should be, must result. 
 He does teach doctrine, and gives his commission to some of his fol- 
 lowers. He is put to death ; he arises ; this resurrection is proclaimed : 
 miracles prove its truth. He sends the Holy Ghost upon those whom 
 he commissions, they prove and confirm this fact by miracles. Their 
 
 ^Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret 
 auctoritas. Lib. contra Ep. Manich, chap, v, 6. Migne, vol. viii, col. 17. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 265 
 
 commission is now evidently established, and they may be easily known. 
 The commission is extended, and is to be still more extended and per- 
 petuated, and the miraculous confirmation accompanies its extension and 
 its continuance. No fact was ever more evident to any community, than 
 was the commission of the early teachers to those who beheld them. 
 That they were commissioned, amongst other things, to teach the doctrine 
 of Christ to all men, and to provide for its continuance to the end of 
 the world, and for its extension to every place, became also matter of 
 evident notoriety. It was equally evident to the persons who lived with 
 them, that one of the principal objects of Christ was, to preserve for all 
 times that truth which he came from heaven to preach; and that the 
 mode in which he provided for its preservation, was by establishing a 
 tribunal from which it was to be learned ; and that they who learned the 
 doctrine, obtained their knowledge, not by philosophical disquisition, 
 not by perusing documents which as yet had not been written, not by 
 taking the opinions of what men though reasonable, or liberal, or becom- 
 ing, or convenient, but simply by receiving from the commissioned body 
 of teachers, the testimony of what was originally taught — and by resting 
 upon their authority for its truth. It is plain, they could have had 
 no other way of learning what Christ had taught. Did any one of those 
 teachers differ from another in his testimony, the general body was con- 
 sulted. History leaves not a shadow of doubt as to the fact ; and reason 
 exhibits the correctness of the mode ; and the evidence derived from the 
 general testimony of the body, led to the correction of the mistake of the 
 individual. Those first Christians also knew, that the solemn injunction 
 which had been given by Christ was, to receive unhesitatingly the tes- 
 timony of the body of the Apostles and their associates; and that, in 
 doing so, the people received the testimony of Christ himself. The 
 miracles wrought by those persons confirmed the belief of those princi- 
 ples, and they themselves inculcated it as derived from Christ. It is 
 a plain fact of history, that, when the members of this tribunal gave 
 a doctrinal decision, they gave it in full accordance with this principle : 
 for they declared that the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, who descended 
 upon the first teachers, and was communicated by them to their asso« 
 ciates, joined in their assembly, presided over their meeting, and spoke 
 in their decision. It is matter of historical evidence, that all those who 
 refused to receive and to submit to such decision, were considered as 
 opposed to revealed truth, and disobedient to the command of the Sav- 
 iour, because they did not hear those whom he sent as their teachers, 
 Thus, before the Scriptures were known to the Christians, they knew the 
 Church ; and they recognized its infallible authority in teaching the doc- 
 
266 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 trine which had been revealed, and of which it was made the witness and 
 the depository. Thus, it was not by the Scriptures the first Christians 
 proved the infallibility of the Church; but they proved it before the 
 Scriptures existed, by the plain fact, that he who had proved his author- 
 ity by miracles, had used authority in giving the power of teaching 
 his doctrine, with infallible certainty of correctness, to this tribunal, 
 which he created for that purpose. It is admitted by all persons, that 
 the teaching of truth was one of the principal objects of commissioning 
 the Apostles and their successors. It would be indeed beneath the wis- 
 dom and power of the Godhead to send teachers, evidently commissioned 
 by heaven, to whom men respecting that commission ought to listen; 
 and still, that this body commissioned by heaven were equally liable 
 as any other body to teach error instead of truth!!! Of what value, 
 then, would be their divine commission ? If they led men to error, how- 
 were men to find those who would bring them back to truth? Even 
 Mr. White himself admits the soundness of this Catholic principle. 
 Dohlado's Letters, page 296, volume ii, number five: 
 
 "I have often heard the question, how could such men as Bossuet 
 and Fenelon adhere to the Church of Rome, and reject the Protestant 
 faith? The answer appears to be obvious. Because, according to their 
 undoubted principles on this matter, they must have been either Catho- 
 lics or infidels. Laying it down that Christianity was chiefly intended 
 to reveal a system of doctrine necessary for salvation, they naturallxj and 
 consistently inferred the existence of an authorized judge upon ques- 
 tions of faith; otherwise the inevitable doubts arising from private 
 judgment would defeat the object of revelation. Thus it is that Bos- 
 suet thought he had triumphantly confuted the Protestants, by merely 
 showing that they could not agree in their articles. Like Bossuet, most 
 Catholic divines (Mr. White might have written all) can see no medium 
 between denying the infallible authority of the Church and rejecting 
 revelation. 
 
 "No proposition in Euclid could convey a stronger conviction to my 
 mind than I found in this dilemma. Let me but prove, said I to myself, 
 that there exists a single flaw in the system, and it will all crumble 
 into dust," and so forth. 
 
 Thus, if Mr. White believed that a principal object of our Saviour 
 was to reveal to the world a system of doctrine, the belief of which would 
 be necessary for salvation, naturally and consistently, he must infer from 
 this, the infallibility of the Church. From j\Ir. White's denial of this 
 infallibility, we must naturally and consistently infer, that Mr. White 
 does not believe a principal object of the Saviour was to make a belief 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 267 
 
 of his doctrines necessary for salvation. What says Bishop Kemp now 
 to Mr. White's principles of faith? If it be a matter of indifference, 
 so far as regards salvation, what system of doctrine man is to believe, 
 why did those good gentlemen separate from the Catholic Church? 
 Why not come back to us now? Why use such pains to correct our 
 * ' errors of Popery ? ' ' Why collect so much money to convert Heathens ? 
 Why keep separate Churches from each other? Why will not the 
 Bishop, and the Presbyterian, and the Methodist, meet together, and 
 proclaim to their people that it matters not, so far as concerns salvation, 
 to which flock they are attached ? Why not proclaim to them that they 
 might as well be Roman Catholics? I promise you, my friends, Mr. 
 White will turn the tables upon those who brought him forward to 
 annoy us. 
 
 Then, it is plain, that the first Christians believed that a principal 
 object of their divine teacher was to reveal a system of doctrine, which 
 was so necessary to salvation, that he commanded them to lay down their 
 lives sooner than desert it ; and all its teachers gave them, not only such 
 injunctions, but confirmed the injunctions by their example. They 
 shed their blood sooner than deny one article of faith! Mr. White 
 might have left his Indian story of the world resting upon the elephant, 
 and the elephant upon the tortoise, for some more appropriate subject; 
 because, in the first place, it is no exemplification of a vicious circle, 
 and next, the first Christians believed naturally and consistently from 
 the nature of their doctrine, as Mr. White shows, that the Church was 
 infallible; and I have shown that history will prove it to have bee a 
 necessarily one of the first principles which they received, years before 
 any of the evangelists began to write his gospel. And when the Church 
 was deluged with several foolish, spurious, ridiculous, and blasphemous 
 productions, purporting to be inspired Scriptures, the distinction between 
 what was really inspired, and what was not, could never have been 
 drawn with certainty, unless by a tribunal whose decisions must be 
 infallibly correct: because, if it were possible for the tribunal which 
 made the selection of what was inspired, from the mass, to err, we may 
 without absurdity or irreligion suppose that it really did err, in giving 
 to us this one book. Without an infallible guide, how shall we now 
 know how to discern this from amongst the others ? What then becomes 
 of the certainty of faith? How shall we now know the books of God 
 from the production of a fanatic? A Roman Catholic knows, without 
 the Scripture, that the Church must be and is infallible, in giving to him 
 the doctrines which God revealed, and amongst these, the mighty portion 
 of that doctrine which the sacred volume contains. His knowledge of 
 
268 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 the infallibility of his Church, and of the inspiration of the sacred vol- 
 ume now co-exist, and have for ages co-existed; he has by traditionary 
 documents, by authentic records, by standing monuments, by a thousand 
 proofs which his Church has always preserved and exhibited, obtained 
 the knowledge of both together; but, formerly, at its proper time, one 
 did precede the other; the Church existed before the New Testament, 
 as the Jewish Church existed before the Old Testament. We received 
 them all together : the Christian Church brought the Old Testament from 
 the Jewish Church; she testified the New when it appeared; she kept 
 both from corruption; and at this day, I stand as much in need of her 
 testimony, to assure me that the book which I receive is unchanged, as 
 my predecessors did, to know that the book given to them was inspired. 
 Deprive me of the testimony of the Church, and how shall I discern if 
 the book which I read is the production of an inspired writer, or of a 
 fanatic? Though I should know that the evangelists were inspired, 
 how shall I know that what I read is their production ? Deprive me of 
 the witness given to the world before the book existed, and which testi- 
 fied the nature of the book to my predecessors, and which was commis- 
 sioned as the witness of all ages, and I shall be now, as they would have 
 been, without the testimony. This is no vicious circle, nor will it become 
 one, though the book thus proved should contain testimonies in confirma- 
 tion and in support of what was believed upon sufficient proof before the 
 book itself was proved or even written. 
 
 You must also, my friends, observe what an egregious contradictiou 
 there is, between the several accounts which this unfortunate man gives 
 of the process which led to his infidelity. I have frequently examined 
 those who fabricated ; but such a constant and yet varying adherence to 
 falsehood, I do not think ever struck me in any other as in Mr. White. 
 
 As Bishop Kemp has kindly undertaken the patronage of this charge 
 of the vicious circle, I think he ought now, in common justice, to give to 
 the world his mode of ascertaining, how any portion of the Scripture is 
 the result of inspiration. I will point out but one chapter, and if he will 
 prove its inspiration, or even its authenticity, without having recourse 
 to the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church, I shall give him more 
 credit than I am at present inclined to bestow. Let him signify his in- 
 tention, and I shall point out the chapter, in the Bible which he receives ; 
 and I am much mistaken if I shall not in that event be able to afford to 
 my fellow-citizens, a good specimen of the world, the elephant and the 
 tortoise, exemplified. 
 
 My friends, I shall continue my examination. 
 
 Yours, B. c. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 269 
 
 LETTER VIL 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Oct. 16, 1826. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends — We have seen ]\Ir. White's account of his loss of the 
 Catholic faith. He next presents us with a history of his conversion to 
 the Protestantism of the Church of England. When he arrived in that 
 country in the year 1810, he was thirty-five years of age. 
 
 He informs us that he expected to find no piety or religion in 
 England, and pays the English people a compliment by stating that as 
 they were enlightened, and as the French philosophers led him to believe, 
 that in the ratio of his information, man was irreligious, therefore Eng- 
 land must be very irreligious. But providentially, he in London met a 
 good and pious friend, and he afterwards found many excellent men of 
 the same description. He found the protection of British liberty and was 
 ashamed of being thought a Roman Catholic. By the bye, if he [had 
 been] a Roman Catholic, he would in England have felt the benefit of 
 penal infliction, and he was very wise as he had no religion, not to subject 
 himself to persecution, by continuing to be a hypocrite. The soreness 
 arising from the endurance of his ten years' subjection to scrutiny began 
 to heal. Professing himself an infidel, he was received with mildness 
 and toleration. There is nothing strange in this. The law of England 
 does not punish a man for being an infidel; it punishes him seriously, 
 pnly for being a Catholic. Thus it is not against the conscience of an 
 atheist to swear that he does not believe in transubstantiation, it is not 
 against the conscience of a pagan to swear that no foreign prelate hath 
 or ought to have any ecclesiastical or spiritual authority within the realm 
 of England. It does not injure the conscience of any person but of a 
 Catholic to swear all or any of their oaths. White might indeed say they 
 were mild and tolerant to him, infidel as he was, but neither Sir Thomas 
 More, nor the present Duke of Norfolk could say the same of themselves. 
 But of course Mr. White calls cherishing himself, toleration, and he calls 
 the political incarceration of the noble duke, because he will not become 
 a member of some one of the new religions, or an infidel, toleration ! — 
 Mr. White found then for the first time he says ' ' that a Christian is not 
 necessarily a bigot." I have yet to learn that this writer knows either 
 what a Christian or a bigot is. I shall give my own statement of what 
 they are. A Christian is a person who steadily and upon principle be- 
 lieves all the doctrines which Christ has taught and adheres to the insti- 
 tutions of Christ. However vague the meaning which is usually given 
 to the phrase may be, its true meaning is precise and definite : that man 
 
270 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 who has not a fixed principle of belief, who doubts to-day, what he be- 
 lieved yesterday, and who knows not, and cares not to know, what God 
 has taught and established in the Christian law, is not a Chi-istian, in 
 the proper meaning of the word. What would be thought of me, were I 
 to assert that a man was a good American citizen, who neither knew nor 
 cared for what were the principles of our constitution or our rules of 
 law, and would as soon take them from the explanation of an inhabitant 
 of Hayti as from the decision of the Supreme Court ? Revealed religioa 
 consists in that collection of doctrine and law which God has made 
 known: the Christian religion is that body of doctrine and that code of 
 law which Christ has given. What Christ gave was not contradiction; 
 but coherent truth, consistent in all its parts ; and it is unchangeable, for 
 if it be changed it ceases to be what it was before the alteration ; it ceases 
 then to be the institution of Christ, it becomes something different from 
 Christianity. A Christian firmly adheres to what Christ has taught and 
 established, he avoids changes; he cannot call error truth, nor change 
 the old institutions. Thus a Christian firmly and reasonably adheres to 
 truth ; and refuses to call recent changes the original institution. Bigot- 
 ry is unreasonable and obstinate adherence to a religious opinion, com- 
 bined with a hatred of those who are opposed thereto. The Christian 
 does not adhere to opinion, for it is not upon his own opinion he rests, 
 but he receives the testimony of that Church to which Christ originally 
 gave his doctrine, that what she now teaches is what she originally re- 
 ceived: he believes the doctrine upon her testimony, not upon his own 
 private opinion. That she is an infallibly correct and competent witness, 
 we shall afterwards see : thus his adherence to doctrine is not unreason- 
 able, for it is holding to public known truth, not to private opinion, and 
 his steady adherence to it is not obstinate attachment. He has no hatred 
 against those who err, he is full of charity and of affection for them, and 
 if he informs them of their error, it is not for the purpose of woundin;:^ 
 their feelings but of enlightening their minds, and inducing them to serve 
 God, that they may be happy. The bigot is known by his rancor, by his 
 obstinacy, by his personal vindictive disposition, by his vague rhapsody ; 
 the Christian is known by his steady calm adherence to doctrine, by his 
 plain declaration, by his firm expostulation, by his precise, definite enun- 
 ciation of what he knows to be true. If Mr. White had written truly, 
 he would not have asserted that he had to journey from Seville to Lon- 
 don, and to wait during upwards of thirty years until he met with a 
 pious Protestant, to find "that a Christian is not necessarily a bigot." 
 My friends, I have the happiness to rank amongst my acquaintance 
 some of the most intelligent and enlightened Protestants in both hem- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 271 
 
 ispheres. I have been in close intimacy with Catholics of almost every 
 grade. I assert as the result of my close and continued observation, 
 that if Mr. White's assertion is meant to convey the idea, that there is 
 amongst Catholics less true charity, less kind feeling, less of correct 
 liberality for those separated from their communion, than there exists 
 amongst any division of Protestants for Catholics : a more untenable and 
 baseless position was never taken. Before I close this series, we shall 
 have full opportunity to prove it. At present, I shall advert but to one 
 fact. Has any body of the Catholic clergy of the United States ever 
 been guilty of solemnly recommending to their flocks the libels of any 
 Protestant clergyman, who joined the church, as the best mode of learn- 
 ing the tenets and character of the Protestant people ? Has any one of 
 the respectable clergymen, who have joined our Church, made an atro- 
 cious attack upon those whose communion he had left? Yet we have 
 many such amongst us. This at least is a sort of bigotry which does 
 not belong to our Christianity. No one of our Bishops has made hinself 
 as notoriously conspicious as Bishop Kemp. When we assail their system, 
 it is not by such a work as no modest woman should read, such a work 
 as no man of fine feelings of gentlemanly principle could recommend, if 
 he had read it, as I hope and trust the Right Reverend and Reverend 
 approbators did not. 
 
 But to return : White, having met this mild and tolerant Christian, 
 began to perceive that he might again become a believer, provided be 
 saw religion divested of all force but that of persuasion: Will you be- 
 lieve it? He would tell us that this was the case in England! ! ! In 
 England, whose disgraceful code of persecution, according to Edmund 
 Burke,^ was more barbarously afflictive than was that of Nero or of Dio- 
 clesian ! In England, which by her persecution on the score of religion, 
 has thrice depopulated Ireland ! In England, whose bloody scourge has 
 lacerated more Christian flesh than did all the Pagan persecutors. In 
 England, whose myrmidons long desolated Scotland, and followed her 
 hardy sons into their most remote fastnesses, to massacre them for their 
 dissent from her liturgy, and their dislike of her surplice ! In England, 
 whose bench of Bishops still rivets the chains of millions who refuse to 
 desert the religion of their fathers, and those, the men who bled at Sal- 
 amanaca, at Orthes, at Vimiera, at Talavera, upon the Pyrennes, before 
 Toulouse, at Waterloo; and whom her spirit of aggression led to the 
 slaughter-pen of New Orleans ! In England, which by the blasphemous 
 oath of the craven of Dunkirk and of the Helder, keeps shorn of the 
 
 Vid. Tracts relative to the Laws against Popery in Ireland, passim. 
 
272 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 mighty meed of their large honors, the descendants of the peers, who with 
 the Catholic princes of Catholic England swept the fields of Cressy, of 
 Poiotiers, and of Agincourt ; the descendants of the men who claimed at 
 Runnymede the restitution of their rights, at a period when he who base- 
 ly gave to his profligate concubine the patronage of the English army, 
 and of a portion of its Church, would be at a loss to discover the stem 
 or root of his German ancestry. Yes, in that England, within the walls 
 of whose Parliament the ungrateful Duke of Wellington, but the other 
 day declared, that it was by the sword the Protestant religion was planted 
 in Ireland, and that by the sword alone it should be maintained ; and to 
 keep it in which wretched country, an army of every species of oppressive 
 hirelings is employed! Yet, — In that England, this man tells us that 
 he saw religion divested of all force but persuasion ! How is it that even 
 by accident he will not write some truth? 
 
 He next read Paley's Natural Theology, and was struck by the 
 author's peculiar manner and style: he was much interested. Did Mr. 
 White study his treatise Of God, in metaphysics; On Religion, in ethics; 
 On Natural Religion, in theology ; every one of which was in his course 
 of studies at Seville, he would have found nothing new in Paley, except 
 his English and his false assertions. But the gentleman quarreled with 
 his professor of philosophy and could not attend to the "dull divinity" 
 lectures. Perhaps the arguments he found were, to him, new. But who 
 will believe him when he says that he now felt pious toward the great 
 author of nature? Natural Theology establishes no revelation. White 
 tells us that he only from being a Catholic, became a hypocrite — an infidel 
 of the French school, I presume, not an atheist ; though really it is im- 
 possible to say what the grade of French infidelity is. I have met it of 
 every size and shade and appearance, and after much reflection have 
 concluded, that neither can the infidel himself or any other person tell 
 what he believes ; but like the man who began to take a catalogue of the 
 goods which he had not ; there is no knowing where or when you would 
 be likely to conclude, if you began to write down what he did not believe : 
 I have known one of them go so far as to assure me that he did not be- 
 lieve in his own existence, because he would cease to be a Pyrrhonist if 
 he could be certain of his existence ; yet I know not how he escaped the 
 difficulty, by the absurdity; for he was certain, that he did not exist. 
 Unless Mr. White went as far as this good humored, facetious and ac- 
 commodating nonenity of a gentleman, he must have been certain of 
 his own existence, and of that of the universe; and he need not then 
 be in doubt of the existence of God, until he struck his foot against a 
 watch, or read the Archdeacon's book. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 273 
 
 In this state of mind lie went into a Protestant Church, and was 
 greatly aft'ected by the solemnity, and the music and hymn. For years 
 before he had not entered a Church without feelings of hostility, though 
 he was to officiate, and of irritation, though he was to get money for 
 submitting to what he calls tyranny. Yet in this very passage, Mr. 
 White tells us that he did not believe what was contained in the prayers, 
 and still *' there was nothing that could check s;^Tnpathy or smother the 
 reviving sentiments of natural religion which Paley had awakened.'' 
 For my part, I can have no sympathy with a person who prays for what 
 I do not believe to be correct, — Mr. White's doctrine of sympathy is 
 not intelligible to me. If his sentiments of natural religion were only 
 awakened by Paley, how could he in the day of his infidelity have offered 
 his sacrifices as Plato and Socrates did, who had natural religion ? Thus 
 we must believe that he possessed, and did not possess natural religion, 
 at the same time; whilst he was a Deist he was an Atheist. I suspect 
 after all the Pyrrhonism of my French friend will answer equally well 
 for my regenerated Spaniard. Now the solemn and affecting prayers 
 which pleased him so much are nothing more or less than translations 
 from those which he tells us in another place disgusted him ; but perhaps 
 they sounded better in English than in Latin. — No question about tastes. 
 — The Protestant Episcopal Church has very wisely contented itself 
 with our good old Popish prayers, most of which have seventeen centuries 
 of age, and several almost eighteen centuries. Mr. White was by the law 
 of his Church bound, and is still, if he lives, bound to recite daily those 
 prayers and psalms in Latin, but this was troublesome. Doblado's Let- 
 ters Number 5, page 297. 
 
 "An unmeaning and extremely burthensome practice laid by the 
 Church of Rome upon her clergy, contributed not a little to increase the 
 irksomeness of my circumstances. A Catholic Clergyman, who employs 
 his whole day in the discharge of his duty to others, must yet repeat to 
 himself the service of the day in an audible voice — a performance which 
 neither constant practice, nor the most rapid utterance, can bring within 
 the compas, of less than a hour and a half in the four and twenty. This 
 exhausting exercise is enjoined under pain of mortal sin, and the resti- 
 tution of that day 's income on which any portion of the office is omitted. ' ' 
 
 What a difference the same prayer may exhibit to him in an English 
 dress, I know not. But Mr. White ought to know that in the present 
 Church of England the clergy were originally bound in the same way to 
 the Common Prayer which is but an abridged translation of the Breviary, 
 but like Mr. White they thought it unmeaning and extremely burthen- 
 some to spend so much time in prayer, and a contrary custom has made 
 
274 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 the law fall into disuse. Being now impressed, he never passed a day 
 "without some ardent aspirations toward the author of his life and exist- 
 ence." But lest this should not have a sufficiency of effect, we of course 
 are not left without "eyes streaming with tears." Yet the conversion 
 was not complete. 
 
 I shall here give the passage by which the English Protestant clergy 
 were bound to read the Office daily, to. shew Mr. White's friends that 
 originally the Church which that gentleman joined required, if not an 
 hour and a half, at least upwards of half an hour in the twenty-four to 
 be spent in reciting prayers. In the first preface to the Liturgy of Queen 
 Elizabeth was the following passage : 
 
 "And all the priests and deacons are bound to say daily the Morning 
 and Evening Prayer, either privately or openly, except they be let by 
 preaching, studying divinity, or some other urgent cause." 
 
 To which the Scotch Liturgy added : 
 
 "Of which cause, if it be frequently pretended, they are to make 
 the Bishop of the diocess, or the Archbishop of the province, the judge 
 and allower. ' ' 
 
 To show that this was not public reading in the Church, the next 
 sentence provides specially for that object : 
 
 "And the curate that minstereth in every parish church or chapel, 
 being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably letted, shall say the 
 same in the parish church or chapel where he ministereth, and shall toll 
 a bell thereto, a convenient time before he begin, that such as may be 
 disposed may come and hear God's word and pray with him." 
 
 But what altogether removes any doubt upon the subject, is the tes- 
 timony of Hammond L 'Estrange upon the subject; in his Alliance of the 
 Divine Offices, printed in London in 1699, third folio edition, page 27, 
 letter S. ; commenting upon the above passage, he has the following : 
 
 "The act preceding (respecting the liturgy, 5 and 6 Edward VI), 
 telling us so expressly that open prayer is such as is made in a cathedral, 
 church, chapel, or oratory, in a consecrated place, we need no (Edipus 
 to unriddle the import of private, or to doubt that it signifieth any thing 
 other that such as is performed at home. But, why is the minister bound 
 to say it daily either in publiek or at home? Some think our Church had 
 under consideration how ignorant and illiterate many vicars were, and 
 ordered thus, that they might con in private, the better to enable them 
 for the publiek. But I am of another perswasion : for first, the Church 
 I conceive would not as she doth enjoin them to officiate in publiek, did 
 she not suppose them already in some tollerable degree fitted for the ser- 
 vise. Again, the words are general, not definitely such and such of those 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 275 
 
 mean abilities, but all ministers without exception. Now, though very 
 many were, yet it is no cheritable judgment to believe them all dunces; 
 and it is apparent, that where such ignorance fell under the consideration 
 of authority, the phrase doth vary, with a particular application to them 
 alone who were guilty of it; so it is in the Queen's injunctions {EUz. 
 Injunct. 35) such; (such only, not all) as are, but mean readers, shall 
 peruse over before, once or twice the Chapters and other Homilies, 
 to the intent, that they may read to the better understanding of the 
 people, and the more encouragement of godliness. So that I rather think 
 the Churche 's policy was the better to inure and habituate clergy to re- 
 ligious duties, ' ' and so forth. 
 
 From this, it is plain, that originally the Church of England, which 
 only omitted some portions of our breviary, and translated the retained 
 part into English, enjoined its daily recital to her clergy, as a good and 
 sanctifying religious practice. I believe, like Mr. White, they considered 
 it to be an unmeaning and extremely burthensome practise, and have long 
 since permitted this and many similar regulations to fall into disuse. 
 My object is to show that the prayers were no novelty to the gentleman, 
 if he had been in the habit of reading his breviary ; but I ought to have 
 recollected what he had written in DoUado's Letters, page 299: "The 
 breviary, in its black binding, clasps, and gilt leaves, is kept upon the 
 table to check the doubts of any chance intruder ; ' ' and in all probability 
 this was the only use which had been made of it during several years ; so 
 that, perhaps, the prayers were new to the gentleman, and what he could 
 have known in the Catholic Church was forgotten. 
 
 I shall conclude this letter, by giving you a tolerable large extract 
 from Mr. White's Evidence, so as in his own words to lay before you 
 the whole process of his conversion from infidelity to the English Protest- 
 ant Church: 
 
 "This was all the change that for a year or more took place, in my 
 religious notions. Obliged to support myself chiefly by my pen, and 
 anxious at the same time to acquire some branches of learning, which 
 Spanish education neglects, my days and nights were employed in study ; 
 yet religion had daily some share of my attention. I learned that the 
 author of the Natural Theology had also written a work on the Evidences 
 of Christianity, and curiosity led me to read it. His argument appeared 
 to me very strong ; but I found an intrinsic incredibility in the facts of 
 revealed history, which no general evidence seemed able to remove. I 
 was indeed laboring under what I believe to be a very common error 
 in this matter — an error which I have not been able completely to correct, 
 without a very long study of the subject myself. I expected that general 
 
276 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 evidence would remove the natural inverisimilitude of miraculous events; 
 that, being convinced by unanswerable arguments that Christ and his 
 Apostles could be neither impostors nor enthusiasts, and that the narra- 
 tive of their ministry is genuine and true, the imagination would not 
 shrink from forms of things so dissimilar to its own representations of 
 real objects, and so conformable in appearance with the tricks of jugglers 
 and impostors. Now, the fact is, that probable and likely, though used 
 as synonymous in common language, are perfectly distinct in philosophy. 
 The probable is that for the reality of which we can allege some reason : 
 the likely, that which bears in its face a semblance or analogy to what 
 is classed in our minds under the predicament of existence. This asso- 
 ciation is made early in life among Christians, in favor of the miraculous 
 events recorded in the Holy Scriptures ; and if not broken by infidelity 
 in after-life, the study of the Gospel evidence gives those events a char- 
 acter of reality, which leaves the mind satisfied and at rest; because it 
 finds the history of revealed religion not only probable but likely. It is 
 much otherwise with a man who rejects the Gospel for a considerable 
 period, and accustoms his mind to rank the supernatural works recorded 
 by revelation, with falsehood and imposture. Liklihood, in this case, 
 becomes the strongest ground of belief; and probability, though it may 
 convince the understanding, has but little influence over the imagina- 
 tion. 
 
 "A sceptic who yields to the powerful proofs of revelation, will, 
 for a long time, experience a most painful discordance between his judg- 
 ment and the associations which unbelief has produced. When most 
 earnest in the contemplation of Christian truth, when endeavoring to 
 bring home its comforts to the heart, the imagination will suddenly re- 
 volt, and cast the whole, at a sweep, among the rejected notions. This 
 is, indeed, a natural consequence of infidelity, which mere reasoning is 
 not able to remove. Nothing but humble prayer can, indeed, obtain 
 that faith which, when reason and sound judbment have led us to super- 
 natural truth, gives to unseen things the body and substance of reality. 
 But of this I shall have occasion to speak again. 
 
 "The degree of conviction produced by Paley's Evidences was, how- 
 ever, sufficiently powerful to make me pray daily for divine assistance. 
 This was done in a very simple manner. Every morning I repeated the 
 Lord's prayer seriously and attentively, offering up to ray Maker a sin- 
 cere desire of the knowledge of him. This practice I continued three 
 years. My persuasion, that Christianity was not one and the same 
 thing with the Roman Catholic religion, growing stronger all the while. 
 As my rejection of revealed religion had been the effect, not of direct 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 277 
 
 objection to its evidences, but of weighing tenets against them, which 
 they were not intended to support ; the balance inclined in favor of the 
 truth of the Gospel, in proportion as I struck out dogmas, which I had 
 been taught to identify with the doctrines of Christ. The day arrived, at 
 length, M'hen, convinced of the substantial truth of Christianity, no ques- 
 tion remained before me, but that of choosing the form under which I 
 was to profess it. The deliberation which preceded this choice, was one 
 of no great difficulty to me. The points of difference between the 
 Churches of England and Rome, though important, are comparatively 
 few ; they were, besides, the very points which had produced my unbelief. 
 That the doctrines common to both Churches were found in the Scrip- 
 tures, my early studies and professional knowledge left me no room to 
 doubt ; and, as the evidence of revelation had brought me to acknowledge 
 the authority of the Scriptures, I could find no objection to the resump- 
 tion of tenets which had so long possessed my belief. The communion 
 in which I was inclined to procure admission was not, indeed, that in 
 which I was educated ; but I had so long wandered away from the Roman 
 fold, that, when approaching the Church of England, both the absence 
 of what had driven me from Catholicism, and the existence of all the 
 other parts of that system made me feel as if I were returning to the 
 repaired home of my youth. 
 
 "Upon receiving the sacrament for the first time, according to the 
 form of the English Church, my early feelings of devotion revived ; yet 
 by no means, as it might be feared in a common case, with some secret 
 leaning to what I had left; for Catholicism was thoroughly blended 
 with my bitterest recollections. It was a devotion more calm and more 
 rational; if not quite strong in faith, yet decided as to practice. The 
 religious act I performed, I considered as a most solemn engagement to 
 obey the laws of the Gospel; and I thank God that, since that period, 
 whatever clouds have obscured my religious views, no deliberate breach 
 of the sacred law, has increased the sting of remorse, which the unbeliev- 
 ing part of my life left in my breast. 
 
 ''The renovated influence of religion, cherished by meditation and 
 study, induced me, after a period of a year and a half, to resume my 
 priestly character ; a step without which I thought I had not completed 
 the re-acknowledgment I owed to the truth of Christianity. If any one, 
 unacquainted with my circumstances, should be inclined to suspect my 
 motives, he may easily ascertain his mistake, by inquiring into the uni- 
 form tenor of my conduct since, in 1814, I subscribed the articles of the 
 Church of England." 
 
278 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 I must reserve my comments upon this passage to my next letter, and 
 remain 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 B. c. 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Oct. 23. 1826. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends — I now come to consider the process by which Mr. White 
 asserts he became a member of the Church of England. He attributes 
 his conversion, in the first place, to the study of Paley's Evidences of 
 Christianity. But he informs us, that no reasoning can remove infidel- 
 ity, page 29, that "nothing but a humble prayer can obtain that faith 
 which when reason and sound judgment have led us to supernatural 
 truth gives to things unseen the body and substance of reality. ' ' Con- 
 cerning this, to use his o^vn phrase, we shall have more hereafter. 
 
 Archdeacon Paley sets out with a plain proposition : That it is only 
 by miracles a revelation can be made. "Preparatory Considerations," 
 paragraph 3. "Now in what way can a revelation be made by miracles? 
 In none which we are able to conceive." If Mr. White was then con- 
 verted to Christianity by Archdeacon Paley's Evidences, he must have 
 been convinced of the truth of the miracles by which the divine mission 
 of the Apostles was attested: and indeed, the Archdeacon has put the 
 proof strongly. But if Mr. White had been in the least degree conver- 
 sant with the history or theology of his former Church, which is ours, 
 he must have plainly seen that in the two chapters of the archdeacon's 
 proofs of his second proposition part I, he was guilty of a great number 
 of palpably false statements ; and it was only by supposing the truth of 
 those statements, he was able to prevent the full force of his Evidences 
 in support of Christianity, from becoming proofs of the exclusive truth 
 of Catholicism. Here Mr. White must have been either very ignorant 
 of what he ought to know; or it is perfectly impossible that he could, 
 through Doctor Paley's Evidences, have become a Christian without be- 
 coming a Roman Catholic. I do not think his ignorance is so great as 
 this would require, and therefore I am of the opinion that to this moment 
 Mr. White is not a believer in the truth of the Christian religion. 
 
 Doctor Paley having in his first proposition established the fact, 
 that miracles were wrought to attest the commission of the teachers of 
 Christianity, and having in his preparatory considerations, admitted the 
 principle, that it is only by miracles we can obtain a revelation : it fol- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 279 
 
 lowed as a matter of course, that the first teachers were commissioned to 
 tell mankind what those revealed doctrines were. It also inevitably 
 followed that wherever a miracle was proved to exist, the consequence 
 would be the same. Thus the great difficulty which Paley had to en- 
 counter presented itself in the fact that the doctrines of Popery as ho 
 was pleased to call them, were supported by the very same evidence by 
 which he established the truth of Christianity. And until he could get 
 rid of this difficulty, Popery and Christianity must stand or fall together. 
 From the earliest days of the Church, and through every age, Koman 
 Catholics have constantly adduced this proof. We shall exhibit in our 
 Church, miracles; the author of our religion has declared that miracles 
 would continue amongst the believers in his revelation, therefore either 
 the whole system of Christianity is a delusion; or we are the true be- 
 lievers. 
 
 The archdeacon takes the most compendious mode of evading the 
 difficulty; for he never alludes to the declaration, and he boldly denies 
 truth of the fact. Now if Mr. White had paid the least attention to his 
 theological studies, he must have seen that the facts which archdeacon 
 Paley denied were in several instances true, and that those whose truth 
 might be denied had no influence or bearing on the question at issue. 
 I shall exhibit to you those parts of Paley 's dissertation to which I al- 
 lude. 
 
 Part I, prop, ii, section 1 : he states that he may omit as unworthy 
 of examination so far as regards proof of doctrine ''such accounts of 
 supernatural events as are found only in histories by some ages posterior 
 to the transaction, and of which it is evident the historian could know 
 little more than his reader." With this principle I fully concur. 
 Amongst the exemplifications, he classes "a great part of the legendary 
 history of Popish saints, the very best attested of which is extracted from 
 the certificates that are exhibited during the process of their canonization, 
 a ceremony which seldom takes place till a century after their deaths. 
 This is properly divisible into two parts, 1st, his general proposition : ' ' a 
 great part of the legendary history of Popish saints, ' ' has been written 
 long after they died: and 2d, "the best attested miracles of those saints 
 are extracted from certificates exhibited at their canonization, which sel- 
 dom takes place till after the lapse of a century." Suppose I were to 
 grant the truth of his first proposition its extent is only to a great part 
 but not to the whole of his legendary history. Now if even any part of 
 the history of miracles is true, it is true that miracles have been wrought 
 in the Popish Church, and therefore Popery stands upon the same 
 grounds as far as regards miracles, as does Christianity itself. The arch- 
 
280 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 deacon's argument will be perfectly valueless if he admits even one sub- 
 stantial miracle for Popery ; because, if one miracle can be wrought in 
 support of error, a miracle ceases to be an infallible test of truth; if a 
 miracle be not an infallible evidence of truth, we have no certainty o£ 
 the Christian doctrine being a divine revelation: the archdeacon dared 
 not to assert openly that no one of the miracles wrought in the Popish 
 Church was evident: but he used that stratagem, which must be the 
 refuge of a bad cause; by equivocal and vague propositions, he en- 
 deavored to approximate insensibly to his menacing position. 
 
 His next assertion is an exhibition of disingenuity. He does not 
 state an open falsehood, but he artfully constructs his sentence, so as to 
 convey to the reader an untruth which he does not plainly write. A cur- 
 sory view of his sentence would lead his reader to believe that the first 
 time the certificate of the truth of miracles was submitted to public and 
 solemn investigation, was not until a century after the alleged occur- 
 rence: that such an assertion was necessary to render his argument of 
 any avail is plain, when we look to the principle, which asserts that proof 
 to be insufficient which is only adduced ages posterior to the transaction. 
 Now the archdeacon knew, and if Mr. White did not know he ought to 
 have known, that the substantiated and sworn and sifted history was 
 contained in the certificate drawn up at the time of the occurrence, al- 
 though it was only produced at the process which preceded the canoniza- 
 tion. If the certificate was the official attestation of the result of a public 
 and strict inquiry, at the time and on the spot, where the transaction oc- 
 curred, it became a history, whose true date was the period of its forma- 
 tion, not that of its production. As well might Doctor Paley be told 
 "Sir, you ask me to believe the truth of a miraculous occurrence which 
 you say took place eighteen centuries ago, you produce a book which con- 
 tains the account : why did you not ask me to examine it in Judea at the 
 time of its occurrence ? ' ' The doctor would answer, that the transactions 
 testified were examined by competent witnesses at the time, and place, 
 and that these books were the certificates which contained the result of 
 the examination. Such is my answer to the doctor. By your looking to 
 his phraseology, you will find he does not state that the certificate was 
 framed during the process of canonization, but was exhibited at that 
 time. Now the doctor 's principle cannot bear upon the fact, if the certifi- 
 cate was * * cotemporary history, ' ' for he distinguishes the proofs ' ' which 
 are found only in history by some ages posterior to the transaction, ' ' and 
 which he deems insufficient, with what he calls sufficient, and what sup- 
 ported Christianity: this he describes [in the sentence] "ours is co- 
 temporary history." If then the certificates which are exhibited be co- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 281 
 
 temporary history, Doctor Paley's reasoning is bad, and he is disingen- 
 uous. But the certificates are ' ' cotemporary history, " as I have shewn. 
 
 A plain principle of common sense and of common law is, that no 
 person can testify any thing but what he has observed: a hearsay wit- 
 ness can only testify that an assertion has been made, but as several false 
 assertions are made, our knowledge of the assertion is not knowledge of 
 its truth. Thus a certificate of hear-say is no evidence : nor is a certificate 
 of a fact evidence of the fact, unless in the same manner that history 
 would be evidence thereof. It will be necessary to digress a little, by way 
 of historical inquiry, in order to shew the value of Dr. Paley's assertion. 
 
 Koman Catholics believe that it is now equally in the power of God 
 to work a miracle as it was at any former period, and if there exists evi- 
 dence of a miracle having been performed at any time, it ought to be be- 
 lieved : the archdeacon himself will not object to this principle. Roman 
 Catholics have regulated that the proper judges officially to examine and 
 to decide upon the truth of the fact, and of its nature, are the Bishops, 
 and those men of prudence and piety and science whom they may call 
 upon. When miracles were said to have occurred, the Bishops, so aided, 
 examined upon the spot, publicly, and proclaimed their judgment. The 
 proofs required for the pious belief of any person's being a saint after 
 death, were extraordinary sanctity of life, and repeated miracles per- 
 formed, especially by occasion of the person, at or about or even after 
 death. The Bishops after diligent inquiry upon the spot, at the time, 
 frequently found those proofs, and publicly proclaimed their belief and 
 judgment. It was complained of, that sometimes this examination was 
 not as rigorous as it ought to have been, and precautions were taken to 
 guard against partiality and precipitancy. By an ordinance of the 
 Council of Trent, passed in the 25th session, on the 3d of December, 
 1563, the Bishops were directed to have as their council in the examina- 
 tion of alleged miracles, learned theologians, and other proper persons; 
 and when they [have] made diligent inquisition by sworn witnesses, 
 upon the spot : and those witnesses separately examined, and their depo- 
 sitions separately drawn up: and all hear-say excluded; no deposition 
 being allowed to contain any but direct testimony of what fell under the 
 senses of the witness : and proper persons skilled in the natural philos- 
 ophy having been consulted : if, upon a review of the whole case delib- 
 erately made, the Bishop should be satisfied of the truth of the facts and 
 of their miraculous nature, he transmits a certified copy of the process 
 and depositions to the Holy See for more full examination. In Rome, 
 it is laid before the Congregation of Cardinals specially appointed for 
 such examination, having attached to them one or more lawyers and phy- 
 
282 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 sicians, whose duty it is by the closest scrutiny to try whether there be 
 any defect in the evidence as to the fact, or whether, the facts being 
 admitted, their truth will admit of any explanation that will destroy 
 their miraculous character. Should they pass this ordeal, the depositions 
 are sealed up, and kept together with the certificates of the two tribunals, 
 and at the end of fifty or of one hundred years, they are opened and laid, 
 together with any additional evidence which might have been procured, 
 for or against the facts, and examined with equal scrutiny by a tribunal 
 of persons who without the heat of enthusiasm, the partiality of a 
 former expression of opinion, or any other undue motive to sway them, 
 now calmly review the two former examinations, hearing all the argu- 
 ments of ingenious counsel against the facts, and having for their light 
 the aid of any progress which might in the interval have been made in 
 science, and they pronounce before God, as they will answer to him, a 
 solemn final judgment upon the case. It is true then, as Doctor Paley 
 wrote that "the very best attested of our Popish miracles are extracted 
 from the certificates that are exhibited during the process of the canoni- 
 zation of our saints, a ceremony which seldom takes place till a century 
 after their deaths," but it is not true as he insinuates, that those certifi- 
 cates are not "cotemporary history;" they are eotemporary history of 
 the best kind. Thus the doctor taught falsehoods whilst he wrote dis- 
 guised truth, and in the support of his second proposition of his first 
 part, he has all through exhibited the most ingenious ability in the per- 
 version of truth, to avoid a formidable difficulty. 
 
 I shall now examine a few of the special examples brought by Doctor 
 Paley to illustrate his principle. He says the principle ' ' applies also with 
 considerable force to some of the miracles of the third century." To 
 make his argument conclusive, he ought to have written all the miracles, 
 for if any one of them is proved, the proof of that one will suffice : thus 
 his disproving twenty would not destroy our position, provided we should 
 succeed in proving the truth of even one, for we could argue thus, upon 
 the doctor's own principle. The working of a miracle is evidence of 
 God's commission for the revelation or the confirmation of truth. But 
 here is the plain proof that a miracle has been w^rought. Therefore, here 
 is plain proof of God's testimony, for revelation or confirmation. Thus, 
 although the proof of several might be defective, the proof of one will be 
 sufficient. The archdeacon proceeds: "especially to one extraordinary 
 instance, the account of Gregory, Bishop of Neoc£esarea, called Thauma- 
 turgus, delivered in the writings of Gregory of Nyssen, who lived one 
 hundred and thirty years after the subject of his panegyric." 
 
 Now I would merely remark, that if the question w'as, whether upon 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 283 
 
 the evidence which we now possess, of the miracles wrought by the 
 Bishop of Neocaesarea, taken in a sole and isolated way, we were called 
 upon to determine the truth or falsehood of the doctrines of our Church, 
 perhaps that proof would not be fully sufficient. But such is not the 
 case : we do not claim that our doctrines are true because they are sup- 
 ported by the testimony of God manifested only in the miracles of this 
 holy man and of others having no better proof. We will give them up, 
 and also those of hundreds of others, and still we will have hundreds 
 not liable to this objection, nor to any other objection of any weight: 
 and upon those we will found one of our arguments, that if miracles 
 prove the truth of Christianity, they also prove the truth of our Church. 
 But it will not be the loss of time to examine the archdeacon's as- 
 sertions somewhat more closely. — 1st. St. Gregory of Neocsesarea died in 
 271 ; Gregory of Nyssa was chosen Bishop of his see in 372, after having 
 assisted his brother, St. Basil, who was Archbishop of Caesarea ; Basil was 
 born in the year 329, between Basil and Gregory was a brother named 
 Naucratius ; probably Gregory was not less than forty years of age when 
 he was chosen bishop; thus between the death of one Gregory and the 
 birth of the other, there did not intervene half the period of one hundred 
 and thirty years. The latter Gregory was born in Cffisarea of Cappa- 
 docia, between which place and Neocaesarea in Pontus there was no extra- 
 ordinary distance : and his father 's family were living in Pontus : Nyssa, 
 not Nyssen, of which he was bishop, was in Cappadocia; thus between 
 the time and place of the residence of Thaumaturgus and his panegyrist, 
 there was no extraordinary distance. Gregory Thaumaturgus was no 
 obscure personage. His parents were eminent for their rank and for- 
 tune in the city of Neocassarea ; they were not Christians ; their daughter 
 being married to the assistant governor of Caesarea in Palestine, Gregory 
 and his brother Athenodorus, went to stay with her for a time ; they at- 
 tended a famous school of Roman law in the neighborhood of Berytus, 
 and were subsequently disciples of the famous Origen, during his so- 
 journ in Cfesarea ; Gregory also studied Platonic philosophy and physics 
 at Alexandria in Egypt, and upon his return to Pontus, he not only was 
 a Christian, but eminent for piety. Phedimus, archbishop of Amasea 
 and metropolitan of Pontus, prevailed upon him to undertake the epis- 
 copal charge of his native city, in which there were only, as we are in- 
 formed, seventeen believers. A vast number of miracles are said to 
 have been wrought by him: and the public statements were, that their 
 evidence was so great, that it was the principal cause of the conversion 
 of the whole city and its vicinity. The fact of the conversion is not con- 
 tested, nor is it contested, that the public testimony was, that the con- 
 
284 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 version was the consequence of miracles. Nor is the fact contested, that 
 ever since, he has been known through the Christian world, by the name 
 of Thaumaturgus, or worker of miracles. Those facts are and have 
 been notorious. St. Gregory of Nyssa had very excellent opportunities 
 of examination upon the spot ; he describes to us some of the documents 
 which in his time were preserved in the archives of the Church of Neo- 
 cjEsarea, and which had been left there by its founder. He then spoke of 
 a public series of facts, which he asserts were notoriously true, in the 
 vicinity of the place where those facts occurred, and some of the monu- 
 ments of the miracles to which they relate being as he states in existence ; 
 and others testify without contradiction, at a subsequent period by two 
 or three centuries, that the monuments still existed as evidence of the 
 facts ; and the generation who witnessed the facts and testified to their 
 successors, having yet scarcely disappeared from the place when Gregory 
 of Nyssa flourished. But a stronger circumstance remains to be observed 
 upon, which is, that although only the account of Gregory of Nyssa has 
 been transmitted to us, yet it by no means follows that this is the first 
 history which was written. The question is concerning a public fact, or 
 rather a series of public facts, well known in the place, and at the time, 
 and having full evidence of truth when the record which we possess was 
 penned ; but a variety of circumstances make it clear, that although this 
 is perhaps the oldest document which we possess, yet it is not the oldest 
 which was drawn up. The question is easily solved by asking, whether 
 Gregory of Nyssa could have been deceived in his inquiry, and whether 
 he would or could have imposed upon the credulity of his flock; and 
 how did it occur, that a vast number of other flocks in the vicinity were 
 similarly persuaded. Archdeacon Paley has been very uncandid, for he 
 has not stated the fact accurately, nor is it upon even such facts we 
 build our argument.^ 
 
 Paley 's next exemplification is the following : 
 
 ' ' The value of this circumstance is shown to have been accurately ex- 
 emplified in the history of Ignatius Loyola, founder of the order of 
 Jesuits.^ His life, written by a companion of his, and by one of the 
 order, was published about fifteen years after his death. In which life, 
 the author, so far from ascribing any miracles to Ignatius, industriously 
 
 '^Vid. S. Grey. Njss. de Vit. B. Grey. Mirac. Opif. Orat. opp. Tom. 1, Ed, 
 Morell, p. 916. 
 
 Of one of the miraculous events in the life of S. Gregory, the Protestant Bishop 
 Bull thus writes: "No one should think it incredible that such a providence should 
 befall a man whose whole life was conspicuous for revelations and miracles, as all 
 ecclesiastical writers who have mentioned him, (and who has not,) witness with one 
 voice." — Defens. Fid. Nic. ii. 12. cited in Essay on Development, p. 180. 
 
 ' Douglas 's Criterion of Miracles, p. 74. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 285 
 
 states the reasons why he was not invested with any such power. The 
 life was republished fifteen years afterwards, with the addition of many 
 circumstances, which were the fruit, the author says, of further inquiry, 
 and of diligent examination ; but still, with a total silence about miracles. 
 When Ignatius had been dead nearly sixty years, the Jesuits conceiving 
 a wish to have the founder of their order placed in the Roman calendar, 
 began, as it should seem, for the first time, to attribute to him a cata- 
 logue of miracles, which could not then be distinctly disproved; and 
 which there was, in those who governed the Church, a strong disposition 
 to admit upon the slenderest proofs." 
 
 Paley refers to Douglas, who only takes up a refuted objection of 
 Bayle; and thus the archdeacon's argument to exclude Popery is without 
 any good grounds. Let us examine the facts of the assertion. "In 
 which life, the author, so far from ascribing any miracles to Ignatius, 
 industriously states the reasons why he was not invested with any such 
 power. ' ' Any person reading this passage, would naturally suppose that 
 Ribadiniera, who is the biographer referred to, asserted that Ignatius 
 did not work any miracles : such is evidently the meaning insinuated by 
 Paley. Yet no such assertion is made: the expression is, Quamobrem 
 illius sanctitas minus est testata miraculis. — "Wherefore his sanctity is 
 less proved by miracles. ' ' Producing a smaller quantity, is by no means 
 omitting to produce any quantity, and still less is it asserting wo quantity 
 of evidence could be produced. But in truth the minus does not appear 
 to refer to the quantity of the miracles, but to place the evidence of 
 sanctity, by inference from miracles, in minor distinction to the direct 
 evidence of sanctity exhibited in conduct. This is no denial of the ex- 
 istence of miracles, but the assertion of a more plain and higher species 
 of direct proof. Ribadiniera in the last chapter, page 209, of the first 
 edition, denies beforehand the truth of the archdeacon's assertion in two 
 very effectual ways. Mihi tantum abest ut ad vitam Ignatii illustran- 
 dam miracula deesse videantur, ut multa eaque prgestantissima judicem- 
 in luce versari. "So far am I from believing that there exists any 
 want of miracles to illustrate the life of Ignatius, that I would judge 
 that many and those of the best description are plainly evident." How 
 could Bayle, or Douglas, or Paley assert that this man stated that Igna- 
 tius wrought no miracles 'I The second mode of contradicting Paley 's 
 assertion is given in that same chapter, where he recapitulates several 
 miraculous facts which he had already stated in his narrative. This first 
 history was published in 1572. The same author did, fifteen years after, 
 viz. in 1587, publish the history of the life of Ignatius with some ad- 
 ditions; but it is not true as the achdeacon asserts, "still with a total 
 
286 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 silence about miracles." Nor is his next insinuation true, that nothing 
 more was done until sixty years after his death: for the same author 
 shortly after this second edition, published a Latin abstract of the first 
 compilation which is styled Alteram breviorem vitam, sed multis ac 
 novis miraculis auctam. "Another shorter life but augmented by 
 many and new miracles.'''' In this he states that he was cautious before 
 of relating miracles, which though duly testified, had not been as yet 
 duly and fully examined and approved, and that those which he did 
 previously relate were selected by the judgment of prudent persons; 
 being but a few of those which were commonly testified and believed. Of 
 course there is no truth whatever in the assertion of Paley that when 
 Ignatius had been dead nearly sixty years, the Jesuits began for the 
 first time to attribute to him a catalogue of miracles which could not 
 then be distinctly disproved. He died in 1556. All the cotemporary 
 historians tell us that the people esteemed him a saint even before his 
 death; and that their opinion was upheld amongst other testimony, by 
 miracles. In 1572, an intimate companion of his selects from amongst 
 many and those of the best description of miracles, some which he speci- 
 fies in his book which is published. In 1587, a new edition with additions, 
 is published by the same author, afterwards an abridgment of the first, 
 with many new miracles added, is published: the writer states that a 
 reason for not having inserted many of those at an earlier period was 
 caution, until the proofs of the fact and the nature of the works should 
 have been more closely examined. In 1604, the same author prints again 
 an account of the life of Ignatius amongst his Lives of Holy Persons. 
 This was in Spanish ; and he states ' ' Though when I first printed his life 
 in 1572, I knew some miracles of the holy father, I did not look upon 
 them to be so verified by process {averiguados) as to think I ought to 
 publish them, but they were afterwards fully proved by credible wit- 
 nesses to be true, during the authentical process taken in order to his 
 canonization ; and the Lord who was pleased to exalt him, and make him 
 glorious on earth, daily works, on his account, such miracles as to oblige 
 me here to relate them ; taken from the original juridicial informations 
 which several bishops have taken and from the depositions made on 
 oath of the persons upon whom they were wrought, ' ' and so forth. 
 
 Thus we have public, common testimony during his life ; and after 
 his death, we have the written testimony of his biographer to the gen- 
 eral proposition and to some special facts, fifteen years after his death. 
 But those facts had been examined at the time, though not judicially es- 
 tablished even as yet, though the evidences and certificates, and the pro- 
 cesses were preserved. The law of the Council of Trent, which had 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 287 
 
 closed but a few years before, prevented their hasty publication ; within 
 the space of thirty years the whole is re-asserted, after more mature ex- 
 amination, new developments are made, and the former certificates and 
 inquiries are made now available, and another publication with ad- 
 ditional evidence and new facts appears : in 1604, within 40 years after 
 his death, extracts are made from the authenticated and maturely ex- 
 amined depositions and informations, and new testimonies of recent 
 miracles are added. With all this accumulation of facts before us, what 
 are we to say of Archdeacon Paley, who asserts that it was not until 
 nearly sixty years after his death, which would be about 1616, that 
 miracles began to be first attributed to Ignatius? The documents hav- 
 ing been fully substantiated and tested, application was made for the 
 examination of the evidence in Rome, now that it had passed the scru- 
 tiny of several other tribunals. In 1609, after mature examination. Pope 
 Paul V. admitted the sufficiency of the evidence. Again in 1622, Greg- 
 ory XV. heard the report of the Cardinal de Monte and the other com- 
 missioners, who examined the evidence after a re-examination at the tri- 
 bunal of the Rota, and a review of that examination by the Congregation 
 of Rites. Upon the hearing of the report, the Pope Gregory gave his 
 full assent in that year, and in 1623, Pope Urban VIII. published the 
 bull of canonization. I shall merely ask, whether if Paley knew those 
 facts, he was candid and honest in the construction of his sentence. If 
 Paley, who was originally educated a Protestant and who only copied 
 Douglas, as Douglas followed Bayle, might perhaps have been excusably 
 ignorant, surely White can have no such excuse. If then Paley had led 
 him to believe that a miracle was evidence of revelation, he must have 
 been the most illiterate Catholic clergyman, that could be ordinarily met 
 with, if he did not see that the Roman Catholic religion was revealed by 
 God : for it possesses the most indubitable proofs of a succession of mir- 
 acles. In the very case of St. Ignatius adduced by Paley, so far from 
 being true as he asserts, that nearly sixty years had elapsed before the 
 Jesuits began to attribute miracles to him, the sixty-six years which inter- 
 vened between his death and his canonization were marked by close and 
 extensive inquiries into the truth of several miracles, which were fre- 
 quently published and kept under the public view. Of this it is barely 
 possible, charitably to suppose Paley ignorant; but White could not 
 have been ignorant of the fact unless he was a grossly ignorant priest. I 
 care not which side of the alternative the accumulating phalanx of our 
 reverend opponents will take : they are welcome to choose. But I shall 
 proceed to examine Paley still farther, to show that he could not make 
 
288 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 White resume a belief in the truth of Christianity, without causing him 
 to embrace Catholicism. 
 
 I remain yours, 
 
 B. c. 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Oct. 30, 1826. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends — I shall in this letter continue my examination of Dr. 
 Paley's alleged reasons why the principle, that although miracles prove 
 revelation, they ought not to prove Catholicism, is to be held. You will 
 recollect, that this reasoning is founded upon the assumption that no 
 miracle in favor of Catholicism exists; my assertion is that Mr. White 
 had evidence of the existence of many such miracles, and that if he there- 
 fore believed Paley's principle that miracles prove revelation, he ought 
 to have become a Roman Catholic, and farther that he must, if he had 
 been a well instructed Roman Catholic, have seen that Paley was guilty 
 of several falsehoods in his attempt to avoid the conclusion "that Cath- 
 olicism must be a divine institution, if Christianity is a divine institu- 
 tion ; ' ' because the reasons which prove the one prove the other. It was 
 for this purpose that in my last letter I examined Paley, and for this pur- 
 pose I now continue the examination. 
 
 Under the second head of chapter i, prop, ii, part i, the archdeacon 
 says of miracles, ''We may leave out of the case, accounts published in 
 one country, of what passed in a different country, without any proof 
 that such accounts were known and received at home." With this prin- 
 ciple I fully agree ; because the account of the miracle is the account of a 
 fact, and the fact must necessarily be first kno'O'n, and received as truth, 
 where it occurred, and it then travels abroad w'ith authority. But the 
 principle has its main value in its last clause, without any proof that such 
 accounts were known and received at home, for certainly, the mere publi- 
 cation in one country of what passed in a distant country, would be no 
 reason for disbelieving the truth of the occurrence ; otherwise, the arch- 
 deacon could not expect that any person in England should believe that 
 Moses caused water to gush forth miraculously from a rock in Arabia. 
 The whole force of the principle is then found in the clause which I have 
 marked in italics. 
 
 The archdeacon thus exemplifies. "Those miracles of Francis 
 Xavier, the Indian missionary, with many others of the Romish Breviary, 
 are liable to the same objection, viz : that the accounts of them were pub- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 289 
 
 lished at a vast distance from the supposed scene of the wonders." We 
 have seen that the bare publication at a distance from the scene of 
 action is not the jet of the principle which Paley laid down, yet in his 
 phrase, this is the only circumstance which he objects to the miracles of 
 this saint ; therefore, as logicians would say, he has changed his middle 
 term, than which a more ingenious or discreditable artifice could scarce- 
 ly be used. His fallacy in such a case would be enough to convict him 
 of deliberate dishonesty: to save him from which, we must suppose he 
 meant, that those miracles of St. Francis Xavier which were published 
 at a vast distance from the scene of action, were not known or received 
 as truths in India, and in Japan, where they were said to have occurred. 
 We are thus brought to a simple inquiry regarding the fact of their 
 having been known and received as true, where they are stated to have 
 occurred : if they were so received, the archdeacon is erroneous ; if they 
 were not, we must give up the miracles. Let us therefore examine : I 
 shall give but an outline, which I shall at any time that the cause of 
 truth may require it, be ready to fill up. In the years 1542, and 1543, 
 the miracles of St. Francis Xavier were so well known and received as 
 truths at Cape Comorin, that in consequence of their splendid evidence, 
 the prince of that region, on their account, gave leave to his people to 
 change their religion and to become members of the Church, and vast 
 numbers, amongst whom were many of the principal inhabitants, conse- 
 quently became Christians of the Catholic Church. In the year 1543, 
 upon the Pearl Coast, he procured the conversion of vast numbers, and 
 the respect of others, and the hatred of many, by his miracles, amongst 
 which were the raising to life of four dead persons. In 1544 and 1545, 
 in the kingdom of Travancor he received the gift of tongues, so that he 
 preached and instructed, and familiarly conversed in languages which 
 he had never previously heard spoken. The very fact of which was testi- 
 fied by the people to whom he preached, and by the consequences of his 
 preaching, in their conversion and reformation. At Coulon, a village in 
 Travancor, near Cape Comorin, when the people did not appear disposed 
 to conversion by his preaching, after a short prayer, he caused them to 
 open a grave, in which a body had been interred by them on the previous 
 day, and which body was now putrifying and emitting a noisome stench, 
 and commanding the dead man to arise in the name of the living God, 
 he was restored to life, and the people were converted, and demanded 
 baptism; he also in the same kingdom raised to life a young man, a 
 Christian, whose friends were bearing the body to interment : those facts 
 were so notorious, and so far believed and received as to produce the con- 
 version of the great bulk of the people in the course of a few months, in 
 
290 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 those years. In 1549, lie publicly restored to life a young pagan lady of 
 quality, who had been dead during an entire day, and by his blessing 
 restored a deformed child to beauty, in Maxuma in Japan; the conse- 
 quences of which miracles were several conversions. In 1550, at Aman- 
 guchi, in Japan, he had the gift of tongues, speaking several new lan- 
 guages to persons of nations in whose tongues he had never been in- 
 structed. In 1552, he restored to life at Malacca, a young man named 
 Francis Ciavos, who afterwards became a member of the society of 
 Jesuits. This fact was notorious and received at the place. King John 
 III, of Portugal, ordered, besides the usual examinations which the 
 Church requires, as mentioned in my last letter, that the depositions 
 should be taken, and the examinations made in several places, and a 
 process of the whole dra\^Ti up at Goa; the examination was made in 
 the several places, and the results were transmitted to Europe. Sub- 
 sequent travellers and missionaries found in all the places the most 
 satisfactory evidence of the miracles amongst the people. The miracles 
 themselves are known in the several places to have been the principal 
 cause of the conversion of vast numbers, who became martyrs, and of 
 the creation of the Churches which still in many of those places subsist 
 and preserve the testimonials. I avow to you that no effort which ever 
 has been made to destroy or to discredit evidence, appears to me more 
 barefaced and desperate, than that of Paley, when he asserts that the 
 miracles of "Francis Xavier, the Indian missionary," belonged to that 
 class which were "published in one country as having passed in a dis- 
 tant country, without any proof that such accounts were known or re- 
 ceived at home." I was confounded and shocked when I read it. I 
 saw, of course that he had a desperate game to play, but when I re- 
 flected upon this passage, all my respect for Archdeacon Paley van- 
 ished : and I still lament that so clear a head should have had recourse 
 to so unprincipled a mode of sustaining any cause. It is true that Paley 
 endeavors to escape upon the shoulders of Douglas, to whose work he 
 refers : but for a man who had to treat of so important a subject, such a 
 reference is no excuse. White is still less excusable, because if he had 
 paid one particle of attention to his own early studies, he must have seen 
 how flagrantly erroneous was Paley 's statement, and of course how in- 
 conclusive his argument. Did Bishop Kemp ever take the trouble of 
 examining our evidence of those facts? 
 
 Doctor Paley, in his section vii, of the same chapter, has the follow- 
 ing passage : 
 
 "We have laid out of the case those accounts which require no 
 more than a simple assent; and we now also lay out of the case those 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 291 
 
 which come merely in affirmance of opinions already formed. This last 
 circumstance it is of the utmost importance to notice well. It has long 
 been observed, that Popish miracles happen in Popish countries; that 
 they make no converts ; which proves that stories are accepted, when they 
 fall in with principles already fixed, with the public sentiments, or with 
 sentiments of a party already engaged on the side the miracle supports, 
 which would not be attempted to be produced in the face of enemies, in 
 opposition to reigning tenets or favorite prejudices, or when, if they be 
 believed, the belief must draw men away from their preconceived and 
 habitual opinions, from their modes of life and rules of action. In the 
 former case, men may not only receive a miraculous account, but may 
 both act and suffer on the side, and in the cause, which the miracle sup- 
 ports, yet not act or suffer for the miracle, but in pursuance of a prior 
 persuasion. The miracle, like any other argument which only confirms 
 what was before believed, is admitted with little examination. In the 
 moral, as in the natural world, it is change which requires a cause. 
 Men are easily fortified in their old opinions, driven from them with 
 great difficulty. Now how does this apply to the Christian history ? The 
 miracles there recorded, were wrought in the midst of enemies, under a 
 government, a priesthood, and a magistracy, decidedly and vehemently 
 adverse to them, and to the pretensions which they supported. They 
 were Protestant miracles in a Popish country; they were Popish mir- 
 acles in the midst of Protestants. They produced a change ; they estab- 
 lished a society upon the spot, adhering to the belief of them ; they made 
 converts ; and those who were converted gave up to the testimony their 
 most fixed opinions and most favorite prejudices. They who acted and 
 suffered in the cause, acted and suffered for their miracles: for there 
 was no anterior persuasion to induce them, prior reverence, prejudice, or 
 partiality to take hold of. Jesus had not one follower when he set up 
 his claim. His miracles gave birth to his sect. No part of his description 
 belongs to the ordinary evidence of Heathen or Popish miracles. Even 
 most of the miracles alleged to have been performed by Christians, in 
 the second and third centuries of its asra, want this confirmation. It 
 constitutes indeed a line of partition between the origin and the progress 
 of Christianity. Frauds and fallacies might mix themselves with the 
 progress, which could not possibly take place in the commencement of 
 the religion ; at least, according to any laws of human conduct that we 
 are acquainted with. What should suggest to the first propagators of 
 Christianity, especially to fishermen, tax-gatherers, and husbandmen, 
 such a thought as that of changing the religion of the world ; what could 
 bear them through the difficulties in which the attempt engaged them; 
 
292 CONTROVEKSY Vol. 
 
 what could procure any degree of success to the attempt; are questions 
 which apply with great force, to the setting out of the institution, with 
 less, to every future stage of it." 
 
 In this the writer evidently forgets both himself and history; he also 
 lays down a principle which is untrue, or the Scriptures of the old law 
 are false records, and Mr. White ought to have seen this if he was a 
 theologian. I shall dwell a short time upon this latter proposition of the 
 archdeacon, that we are to leave out of the case all those miracles which 
 come merely ' ' in affirmance of opinions already formed, ' ' and which ' * cir- 
 cumstance it is of the utmost importance to notice well." The conclu- 
 sion which the archdeacon would have us to draw, is necessarily, that 
 when a person says that he is commissioned to work a miracle, to affirm 
 the truth of a doctrine previously received, we need not inquire whether 
 a miracle is wrought or not, but we must disbelieve him altogether. 
 Therefore, in plain fact, we must never believe that a miracle has been 
 wrought since the days of the Apostles, and so says the Doctor : for he 
 says, "even most of the miracles alleged to have been performed by 
 Christians in the second and third centuries, want this confirmation." 
 Here is the consciousness of a bad cause manifestly exhibited in the 
 vagueness of the expression most of the miracles. Why not boldly say, 
 all of them, if his position is a good one ; or specify some mode by which 
 we may be able to say definitely and decisively which of the alleged mir- 
 acles we ought to examine ? I assert that we ought to examine every al- 
 leged miracle, whether of the first or of the nineteenth century, and 
 [that] we have no power to tell the Almighty that he shall not make a 
 revelation to us at one time, as well as at another ; and I assert that the 
 proof of the truth of the miracle is to be found in its own nature, and 
 not in the circumstance of the time at which it is wrought. There is noth- 
 ing in the nature of things, or in the nature of religion to make it ira- 
 possble for God to do now works similar to those done by him at any 
 former time. The examiner has only to ascertain two points: first, 
 whether this event occurred: secondly, whether the occurrence could 
 have taken place without God's special intervention beyond the effects 
 of his natural law. The first he ascertains by ordinary testimony, the 
 second he ascertains by the common belief of competent persons as to 
 what the law of nature cannot reach to. Paley's other distinction is ar- 
 bitrary and unfounded, viz. that a miracle is unnecessary for the con- 
 firmation of truth already known ; if he means that this truth is known 
 and believed by all persons, and that there exists no danger of a loss 
 of truth, and of a relapse into error, such a case is metaphysical: yet 
 even in this supposition, God might, in his wisdom, think it as neces- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 293 
 
 sary to confirm for one generation, that truth which had been previously 
 revealed to a former race, as to prove its original revelation to an ante- 
 cedent people. Besides, there has in fact been no age in which it was 
 not necessary to make truth manifest to infidels. 
 
 But the scriptural facts are all against the archdeacon. The Jewish 
 people in Egypt were not an infidel race : yet we find a series of miracles 
 wrought to confirm them in the belief of those doctrines which they had 
 received by tradition from their fathers, as well as to prove the legation 
 of Moses. They received no new doctrines at Sinai ; they only received 
 a religious organization, and had a ritual law imposed upon them. But 
 suppose that the miracles wrought at Sinai were to shew them that this or- 
 ganization and this ritual ought to be submitted to and preserved; ac- 
 cording to Paley, the people of Israel ought to put out of the case every 
 alleged miracle "in affirmance of opinions thus already formed," and 
 therefore all the miracles related in the books of Josue, Judges, Samuel, 
 Kings, Chronicles, the Prophets, and so forth, to the end of the old law, 
 "ought to be put out of the case." Here is a pretty sweeping of some 
 hundreds of miracles from the sacred records, or else the archdeacon's 
 principle is as irreligious as it is unphilosophical. All those miracles 
 were wrought in affirmance of doctrines, not opinions already believed, 
 not formed. Doctor Paley ought to have known that faith does not allow 
 the formation of an opinion, but requires simple acceptance and unhesi- 
 tating belief of the doctrine which God reveals. What we are taught by 
 heaven is not opinion ; opinion is of our own formation. I should like to 
 know what the Doctor would advise in case that I were one of five hun- 
 dred who saw a man raised from the dead in affirmance of faith. Would 
 he tell me that such a supposition is absurdity, because miracles are not 
 wrought now, that his principles must be true, that there must be some 
 error, though he could not point it out ? Yet he should give up his prin- 
 ciple or make this assertion: if he makes this assertion, how will he 
 answer Voltaire or Hume, who tell him exactly the same regarding the 
 miracles which he adduces to prove Christianity ? Thus have good gen- 
 tlemen destroyed the foundations of revelation by attempting to subvert 
 Catholicism. 
 
 But I cannot rest here. The Doctor's principle is false or the Bible 
 is a tissue of falsehoods : and still more, Paley asserts what is not true, if 
 he asserts that the miracles wrought in our Church in the several ages 
 were wrought merely in affirmance of opinion already formed. Was this 
 the character of the miracles of St. Francis Xavier ? Were not his mir- 
 acles wrought, as were those of the apostles, to effect the conversion of un- 
 believers ? Was this the characteristic of those of St. Gregory Thauma- 
 
294 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 turgus ? Were they not wrought for the conversion of the infidel people 
 of NeocJEsarea? Did they not in each case produce the same effect? 
 Such, too, was the case in thousands of instances of the best authenticated 
 miracles which have taken place in our Church in every age from the 
 days of the Apostles to the present day ; in accordance with the promises 
 of the Saviour, given without any limitation of time, as may be seen in 
 a variety of places, as [for instance] in the Gospel of St. Mark, xvi, 
 17-18, "And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name, they 
 shall east out devils : they shall speak with new tongues : they shall take 
 up serpents : and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt 
 them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick and they shall 
 recover." These were miracles wrought in an infidel country; 
 they were not in a Popish country, as the archdeacon is pleased 
 to be rude and uncivil in his nicknames. Mr. White ought to have known 
 that Popish miracles have been frequently wrought in the midst of Pro- 
 testants, as well as of infidels, and therefore that Paley's assertion was 
 untrue. Mr. White's American sponsors have attempted, and a most 
 miserable and abortive attempt it was, to get rid of a fact which I be- 
 lieve to be palpably miraculous, though I am not authorized officially to 
 publish it as such, which took place in their owti city. I would this day, 
 after all their leisure for examination, ask them, was Mrs. Mattingly, of 
 the city of Washington, instantaneously healed from an incurable dis- 
 order not three years since ? I assert that she was : and I call upon the 
 reverend gentleman to produce, in the whole Union, any physician of a 
 reputable character, who will, to a plain statement of the facts of her 
 cure, affix his certificate that such a cure can be accounted for by any 
 natural process, or could take place without being miraculous. Mr. Haw- 
 ley knows also that conversions took place in consequence of this cure. 
 
 In the commencement of his first chapter, prop, ii, part 1, Paley 
 says: 
 
 ' ' If the reformers in the time of Wickliffe, or of Luther, or those of 
 England, in the time of Henry the Eighth, or of Queen Mary; or the 
 founders of our religious sects since, such as were Mr. Whitefield and 
 Mr. Wesley in our own times ; had undergone the life of toil and exer- 
 tion, of danger and of sufferings, which we know that many of them did 
 undergo for a miraculous story ; that is to say, if they had founded their 
 public ministry iipon the allegation of miracles wrought within their 
 own knowledge, and upon narratives which could not be resolved into 
 delusion or mistake ; and if it appeared, that their conduct really had its 
 origin in these accounts, I should have believed them." 
 
 Now the archdeacon cannot complain of my asserting that it is as 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 295 
 
 necessary in many eases to work a miracle to preserve truth formerly de- 
 livered, as to establish it originally, when I shew its necessity from the 
 nature of the case, and the authority of scripture. I shall give but an 
 outline and a fact. Suppose in those times to which he alludes, the whole 
 body of the professors of Christianity had swerved from the truth, and 
 that King Henry or Martin Luther was commissioned to bring them back 
 to pure doctrine and virtuous conduct, would they not have as difficult a 
 task in converting [them from] Romish idolatry as the first Apostles had 
 in converting the former pagans? Suppose those virtuous reformers to 
 have been wrong, but still successful in deluding many, would not the 
 miracles be as necessary to preserve the faith of the just, and to con- 
 found the apostates, as it was in the days of Elias, when he wrought so 
 many to confirm the faithful Jews, and to confound those who had apos- 
 tatised ? Why then would the archdeacon not believe a miracle wrought 
 in support of the truth of the old religion, as he would if it could be 
 wrought against it? He gives us his reason in a subsequent passage in 
 the second paragraph of section vii. of the same chapter : 
 
 "Hath any founder of a new sect among Christians pretended to 
 miraculous power, and succeeded by his pretensions?" ''Were these 
 powers claimed or exercised by the founders of the sects of the Waldenses 
 and Albigenses ? Did Wickliffe in England pretend to it ? Did Huss or 
 Jerome in Bohemia? Did Luther in Germany, Zwinglius in Switzer- 
 land, Calvin in France, or any of the Reformers, advance this plea? 
 The French prophets, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, ven- 
 tured to allege miraculous evidence, and immediately ruined their cause 
 by their temerity." 
 
 So, then, because no miracles were wrought by the opponents of the 
 Church, we are to say they were not wrought in the Church. When 
 Paley, quoting from Campbell, asks, "Did Calvin advance this plea?" 
 I answer that he did, and made a most deplorable failure. For, in at- 
 tempting to revive a sleeping tailor, he killed him. If Mr. White had 
 been even partially instructed, he could not but see that all the attempts 
 of Paley to overthrow the evidence in favor of Catholicism were abortive. 
 
 In the same chapter, under the head of appreciating the miracles 
 from their own nature, the archdeacon, in section iii, ranks under the 
 head of doubtful whether they were miraculous, admitting the truth of 
 the phenomenon, "the extraordinary circumstances which obstructed 
 the re-building of the temple at Jerusalem by Julian." Doctor Wav- 
 burton, and several other eminent Protestant divines, admit fully and 
 maintain their miraculous nature ; but as the occurence took place about 
 the middle of the fourth century, this period is far too late for the arch- 
 
296 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 deacon. He therefore contradicts, upon the subject, besides a whole 
 host of his own divines, St. Cyril, then Bishop of Jerusalem, who was 
 present and who foretold that the obstruction would take place, St, 
 Gregory Nazianzcn, who in the next year wrote a description of this 
 miracle, St. John Chrysostom, who about twenty years after testified 
 its miraculous nature, and made solemn and public appeals founded 
 thereon, St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, a cotemporary who wrote upon 
 the subject in the year 388, Rufinus, who lived upon the spot, Theodoret, 
 who lived in the vicinity, together with Arians and Pagans ; and any 
 person of common observation must acknowledge, if he believes the truth 
 of the fact, that it was necessarily miraculous. 
 
 In the same paragraph the archdeacon has, upon the authority oi 
 Justin, 
 
 "The miracles of the second and third century are, usually healing 
 the sick, and casting out evil spirits, miracles in which there is room 
 for some error or deception. We hear nothing of causing the blind to 
 see, the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, the lepers to be cleansed." 
 
 The incident to the first of those propositions carries with it the 
 refutation of the principle sought* to be established. That principle is, 
 that healing the sick or casting out evil spirits, is not a miracle, yet the 
 incident allows that they are miracles, but only states that there is room 
 for error or deception. But if the evidence of the fact be so strong 
 as to leave no room for error or deception, there can be no question of the 
 truth of the fact itself. If the fact be true, there is an admission of 
 the truth of the miracle, thus as there is equally strong evidence to 
 prove that those facts occurred in the second and third ages as to prove 
 that they occurred in the first, there is equal proof of the existence of 
 miracles in the second and third ages as in the first age. If there were 
 not miracles in those latter ages, there is no reason for stating them to 
 be miracles when related in the gospel. Thus will the archdeacon, by 
 endeavoring to destroy the proofs of Catholicism, destroy the proofs of 
 Christianity: and thus Mr. White ought to have seen that if miracles 
 established the one, they establish the other. Hence, if the principles 
 of Paley converted him to Christianity, they ought to have brought him 
 back to Catholicism. 
 
 The second proposition of the extract is a manifest untruth: for 
 the histories of the second and third ages abound in proofs of the restor- 
 ation of sight, of hearing, of limbs, and even of life itself. White ought 
 to have known this, and other great drawbacks, upon Paley 's work, 
 some of which I shall exhibit in my next. 
 
 I remain yours, b. c. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 297 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Nov. 6, 1826. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends — If Mr. White had been a well informed Roman Cath- 
 olic, he would have seen, as I have shewn, that Archdeacon Paley was 
 either very grossly deceived, or wilfully endeavored to delude his read- 
 ers, in his accounts of our miraculous facts; he would have seen full 
 evidence for a multitude of those facts in the Roman Catholic Church, 
 in every age, from that of the Apostles to the present day. If, there- 
 fore, he believed the principle with which the archdeacon set out, viz. 
 that miracles were proof of revelation, and revelation the evidence of 
 God's testimony, Mr. White must have seen that God's testimony was in 
 favor of the Roman Catholic Church; and if he followed Paley 's train 
 of argument, he must, as soon as he discovered the truth of those evident 
 facts, have become a Roman Catholic : or if he did not, he must have 
 rejected the principle which being connected with those facts led inevi- 
 tably to this result : and thus he must have come back to what he testi- 
 fies to be the undoubted principle of Catholicism, Dohlado's Letters, page 
 296: "According to their undoubted principles on this matter, they 
 must have been either Catholics or Infidels." This must be the case 
 with every person who reasons consistently upon the principles of Paley, 
 and who discovers the facts which we say are supported by irrefragable 
 evidence. I need not dwell here upon the exemplification, but this con- 
 clusion will flow inevitably from a great variety of other arguments. 
 
 I come now to examine another portion of Paley 's production, to 
 shew that White had in that work, full evidence of the insincerity or 
 ignorance of the writer. I can scarcely assert that Paley was ignorant, 
 yet this would be an apology which I should prefer admitting to save 
 him from the alternative, and indeed it is the only plea which could 
 save him. In his second chapter, supporting the second proposition of 
 his first part, he proceeds under the pretext of refuting the objections of 
 Infidels, really to sap the foundations of the Catholic Church, but the 
 attempt was made in a manner equally discreditable as it is futile. He 
 adduces three instances of alleged miracles in support of error : which 
 Mr. Hume objects to, as being untrue in fact, and yet apparently being 
 as well supported by evidence as any of the miracles which attest the 
 truth of Christianity. 
 
 With the first, viz. ''The cure of a blind and of a lame man at 
 Alexandria, by the Emperor Vespasian, as related in Tacitus," we have 
 no concern. The other two are those which having been introduced as 
 
298 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 our best miracles by Mr. Hume, and permitted to pass as such by Paley, 
 call for our consideration. "The restoration of the limb of an atten- 
 dant in a Spanish church, as told by Cardinal de Retz ; ' ' and ' ' The cures 
 said to be performed at the tomb of the Abbe Paris, in the beginning of 
 the present (the last) century." 
 
 Respecting the first of those, Paley writes: 
 
 "The story taken from the Memoirs of Cardinal de Retz, which is 
 the second example alleged by Mr. Hume, is this: 'In the church of 
 Saragossa in Spain, the canons showed me a man whose business it was 
 to light the lamps ; telling me, that he had been several years at the gate 
 with one leg only. I saw him with two.' ""^ 
 
 "It is stated by Mr. Hume, that the Cardinal, who relates this story, 
 did not believe it : and it nowhere appears, that he either examined the 
 limb, or asked the patient, or indeed any one, a single question about 
 the matter. An artificial leg, wrought with art, would be sufficient, in a 
 place where no such contrivance had ever before been heard of, to give 
 origin and currency to the report. The ecclesiastics of the place would, 
 it is probable, favor the story, inasmuch as it advanced the honor of their 
 image and Church. And if they patronised it, no other person at Sar- 
 agossa, in the middle of the last century, would care to dispute it. The 
 story likewise coincided not less with the wishes and preconceptions 
 of the people, than with the interests of their ecclesiastical rulers: so 
 that there was prejudice backed by authority, and both operating upon 
 extreme ignorance, to account for the success of the imposture. If, as 
 I have suggested, the contrivance of an artificial limb was then new, it 
 would not occur to the Cardinal himself to suspect it; especially under 
 the carelessness of mind with which he heard the tale, and the little 
 inclination he felt to scrutinize or expose its fallacy.^' 
 
 Mr. White knew that it was not upon such evidence as this, the 
 Church to which he had belonged rested her miracles; he knew, that 
 here, there might or there might not, have been a miracle, according as 
 the truth was, or was not related ; but he also knew that the logic which 
 was taught in Seville, laid down an axiom, ah actu ad posse valet con- 
 secutio, sed non vice versa, "you may fairly conclude that what has 
 been done is possible : but you cannot argue that because a thing is pos- 
 sible it has been done. ' ' Fact must rest upon evidence of the senses for 
 the witnesses ; upon evidence of testimony, for others. In place of using 
 this opportunity of making an uncharitable, an unfounded, and a calum- 
 nious attack upon Romish ecclesiastics ; if Paley had been an honest man, 
 
 ^Liv. iv. A. D. 1654. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 299 
 
 he would have given a more direct, a more logical, and an amply suffi- 
 cient answer. "We do not rest our belief of the Christian Religion upon 
 the truth of this fact, but upon the truth of thousands of facts, of each 
 of which we have unquestionable evidence. — Of this we have none; it 
 might be true ; but as we have no evidence of its truth, we do not adduce 
 it." But no; this w^ould not answer the archdeacon's purpose, for in 
 truth, his only object and Hume's, so far as regards the two latter facts, 
 was the same, viz. to undermine the evidence of Catholicism, by insinu- 
 ating that its claim to miraculous testimony in its favor, is built upon 
 unfounded stories. 
 
 Let any one examine the extraordinary passage of Paley for a 
 moment, with patience. Cardinal de Retz, it is stated, did not believe 
 the story. Yet the Cardinal was a Eoman Catholic: thus the belief 
 of the story is not essential for the truth of our religion. But the canons 
 of the Church would naturally favor the story, though they knew it to 
 be a lie, and if the canons favored it, no person in the city of Saragossa 
 would care to dispute it. If, then, an entire city can, in the middle of 
 the seventeenth century, in the centre of a civilized country in Europe, 
 be found so bereft of all love for truth, so careless of every principle 
 of religion, so perfectly acquiescent to a glaring falsehood, as to believe 
 without examination, in the truth of a stupendous miracle, such as the 
 complete restoration of a deficient limb ; or if they did examine, to 
 acquiesce in testifying a notorious falsehood : of what value is history ? 
 Of what value is human testimony? Upon what ground does Paley 
 charge every clerical and lay inhabitant of Saragossa with such gross 
 and glaring, foul and abominable irreligion? My friends, did you ever 
 find any Roman Catholic writer so bereft of charity, so void of feeling, 
 so base, as to make such a charge as this, gratuitously, upon the whole 
 body of the Protestant inhabitants of any large and populous city, and 
 then, exhibit by inference this city as a specimen of all other Protestant 
 cities, and this fraud as a correct specimen of the Protestant religion? 
 Yet Paley is said to be a liberal man ! God forbid that all the liberality 
 of our Protestant fellow-citizens should be confined to the measure of 
 such liberality as this! To charge the Catholic Clergy with irreligious, 
 with blasphemous deceit; to charge the Catholic Laity with profound 
 ignorance ; and to exhibit our religion, as a system of delusion created 
 by the success of such vile imposture — and all gratuitously ! ! Yet this 
 book of Paley 's is put into the hands of the American youth in their 
 colleges, as the book from which they are to learn the proofs of the Chris- 
 tian Religion. Can you now be astonished at the estimation in which we 
 
300 CONTEOVERSY Vol. 
 
 are held by that portion of our fellow-citizens who have been taught out 
 of this book in those colleges? 
 
 I have dwelt long enough upon this very unbecoming passage of 
 Paley. I shall, however, take the liberty of here making a general re- 
 mark, that so far as regards the special proofs of Catholicism, we may 
 fairly assert in the words of the Saviour, "Whosoever is not with us is 
 against us." There is no person who is not a Catholic, that will not 
 endeavor to destroy the proofs of Catholicism; for that system, in its 
 exclusive truth, can hold no fellowship with any error, and hence we find 
 it attacked alike by the Deist and Atheist, by the Trinitarian and the 
 Unitarian, by the Episcopalian and the Presbyterian, whilst in its iso- 
 lated strength and grandeur, it stands erect, and uninjured amidst the 
 assaults of all. Thus Hume and Paley could agree in their attack upon 
 our Church, and Paley more ingenious and more powerful than Hume, 
 could in his apparent zeal to demolish the bastions of infidelity, level 
 his artillery at the fortress of Catholicism, and still whilst he poured 
 out his shot, cry that he only sought to level the protection of the unbe- 
 liever, whilst his guns were in reality pointed far to its right, and des- 
 tined for a different object. 
 
 As to the second of those cases, the paltry artifice which has so often 
 been resorted to by party writers was beneath the dignity of Paley : his 
 mind should have scorned to stoop to such trick. He knew that the 
 Jansenists were not Catholics, and if he did not. White did. Yet in this 
 place, he insinuates that they were members of the Catholic Church, 
 though opposed by the Jesuits as a party. Thus he would lead his 
 readers to believe that the alleged miracles at the tomb of the Abbe 
 Paris were such as are relied upon by the Catholic Church: whereas 
 the Catholic authorities disproved the allegation of the Jansenists. The 
 Catholics denied and disproved the occurrence of any miracles at the 
 tomb. Hence, neither the case of the man in Saragossa, nor the occur- 
 rences at the tomb of the Abbe Paris, can be alleged against us, and 
 our answer is very short and very simple — "We do not adduce them as 
 proofs." The archdeacon was then dishonest in his mode of stating 
 facts, and he was guilty of bad reasoning in drawing general conclu- 
 sions from particular premises. White ought to have seen both faults, 
 and therefore, if he was converted by the book of Paley, and the evi- 
 dence of miracles ought to have made him a Christian, the same evidence 
 existed to make him a Catholic ; and the attempts of Paley to destroy its 
 force in the latter case, were wholly ineffectual. White knowing the 
 facts which proved the last circumstance, could not by Paley 's reasoning 
 be made a Christian, without being made a Catholic. Hence we have 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 301 
 
 good reason to believe, and I shall yet shew, that he never became a 
 consistent Christian — I shall shew that he did not believe the doctrines 
 of the Church of England. 
 
 ' ' The miracles related to have been wrought at the tomb of the Abbe 
 Paris, admit in general of this solution. The patients who frequented 
 the tomb were so affected by their devotion, their expectation, the place, 
 the solemnity, and, above all, by the sympathy of the surrounding multi- 
 tude, that many of them were thrown into violent convulsions, which 
 convulsions, in certain instances, produced a removal of disorder, depend- 
 ing upon obstruction. We shall, at this day, have the less difficulty in 
 admitting the above account, because it is the very same thing as hath 
 lately been experienced in the operations of animal magnetism : and the 
 report of the French physicians upon that mysterious remedy is very 
 applicable to the present condition, viz. that the pretenders to the art, 
 by working upon the imaginations of their patients, were frequently 
 able to produce convulsions ; that convulsions so produced, are amongst 
 the most powerful, but, at the same time, most uncertain and unman- 
 ageable applications to the human frame which can be employed. 
 
 "Circumstances which indicate this explication in the case of the 
 Parisian miracles are the following: 
 
 1. They were tentative. Out of many thousand sick, infirm, and 
 diseased persons, who resorted to the tomb, the professed history of the 
 miracles contains only nine cures. 
 
 2. The convulsions at the tomb are admitted. 
 
 3. The diseases were, for the most part, of that sort which depends 
 upon inaction and obstruction, as dropsies, palsies, and some tumors. 
 
 4. The cures were gradual; some patients attending many days, 
 some several weeks, and some several months. 
 
 5. The cures were many of them incomplete. 
 
 6. Others were temporary. 
 
 "So that all the wonder we are called upon to account for is, that 
 out of an almost innumerable multitude which resorted to the tomb for 
 the cure of their complaints, and many of whom were there agitated by 
 strong convulsions, a very small proportion experienced a beneficial 
 change in their constitution, especially in the action of the nerves and 
 glands. 
 
 "Some of the cases alleged do not require that we should have 
 recourse to this solution. The first case in the catalogue is scarcely 
 distinguishable from the progress of a natural recovery. It was that of 
 a young man who labored under an inflammation of one eye, and had 
 lost the sight of the other. The inflamed eye was relieved, but the 
 
302 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 blindness of the other remained. The inflammation had before been 
 abated by medicine ; and the young man at the time of his attendance at 
 the tomb, was using a lotion of laudanum. And, what is still a more 
 material part of the case, the inflammation after some interval returned. 
 Another case was that of a young man who had lost his sight by the 
 puncture of an awl, and the discharge of the aqueous humor through the 
 wound. The sight, which had been gradually returning, was much 
 improved during his visit to the tomb, that is, probably, in the same 
 degree in which the discharged humor was replaced by fresh secretions. 
 And it is observable, that these two are the only cases which, from their 
 nature, should seem unlikely to be affected by convulsions." 
 
 But the most discreditable assertion of Paley's remains. 
 
 These, let us remember, are the strongest examples, which the history 
 of ages supplies. 
 
 To White, this single proposition ought to have stamped Paley's 
 book with irrevocable condemnation. So far from being the strongest 
 examples, they are no examples. "We have, and White must have known 
 it, hundreds of splendid examples of miracles, whose truth is supported 
 by incontestable proofs, and we reject those which Hume and Paley 
 adduce. But a bold assertion is not always the worst ally in a bad 
 cause. 
 
 I have done with Paley, and must resume White. 
 
 I remain, yours, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XL 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Nov. 13, 1826. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends — A more blundering passage of obscure phraseology 
 seldom came under my view than that in which ]Mr. White endeavors 
 to show how an infidel cannot recognize the force of miraculous evidence. 
 It is the following: 
 
 "I learnt that the author of the Natural Theology had also written 
 a work on the Evidences of Christianity, and curiosity led me to read it. 
 His arguments appeared to me very strong; but I found an intrinsic 
 incredibility in the facts of revealed history, which no general evidence 
 seemed able to remove. I was indeed laboring under what I believe to be 
 a very common error in this matter — an error which I have not been 
 able completely to correct, vtdthout a very long study of the subject and 
 myself. I expected that general evidence would remove the natural 
 inverisimilitude of miraculous events: that, being convinced by un- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 303 
 
 answerable arguments that Christ and his disciples could be neither 
 impostors nor enthusiasts, and that the narrative of their ministry- 
 is genuine and true, the imagination would not shrink from forms 
 of things so dissimilar to its own representations of real objects, 
 and so comformable in appearance with the tricks of jugglers and 
 impostors. Now the fact is, that prohahly and likely, though used 
 as synonymous in common language, are perfectly distinct in phil- 
 osophy. The probable is that for the reality of which we can allege 
 some reason; the likely, that which bears in its face a semblance or 
 analogy to what is classed in our minds under the predicament of exis- 
 tence. ^ This association is made early in life, among Christians, in 
 favor of the miraculous events recorded in the Holy Scriptures; and, 
 if not broken by infidelity in after life, the study of the Gospel evidence 
 gives those events a character of reality which leaves the mind satisfied 
 and at rest; because it finds the history of revealed religion not only 
 probable, but likely. It is much otherwise with a man who rejects the 
 Gospel for a considerable period, and accustoms his mind to rank the 
 supernatural works recorded by Kevelation, with falsehood and impos- 
 ture. LikeliJiood, in this case, becomes the strongest ground of unbelief ; 
 and probability, though it may convince the understanding, has but 
 little influence over the imagination. 
 
 "A sceptic who yields to the powerful proofs of Revelation, will, 
 for a long time, experience a most painful discordance between his judg- 
 ment and the associations which unbelief has produced. When most 
 earnest in the contemplation of Christian truth, when endeavoring to 
 bring home its comforts to the heart, the imagination will suddenly 
 revolt and cast the whole, at a sweep, among the rejected notions. This 
 is, indeed, a natural consequence of infidelity, which mere reasoning 
 is not able to remove." 
 
 Paley meets this difficulty in his Preparatory Considerations; yet I 
 think he is here somewhat perplexed, not wielding his pen, as his mind 
 and his subject would allow. I am aware of the heavy clog which 
 impeded his progress, and which has been so great an annoyance to 
 several other eminent Protestant writers. They saw the force of their 
 principles, but they feared the great range of their extent, and they 
 endeavored to confine them arbitrarily within the bounds which would 
 suit their own convenience, and to prevent their progress to conclusions 
 which they did not desire to admit. For instance they wished to estab- 
 
 * Likely is from simile vero, like the truth. Eendering of invraisemblable by 
 improbable is incorrect. Want of vraisemblance means unlike to usual course of 
 events. 
 
304 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 lish Christianity by their aid, but they desired not to establish Catho- 
 licism, and if they gave the full force of the principle, it would go to 
 the establishment of the truth of the one, as well as the other. Paley 
 says of Hume, 
 
 **Mr. Hume states the cause of miracles to be a contest of opposite 
 improbabilities, that is to say, a question whether it be more improbable 
 that the miracle should be true, or the testimony false : and this I think 
 a fair account of the controversy." 
 
 After a variety of observations the archdeacon gives the following 
 answer : 
 
 "But the short consideration which, independently of every other, 
 convinces me that there is no solid foundation in Mr. Hume's conclu- 
 sion, is the following : — When a theorem is proposed to a mathematician, 
 the first thing he does with it is to try it upon a simple case, and if it 
 produce a false result, he is sure that there must be some mistake in the 
 demonstration. Now to proceed' in this way with what may be called 
 Mr. Hume's theorem. If twelve men, whose probity and good sense 
 I had long known, should seriously and circumstantially relate to me 
 an account of a miracle wrought before their eyes, and in which it was 
 impossible that they should be deceived : if the governor of the country 
 hearing a rumor of this account, should call these men into his pres- 
 ence, and offer them a short proposal, either to confess the imposture, or 
 submit to be tied up to a gibbet, if they should refuse with one voice to 
 acknowledge that there existed any falsehood or imposture in the case; 
 if this threat was communicated to them separately, yet with no differ- 
 ent effect ; if it was at last executed ; if I myself saw them, one after 
 another, consenting to be racked, burnt, or strangled, rather than give 
 up the truth of their account ; — still if Mr. Hume 's rule be my guide, I 
 am not to believe them. Now I undertake to say that there exists not a 
 sceptic in the world who would not believe them, or who would defend 
 such incredulity. 
 
 "Instances of spurious miracles supported by strong apparent tes- 
 timony, undoubtedly demand examination ; Mr. Hume has endeavored to 
 fortify his argument by some examples of this kind. I hope in a 
 proper place to show that none of them reach the strength or circum- 
 stances of the Christian evidence. In these, however, consists the weight 
 of his objection: in the principle itself, I am persuaded that there is 
 none. ' ' 
 
 In this case Dr. Paley requires the witness of the fact to suffer 
 death before he will believe the truth of the fact; because the circum- 
 stance will be found in the case of the Apostles and first martyrs who 
 
•hvo CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 305 
 
 testified for the miracles of the Saviour. Their submitting to death 
 proves one of two things ; either that they were firmly convinced of the 
 truth of the fact which they testified, and were witnesses of extreme 
 probity ; or else that they were most hardened and incorrigible impostors. 
 So that, in truth, the bare submission to death by the witnesses, is not 
 the criterion of the correctness of their testimony. We must from other 
 considerations be satisfied of the existence of the two essential qualifica- 
 tions of evidence by testimony; first, "that the witnesses could not have 
 been, themselves, deceived;" secondly, "that they could not deceive us; 
 or if they made the attempt, that they would have been inevitably 
 detected." The putting of the witnesses to death, and their courageous 
 submission to their fate, is no guarantee to us that they had not been 
 deceived; and although this circumstance would add much strength to 
 existing proofs, it is not proof of truth itself. If we were to assert 
 that evidence of facts could not be had without the death of the witness, 
 being the seal of its sufficiency, our stock of knowledge would indeed be 
 small. Paley had his own object in view when he thus circumscribed 
 the limits of evidence for miraculous facts. If Mr. White ever studied 
 his treatises Of Ethics and De Religione, in Seville, he would have seen 
 that it was in the power of him who made the laws of nature to suspend 
 any one of them, and that ordinary evidence would have been sufficient 
 to prove that he had done so. Mr. White might then have spared his 
 rigmarole of French and English criticisms, and he would have known 
 that the exertion of God's power is more than likely, more than probable, 
 for it is evidently true, and as capable of being proved, as any usual 
 occurrence. For instance, that the resurrection of Lazarus can be as 
 well, and as easily proved as the death of Julius Caesar ; that there exists 
 as fully adequate a cause for the resuscitation, in the power of God, 
 who is the real agent, using what instrument he may think proper, as 
 of the death, in the law which that God established for usual and ordi- 
 nary cases. Death is of frequent occurrence, resuscitation of rare occur- 
 rence, but a fact which has occurred only once is as easily proved as 
 one which is frequently repeated, each repetition being in itself a full 
 and perfect fact, requiring full and sufficient proof. Thus we need 
 not frequency of occurrence, nor the death of the witnesses, to prove the 
 truth of a fact. 
 
 Let us come to view how we ascertain the fact of revelation. If 
 there is any special work which is so peculiarly and exclusively that of 
 an individual, as that it can be performed by no other, the fact of the 
 existence of that work establishes the fact of his presence; and if his 
 presence is a testimony by him of his concurrence in declarations then 
 
306 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 made, he is responsible for the truth of those declarations. We believe 
 miracles to be works above the power of created beings, and requiring 
 the immediate presence and agency of the Divinity, and given by him 
 as the proof of his commission to the individuals or societies whom ho 
 makes witnesses to men of truth revealed by him. The feeling of the 
 miracle being evidence of his presence for this purpose, is so general, 
 and its testimony so fully given by the human race, as well by their 
 spontaneous declaration, as by their whole course of conduct, that it 
 would argue in our Creator himself a total disregard for man's infor- 
 mation, if he permitted its existence during so many centuries, and with 
 such inevitable results, unless it were a criterion of truth. The same 
 consequences would necessarily follow from a permission, on the part 
 of God, of a general delusion of mankind, as to the species of works that 
 are miraculous. When the feeling generally existed, and was acted 
 upon most extensively during a long series of ages, that works of a pecu- 
 liar description were emphatically miracles, and that the performance 
 of those miracles was an undoubted proof of God's presence to uphold 
 the truth of declarations made in his name by the agents or the instru- 
 ments used in these works : the author of our nature would be chargable 
 with aiding in our delusion, if he did not as he could, and as his per- 
 fections would demand, interfere to correct the error. 
 
 Our next observations must regard the quantity of testimony which 
 would be required to prove one of those miraculous facts. The assertion 
 has sometimes been made, that more than usually would suffice for estab- 
 lishing an ordinary fact, would be necessary to prove the existence of 
 a miracle. We altogether dissent from this position. The facts in the 
 one case are precisely as obvious to examination as in the other. Strange 
 as the assertion which I am about to make, will probably appear to many 
 who have honored me with their attention ; I plainly say, that it will 
 be found upon reflection, that there is far less danger of deceit or mis- 
 take in the examination of a miraculous fact, than there is in one of 
 ordinary occurrence. The reason is simple, and I believe natural and 
 evidently sufficient. The mind is less liable to be imposed upon, when 
 its curiosity is greatly excited, and when its jealousy and suspicion are 
 greatly awakened, than when it is prepared to expect and to admit what 
 it is daily, perhaps hourly in the habit of expecting and admitting. 
 Ordinary events excite no curiosity, create no surprise, and there is no 
 difficulty in admitting, that what has frequently occurred, 'occurs again. 
 The statement of such an occurrence will easily pass. But the state of 
 the mind is widely different, when we eagerly seek to ascertain whether 
 what has never been witnessed by us before, has now come under our 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 307 
 
 observation, or whether we have not been under some delusion ; whether 
 an attempt has not been made to deceive us. We, in such a case, become 
 extremely jealous; we examine with more than ordinary care, and we 
 run less risk of being deceived or mistaken. 
 
 No person doubts the power of the Creator, the supreme legislator 
 and preserver of the universe, to suspend any law of nature in the course 
 of its operation, or to select some individual case which he will except 
 from the operation of that law, and during his own pleasure. The ques- 
 tion can never be as to this power, as to the possibility of a miraculous 
 interference ; but it always must regard the fact, and that fact must be 
 established by testimony, and without the evidence of testimony, no 
 person who was not present can. be required to believe. There does 
 not, and cannot exist, any individual or tribunal, with power to require 
 or command the humblest mortal to believe without evidence. 
 
 There is no place in which the rules of evidence are better under- 
 stood, or more accurately observed, than in our respectable courts of 
 law. Permit me for a moment, to bring your attention to one of those 
 cases which frequently presents itself to the view of our citizens. There 
 stands a citizen charged with the murder of his fellow-man. Long ex- 
 perience, deep study, unsullied purity, calm impartiality, and patience 
 for investigation, from the judicial character ; they are found upon the 
 bench. Steady integrity, the power of discrimination, the love of jus- 
 tice, a deep interest in the welfare of the community, and the sanction 
 of a solemn pledge to heaven, are all found in the jury; the public eye 
 is upon them, and the supreme tribunal of public opinion, after an open 
 hearing of the case, is to pronounce upon the judges and jurors them- 
 selves. The life or death, the fame or infamy of the accused lies with 
 them, and is in their keeping, at the peril of their feelings, their char- 
 acter, their conscience and their souls. The decision must be made by 
 the evidence arising from testimony, and that the testimony of men, and 
 those men liable to all the weakness, and all the bad passions of humanity. 
 Yet here, in this important ease, a solemn decision must be made. That 
 jury must be satisfied, that the person now said to be dead was living, 
 that he is now dead, that the change from life to death was produced by 
 the act of their fellow-citizen now arraigned before them ; that this act 
 was done with sufficient deliberation to proceed from malacious intent; 
 that for this act he had no authority ; he who was deprived of life being 
 a peaceable person under the protection of the State. In this there is 
 frequently much perplexity, and little testimony, and that testimony 
 frequently regarding not the substantial ingredients of the crime, but 
 establishing facts from which those that form the ingredients are only 
 
308 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 derived by inference. Still we find convictions and executions, and the 
 jury with the approbation of the bench, and the assent of the community, 
 unhesitatingly put on solemn record their conviction of the truth of 
 facts which they never saw, and of which they have only the testimony 
 of their fellow-men ; and upon this testimony society agrees that prop- 
 erty, liberty, life and fame shall all be disposed of, with perfect assur- 
 ance of truth and justice. 
 
 I will now suppose that court constituted as I have described, and 
 for the purpose of ascertaining the fact of murder. A number of respec- 
 table witnesses depose to the fact of the person stated to have been 
 slain, having been alive, they were in habits of intimacy with him, were 
 his companions during years, some of them have seen his dead body, 
 in presence of others who also testify to their having seen and examined 
 that body, those last were present when the prisoner with perfect delib- 
 eration inflicted a wound upon the deceased. There can be no doubt 
 as to the identity of the prisoner. A number of physicians testify their 
 opinions as to the wound so given, and which they examined, being a 
 sufficient cause of death. The accused produces no authority for his 
 act; there has been no process of law against the deceased, who was a 
 peaceable and well conducted citizen. How could that jury hesitate? 
 They must, painful as is the task, they must consign the unfortunate 
 culprit to the just vengeance of the law — the judge must deliver him to 
 the executioner, and the public record of the State must exhibit his 
 infamy. Life and character must both disappear, they are swept away 
 by the irresistible force of evidence, founded upon human testimony. 
 The widow must hang her head in shame ; in the recess of her dwelling 
 she must sit in lonely, disconsolate, unsupported grief; the orphans 
 blush to bear their father's name; the brothers would forget their 
 kindred : and perhaps even gray hairs would gladly bow still lower, and 
 compelled by grief and years, court the concealment of the grave. 
 
 Yet, still, when fact becomes evident from the examination of tes- 
 timony, we must yield our assent to that fact without regarding its 
 consequences. 
 
 Let me continue my supposition. Before the dissolution of that 
 court — whilst it is yet in session, that jury still occupying their seats — 
 a rush is made into the hall — the same identical witnesses appear again ; 
 but they are accompanied by the deceased — ^now raised to life. They 
 testify, that as they were departing from the court, a man, whom they 
 produce, proclaimed that he was commissioned by the Most High to 
 deliver his great behests to his fellow-men ; and that to prove the validity 
 of his commission, he summoned them to accompany him to the tomb 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 309 
 
 of that man whose death they had so fully proved, and that by an 
 appeal to heaven for the authenticity of his commission, that man should 
 revive. They went — they saw the body in the grave — the claimant upon 
 heaven called upon the eternal God to show that he had sent him to 
 teach his fellow-men — he calls the deceased — the body rises — the dead 
 has come to life — he accompanies them to the court — he is recognized 
 by his acquaintances — confessed by his friends — felt by the people — he 
 speaks, he breaths — he moves, he eats, he drinks, he lives amongst them. 
 Can that court refuse to say that it is sa:tisfied of the fact of the resusci- 
 tation? What would any honest man think of the members of that jury, 
 should they swear that this man had not been resuscitated by the inter- 
 ference of that individual who thus proves his commission? If that 
 jury could, upon the testimony of those witnesses, find the first fact, 
 why shall they not upon the same testimony find the second? 
 
 But we may be asked how we know that this man was dead? Prob- 
 ably it was only a mistake. He could not have been totally bereft of 
 life. Ask the jury, who, upon the certainty of the fact of death, con- 
 signed their fellow-citizen to infamy and to the gallows. Shall we admit 
 the certainty for the purpose of human justice, and quibble with our 
 convictions to exclude the testimony of heaven ? This, indeed, would be 
 a miserable sophistry. Would any court upon such a plea, so unsup- 
 ported, issue a respite from execution? An isolated perhaps with noth- 
 ing to rest upon, set up against positive testimony, resting upon the 
 uncontradicted evidence derived from the senses, from experience, and 
 from analogy. A speculative possibility against a substantive fact, by 
 which fact the very possibility is destroyed. 
 
 Where is the cause of doubt? Where the difference between the 
 two cases? In both suppositions the essential facts are the same, — 
 life, death, — identity; the difference consists in the accidental circum- 
 stance of the priority of one to the other. The one is the ordinary tran- 
 sition from life to death, an occurrence which is to us most mysterious 
 and inexplicable, but with the existence of which we are long familiar ; 
 the other a transition from death to life, not more mysterious but which 
 rarely occurs, and when it does occur, is most closely examined, viewed 
 with jealous scrutiny, and excites deep interest ; and to admit the truth 
 of which, there is no pre-disposition in the mind. The facts are pre- 
 cisely the same in the case of the murder and of the miracle: the acci- 
 dent of the priority of each alternately to the other, constitutes the 
 whole difference. And surely if witnesses can tell me that a man who 
 has never died shews all the symptoms of life, the same witnesses can 
 tell me the same fact, though that man had passed from death to life. 
 
310 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 The symptoms of life are always the same, and the testimony which will 
 establish the fact of life at one time, by proving the existence of those 
 symptoms, will be at any time sufficient for the same purpose. The 
 same is to be said of the symptoms of death, and of the testimony Avhich 
 will establish the fact by proving their existence. It may be objected 
 that no adequate cause is assigned for this extraordinary occurrence. 
 The answer is two-fold. To be convinced of the truth of a fact, it is not 
 necessary that I should know the cause of its existence, it suffices for 
 me to know the existence of the fact itself: and its existence will not 
 be the less certain, though I should never be able to discover the cause. 
 How many facts do we every day witness, whose causes are still to us 
 inaccessible and undiscovered. Next — an adequate cause is here dis- 
 tinctly pointed out and referred to. He who first breathed into the 
 nostrils of man, whom he fashioned from the dust, a living soul, is now 
 equally powerful to call back the departed spirit to its mouldering tene- 
 ment of clay. 
 
 Viewed in this w^ay, which is the fair and proper mode of consid- 
 ering the subject, the whole difficulty vanishes : because it is as easy for 
 God to produce an effect by the immediate intervention of his power, 
 as tkrough the mediation of the laws which he has established to regulate 
 the ordinary course of events. The facts in the one case are as obvious, 
 and as easily examined as in the other case : the truth of the facts being 
 established, and their miraculous nature being evident; all the jargon 
 which White wrote might be dispensed with, and all the quibbles of 
 Hume are puerile. The broad evident fact stares us in the face; but 
 there is a race of weak and superficial beings, who always seek to evade 
 the admission of a principle or of a fact which might possibly interfere 
 with their wishes, and those persons most unreasonably deny reason 
 itself, when it stands in their way, and seek for any asylum in the untin- 
 telligible world of delusive sounds, such as the specimen which I have 
 selected from White. 
 
 I remain, yours, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XII. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Nov. 20, 1826. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends — I now proceed to examine the assertions of Mr. White, 
 as to his motives for becoming a Protestant of the English Church. 
 Hitherto, I have confined myself to showing that, if he took up Paley's 
 principle, and the facts which White must have known to be true, he 
 
-two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 311 
 
 must necessarily have become a Roman Catholic; and, farther, that 
 Paley himself could not by his own principles escape the conclusion, 
 that Catholicism is the revelation of God, except bj^ denying what White 
 knew to be true, and by asserting that which White must have known 
 to be false ; and, besides, that by attempting to avoid these conclusions, 
 White and most Protestant writers become so confusedly bewildered, 
 in treating of the doctrine of miracles, that they are scarcely intelligible 
 upon this momentous subject. Let us now hear Mr. White's reasons, as 
 given before, in the passage quoted in my seventh letter. 
 
 He tells us that, after having read Paley, he prayed regularly for 
 divine aid, because "nothing but humble prayer can indeed obtain that 
 faith, which, when reason and judgment have lead us to supernatural 
 truth, gives to unseen things the body and substance of reality," page 
 29. It is a little extraordinary that the old objection which he mentions 
 in Dohlado's Letters, page 297, should not have again risen to his mind. 
 There he judged that because one absurdity, as he called the doctrine of 
 hell, presented itself, it would be folly to pray ; and instead of praying, 
 and reading works in favor of revelation, he neglected his prayers, 
 because they were a burthen, and were unmeaning, and he read with 
 avidity every work against revelation. Indeed, his prayer was no great 
 task; for, instead of two hours which the Roman Catholic Church re- 
 quired, the Lord's prayer, which might be dispatched in two minutes, 
 sufficed. If, then, faith could be had at so easy a rate, for so short a 
 prayer, he must have been grossly negligent of the great duty of prayer 
 in Spain, when he lost faith through neglect. Yet this neglect was not 
 enjoined by his Church, so that he is to attribute the loss of belief to 
 his disobeying the lay of that Romish Church which enjoined the duty 
 of prayer. 
 
 How convenient is it to take up occasionally the semblance of vir- 
 tue, when it serves our purpose, and to sneer at the reality of virtue in 
 others? This romance, — for I will now call it what I have shown it 
 to be, — exhibits White as being unable to attain faith without prayer, 
 even after he had been convinced by argument; that a reply might be 
 afforded to the persons who say that they cannot be Christians, though 
 they cannot argue against Christianity; but let a Catholic assert, that 
 you should pray to God to aid you by giving you faith, how quickly 
 should we be assailed with every epithet which supercilious arrogance 
 could bestow? Ignorance, folly, priestcraft, hood- winking, stupidity, 
 and such expressions would embroider the body of the sentences, which 
 would be exhibited to an admiring public. 
 
 Let us . remember, then, that Mr. White acknowledged faith to be 
 
312 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 a gift of God, for the obtaining of which it is necessary to pray. This 
 will yet stand us in some stead. He continued this practice of repeating 
 the Lord's prayer, once every morning, during three years; his persua- 
 sion, that Christianity "was not one and the same thing with the Roman 
 Catholic religion, growing stronger all the while," page 30. Will Mr. 
 White expect us to believe that each succeeding prayer obtained for him 
 new light ? This new light must have exhibited truth better to his mind. 
 If Paley 's argument was good, and led to truth. White fell into error ; 
 because Paley 's book, as soon as its falsehoods are struck out, fully estab- 
 lishes the conclusion, that Christianity and the Roman Catholic religion 
 are one and the same thing. To what, then, are we to attribute Mr. 
 White 's assertion ? My own impression is, that his statement of the fact 
 is untrue. 
 
 This is a very strong assertion, but I shall endeavor to maintain its 
 correctness. My opinion is, that this man did not believe in the truth 
 of Christianity, or if he did, that he must have known the truth of the 
 Roman Catholic Church ; my opinion is, that he was not then a Christian. 
 My first reason for this opinion is, that Mr. White is an unsafe and 
 insufficient witness, and we have only his authority for the statement. 
 My second reason is, that the fact is most improbable ; and I cannot be 
 asked to believe an improbability, without positive evidence sufficient to 
 establish the fact, and here I have none. My third reason is, that I 
 find, as I shall show hereafter, from several passages of White's pro- 
 duction, that it is impossible he could have been what he professed to be. 
 
 He next tells us, "that his rejection of revealed religion had been 
 the effect not of direct objection to its evidences, but of weighing tenets 
 against them, which they were not intended to support," page 30. 
 Yet he told us in page 21, that his doubts did not affect any particular 
 doctrine, "but his first doubts attacked the very basis of Catholicism." 
 One of those assertions must be untrue. It is not for me to decide which 
 is the falsehood. But it is for me to say, that it is now manifest, that 
 this witness is entitled to no credit. 
 
 He proceeds to inform us, "the balance inclined in favor of the 
 truth of the Gospel in proportion as he struck out dogmas which he had 
 been taught to identify with the doctrine of Christ." He does not in- 
 form us what those doctrines were; but in DoUado's Letters, as I showed 
 before, he stated the first which he found to be at variance with the good- 
 ness of God, and which being a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, 
 he had been taught to identify with the doctrines of Christ, was that 
 of the existence of hell ; of course we must presume that he struck out 
 this, as it was the absurdity which caused his rejection of Christianity. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 313 
 
 If, then, he struck this out, he certainly was not approximating to 
 Chi-istianity. Thus it is very improbable that he became a Christian. 
 To this paragraph, he appends the following note, page 30 : 
 ''Paley, with his usual penetration, has pointed out this most im- 
 portant result of the Reformation : ' When the doctrine of Transubstan- 
 tiation (he says in his address to Dr. Law, Bishop of Carlisle, prefixed 
 to the Principles of Moral Philosoplnj) had taken possession of the 
 Christian world, it was not without the industry of learned men that it 
 came at length to be discovered, that no such doctrine was contained 
 in the New Testament. But had those excellent persons done nothing 
 more by their discovery than abolish an innocent superstition, or change 
 some directions in the ceremonial of public worship, they had merited 
 little of that veneration with which the gratitude of Protestant Churches 
 remembers their services. What they did for mankind was this — "They 
 exonerated Christianity of a weight that sunk it.' " 
 
 Respecting the note, I shall at present briefly remark, that tran- 
 substantiation was in possession of the Christian world, during all the 
 ages which had elapsed from the establishment of Christianity to the 
 period when this industry was so applied ; and the opinion which was the 
 result of the industry, was set up to destroy the fact, which was upheld 
 by every species of testimonial evidence. Some persons thought this 
 doctrine a load, which sunk Christianity, and caused several to reject 
 the system, because of this tenet, which they would not believe. The 
 Reformers, as they call themselves, took off the load. Did they thereby 
 increase the number of the faithful? The remark is worth just as much 
 as the similar one used by the Rev. Mr. Whitaker, in a sermon preached 
 in this city, not long since, which is substantially: "That the doctrine 
 of the Trinity was a load which sunk Christianity; and the requisition 
 of belief in this absurdity, which industrious scholars found not to be 
 contained in the New Testament, prevented thousands from embracing 
 Christianity; but the Unitarians exonerated Christianity of a weight 
 that sunk it. ' ' Another time, and I shall take up the doctrine in another 
 manner ; at present, its value may be estimated by comparison. 
 
 A little afterwards, Mr. White says, page 31: "The points of dif- 
 ference between the Church of England and Rome, though important, 
 are comparatively few; they were besides the very points which had 
 produced his general belief." Really, I was of a different opinion; for, 
 until I have been thus instructed by the Rev. Joseph Blanco White, a 
 Clergyman of the Church of England, I was under the full impression 
 that the Church of England taught the existence of hell. Mr. White 
 imforms us, in Dohlado's Letters, that this doctrine was the first which 
 
314 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 produced his general unbelief. I knew that the American Protestant 
 Episcopal Church was somewhat delicate upon this doctrine, for the 
 clergymen were, and for aught I know still are, at liberty to put or not 
 to put into the Apostles' Creed, the phrase, "he descended into hell;" 
 but I never suspected the Church of England upon this, topic, until I 
 read Mr. White's statement. This doctrine, Doblado says, drove him 
 from the Catholic Church; and White tells us, page 31, "When approach- 
 ing the Church of England, both the absence of what drove me from 
 Catholicism, and the existence of the other parts of the system, made me 
 feel as if I were returning to the repaired home of my youth. 
 
 But the most extraordinary passage in the entire of Mr. White's 
 book, is that in which he in page 30, states, that "the day arrived, when 
 convinced of the substantial truth of Christianity, no question remained 
 before him but that of choosing the form under which he was to profess 
 it." To our American friends, who have been so long in the habit of 
 taking their peculiar views of the subject, this will appear the most 
 natural state of mind. But in such a man as White, it is a state which 
 does not correspond with nature. I must be a little more tedious than 
 I would wish upon this topic. 
 
 In order to understand properly the case which we examine, we 
 must again stop to inquire what Christianity is. It is the religion es- 
 tablished by Christ. Religion consists in the belief of certain doctrines 
 whose truth has been revealed by God, and in the discharge of certain 
 duties prescribed by him; the belief is called faith; the practice of 
 duties consists in fulfilling moral obligations, and performing ritual ser- 
 vice, or being engaged therein. Thus the Christian religion consists 
 in believing the doctrines taught by Christ, fulfilling the moral pre- 
 cepts of his law, and being properly engaged in the ritual service which 
 he established. 
 
 A code of doctrine is some collection of known and ascertained 
 dogmas or tenets, specially given, and which is comprised in a written 
 or printed book, and it cannot be of any practical utility unless it is 
 so plain as to be fully and easily intelligible, or unless some known and 
 authorized tribunal shall be established to give its precise meaning upon 
 all necessary points and occasions. 
 
 It is like the statutes of a nation, which however plainly they may 
 be written, and however perspicuously they may be constructed, and 
 however judiciously they may be compiled, still are liable to be mis- 
 taken; and hence every nation constitutes a judicial tribunal, to give 
 their precise meaning in all eases of doubt : so for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining the principles of morality in the Christian law, and their ap- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 315 
 
 plication to special cases, a tribunal is as necessary as it is to ascer- 
 tain the principles of law, and to apply the provisions to special cases: 
 and rites must be ascertained and regulated in like manner. If no 
 such tribunal existed, every man would hold his own opinion respect- 
 ing doctrine, and we would behold those opinions perpetually in con- 
 tradiction to each other. If Christ gave the doctrine of God, he gave 
 a doctrine which was true, uniform, consistent with itself, and not 
 a mass of contradictions. I cannot therefore call all those contra- 
 dictions truth. Thus a man cannot say he is convinced of the truth 
 of Christianity until he knows what Christianity is, and he cannot 
 know what Christianity is, before he knows either what are the doctrines 
 which Christ taught, or what is the tribunal from which he will receive 
 them : he must also know the moral law of Christ, or the tribunal from 
 which he can learn it, and the ritual institutions of Christ, or the trib- 
 unal from which he will learn them ; or else he cannot be convinced of 
 the substantial truth of Christianity. If Mr. White knew the tribunal, 
 his examination as to the form under which he should profess Christian- 
 ity must have been closed ; because he knew the form established by that 
 tribunal. If he knew the doctrine, and the moral and ritual disipline, 
 his examination must also have been closed; for he knew the form 
 when he knew those parts which composed it. 
 
 Let us however try if we can find Mr. White's meaning. Suppose 
 he meant to say that he was convinced Christ has established a religion 
 of truth, which all men ought to profess : that seeing so many sects con- 
 tradicting each other, he knew they could not be all teaching the true 
 doctrine of the Saviour, and he therefore was at a loss to know which 
 he ought to embrace. If he calls this being convinced of the substantial 
 truth of Christianity, he certainly has made an extraordinary assertion 
 when he states : "No question remained before him but that of choosing 
 the form under which he was to profess it. The deliberation which 
 preceded this choice was one of no great difficulty to him." You will 
 agree vnth me, unless he found some authorized tribunal to aid in fixing 
 his knowledge of the doctrines and the institutions of the Saviour, there 
 lay before him a task sufficient to occupy nearly his whole life ; because 
 he should leave no one of those forms or sects unexamined, lest that which 
 he omitted might be the very one which he should choose : next he ought 
 himself to know accurately all the doctrines and institutions of the 
 Saviour, that he might be able to discover which sect held those doctrines, 
 and which deviated from them. If he had this accurate knowledge, his 
 labor indeed would have been at an end. It is plain therefore, that there 
 are only three modes, for discovering the doctrines of Christ: first, to 
 
316 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 find some infallible witness which shall tell us with certainty which they 
 are; this is our mode, and was rejected by Mr. White, who left our 
 communion ; the second is by inspiration ; to this mode Mr. White lays 
 no claim ; the third is by learning the doctrines in detail from an exten- 
 sive and laborious investigation. Mr. White says of the English Church 
 and the Roman Catholic, "that the doctrines common to both Churches 
 were found in the Scriptures, his early studies and professional knowl- 
 edge left him no room to doubt." It is very strange that there is 
 scarcely one true proposition of three in his doctrinal assertions, and 
 still more strange, that he contradicts almost one-third of his o^vn doc- 
 trinal statements. It is by no means true, that all the doctrines con- 
 tained in the English Protestant creed are found in the Scriptures; 
 many of those which the Church of England holds in common with us 
 are known only from tradition; I might easily sum up several, I shall 
 mention two or three of the first which strike me, viz. the validity of 
 infant baptism, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, the valid- 
 ity of baptism conferred by lay-persons, or by infidels, the validity of 
 orders conferred by heretics, and a vast number of others. Again, both 
 Churches believe in the existence of hell or a place of eternal punishment. 
 Mr. White wrote Dohlado's Letters after the period of his becoming a 
 member of the Protestant Church — ^both Churches state that they find 
 this doctrine in the Scriptures, and White rejects it. 
 
 "Suppose, however, the reality and magnitude of the recompense — 
 am I not daily in danger of eternal perdition? My heart sinks within 
 me at the view of the interminable list of offenses, every one of which 
 may finally plunge me into everlasting flames. Everlasting ! and why so ? 
 Can there be revenge or cruelty in the Almighty?" 
 
 Against this he struggled, this he called absurdity, and as the Cath- 
 olic Church had a faith which was invisible, whatever proved it all, 
 proved absurdity; — therefore he left Catholic faith, because of the doe- 
 trine of health; page 297, DoUado's Letters. Yet he tells us, Evidence, 
 page 30 : 
 
 "The deliberation which preceded this choice was one of no great 
 difficulty to me. The points of difference between the Church of Eng- 
 land and Rome, though important, are comparatively few: they were, 
 besides, the very points which had produced my general unbelief. That 
 the common doctrines to both Churches were found in the Scriptures, 
 my early studies and professional knowledge, left me no room to doubt ; 
 and as the evidences of Revelation had brought me to acknowledge the 
 authority of the Scriptures, I could find no objection to the resumption 
 of tenets which had so long possessed my belief. The communion in 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 317 
 
 which I was inclined to procure admission was not, indeed, that in which 
 I was educated ; but I had so long wandered away from the Roman fold, 
 that, when approaching the Church of England, both the absence of what 
 had driven me from Catholicism, and the existence of all the other 
 parts of that system, made me feel as if I were returning to the repaired 
 home of my youth. ' ' 
 
 My friends, why would not the variegated host of Doctors, from 
 Bishop Kemp to the most humble of those who follow in his train, mem- 
 bers as well of the Church which he deserted as of that into which he 
 climbed, vouchsafe to tell us whether they believe in the existence of a 
 place of eternal punismment? What say they to Mr. White upon this 
 subject, or wall the Doctors hold a consultation upon his contradictions ? 
 Indeed, his disease in this regard has already assumed a desperate char- 
 acter, and yet all the symptoms have not been developed. 
 
 What will they say to the passages in the very next page to that 
 in which he informs us with such pathos of his return to a Church so 
 like his own, "the repaired home of his youth." For he tells us in page 
 31, that he had no "secret leaning" to the Church that he had left, "for 
 Catholicism was blended with his bitterest recollections." This to me 
 appears more like the thoughtless rhapsody of some fanciful laureate 
 elated by the influence of his pipe of port, than like the sober statement 
 of an humble convert declaring before God and man the plain facts of 
 an interesting occurrence. Did the associated Doctors calmly read this 
 tissue of contradiction, before they gave their names to the scrutiny of 
 a patient, investigating and intelligent people? Did they before God 
 in singleness of soul believe that Mr. White's book was an honest rela- 
 tion of truth, given by a religious man? If they did, I could not respect 
 their powers of criticism, or their information. If they did not, what 
 am I to say? Shall I believe that their prejudice against our religion 
 urged them to assail us even with such a compilation. I regret their 
 act, not for any injury to our Church, because, it has done us service; 
 but I regret that our country affords such an exhibition. I shall con- 
 tinue. 
 
 I remain yours, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XIII. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Nov. 27, 1826. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — We have now brought Mr. White, through a series 
 of improbablities and contradictions, to be a good Protestant of the 
 
318 CONTEOVEESY Vol. 
 
 Church of England; whose doctrines he subscribed in the year 1814, 
 having been led thereto by Paley and by prayer. He then after a period 
 of a year and a half resumed his priestly character, which by the bye 
 he had never thrown off, though he had frequently disgraced it. The 
 Church of England as well as the Catholic Church teaches the inamissi- 
 bility of this character, which is another doctrine not found in the New 
 Testament, in which they agree. I shall only remark that White as 
 a convert, was by the English law required to swear a few oaths, be- 
 sides subscribing the articles, and I shall on future occasions, have to 
 advert to this, for the purpose of shewing that his own works shew him, 
 even at the date of last year, to hold tenets incompatible with this oath 
 and with those articles. 
 
 He next informs us that at Oxford he spent two years as tutor to 
 the son of a nobleman. This was after he had ' ' returned to the repaired 
 home of his youth," subsequently to his ** deliberation, which was not 
 one of great difficulty to him," for the purpose "of choosing the form 
 under which he w^as to profess that Christianity of whose substantial 
 truth he was convinced," after he had "no room to doubt" of the truth 
 of the doctrines of the Church of England, the truth of which he had 
 solemnly subscribed to and confirmed with his oath. All inquiry we 
 must suppose was now at an end, the religion he had embraced he had no 
 doubt was that which Christ revealed, and which was contained in the 
 laws of the Gospel, and to observe which he made ' ' a solemn engagement 
 by receiving the sacrament" in that Church, [after which,] "to com- 
 plete such acknowledgment he resumed his priestly character." This 
 man has therefore now rest in his faith, he has the undoubted convic- 
 tion that all that to which he has pledged his signature, his oath, the 
 sacrament, and his priestly character, is true. Alas ! my friends, we now 
 begin to find the correct manifestation of what all this is worth ! Hqw 
 valueless are all those pledges and professions ! ! Mr. White as yet has 
 not faith ! As yet he knows not what has been revealed ! ! ! So he in- 
 forms us himself in pages 33 of his Evidence. 
 
 "Neither the duties of the tutorship, nor the continual sufferings 
 which I have endured ever since, could damp my eagerness in search of 
 religious truth. Shall I be suspected of cant in this declaration ? Alas ! 
 let the confession which I am going to make, be the unquestionable, 
 though melancholy proof of my sincerity. 
 
 "For more than three years my studies in divinity were to me a 
 source of increasing attachment to Christian faith and practice. When 
 I quitted my charge as tutor, I had begun a series of short lectures on 
 religion, the first part of which I delivered to the young members of the 
 
t^vo CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 319 
 
 family. Having retired to private lodgings in London, it was my inten- 
 tion to prosecute that work for the benefit of the young persons; but 
 there was by this time a mental phenomenon ready to appear in me, to 
 which I cannot now look back without a strong sense of my own weak- 
 ness. My vehement desire of knowledge not allowing me to neglect 
 any opportunity of reading whatever books on divinity came to my hands, 
 I studied the small book on The Atonement, by Taylor of Norwich. The 
 confirmed habits of my mind were too much in accordance with every- 
 thing that promised to remove mystery from Christianity, and I adopted 
 Taylor's views without in the least suspecting the consequences. It was 
 not long, however, before I found myself beset with great doubts on the 
 divinity of Christ. My state now became exceedingly painful; for, 
 though greatly wanting religious comfort in the solitude of a sick room, 
 I was a prey to pain and extreme weakness, I perceived that religious 
 practices had lost their power of soothing me. But no danger or suffer- 
 ing has, in the course of my life, deterred me from the pursuit of truth. 
 Having now suspected that it might be found in the Unitarian system, 
 I boldly set out upon the search ; but there I did not find it. Whatever 
 industry and attention could do, all was performed with candor and 
 earnestness ; but, in length of time, Christianity, in the light of Unitar- 
 ianism, appeared to me a mighty work to little purpose ; and I lost all 
 hope of quieting my mind. With doubts unsatisfied wherever I turned, 
 I found myself rapidly sliding into the gulf of scepticism ; but it pleased 
 God to prevent my complete relapse. I knew too well the map of infidel- 
 ity to be deluded a second time by the hope of finding a resting place 
 to the sole of my foot, throughout its wide domains; and now I took 
 and kept a determination to give my mind some rest, from the studies, 
 which, owing to my peculiar circumstances had evidently occasioned 
 the moral fever under which I labored. What was the real state of my 
 faith in this period of darkness, God alone can judge. This only can 
 I state with confidence, — that I prayed daily for light ; that I invariably 
 considered myself bound to obey the precepts of the Gospel; and that, 
 when harassed with fresh doubts, and tempted to turn away from Christ, 
 I often repeated from my heart the affecting exclamation of the Apostle 
 Peter — "to whom shall I go? thou hast the words of eternal life." 
 
 After reading this extract I would ask whether this good man had 
 not as much reason for leaving the Protestant church of England as he 
 had for leaving the Catholic Church in Spain. And, whether, if in this 
 state of mind he had selected profligate infidels for his companions, read 
 the works of philosophists against revelation, indulged in gross immoral 
 habits, in a word acted in England as he acted in Spain, the result would 
 
320 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 not. have been similar ? Therefore upon his own shewing, it was not the 
 superiority of evidence, the preponderance of argument in favor of 
 Protestantism over Catholicism, which kept him now in the new church, 
 nor was it that faith which is founded upon the conviction of unerring 
 truth, when the special truth has been clearly proved; but he avoids in- 
 fidelity, because he had experienced its folly, and he remains a Protestant, 
 not upon a Protestant principle, but upon a Catholic principle; not 
 because he discovers the special truth of the particular doctrine, but 
 because he must adhere to the declarations of Christ: and to me it is 
 most extraordinary how he can know what is the meaning of those dec- 
 larations, unless he takes it from the authority of the Church, for he 
 does not take it upon his own private judgment, since he informs us that 
 he was unable to form any judgment or decision as to what Christ 
 taught : doubt, and the moral fever, not conviction of truth, having been 
 the result of his studies, and hence he rests from his studies without 
 coming to any decision, and therefore if he believes, it must be upon au- 
 thority, and not upon private judgment. 
 
 "For some time I thought it an act of criminal insincerity to ap- 
 proach, with these doubts, the sacramental table; but the consciousness 
 that it was not in my power to alter my state of mind, and that, if 
 death, as it appeared very probable, should overtake me as I was, I could 
 only throw myself with all my doubts upon the mercy of my Maker, 
 induced me to do the same in the performance of the most solemn act 
 of religion." 
 
 This is the man who in Spain daily approached the sacramental 
 table, not only with doubts, but with absolute infidelity, and this during 
 his ten years of hypocrisy ! — Let his own words be his own condemnation. 
 
 I shall not dwell now upon this most extraordinary but by no means 
 uncommon assertion "that it w^as not in his power to alter his state of 
 mind." Never was there a more groundless, a more dangerous, or a 
 more irreligious proposition. But I am not now examining his doctrine, 
 but his history. How quickly he overcame his scruples; and without 
 faith he does that for which faith is required, and pledges a virtue which 
 he does not possess. As yet then Mr. White is not a believer. But 
 now his conversion is to be affected. 
 
 "But I had not often to undergo this awful trial. Objections which, 
 during this struggle-, had appeared to me unanswerable, began gradually 
 to lose their weight on my mind. The Christian Evidences which, at 
 the period of my change from infidelity, struck me as powerful in detail, 
 now presenting themselves collectively, acquired a strength which no 
 detached difficulties (and all the arguments of infidelity are so,) could 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 321 
 
 shake. My mind, in fact, found rest in that kind of conviction which 
 belongs peculiarly to moral subjects, and seems to depend on an in- 
 tuitive perception of the truth through broken clouds of doubt, wliicU 
 it id not in the power of mortal man completely to dispel. Let no one 
 suppose that I allude to either mysterious or enthusiastic feelings; I 
 speak of conviction arising from examination. But any man, accus- 
 tomed to observe the workings of the mind, will agree, that conviction, 
 in intricate moral questions, comes finally in the shape of internal feel- 
 ings — a perception perfectly distinct from syllogistic conviction, but 
 which asserts the strongest power over our moral nature. Such per- 
 ception of the truth is, indeed, the spring of our most important actions, 
 the common bond of social life, the ground of retributive justice, the 
 parent of all human laws. Yet, it is inseparable from more or less doubt ; 
 for doubtless conviction is only to be found about objects of sense, or 
 those abstract creations of the mind, pure number and dimension, which 
 employ the ingenuity of mathematicians. That assurance respecting 
 things not seen, which the Scriptures call Faith, is a supernatural gift, 
 which reasoning can never produce. This difference between the con- 
 viction resulting from the examination of the Christian Evidences, and 
 faith, in the scriptural sense of the word, appears to me of vital im- 
 portance, and much to be attended to by such as, having renounced the 
 Gospel, are yet disposed to give a candid hearing to its advocates. The 
 power of the Christian Evidences, is that of leading any considerate 
 mind, unobstructed by prejudice, to the records of revelation, and mak- 
 ing it ready to derive instruction from that source of supernatural 
 truth; but it is the spirit of truth alone that can impart the internal 
 conviction of faith." 
 
 Mark then finally what he describes his faith to be, a belief of truth 
 accompanied with clouds of doubt, which it is not in man's power to 
 dispel ; conviction of truth, perception of truth, yet not conviction, and 
 not perception, because accompanied with more or less doubt. -Assur- 
 ance of truth given by God, because supernatural, and yet not as strong 
 an assurance of truth as we have from the objects that fall under the 
 cognizance of our senses. An internal conviction of faith, coming 
 from the Spirit of truth, and yet inseparable from more or less doubt. 
 My friends, is this contradictory jargon intelligible? Yet such is Mr. 
 "White 's faith ! ! Was I wrong then when I asserted that as yet he had 
 no faith. We call faith "a firm belief of all that God reveals." The 
 objects of sense may and do frequently delude and deceive, but God can- 
 not deceive. Error is frequently detected in the operations of the 
 mind respecting pure number and dimension, mathematicians have fre- 
 
322 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 quently erred and misled. But who shall say that God might be de- 
 ceived? Who shall say that God can deceive us when he reveals knowl- 
 edge, and requires our belief? The heavens and the earth may pass 
 away, but his word cannot fail. 
 
 Will Bishop Kemp call this blasphemy of White a description of 
 faith? Will this pack of Doctors avow that the certainty of what the 
 Scriptures contain is more liable to doubt than is the investigation of 
 the philosopher? I have frequently discovered that respectable gentle- 
 men and good scholars of other Churches, with whom I conversed, had 
 not the most remote idea of the nature of faith. But this is the first 
 time in my life that I find a congregated assembly of Protestant assail- 
 ants of Catholicism, with a convert bishop at their head, avow by impli- 
 cation that they are not as certain of the truth of the doctrines which they 
 preach, which the Spirit of truth reveals, and imparts, and which the 
 Bible contains, as they are of the truth what falls under the observa- 
 tion of their senses. Yet these gentlemen are well paid for preaching 
 as truth what they only perceive through broken clouds of doubt, which 
 it is not in the power of mortal man completely to dispel ! The truths 
 of the Bible, they say are surrounded by such doubts, the Catholic says 
 they are not; and yet these gentlemen assail the Catholic for not making 
 the Bible the standard of his belief ! ! ! Will Bishop Kemp adhere to 
 White and give up the Bible: or adhere to the Bible, and confess that 
 he did wrong in recommending this unbeliever as an orthodox son of 
 the Protestant Church? If Bishop Kemp has not so much affection for 
 his beloved Zion, even I shall protect her against the sceptic renegade. 
 The Church of England teaches that the truth of the Scriptures is in- 
 fallibly established. White does not give the doctrine of the Church 
 of England, though he pledged his oath to give it. 
 
 Having thus, as he states, " gone through the religious history of 
 his mind," he adds that under that "mental despotism which would 
 prevent investigation by the fear of eternal ruin, or which mocks redson 
 by granting the examination of the premises while it reserves to itself 
 the right of drawing conclusions ; he was irresistibly urged into a denial 
 of revelation." If, as it would appear, he means this as a description 
 of the system of our Church, his first assertion is a gross mistatement ; 
 so far from preventing, we invite investigation; we dread the careless, 
 the heedless, the persons who only glance and rapidly hasten to undue 
 conclusions, because they have not investigated; but we have no dread 
 of him who calmly and closely searches with a sincere love for truth. 
 White himself finds his first position to be untenable, and he therefore 
 quickly abandons it, and takes up another, but one, if possible, less fitted 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 323 
 
 for his purpose : he admits that we invite to a close examination of the 
 premises, but will not allow a right of drawing conclusions except in 
 one way. Did any logician know of opposite conclusions flowing from 
 the same premises? Was there ever such a mockery of reason as to 
 assert that contradictions can flow from the same source of reason? Is 
 it because the Catholic Church applies in the important concern of 
 religion the great principle of right reason, of good sense, and of correct 
 logic, that she is to be accused of mocking reason? Could this sentence 
 have been indited by a man of common information ? Does Bishop Kemp 
 approve of this ? Surely the only rational mode of testing an argument 
 of religion is by investigation of the premises: there can be no liberty, 
 no choice as to the conclusion. 
 
 This extraordinary outrage upon logic is followed by an outrage 
 upon the truth. "But no sooner did I obtain freedom, than instead 
 of my mind running riot in the enjoyment of the long delayed boon, 
 it opened to conviction and acknowledged the truth of Christianity." 
 His mind was free in Spain as it was in England, and he tells us the 
 consequence in Dohlado's Letters. 
 
 But even after his arrival in England, four years elapsed before he 
 is, according to his own account, convinced of the substantial truth of 
 Christianity, and five years after, that is nine years after his arrival 
 in England, and nineteen years after emancipating his mind from des- 
 potism of being obliged to draw correct conclusions from examined 
 premises, he is rapidly gliding into the gulf of scepticism, from which 
 he escapes, not by the examination of either premises or conclusions ; but 
 by throwing himself, with all his doubts, "upon the mercy of his maker," 
 and by having "a perception perfectly distinct from syllogistic con- 
 viction," "an intuitive perception of truth through broken clouds of 
 doubt, which it is not in the power of mortal man to dispel. ' ' 
 
 Here I close my examination of the character of Mr. White. From 
 his own words, he is illiberal descendant of a persecuted, Irish Cath- 
 olic family, who, having deserted his religion and his country, calls upon 
 the oppressive government of Great Britain to continue the affliction 
 of the land of his ancestors, since its inhabitants will not, like him, desert 
 the religion of his fathers, and of their choice. He is a man whose youth 
 was spent in crime, whose manhood was a tissue of hypocrisy, infidelity, 
 injustice and profligacy, who asserts gross falsehoods, and piles up in- 
 numerable contradictions, upon the most solemn subject; a man who is 
 totally bereft of family affection, having exhibited the weakness of his 
 parents, and betrayed the solemnly confided secrets of his sisters, if his 
 relation be true ; a man upon whose word you can place no reliance, upon 
 
324 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 whose reasoning you can set no value, and upon whose conscience you 
 can fix no bond ; for he has deliberately made, and as deliberately broken, 
 his solemn vows, he has sworn and forsworn ; and he has solemnly called 
 God to witness what was legally and morally impossible: such is his 
 account of himself, and if sacrilege can add another tinge to the colors 
 which he has laid on ; he committed sacrilege in the profanation of the 
 holy Eucharist daily during ten years in Spain, and went to the sac- 
 ramental table in the Church of England whilst harrased with doubts, 
 at a " time he thought it an act of criminal insincerity to approach with 
 these doubts to the sacramental table," merely because "he was con- 
 scious that it was not in his power to alter the state of his mind. ' ' 
 
 This is the witness of extraordinary qualifications, whom the Right 
 Rev. Father in God, James Kemp, D. D., Bishop of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal ChiTrch in Maryland, and the Rev. William Hawley, the Rev. 
 Doctors Wilmer, Tyng, and Co. bring forward to convict nearly two 
 hundred millions of the human family, for so great is the number in 
 our communion, and all their predecessors since the days of the Apostles, 
 amongst whom were and are some of the brightest ornaments and best 
 benefactors of the human race. 
 
 I probably have been thought tedious, and may have been looked 
 upon as having strayed from the true question, which was the value of 
 the Evidence. But its value must necessarily depend in a great measure 
 upon the character of the witness, and as he was trumpeted forth as 
 above all suspicion, and possessing peculiar facilities and uncommon 
 qualifications, I felt myself called upon to exhibit him such as he really 
 is, from his own words. I have other information, which I have ab- 
 stained from using, as though I knew the correctness of the facts, I could 
 not adduce the authority. I shall now, in every case where we have only 
 Mr. White 's assertion for the truth of the fact, consider it as not worth 
 examination, until some one of his compurgators shall prove him worthy 
 of credit — and my future letters shall contain an examination of his 
 Evidence. Yours, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XIV 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Dec. 4, 1826. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — Having disposed of the author, we now come to his 
 work. The Evidence of Mr, White consists of three portions, viz. his as- 
 sertions, the value of which is nothing; his reasoning, which is worth 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 325 
 
 what may be found to be the result of its examination; and the state- 
 ments and reasonings of others ; the value of which is to be determined 
 also upon their examination. His work is divided into chapters, each 
 of which contains his evidence upon one or more of the doctrines or 
 practices of our Church. His second chapter is the one which I now 
 come to examine. This regards the real and practical extent of the au- 
 thority of the Pope, according to the Roman Catholic faith. Next, In- 
 tolerance, its natural consequences. I now proceed to examine his state- 
 ments respecting the first portion of this matter. 
 
 He first states that, in Catholic countries, the distinction between 
 doctrines of faith which are immutable, and opinions upon which dis- 
 putes and difi'erences are tolerated is clearly understood; but such a 
 distinction is not understood in England. If he means to insinuate, 
 that the Roman Catholics of the British islands are not as well informed 
 respecting this distinction as are any other portion of their fellow-mem- 
 bers in the Church, he has written what is not true. If he means only 
 to state, that Protestants do not generally understand the distinction, I 
 agree with him, and will go farther and assert, that in this country I 
 have scarcely met with a Protestant who had the most remote notion of 
 the distinction. As, perhaps, some such persons may read this letter, 
 I shall exhibit its nature, because it is important. By the principles 
 of the Roman Catholic Church, no person is bound to believe any thing 
 as an article of faith, save what God has revealed. If God has re- 
 vealed its truth, that truth is immutable; no discovery in science, no 
 progress of knowledge, no improvement in society, can make that which 
 God has revealed cease to be the truth of God; it must continue to be 
 the doctrine of faith; immutable, irreformable, to the end of the world, 
 in every nation of the world. The denial of such truth constitutes the 
 loss of faith, and a separation from the Church. There are several 
 topics in some measure connected with religion, upon which we have 
 no revelation of God, or if he made a revelation, we have no evidence 
 thereof; those topics are frequently discussed; Roman Catholics believe 
 that no power was left to the Church to compel us to adopt any par- 
 ticular opinion upon those topics, if God made no revelatin, because 
 no power but that of God himself can command the submission of the 
 human mind; and if it should so happen, that a doubt existed, as to 
 whether any revelation was made upon such topics, during the inquiry, 
 and until the discovery of the evidence, the Church has no power to 
 command our adoption of one opinion, or our rejection thereof. She 
 is said then to tolerate any such opinion; because, if she does not see 
 that God has revealed what is incompatible with its truth, she cannot 
 
326 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 prevent its being held, nor cut off from her communion those persons 
 who may, upon such topic, hold even contradictory opinions. Thus 
 she cannot tolerate any error in faith; but she does and must tolerate 
 dift'erence of opinion where faith is not concerned. 
 
 When, therefore, I state that for Catholic faith an agreement with 
 the Church in all her doctrines is required, I do not mean opinions by 
 doctrines, for doctrine is what God has revealed ; opinion is but the con- 
 jecture of man; doctrine emanates from the Almighty, and is testified 
 by the tribunal of the Church; opinion flows from human reasoning, 
 and can be testified by no tribunal : each individual forms his own, and 
 changes it when and to what extent he pleases. The Church is answer- 
 able for all the results of her doctrine, but is not chargeable with either 
 the opinions or the results of the opinions of her members, however ele- 
 vated or depressed may be their station. The doctrine is known from 
 the testimony of the public tribunal ; the opinion is found in the disqui- 
 sitions of individuals or parties. In our courts of law, the decision of 
 the bench is of value, and is authority ; but the private opinion of one 
 of the judges, or the argument of one of the lawyers, or of any number 
 of the members of the bar, is not the decision of the court. By keeping 
 this distinction which White recognizes, with which every Catholic is 
 conversant, but with which few Protestants are acquainted, fully in 
 view, almost all White's argument will be found worse than valueless. 
 
 As I am in some measure obliged to follow the order of the work, 
 I am here compelled to make a digression to another topic. White next 
 distinguishes amongst the English Catholics two kinds of writers; one 
 who write for the Protestant public, and for Catholics who cannot digest 
 the real system of the Roman head: "the other who write for the mass 
 of the British and Irish Church, who still adhere to the Roman Catholic 
 system, such as it is professed in countries where all other religions are 
 condemned by law." "In our devotional books, he recognizes every fea- 
 ture of the religion in which he was educated." In those intended for 
 the public at large, he finds only a flattering portrait, almost ideal and 
 disguised to prevent disgust. 
 
 Upon this passage I shall not have to dwell for any length of time. 
 I shall merely remark : first, that as regarded what he calls ' ' Catholics 
 who cannot digest the real system," it would be the most drivelling folly 
 to write for them books of one kind with a digestible doctrine, different 
 from that which was indigestible, and which they could purchase in 
 any shop, or take up in any church, or find in any family ; which they 
 had in their hands in childhood, were examined upon in their youth, 
 and heard preached from every pulpit during their lives — such an at- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 327 
 
 tempt at imposture would defeat itself. What can be thought of the 
 moral feeling, or of the understanding of him who could make such a 
 statement ? If White knew the facts he must have seen the books, why- 
 does he not give the dissonant passages? Our books of devotion are 
 held on sale by booksellers of every religious denomination: many of 
 the best editions have been given by Protestants. To what straits then 
 must that man be driven who would make such an assertion as the 
 above? In any ordinary case, this flagrant falsehood would speak 
 enough for the. condemnation of him who made it. But we have hero 
 a most important concession, or rather recognition of a plain fact, viz. 
 "That the religious system of the mass of the British and Irish Cath- 
 olic Church is such as it is in those countries, where all other religions 
 are condemned by law. Consequently, the same as it is in Spain: for 
 White recognizes every feature of the religion in which he was edu- 
 cated," page 42. 
 
 He then introduces Mr. Charles Butler's Booh of tlie Roman Cath- 
 olic Church as a most artful picture of the disguising kind, but without 
 making the comparison which would have sustained his assertion if 
 true. I regret much never having had an opportunity of seeing this 
 work, and the more so, as on the present occasion it causes me to write 
 under considerable disadvantage. He charges Mr. Butler with having 
 made a mistake in translating a Latin passage — but which mistake has 
 no concern that I can see with any doctrine — and therefore I shall 
 grant the victor the full benefit of his plume. At all events it would 
 tend to show that ignorant as were the monks at Seville, they knew how 
 to teach Latin, and that all their pains were not lost upon their pre- 
 cocious pupil. Having now triumphantly fixed this feather in his cap, 
 he comes flushed with conquest to inform the British Catholics that Mr. 
 Butler has given an incorrect view of their most essential duties as 
 Catholics. We must recollect that this is the same Mr. White who paid 
 no attention to the dull lectures of divinity at Seville, and who took 
 out his degree at Osuna, for which no examination or interval was re- 
 quired. This same gentleman now bloated into knowledge, and swelled 
 to as great a size as Dr. Kemp could desire, pays "attention to some 
 remarks on that part of Butler's book which treats of the authority of 
 the Pope." — Of course it cannot be expected that I should be able 
 to shew how his remarks have or have not any bearing upon a book 
 which I have not seen : but I shall take up the remarks upon their own 
 merits. Let us now examine them. 
 
 "The Book of the Roman Catholic Church labors to persuade the 
 world that the authority of the Pope over the Catholics is of so spiritual 
 
328 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 a nature, as, if strictly reduced to what the creed of that Church re- 
 quires, can never interfere with the civil duties of those who own that 
 authority. That the supreme head of the Catholics has for a long series 
 of centuries, actually claimed a paramount obedience, and thus actually 
 interfered with the civil allegiance of his spiritual subjects; is as no- 
 torious as the existence of the Roman See. The question then, is, 
 whether this was a mere abuse, the effect of human passions encouraged 
 by the ignorance of those ages, or a fair consequence of doctrines held 
 by the Roman Church as of divine origin, and consequently immutable. 
 I will proceed in this inquiry upon Mr. Butler's own statement of Ro- 
 man Catholic articles of faith, which is found page 118 of the first edi- 
 tion of his work." 
 
 Not so fast however, for I must exhibit White's own faults as I 
 proceed. In this extract we have at least two. Every Roman Catholic 
 in America will join Mr. Butler in declaring that the Pope's authority 
 is merely of a spiritual nature and can never interfere with the temporal 
 authority of our government. White asserts that during centuries the 
 Pope has claimed a paramount obedience and thus interfered with the 
 civil allegiance of his spiritual subjects. The fallacy of every dishonest 
 writer is founded upon vagueness. Here are two vague expressions, "a 
 long series of centuries" and "his spiritual subjects." We saw before 
 that the Catholic faith is always the same, and is the same for all per- 
 sons. To be the foundation of a good argument those two vague ex- 
 pressions should as logicians would say, be taken universally, that is to 
 embrace every age and every spiritual subject of the Pope. But in 
 fact the first "long series of centuries" embraces only a period of 
 special regulation which commenced very many centuries after the es- 
 tablishment of the Church, and of the Popedom, and continues to sub- 
 sist; hence it is at best what logicians would call a particular propo- 
 sition, and Mr. White, against every rule of reason, would make it the 
 foundation of an universal conclusion ; which is just as good reasoning as 
 it would be to say that every priest was an infidel because ]\Ir. White and 
 a few of his profligate companions lost their faith. Again, though the 
 Pope did upon special grounds interfere with the civil allegiance of 
 some of his spiritual subjects, it is equally notorious that where those 
 circumstances did not exist, he did not attempt to interfere with others. 
 I^Iany Catholic kings aided by their Catholic subjects, took the field 
 against his allies, and did not thereby lose their faith or forfeit their 
 character of his spiritual subjects even whilst they were his temporal op- 
 ponents. 
 
 The gentleman next gives us this disjunctive proposition: "Either 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 329 
 
 the Pope was then an usurper, or he held his power by divine and im- 
 mutable authority." Miserable sophist! — a very tyro would have told 
 you that your disjunction admitted a mean, and that mean the fact. 
 "It was not an usurpation, nor was it held by divine right, but by the 
 concession and the institution of the princes and the people of Christen- 
 dom." Suppose Bishop Kemp seated in the Presidential chair in place 
 of ]Mr. Adams, by the fair and constitutional act of the American peo- 
 ple ; what would be thought of the intellect of him who would vaunt- 
 ingly proclaim, that [either] he was an usurper, or he held the Presi- 
 dency by virtue of his being a Protestant Bishop. Yet the argument 
 which would support this disjunctive would be just as good as that 
 which for our sins, we are forced to bear with from men who are 
 thought to have information. It is the sophism which argues that 
 coincidence is the exhibition of cause and effect, just as good as the 
 reasoning of a man who would say, that no one but a priest could dis- 
 cover and form our system of Astronomy, because it happened that 
 Copernicus was a priest. Will our American doctors sux)port the cor- 
 rectness of Mr. White's disjunction? Yet I am informed that some 
 of them teach logic, and others are or have been professors of The- 
 ology! ! ! — I should not be astonished if Parson Hawley asserted that it 
 was an article of Catholic faith that our Saviour taught St. Peter how 
 many soldiers would be necessary to defend the Papal territory, because 
 Pepin and Charlemagne had about seven or eight centuries after his 
 death given the territory to one of his successors ! — It would be just as 
 rational as the assertion which I have been examining. 
 
 The author of the Evidence then quotes the following passage from 
 Mr. Butler, and begins his comment as will be found below. 
 
 "A chain of Roman Catholic writers on papal power might be sup- 
 posed: on the first link we might place the Roman Catholic writers who 
 have immoderately exalted the prerogative of the Pope ; on the last we 
 might place the Roman Catholic writers who have unduly depressed it; 
 and the centre link might be considered to represent the canon of the 
 10th session of the Council of Florence, which defined that 'full power 
 was delegated to the bishop of Rome in the person of St. Peter, to feed, 
 regulate and govern the universal Church, as expressed in the general 
 councils and holy canons.'^ This (adds the author, in capitals) is the 
 
 ° Item, diffinimus sanctam apostolicam sedem, et Bomanum Ponii'ficem in uni- 
 versum orbem tenere primatum, et ipsum pontificem Bomanum successorem esse beati 
 Petri principis apostolorum, et verum Christi vicarium, totiusque ecclesiae caput et 
 omnium Christianorum patrem ac doctorem existere; et ipsi in heato Petro pascendi, 
 regendi ac giibeinandi unviversalem ecclesiam a domino nostro Jesu Christo plenam 
 potestatem traditam esse; quemadmodem etiam in gestis oecumenicorum conciliorum, 
 et in sacris canonihus continetur. Cone. Flor. Labbe, Tom. xiii, Col. 516. 
 
330 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church on the Authority of the 
 Pope, and beyond it no Roman Catholic is required to believe." 
 
 "When I examine the vague comprehensiveness of this decree, I 
 can hardly conceive what else the Roman Catholics could be required to 
 believe. Full power to feed, regulate and govern the universal church, 
 can convey to the mind of the sincere Catholic no idea of limitation." 
 
 In this too there is a want of honesty or want of intellect: I pre- 
 sume it is the first, because the commentator asserts, that there is no 
 limitation : whereas a distinct limitation is expressed in the very passage 
 as quoted by himself. That limitaton is the expression of the councils 
 and canons, "as expressed in the general councils and holy canons." 
 Now those general councils and canons have never extended the power 
 of the Pope to temporals, but have always restrained it to spirituals, 
 except when they recognized in special cases the grant of authority made 
 by princes or people for their own. benefit to the Pope. But those coun- 
 cils or canons never stated that he had any such power by divine right 
 and immutably recognized as of faith. Another restriction is in the 
 word Church itself, for the Church which is the congregation of the 
 faithful, is a body established for spiritual objects, as a kingdom, an em- 
 pire, a republic are bodies for political objects ; as well mignt it be said 
 that Congress can regulate our religious concerns, because it has full 
 power to govern and regulate our confederation, as that the Pope and 
 council have power to regulate our civil concerns, because they have full 
 power to govern and regulate the Church. There is then a double limi- 
 tation ; the first is the very expression Church ; the second in the re- 
 straining clause as expressed in the general councils and holy canons. It 
 is therefore incorrect to assert that there is no limitation. 
 
 The remaining farrago of his paragraph of remarks is then an- 
 swered upon the principle of the first distinction which he recognizes 
 himself. "We are bound by faith to believe that God gave to Peter and 
 his successors, the full power of feeding with doctrine and sacraments, 
 and regulating and governing by ecclesiastical discipline the universal 
 Church; that the decisions of general councils and the canons of the 
 Church exhibit the extent of his power is a fact, and that the power does 
 not extend beyond what they exhibit, is clearly declared. It is clear that 
 they who attribute to the Pope more power, do not deny that he has 
 the quantity which the canons and councils define. But it is manifest 
 that others are bound to answer for their private opinion in support of 
 this more extensive power, because this charge is against what we have 
 found to be correct, even by "White's admission. Suppose what we all 
 will easily understand, that the power of the President to make appoint- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 331 
 
 ments to vacant offices of embassy, is fully acknowledged by all persons 
 as our constitutional doctrine ; some persons will also be found to assert 
 that not only has the President that power, but much more, and of a 
 different description. Several persons deny for instance that he has the 
 power of appointing inspectors of national roads, others assert that he 
 has such power. All agree that he has full power to govern the Union, 
 as expressed in the constitution of the United States and the laws of 
 Congress. What would be thought of the man who should assert that 
 the phrase full power destroyed the limitation of the constitution and the 
 law ? Yet such is the construction which Mr. White would give, and by 
 this construction, ridiculously affirm that his power is not full unless it 
 extends to everything ! ! — This is the sort of mockery of reasoning which 
 our assailants are in the habit of using. Would any man having a con- 
 scientious feeling of Religion thus quibble with the institutions of 
 Heaven ? 
 
 The succeedng passage of the Evidence betrays the sophistry. 
 "Whatever be the extent of the chain imagined by our author, the 
 decree appears to have been framed wide enough not to exclude the link 
 containing the writers who have most exalted the papal power. The 
 task of those on the ether extremity of the chain, is certainly more dif- 
 ficult ; for it cannot be well conceived why mere human rights should be 
 allowed to limit a full power to govern the minds of men, derived from 
 a direct injunction of Christ." 
 
 The sophistry is now manifest; it is what logicians call arguing a 
 dido secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter, that is, arguing from par- 
 ticular premises to universal conclusions in effect, as thus, "the Pope has 
 power to govern you in every thing specified by the councils and canons, 
 therefore he has such power in every case whether so specified or not." 
 It is changing the middle term of a syllogism, as thus, "Catholics recog- 
 nize in the Pope the full power which the canons and councils declare to 
 be attached to his office. But full power to govern men's minds neces- 
 sarily destroys human rights. Therefore Catholics recognize in the 
 Pope power to destroy human rights. ' ' Such is the miserable disingenuity, 
 which begs the very question in debate, by assuming that the canons and 
 councils declare that the Pope has unlimited power to govern men's 
 minds : and this assumption is made against the fact ; for in truth we do 
 not admit any such power to exist except in God himself. We look upon 
 those who assert that we admit the existence of the Papal power to such 
 an extent, to be very wretchedly informed of our tenets, if they believe 
 the truth of their assertion ; and if they do not believe its truth, we must 
 
332 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 feel humbled, disgusted, and mortified, at the exhibition of our depraved 
 and corrupted nature. 
 
 The author of the Evidence continues to state, [that] there is noth- 
 ing in the Catholic decisions to exclude the Pope from having temporal 
 power. We may verily answer, that neither is there any thing to assert 
 that he has such power. Shall it be therefore concluded, that the canons 
 recognize its existence ? As well might it be argued, from the silence of 
 our constitution and statutes, that Mr. President Adams has power to 
 order one of our commodores to sail upon a voyage of discovery to the 
 interior of the globe, because there is nothing in the constitution or 
 laws of Congress to prevent him, and he has full power to order them to 
 go where he may deem it necessary. It may be answered, that this was 
 never contemplated in the power which the people and the States gave 
 to the President. Neither was the exercise of temporal power included 
 in the commission given to Peter, by Him who said that his kingdom 
 was not of this world, and who sent the brother who disputed about 
 property to the tribunal of the civil governor; and if Cisalpine writers 
 will endeavor to draw the canon of Florence to mean that the Pope has 
 temporal power by divine right, I will stop their progress until they 
 produce to me the decision of a General Council or a holy canon, to es- 
 tablish the fact of this meaning having been ever admitted ; and for this 
 they will have to wait as long as the commodore would the return of 
 Captain Symmes from his polar expedition to discover the ingress 
 through which he would pilot the squadron to their novel destination. 
 
 In his page 47, the author asks whether the Pope did not issue a 
 sentence of deposition against Elizabeth? I answer, yes, and in the face 
 of Christendom. ' ' Had not a similar practice prevailed, ' ' he asks, ' ' for 
 many centuries before?" To this I answer, that I do not know of a 
 single parallel case to that of Elizabeth. There were several cases upon 
 several grounds ; but not one that I ever read of upon the same ground 
 as this. "Was not this done by virtue of what the Popes conceived to 
 be their divine prerogative declared in the Council of Florence ? ' ' 
 
 My answer is, no. Each case is to stand upon its own merits ; and 
 they do not all, nor perhaps do any two of the few which occurred, rest 
 upon the same grounds of jurisdiction in the Pope who either deposed, 
 or who attested the deposition. 
 
 I shall now make a case in which, by the law of England, the Pope 
 would have had not only full power, but would be obliged to issue a 
 sentence of deposition against Elizabeth. 
 
 Had the English people, as they might, declared that the wretched 
 parliament which permitted Henry VIII to settle the succession of the 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 333 
 
 crown by his will, had exceeded its powers, and that the British crown 
 could descend only to the legitimate heir; upon the question, whether 
 Elizabeth was such legitimate heir, and thus capable of inheriting the 
 crown ; according to the ancient Christian law of all Europe, the decision 
 must depend upon the validity of Catherine 's marriage with Henry, and 
 in an ultimate appeal upon this question by that law. The decision must 
 have been given by the Pope, as the supreme judge in the Catholic 
 Church of the validity of the marriage ; which place he holds by divine 
 right. In this, which however is not the exact state of the case, the 
 Pope would, by divine right, have laid the foundation for her deposition, 
 by proclaiming her mother's concubinage. But a question would still 
 be reserved for the English nation, in the decision of which the Pope 
 would have no divine right to interfere, viz. whether they would submit 
 to her dominion, and make legal now what was originally an usurpation. 
 The English people could, if they chose, do so, unless they were bound 
 by some contract with another part not to use that right, or unless they 
 had by some contract deprived themselves of that right, which they 
 originally had. Before their religious defection, the nation formed a 
 portion of a great confederacy of Europe, one of whose articles of agree- 
 ment was that, in certain cases, of which this defection was one, the Pope 
 upon the evidence of the fact should depose the delinquent ruler, and ab- 
 solve the subjects from their fealty to the recreant. This confederation 
 has long ceased to exist. But the jurists of the ages, when it did exist, 
 argued for the validity of the power, upon the very same principles 
 which keeps us now an united confederation, instead of being dis- 
 sociated and weak republics. Besides being by divine appointment, the 
 spiritual head of the Church, the Bishop of Rome was by the act and 
 assent of the princes and States of Christendom, the President of the 
 temporal confederation of those powers ; and by their consent and act, 
 he was frequently not only authorized but required to enforce by spirit- 
 ual power the moral obligation of observing their compact, upon those 
 who appeared to be disorderly, and to punish by spiritual censures, in 
 the first instance, the contumacious; and these means being ineifectual, 
 he then was directed to give sentence of deposition, which the other mem- 
 bers of the union were to carry into execution; and his own subjects 
 were released from their fealty to the delinquent, not by the power which 
 Christ gave to Peter, though it was by that power the spiritual censures 
 were issued, but by the power derived from the law of the Congress of 
 those States ; such as that law of the potentates of Europe, at the time 
 of the Council of Lateran, in 1215, specially made for such a case. The 
 Pope acted in virtue of this, and laws like this, and not by virtue of the 
 
334 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 canon of Florence, which had no relation to the case in any way what- 
 ever. 
 
 I know that some writers never possessed heads, or had information 
 sufficient to see the real state of the case; others who saw it clearly, 
 thought fit intentionally and dishonestly to affect ignorance, and wrote as 
 if there was no distinction. Mr. White may class himself under which- 
 ever head he pleases ; but to one or the other he belongs. I have already 
 extended this letter beyond my limits, and must break off here. 
 
 Yours, B. c. 
 
 LETTER XV 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Dec. 14, 1826. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — We have seen how unfounded is the charge made by 
 White upon our Church, of teaching in the council of Florence, that the 
 Pope has temporal authority by divine right. We have seen that the 
 principle upon which the power of deposing monarchs was established, 
 was temporal enactment. This alone would have been sufficient answer 
 to those charges so often made and so often refuted, yet still brought 
 forward. But on each occasion there is generally some variation in the 
 mode of making the charges, and therefore there must be some also in 
 the answer. On pages 47 and 48, White uses very ingenious sophistry 
 to endeavor in some way or other to establish the fact, that the deposing 
 doctrine is an article of Catholic faith. 
 
 Feeling convinced that the council of Florence will not serve his 
 purpose, without abandoning whatever semblance of aid it may give 
 him, he takes other ground. 
 
 It is a principle of our Church, that the Pope ''may promulgate 
 definitions and formularies of faith, to the universal church, and when 
 the general body, or a great majority of her prelates have assented to 
 them, either by formal consent, or by tacit consent, all are bound to ac- 
 quiesce in them." This quotation he makes from Mr. Butler's book, and 
 the principle is sound and correct. What are the requisites to command 
 our acquiescence? 
 
 1. That what is promulgated must be either a definition of faith, or a 
 formulary of faith. This is done in one of two ways, either by pub- 
 lishing that a certain doctrine therein stated has been revealed by 
 God, and preserved and taught in the Church, and is to be believed 
 as an article of faith ; or by condemning the doctrine as contradict- 
 ing what God has revealed, and the Church has taught, and forbid- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 335 
 
 ding under censures any person to hold such heretical opinion, or 
 
 to teach or favor the same. 
 
 In this case it is clear that a condemned doctrine is not tolerated; 
 also that the defined doctrine is not tolerated, but is taught. This dis- 
 tinction between a tolerated opinion, and a doctrine of faith we have 
 seen in my last letter, and it is recognized by White in the first para- 
 graph of his letter ii, page 41. 
 
 2. The promulgation must be made to the universal Church, not mere- 
 ly to a portion thereof, and the matter must concern the whole 
 
 Church, and not merely a portion thereof. 
 
 In this place we find that a document directed to a particular nation 
 on its own special concerns does not, and never has been considered to 
 come under this principle. 
 
 Mr. White, in page 47, asks respecting the deposition of Elizabeth, 
 and so forth. "Did not the greatest part of the Catholic Bishops allow 
 by their tacit or express consent, that the head of their Church was act- 
 ing in conformity with the inspired definition of his power?" Miserable 
 subterfuge !— Every student of theology could tell you that an act of 
 the Pope is not a definition of an article of faith— that his reasoning 
 to justify his acts whether good or bad is not a definition of an article 
 of faith. I will suppose a stronger ease than any act of deposition. 
 Some few Popes have been notoriously bad men: suppose some one of 
 those men, published to the Catholic world a declaration that he believed 
 his criminal act was perfectly justifiable and was not a crime, surely it 
 never could enter into any person 's head that this palliation or attempted 
 justification of his conduct to the world, was the definition of an article 
 of faith. The acts of the Popes were not definitions; they had none 
 of the conditions required in the first head, nor were they directed as 
 required in the second to all the Bishops of the world. The Bishops 
 of the country which was in question were the only prelates concerned. 
 What concern, for instance of the Bishop of this Diocess, is it, if His 
 Holiness should choose to inform the Bishops and people of Spain that 
 he considers Ferdinand unfit to reign, and that in the name of God, he 
 absolves them from all allegiance to him? But the case will be widely 
 different, if His Holiness should absolve the good Catholics of South 
 Carolina from their allegiance to their State or their contract with the 
 Union, and place them under the persecution of the British penal laws, 
 or under the tender mercies of his Spanish majesty. Though the Bishop 
 of Charleston would protest against this act, and declare to his flock 
 that it was of no authority, neither the British or Spanish Bishops would 
 be expected to take the same trouble. 
 
336 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 White himself, in page 47, feels this ground to be untenable, and 
 quickly leaves it : declaring in page 48, his Papal bulls are not definitions 
 or formularies, and therefore will not serve his purpose. Why then 
 introduce them? To excite the fears of the timid, the doubts of the 
 simple, the opposition of the prejudiced; and uniting those together to 
 get a cry of no Popery for John Bull. But what has Bishop Kemp to 
 do with this? Is he so ignorant as to be misled by this sophistry? I 
 do not know. The good prelate may, for any thing that I know, be as 
 learned as either Duns Scotus or St. Thomas of Aquin : but if he is 
 learned, how has he given his approbation to this book: and what was 
 his object in exciting unfounded fears of Papal influence in America ? 
 
 The writer of the Evidence continues through the next two or three 
 pages to excite the same alarms, by his guessing at what might be the 
 reason for not defining that the Pope had no power over temporal con- 
 cerns. The reason is plain. No decision is made in the Church except 
 for the purpose of preserving safe the deposit of faith, that deposit 
 is never in danger save by the denial of some revealed truth. They 
 who assert that it is their opinion, that God gave temporal power to the 
 Pope, teach what, though not a part of Catholic doctrine, yet does not 
 contradict that doctrine, and therefore the Church has no authority to 
 condemn or to censure them, any more than she has authority to con- 
 demn or to censure those who say they are mistaken. Suppose two 
 mathematicians differ. One of them states that lines which bear a cer- 
 tain ratio to a radius will form the sides of a square which shall be equal 
 to the circle ; the other says that he mistakes. It would be as ridiculous 
 for the Church to give a decision between them, as it would be for a 
 court of equity or a court of law to make a rule, or an order upon the 
 subject. The council of Florence decided that the Pope has power to a 
 certain extent to govern the Church. In America, we know very well 
 that the Church does not mean the State, and we want no Pope or council 
 to decide for us, what we know too well to ask a decision, that he has no 
 power to govern our State. We will not quarrel with those who say that 
 he has, but, if ever he should attempt to reduce their opinion to practice 
 in our case, we and our Protestant fellow-citizens will join to show our 
 belief, as the English Catholics did in the time of Elizabeth ; and a very 
 sufficient proof that it was no violation of their doctrine is, that neither 
 Pope or council ever attempted to accuse them of having acted irre- 
 ligiously. I commend them for their noble opposition to foreign force, 
 and for their alacrity to maintain British independence. But what says 
 Bishop Kemp to their Protestant persecutors, who robbed and hanged 
 and beheaded them as traitors after the common enemy was destroyed? 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 337 
 
 This single fact is better than any other answer to the labored sophistry 
 of the unprincipled writer of the Evidence. 
 
 In page 52, he makes a side blow at the infallible council for the 
 vagueness of its canon. The canon is not vague. It defines all that 
 was necessary. The question was between the Greeks and the Latins, 
 whether the Pope was the spiritual governor of all the Church, or only 
 of the Western portion thereof, and the canon defined that he was 
 member of the entire : the question was also whether this was by divine 
 appointment, and it was decided in the affirmative. No question was 
 raised upon the temporal power, and of course there was no vagueness 
 in its omission. Some persons may if they choose, hold opinions of 
 their own upon subjects which do not interfere with the doctrines of the 
 Church, but the Church is not accountable for those opinions nor is 
 she called upon to decide upon their truth or falsehood, nor would it 
 be correct to allow the tribunal of the Church to make such decisions; 
 as well might she be required to decide, whether Guthrum a British 
 king made a present of Ireland to the Milesians about fifteen hundred 
 years before the Christian era, as is asserted in an act of one of Queen 
 Elizabeth's parliaments. 
 
 The writer of the Evidence next quarrels with the statesmen who 
 guided the British council for the last quarter of the eighteenth century, 
 as not knowing what was the true source of danger from papists, and 
 not framing their questions to the Catholic Universities in a proper way : 
 and he kindly tells the British and Irish Catholics, that "the trial, to 
 which as British subjects they are exposed, is perfectly unconnected 
 with the temporal claims of their ecclesiastical head: it flows directly 
 from the spiritual." Do, my friends, then tell our Protestant fellow 
 citizens, that it is avowed by the advocates of British Protestant per- 
 secution, that it is because of their belief in the spiritual supremacy of 
 the Pope, the Catholics are persecuted. Tell our fellow citizens, that 
 they have been misled by the Protestant writers who assured them that 
 the British government cared nothing for the Pope's spiritual claims, 
 they only resisted his temporal claims, and only punished those who 
 would set him up as the monarch of their monarch ! See too how White, 
 or Southey, or whoever this writer is, now undoes all that he had through 
 six pages urged against Mr. Butler, for having written that Catholics 
 believed only that they were subject to the Pope 's spiritual power. Yot 
 now he says in page 52, that "he does not conceive the Pope's supremacy 
 to have any practical effect in Great Britain." Why then are the 
 Catholics persecuted? Why does the bench of bishops, with two splen- 
 did exceptions, regularly make the continuance of this persecution? 
 
338 CONTROVEKSY Vol. 
 
 We now come to the question which this second wise man of Gotham 
 would substitute for the three which by j\Ir. Pitt's desire were propose'! 
 to the Universities. 
 
 Can the Pope, in virtue of what Roman Catholics believe his divine 
 authority, command the assistance of the faithful, in checking the pro- 
 gress of heresy, by any means not likely to produce danger to the Roman 
 Catholic Church; and can that Church acknowledge the validity of any 
 engagement to disobey the Pope in such cases? 
 
 Before answering this question, though I am not an University, 
 I shall exhibit another which is put, and the answer which is given 
 thereto in the Church of which ]\Ir. White says he is a member. The 
 question is put by the Archbishop to a person to be consecrated Bishop. 
 
 Q. Are you ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive 
 away all erroneous and strange doctrine, contrary to God's word; and 
 both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same ? 
 A. I am ready, the Lord being my helper. 
 
 The question by the Bishop to the person to be ordained priest. 
 
 Q. Will you be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and 
 drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word, 
 and so forth. A. I will, the Lord being my helper. 
 
 Q. Will you reverently obey your Ordinary, and other chief min- 
 isters, unto whom is committed the charge and government over you, 
 following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions, and sub- 
 mitting yourself to their godly judgments? A. I will do so, the Lord 
 being my helper. 
 
 The person to be ordained deacon is asked the same question, and 
 gives the same answer. Connected with those questions and answers, 
 are the unquestionable facts that the English Protestant Church has 
 never yet been one moment in existence without being uniformly a 
 persecuting body. And that, amongst those who prominently, steadily, 
 uniformly, and almost without exception maintained, justified, and insti- 
 gated that persecution, were the archbishops and bishops of that Church. 
 Would it then be an extraordinary assumption for me to say, that the 
 clergy of that Church profess, that by the divine law they are bound 
 to check the progress of the Roman Catholic religion, by any means 
 not likely to produce danger to the English Protestant Church; and 
 that the inferior clergy believe that by divine authority the Bishops 
 ought to command their assistance for that purpose, and that they 
 acknowledge the validity of their engagement to obey the Bishops in 
 such cases, and that persecution of Catholics is therefore their con- 
 scientious duty, and that they therefore are bound to persecute Catho- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 339 
 
 lies, and that they would not in conscience "regard with apathy efforts" 
 to put an end to this persecution. 
 
 Every good member of the Church of England will cry out against 
 these last consequences, which I have drawn ; and will, in this reclama- 
 tion, be joined by many sensible and just men of all persuasions, who 
 will say that those consequences are not contained in the premises; 
 that the clergy of the Church of England are of opinion that Catholicism 
 is an evil, which they ought to oppose, but that although unfortunately 
 that Church has always been united with the State in persecution 
 sometimes severe and sometimes mitigated, still the true meaning of the 
 answers above recited, is not to use unlawful means, or indecent or 
 outrageous means, but such as become men in their place, viz. argument, 
 instruction, prayer and watchfulness. I agree with them in this explan- 
 ation; and I say that notwithstanding the unfortunate and unseemly 
 fact of the English Protestant Church having always been maintained 
 by persecution of others, especially of our Church; still the meaning 
 of the passages above quoted does not lead to the necessity of perse- 
 cution. I need scarcely adduce a fact, which we all observe every day 
 to prove that they do not, viz. all the bishops and clergy of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the United States have made similar declarations, 
 and still only one bishop and a few priests have waged this war upon us. 
 
 But I demand in fair justice the benefit of the same principle which 
 I concede ; and I now answer the question which is put. 1. The Pope 
 can command the assistance of the faithful by divine right, to check 
 the progress of heresy, by all lawful means. 2. The Church does 
 acknowledge the validity of any lawful engagement to disobey the Pope. 
 And "White has taken great pains to no purpose, because his question 
 was contained in those put to the Universities, as may be seen by a 
 reference to them. It would be unlawful and improper for a Catholic, 
 as well as ridiculous to engage maintaining and abetting what he con- 
 sidered to be error, and no man of principle, whatever his religion may 
 be, could enter into such an engagement as to do any positive act for 
 promoting what he believed to be a delusion. But a person might 
 engage, not to interfere for its destruction on a variety of occasions, or 
 he might pledge himself to abstain from using certain means, which 
 he might lawfully use had he not given such pledges, but which would 
 become unlawful upon his making the engagement. Thus suppose I am 
 prevented the use of a certain passage to my dwelling, lest I should 
 remove some monument which was offensive to me, were I allowed to 
 come within reach of it. Though I had the full right and obligation to 
 destroy it, if I could freely reach it, I might when I found the avenue so 
 
340 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 guarded as to make it hopeless for me to effect its destruction, and 
 greatly inconvenient to me to lose the right of passage, make an en- 
 gagement not to injure the monument during the concession of the 
 right of passage. I am not prevented from making an engagement fo^* 
 sufficient cause, to refrain from doing an act which I would do if I 
 were free. But to obtain that right I never could pledge myself to do 
 what was in my estimation positively bad. Thus the British Catholics 
 have uniformly refused to abjure their own religion to obtain their 
 civil rights; but with the full consent and approbation of the see of 
 Rome, they have sworn, not to use the power which has been conceded 
 to them, for the purpose of destroying the Protestant Church established, 
 in order to substitute a Catholic establishment in its stead. Thus dur- 
 ing nearly half a century the very question which White would put 
 as a substitute, has been practically answered by the oaths and acts of 
 millions of Catholics, with the full approbation of the see of Rome: 
 and upon this principle of morality, "You can never pledge yourself 
 to do evil, but you may sometimes bargain to forego a lesser duty, that 
 you may thereby attain a greater good." 
 
 Bishop Kemp and his associates are American citizens, I now put 
 to them this difficulty of their protege White, and ask them before 
 the American public, how they could as citizens of our confederated 
 republics, support such doctrine as this book advances. White's address 
 to the British Catholics is substantially this : 
 
 "You believe our Church to be erroneous, but we are established by 
 law; if you are admitted to the Legislature, you will endeavour to de- 
 stroy our establishment, such is your duty as good Catholics ; you cannot 
 act otherwise; we cannot depend upon any engagement into which you 
 may enter, not to take away the property from us, to give it to your own 
 Clergy ; w^e therefore tell you, that if you are good Catholics, you ought 
 not to go into a place, where you would have the power to destroy us, 
 if you have not the disposition to do so." 
 
 If the Catholics w^ere even disposed to act thus, though they have 
 sworn not to act so, I ask the American clergy, could the measure be 
 carried by the votes of the Catholic members, if the majority of the 
 house and nation were not Catholics ? And if the majority of the nation, 
 as in Ireland, was Catholic, would the American Protestant clergy say 
 that such a majority should lose their civil rights, their political rights, 
 and be oppressed to keep up a dominant and domineering Church for 
 the minority of the nation ? Is this the doctrine we are to have imported 
 into our republics? What would Bishop Kemp say of disqualifying all 
 the Protestants of Maryland in order that a Catholic establishment 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 341 
 
 should tax and live upon the public of every denomination? Did he 
 ever read or hear of a Catholic minority taxing and living upon a 
 majority of persons of other religions and telling them, we shall keep 
 you out of our councils, lest we might be forced to give up what we 
 have acquired and preserved by force and persecution? Does France 
 keep Protestants from voting upon the question of the taxes, and the 
 appropriation to support the Catholic establishment, though that estab- 
 lishment has neither tythes, nor glebes, nor bishops' lands, nor the 
 plunder of monasteries, nor the spoils of Protestant establishments? 
 Prance is a bigoted Popish country, because she treats Protestants with 
 justice, and England is a liberal country, because she plunders and 
 oppresses Papists, and Bishop Kemp and his associates are liberal, 
 because they praise this British persecution. Yours, and so forth, 
 
 B. C. 
 
 LETTER XVI 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Dec. 18, 1826. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — White's object, in introducing the case of James II, 
 King of England, is to endeavor, as far as possible, to persuade Pro- 
 testants that no Roman Catholic can conscientiously abstain from perse- 
 cuting a member of any other Church. To effect this, he not only mis- 
 states the facts in the case of James, but he grossly and fallaciously 
 mistranslates the answer of Bossuet: of which I shall give a correct 
 version to accompany this, so that my readers may be able fully to 
 estimate the credit which White deserves. 
 
 I shall give what he intended to be his argument. ' ' A Roman Cath- 
 olic can lawfully do nothing to favor heresy. But if he be a British 
 legislator, he must concur in voting the sums necessary for supporting 
 the Protestant Church, which he calls heretical. Therefore it will be 
 unlawful for him to do his duty as a legislator: Hence he ought not 
 to seek for emancipation." 
 
 Such is the substance of the reasoning in page 53, and so forth. I 
 shall examine its principle. That principle is equally Protestant as it is 
 Catholic, viz. "It is unlawful to aid in the promotion of error." And 
 hence I have known hundreds of good members of the English and other 
 Protestant Churches refuse to give any aid to Popery. I have known 
 several very religious members of different Churches in South Carolina 
 upon this principle, not only refuse to contribute to build a Catholic 
 Church, but to send their children to a Catholic teacher, or ever to vote 
 
342 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 for any member of the Catholic Church for any office ; because it would 
 encourage Popish error, which is worse than heresy, it being Idolatry. 
 I have known Catholics who have in the same manner reduced the prin- 
 ciple to like practice. The principle is abstractedly quite correct, but 
 bigots misapply it ; and if White were not a bigot of very sour feelings, 
 he never would have deemed it possible to frame such an argument 
 upon such a foundation. 
 
 I repeat it; the principal is correct. "You cannot lawfully encour- 
 age error." But you must do your duty, and the discharge of that 
 duty is not the crime of giving unlawful encouragement to error. If 
 you owe your neighbor one hundred dollars, which you know, he will, 
 upon receiving, apply to the most corrupting purposes, you are not 
 accountable for his misconduct; nor for its consequences; nor are you 
 authorized to act dishonestly towards him, and over prudently in your 
 own favor, by keeping in your purse what you so sanctimoniously 
 tremble at paying. In a word, your fulfilment of your duty, is matter 
 of strict obligation; his abuse of his means is matter of criminality in 
 him, not of criminality in you. There was, however, a class of saints, 
 and for aught that I know, there still is, which would, for the love of 
 God, keep the money, and answer the application for payment with a 
 homily upon the influence of the Gospel. But there, men were not 
 Roman Catholics! as in this case, he who paid his debt committed no 
 crime : so in the other, he who merely discharged his duty, gave no 
 encouragement to error. The British constitution is said to be Pro- 
 testant, that is, in other words, there is an established Church, which 
 the constitution says must be supported. 
 
 The continuing to support an establishment which has been created 
 by the government, and continued during several years, as a matter 
 of course, is not forming a new aid for error. Nor is it the criminal 
 bestowing of support: because it is not given to encourage error, but 
 by virtue of a contract which has been long since made. Suppose a 
 man leaves a piece of land to aid a society which teaches error : and I 
 hire the land. When I pay my rent, I give my money to fulfil my eon- 
 tract: not to propagate error. The criminal was he who originally 
 devoted the income to further the delusion: not he who pays what he 
 bargained to give for the use of the property. 
 
 The Catholic legislator would be bound to maintain this constitution, 
 and therefore to provide the means for supporting bishops and sextons, 
 as well as judges and beadles. But, I may be asked, "when the Catho- 
 lics would form a majority of the Lords and Commons, would they not 
 discontinue the vote?" I answer, "that their vote is not necessary, for 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 343 
 
 the property is vested in the Church and not granted by Parliament,'' 
 so that, the fear raised by White as to the safety of the Catholic's 
 conscience in this case, is only a delusive affectation. "But would not 
 Catholics vote to take away the property from the Protestant establish- 
 ment in order to give it to a Catholic esablishment ? " I answer that 
 although the Catholics are not legislators, and therefore not the ir^ajority 
 of those houses in which they are not allowed to sit : yet this possibility 
 is guarded against, for they have sworn, and continue to swear, that 
 they will not use any privilege which they have obtained or may become 
 entitled to, in order to subvert or destroy the Protestant Church estab- 
 lishment in order to substitute a Catholic establishment in its stead. 
 Besides, there is another security. The King must be a Protestant ; and 
 he should give his consent, and the Protestant Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury is his first privy counsellor. "But, the two houses might take 
 away the property, and thus destroy the Protestant establishment, with- 
 out substituting any other therefor." I acknowledge this is lawful 
 and possible, provided the King consented, but not otherwise. And 
 should the majority of the houses be Catholic, the majority of the nation 
 must be so. When that comes to be the case, the nation is fully entitled 
 to say whether it will give to the clergy of a minority an income too 
 great to support* a Church establishment ten times too large for the 
 whole people. But it is folly to write upon those chimeras as upon 
 facts. Allow me, by a single instance, to show the valuelessness of Mr. 
 White's bigotry. France has a legislature almost wholly Catholic, the 
 King is a Catholic, the Church establishment is Catholic, several of the 
 archbishops and bishops are Peers. Suppose Catholic emancipation fully 
 conceded, and every place which a Catholic could fill, occupied by mem- 
 bers of our Church: would the state of the British government be like 
 what we find in France as to the occupancy of places by Catholics? 
 Yet this Catholic King, those Catholic prelates, peers and people, levy 
 taxes upon the French Catholics and Protestants, to support several 
 kinds of Protestant clergy and Churches. And still, they hold the prin- 
 ciple "that they ought not to encourage error." Neither do they en- 
 courage it. The persons who hold erroneous doctrines, are unfortunately 
 under delusions which force cannot remove, and for the removal of 
 which it is not lawful to resort to force. But as members of civil 
 society, they claim only common rights, in return for common exertions ; 
 those rights cannot be justly withheld, and the granting of them is not 
 made in favor of error, but of right. Suppose by virtue of a contract 
 the erroneous party received more than its proportion, still this extra 
 favor is now due by virtue of the contract, and can be no longer viewed 
 
344 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 as the grant of encouragement, because it has become the result of stip- 
 ulation in a bargain, and the terms of the contract must be observed. 
 But let us see what "White says upon the subject of King James : 
 ' ' At the time when I am writing this, one branch of the Legislature 
 has declared itself favorable to what is called Catholic emancipation: 
 and, for any thing I can conjecture, Roman Catholics may be allowed to 
 sit in Parliament before these letters appear in public. A Roman Cath- 
 olic legislator of Protestant England, would, indeed, feel the weight 
 of the difficulty to which my suggested question alludes, provided his 
 attaclunent to the Roman Catholic faith were sincere. A real Roman 
 Catholic once filled the throne of these realms, under similar circum- 
 stances; and neither the strong bias which a crown at stake must have 
 given to his mind, nor all the ingenious evasions proposed to him by 
 the ablest divine of the court of Louis XIV could remove or disguise the 
 obstacles which his faith opposed to his political duties. The source 
 of the religious scruples which deprived James II of his regal dignity, 
 is expressed in one of the questions which he proposed to several divines 
 of his persuasion. It comprises, in a few words, what every candid 
 mind must perceive to be the true and only difficulty in the admission 
 of Roman Catholics to the Parliament of these kingdoms. What James 
 doubted respecting the regal sanction, a member of either house may 
 apply to the more limited influence of his vote. He asked 'Whether 
 the king could promise to give his assent to all the laws which might 
 be proposed for the greater security of the Church of England?' Four 
 English divines, who attended James in his exile, answered without 
 hesitation in the negative. The casuistry of the French court was cer- 
 tainly less abrupt. Louis XIV observed to James, that 'as the exercise 
 of the Catholic religion could not be re-established in England, save by 
 removing from the people the impression that the King was resolved 
 to make it triumph, he must dissuade him from saying or doing any 
 thing which might authorize or augment this fear.' The powerful 
 talents of Bossuet were engaged to support the political views of the 
 French monarch. His answer is a striking specimen of casuistic sub- 
 tlety. He begins by establishing a distinction between adhering to the 
 erroneous principles professed by a Church, and the protection given to 
 it ostensibly, to preserve public tranquillity." He calls the Edict of 
 Nantes, by which the Huguenots were, for a time, tolerated, 'a kind of 
 protection to the reformed, shielding them from the insults of those 
 who would trouble them in the exercise of their religion. ' It never was 
 thought, (adds Bossuet) that the conscience of the monarch was inter- 
 ested in these concessions, except so far as they were judged necessary 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 345 
 
 for public tranquillity. The same may be said of the King of England 
 and if he grant greater advantages to his Protestant subjects, it is 
 because the state in which they are in his kingdoms, and the object of 
 public repose, requires it." Speaking of the Articles, of the Liturgy, 
 and the Homilies, "it is not asked (he says) that the king should 
 become the promoter of these three things, but only that he shall osten- 
 sibly leave them a free course, for the peace of his subjects." "The 
 Catholics (he concludes) ought to consider the state in which they are, 
 and the small portion they form of the population of England, which 
 obliges them not to ask what is impossible of their king, but on the con- 
 trary, to sacrifice all the advantages with which they might vainly 
 flatter themselves, to the real and solid good of having a king of their 
 religion, and securing his family on the throne, though Catholic; which 
 may lead them naturally to expect, in time, the entire establishment of 
 their Church and faith." 
 
 ' ' Such is the utmost stretch which can be given to the Roman Cath- 
 olic principles in the toleration of a Church which dissents from the 
 Roman faith. A conscientious Roman Catholic may, for the sake of 
 public peace, and in the hope of finally serving the cause of his Church, 
 ostensibly give a free course to heresy. But, if it may be done without 
 such dangers, it is his unquestionable duty to undermine a system of 
 which the direct tendency is, in his opinion, the spiritual and final ruin 
 of men. Is there a Catholic divine who can dispute this doctrine? Is 
 there a learned and conscientious priest among you, who would give 
 absolution to such a person as, having it in his power so to direct his 
 votes and conduct in Parliament as to direct the influence of Protestant 
 principles, without disturbing or alarming the country, would still 
 heartily and steadfastly join in promoting the interest of the English 
 Church? Let the question be proposed 'to any Catholic university; 
 and, though I am fully aware of the inexhaustible resources of casuistry, 
 I should not fear to stake the force of my argument upon its honest and 
 conscientious answer. ' ' 
 
 I shall not make any further comment upon this gross misrepre- 
 sentation until after I shall have given the translation of the opinion 
 furnished by Bossuet. Meantime, I request of you to peruse the original. 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
346 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 LETTER XVII 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Jan. 1, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — Mr. White's object in page 53 and subsequent pages 
 of his Evidence, was to shew that Catholics must, according to their 
 principles, if vested with temporal power, in any country 'in Vhich Pro- 
 testants had Churches, or establishments, use that power to deprive 
 them of those Churches and establishments, in order to stop the progress 
 of error, and that it would be unlawful for them upon their principles 
 to refuse obedience to the Pope, should he command them by such means 
 to stop such progress. I before reminded you of an obvious distinction 
 between lawful and proper means, and unlawful and improper means. 
 I shewed that the Protestant as well as the Catholic, that every honest 
 man is bound to use the former, and that no Pope or council can com- 
 mand the latter, and notwithstanding White's real or affected ignorance 
 upon the subject, all the British Catholics have sworn and continue to 
 swear, all the Catholic schools of Theology have taught, and continue to 
 teach, that it would be sinful in a Catholic to do an unlawful or immoral 
 act in obedience to the Pope or council, or upon the ground or under the 
 pretext that it was done for the good of Religion, or the benefit of the 
 Church. It is a principle as eternal and as immutable as God himself, 
 that no moral evil, however venial, may lawfully be done, to procure 
 any benefit however great. 
 
 No order of a Pope or council could justify a Catholic legislator 
 in doing an act of political injustice to a Protestant, to stop the pro- 
 gress of his error. Upon this principle, as I before showed, the French 
 government which is Catholic, gives Churches, and ministerial salaries 
 and establishments for theological lectures and maintenance of scholars 
 to Calvinists, and to Lutherans, and to persons who belong to the English 
 Protestant Church. During several years, the Elector of Saxony was 
 a Catholic, and faithfully executed the constitutional provisions in favor 
 of Protestants and afflictive to Catholics. Several other instances might, 
 if necessary, be adduced, but those two will suffice. It then is clear 
 from principle, and from example, that White was either grossly ignor- 
 ant or affected fear which he did not feel. 
 
 But my charge upon him is more serious. It is that of falsification, 
 or what I can scarcely admit, total incompetence for his task. He ad- 
 duces the example of James II, of England, who lost a throne because 
 he could not betray his conscience. What an eulogy does he pass upon 
 this unfortunate and abused monarch !— What must be the purity of 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 347 
 
 conscience produced by a religion which demands such sacrifices? — 
 Does it not appear to be that which animated the first martyrs? Does 
 it not exhibit in practice the principle of that injunction of the Saviour, 
 so often and so emphatically repeated ; that we should love his truth and 
 his doctrine better than any thing which the world could bestow, better 
 than life itself? A principle which does not palliate ten years of hypo- 
 crisy, of profligacy and of sacrilege, such as were spent by the cham- 
 pion of the British Protestant Religion, behind whose protection Bishop 
 Kemp and his associates would place the Protestant Religion of Amer- 
 ica! — I shall take another opportunity of endeavoring to do justice to 
 this mistaken though upright and liberal and tolerant and conscientious 
 exile from a throne. The eulogy of White though not intended as a 
 testimony in the favor of James, will content me for the present. That 
 eulogy is given in my last letter. 
 
 I have charged upon Mr. White either falsification, or incompetency. 
 The falsification is in the translation of Bossuet's answer in the case of 
 James. I have had the original French inserted in the Miscellany, 1 
 now give what I conceive to be an exact translation. Of all men who 
 ever wrote, White should be the last to expose himself to a charge of 
 false translation : and when he is competent to teach Mr. Charles Butler 
 how to translate Latin into English, he can by no means plead a special 
 exemption upon the ground of his being a foreigner, whose native tongue 
 is not English. He tells us, page 25, at the time of his arrival in Eng- 
 land, "I had learned English in my childhood, and could understand 
 it at this time, without difficulty." Page 15, he shews us that his father 
 must have spoken the language. In 1817, he published at Oxford a 
 series of lectures in English, page 34. He is also the author of Dohlado's 
 Letters, which are written in a style that would not disgrace the pen 
 of the poet laureat of England. To assert then that Mr. White could 
 not translate into English with perfect accuracy, any work from a 
 language which he understood equally well, would be absurd. Mr. 
 White knew French, because he informs us that the reading of a con- 
 siderable portion of his life was in the standard works of that language. 
 Yet he has falsified Bossuet's meaning in the extracts which he trans- 
 lated, and his attention was chiefly fixed upon the portion which he falsi- 
 fied, and he founded his argument upon the falsification. Where the 
 Bishop of Meaux writes that the King of England is only bound to pro- 
 tect the external form and administration of the Protestant Church, 
 as distinguished from aiding its progress in the minds and over the 
 consciences of his subjects, or giving to it the protection of his own con- 
 scientious assent. White makes him write that the King "is ostensibly 
 
348 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 to leave that religion a free course," and marks the word ostensibly, so 
 as to fix upon it the attention of his readers, and thus impress them with 
 the idea which is usually, I may say uniformly attached to that word in 
 the English language, that the King was hypocritically to appear to do 
 what he really did not; whereas the Bishop having drawn the distinc- 
 tion which is given above, between protecting its external form and 
 administration on the one hand, and adhering to its errors, or aiding 
 their extension in the minds of the people on the other, he says that the 
 King only promises the first, and not the second protection, and asserts 
 that he is really bound to perform what he promises: if this was not 
 the case, where would be the necessity of inquiring what might be law- 
 fully promised and performed? — ^When White himself was a hypocrite, 
 he promised and professed every thing; so does every insincere and 
 unprincipled person. But men who have regard for their promises and 
 oaths, and mean to perform what they promise and swear, will be cau- 
 tious to ascertain the meaning of the oath or of the declaration. Such 
 was the case here; it was not an ostensible but a real protection which 
 was required, such was also to be promised, and such might also be 
 conscientiously given by preserving the form and establishment, and by 
 keeping the Protestants really and not ostensibly in possession of tythes. 
 Church-lands, glebes, offerings, fees, schools, colleges, universities and 
 offices. How in the name of ingenuity itself could this be ostensible 
 only? Though it was external, it was real and not ostensible. It is 
 a most shameful perversion : it is not surpassed by that other false trans- 
 lation of a passage of Bossuet by an English Protestant writer, and 
 which Doctor Milner exposed. In that case Bossuet writing of those 
 persons who said that they were of the true Church of Christ, because 
 they were persecuted, used the expression that toleration "suffering 
 persecution," was not a distinctive mark of the Church of Christ, and 
 the translator kindly gave it as a proof of the persecuting spirit of the 
 Bishop of Meaux, and of the Catholic Church, ''toleration (that is 
 absence of a persecuting spirit) could not be a characteristic of the 
 true Church." Yet these are the writers who arrogate to themselves 
 superior talents, superior information, superior candor, superior liber- 
 ality, more gentlemanly demeanor, than the Romish ecclesiastics! I 
 call upon Bishop Kemp and his liberal associates to exhibit if they can, 
 any one of those vilified ecclesiastics who has been guilty of such unbe- 
 coming mistranslation, in defence of his Church? Have the American 
 Catholic clergy, or any portion of them, so far forgotten their own dig- 
 nity as to import such productions as this from Europe, to fling with 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 349 
 
 their recommendation into the faces of fellow-citizens of other com- 
 munions ? 
 
 After this falsification, and after garbling the document in the 
 text, though by some fatality for himself, he placed the copy in his 
 appendix, he in his remaining paragraph upon the subject, again eon- 
 founds what had been previously distinguished, as he could not in any 
 other way arrive at the semblance of the conclusion which he desired to 
 draw, viz. that a Catholic ought not to seek admission into the British 
 parliament, and that the Protestant ought not to admit him. Here he 
 assumes what has been so often disproved, viz. that a Catholic is bound 
 by his religion to violate his promise and do an act of political injustice 
 for the benefit of his Church, and that to correct the error of the Protes- 
 tant he is bound to become a criminal. As to the duty of a member 
 of the British parliament, I shall leave those whom it concerns to regu- 
 late [it]. I have but one object in view, which is to shew that the 
 charge of political dishonesty for the benefit of Religion, and the charges 
 of political subserviency to the Pope, for the benefit of the Church, or 
 the diminution of heresy, which White made upon the Roman Catholics 
 of the whole world, were both unfounded and unjust. That object I 
 believe I have attained. I leave to others to say whether a member of 
 any government is authorized by political justice to give to an hierarchy 
 with which one third of the nation is not in communion a revenue drawn 
 from the whole people, and ten times too great for the spiritual neces- 
 sities of the United Kingdom at large. I leave also to my fellow-citizens 
 to say whether the Catholics of the United States deserved to have 
 these charges made upon them. Was it generous? Was it just? 
 
 In page 58, White complains that the Church had not made decisions 
 enough for him to quarrel with, that she leaves to her children too 
 much freedom of opinion upon questions of morality. Really this de- 
 serves a remark for its very novelty. So the Catholic Church is a tyran- 
 nical establishment which leaves her children too great liberty! It 
 was but in the foregoing page he made a Priest deny absolution to an 
 imaginary being, a Catholic member of the British parliament, for 
 merely exercising his own judgment upon his own vote. His casuistry 
 in the first place, is as defective as is his statement in the second. In 
 his succeeding two pages he grossly misrepresents the doctrine of the 
 Church, arguing from the exception made in the usual grant of the 
 Bull of Crusade, that heresy is worse than deliberate murder, because 
 the Priest receives power to absolve the penitent murderer, and does not 
 receive power to absolve the penitent heretic. As well might he con- 
 clude, that a city which required that one slightly infected with the 
 
350 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 small pox should be kept in seclusion, whilst it permitted his friends to 
 visit a man dying of a mortal wound, looked upon the former to be in a 
 more desperate state than the latter. Every one will see that in the first 
 place the seclusion is not founded upon the desperateness of the case 
 but upon the danger of the infection. So in morality, there are some 
 crimes which, though atrocious, will not be the occasions of seduction, 
 whilst others of a far less grade of immorality are more pernicious in 
 their general and unchecked results. The object of the Church in ex- 
 pecting the case of heresy, in those countries which are altogether or 
 almost Catholic, in the grant of jurisdiction, is not the punishment of the 
 penitent, but the discovery by the proper authority of the sources of 
 error that they may be removed, and the ascertaining that the unfortu- 
 nate victim of delusion has been thoroughly convinced of his error, 
 and is fully instructed in the grounds of the true doctrine. Mr. White, 
 if he knew any thing of theology, must have been aware of this, and 
 therefore was guilty of deliberate misrepresentation ; if he was not aware 
 of it, Bishop Kemp and his associates ought not to have told the public 
 of his competency for his task. 
 
 As I know nothing of "the old man of the mountain, or of the 
 Prince of the Assassins, " ^° I can form no opinion upon the subject. 
 But I shall conclude this letter with stating upon Catholic principles 
 what would be the duty of a Catholic legislator in a land inhabited by 
 a people whose religions differ as much as do the hundred religions of 
 the people of England. 
 
 I shall first state what constitutes the crime of heresy. It is a wilful 
 and obstinate denial of a truth revealed bj^ God. Faith is the belief 
 of such truth founded upon the divine testimony: Infidelity is the dis- 
 belief of that testimony, or the refusal to submit thereto: Heresy, a 
 word derived from the verb aigeo "to choose" or "to select" is the 
 admission of the principle that God has made a revelation, but a proud 
 and arrogant choice or selection of some of the revealed tenets, and a 
 wilful and obstinate rejection of the rest. Mr. White and his admirers 
 may, for aught that I know, look upon heresy to be humility, they may 
 consider it to be harmless and inoffensive to God: but I must avow, 
 that I look upon it to be highly criminal and greatly destructive both 
 of truth and of morality ; and any person who knows that he thus chooses 
 some of the doctrines, and rejects others revealed by God, is in my esti- 
 mation a deliberate religious criminal whilst he so continues: but should 
 
 ■" Prince of the Assassins. The head of a tribe of religious fanatics inhabiting 
 the hilly country of Persia, South of the Caspian Sea, who had also a Lieutenant in 
 Mount Libanus, and -nho was exterminated by Holagon Khan, A. D. 1258. — Vid. 
 Milman's Gibbon, Vol. iv, p. 253, Harper's Edit. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 351 
 
 he even only suspect himself to be in this state, I consider it to be his 
 duty sedulously to inquire and to use all means within his power to 
 discover his true situation, because when God vouchsafes to teach man, 
 it is the solemn duty of man to use every effort to Imow what he has 
 taught. If a person having laid aside his prejudices, having earnestly 
 besought God by prayer to enlighten and to guide him to the discovery 
 of truth, and then honestly and diligently using the means which are 
 within his reach, shall follow the sincerity of his conviction, though such 
 a person might err in mistaking falsehood for truth, such error is invin- 
 cible ignorance. White himself would not assert that prejudice ought 
 to form a ground of excuse ; he would not assert that sloth or indifference 
 are good grounds of excuse, he would not assert that the person who 
 omitted using any opportunity or mode within his power for the dis- 
 covery of that truth to which God commanded him to adhere, was inno- 
 cent. Nothing then but invincible ignorance can be a ground of excuse 
 for heresy. If by "unconquerable conviction" White means invincible 
 ignorance, I will freely accord to him that this will be a sufficient excuse. 
 In answer to his last query, "If sincere conviction is a valid plea with 
 the Roman Catholic Church, why has she scattered to the wind the 
 ashes of those who allowed that conviction to be tried in her inquisitorial 
 fires?" I beg to observe, that the structure of his question implies a 
 falsehood, viz. that the Roman Catholic Church has scattered the ashes 
 and lighted the fires. A proper opportunity will occur hereafter for 
 proving the truth of my assertion. I will add that from personal exper- 
 ience, I have known several who under the inuflence of far less pride 
 than would be requisite in this case, have died making deliberate 
 declarations at perfect variance with their sincere conviction. Mr. 
 White and his associates must excuse me for my avowal of an opinion in 
 which I may be erroneous, that neither Melancthon, Calvin, Grotius or 
 Usher, had a ' ' learned conviction, ' ' or any other conviction, of the Roman 
 Catholic religion being what they represented it to be. God, who is 
 the great judge of conscience and who alone can read the heart of man 
 is able to determine the question. I pass no judgment upon them : but 
 if I were to judge from what I have seen, my testimony would be un- 
 favorable to their "learned conviction." 
 
 Having thus given as distinctly as I could my remarks upon the 
 nature of heresy, and the contents of Mr. White 's pages, 61 and 62, I 
 shall merely add that in a mixed state of society, the duty of a Roman 
 Catholic legislator is to be regulated by the power which is conferred 
 upon him. His duty is to legislate only for the temporal welfare of 
 the State, not upon the religious concerns of the people. In such a 
 
352 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 government as ours, which happily does not interfere with the religion 
 of the people, and where the people from whom the legislator receives 
 his power, forbid him to legislate upon religious concerns, it would on 
 his part be an usurpation, which would be criminal, to use his power 
 openly or covertly for the checking of heresy, or the elevation of his 
 own Church. The act would be dishonest. In America there cannot 
 arise any question upon this subject, although White's book to the unin- 
 formed is calculated to create distrust in Catholic candidates for our 
 legislatures. It is not for me to determine how far Bishop Kemp and 
 his associates intended this effect, neither is it for me to contrast the 
 principle here laid down with the practice of others. In England, the 
 case is different: there the constitution establishes one denomination, 
 and the legislator accepting his place, binds himself to support the con- 
 stitution, and of course to maintain this establishment. His duty is to 
 observe his contract, and to support the establishment. The Catholic 
 King and Government of France, upon this principle, maintain by the 
 grants of the public money the Protestant and the Jewish establishments 
 of Catholic France. The morality of the Catholic Church will bear the 
 closest investigation. Strict justice, the full observance of contracts, 
 and their most extensive construction in favor of the party upon which 
 the benefit is to be conferred, form the basis of her moral code of inter- 
 course with persons of all religions. She looks upon heresy to be a great 
 crime in those who are its original creators and propagators, she looks 
 upon it to be a great misfortune in those who are its innocent victims. 
 But neither their crime or their mistake is a ground for making them the 
 victims of injustice. Her children never legislated themselves into the 
 property of older religion, and then mocked, insulted and persecuted 
 and calumniated those whom they plundered. 
 
 When Bishop Kemp, or Blanco White shall have proved this crime 
 against Catholic legislators, so far from holding them up as the cham- 
 pions of liberty and the models of religious perfection, I shall blush for 
 my Church until she shall have cast them out from her communion; 
 and should any portion of the plunder be found in my hands, my con- 
 science will have no peace until I shall have made restitution; because 
 I do not hold it to be more lawful for me to rob my neighbor for his 
 Protestantism, than it would be for him to fleece me, because of my 
 Catholicism. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, 
 
 B. c. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 353 
 
 LETTER XVIII 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Jan. 8. 1827. 
 To the Roman CatJiolics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — In his sixty-second and subsequent pages of what he 
 calls his Evidence, White has the following passage: 
 
 "I rejoice to find the dogma of intolerance branded in the Boole 
 of the Roman Catholic Church with the epitaph of detestable ; ^^ but 
 cannot help wondering that a man who thus openly expressed his 
 detestation of that doctrine should still profess obedience to a See, under 
 whose authority the inquisition of Spain was re-established in 1814. If 
 Catholics are so far improved under the Protestant government of 
 England as to be able to detest persecution, by what intelligible distinc- 
 tion do they still find it consistent to cling to the source of the intol- 
 erance which has inundated Europe with blood, and still shows its old 
 disposition unchanged, wherever it preserves an exclusive influence? 
 In what church did Spain learn the necessity of forbidding her subjects, 
 forever, the right of choosing their religious tenets, and that at the very 
 moment when she was proclaiming a free constitution? Who has in- 
 duced the republican governments of Spanish America to copy the same 
 odious laws in their new codes ? — That Church no doubt, who looks com- 
 placently on such acts and declarations, in countries where even her 
 silence stamps public doctrines with the character of truth. Yes; the 
 'detestable dogma of religious intolerance' is publicly and solemnly pro- 
 claimed in the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church, without a single 
 observation against it from the Pope or Bishops of that Church; nay, 
 the legislators themselves are forced to proclaim and sanction it against 
 their own conviction, because the mass of the people are allowed by the 
 Church to understand that such are their duty and her belief. 
 
 "If the Roman Catholic Church can thus allow detestable dogmas 
 to act in full force within the inmost recesses of her bosom, those Cath- 
 olics who differ from her notions, so far as her apologist, Mr. Butler, 
 might guide themselves in religious matters without the assistance of 
 her infallibility. That able writer allows himself to be blinded by the 
 spirit of party, when he labors to prove that intolerance does not belong 
 exclusively to his Church; and charges Protestants with persecution. 
 That Protestants did not at once perceive the full extent of the funda- 
 mental principle of the reformation — the inherent right of every man 
 to judge for himself on matters of faith — can neither invalidate the 
 truth of that luminous principle, nor bind subsequent Protestants to 
 
 Page 303, 1st ed. Page 254, Am. ed. 
 
354 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 limit its application. It is a melancholy truth, that Protestants did 
 persecute at one time; but it is a truth which rivets the accusation of 
 inherent and essential intolerance upon that Church, whose erroneous 
 doctrines the patriarclis of the reformation could not cast off at once. 
 Thanks be to the protecting care of that Providence, which, through 
 them, prepared the complete emancipation from religious tyranny which 
 Protestants enjoy at this moment; the infallibility of their churches 
 made no part of the common belief on which they agreed from the be- 
 ginning, or the spirit of intolerance would only have changed its name 
 among us. The dogma of an infallible judge of religious subjects is 
 the true source of bigotry ; and whoever believes it in his heart, is neces- 
 sarily and conscientiously a persecutor. A fallible Church can use 
 no compulsion. If she claims 'authority' on matters of faith, it is to 
 declare her own creed to those who are willing to be her members. The 
 infallible judge, on the contrary, looks on his pretended gift as a miracu- 
 lous, divine commission, to stop the progress of what he condemns as 
 an error. He persecutes and punishes dissenters, not because they can- 
 not be convinced by his reasons, but for obstinate resistance to his super- 
 natural authority. Rome never doomed her opponents to the flames for 
 their errors, but for their contumacy. It is by this means that she has 
 been able so often to extinguish sympathy in the breasts of her followers ; 
 for error excites compassion, while rebellion never fails to kindle indig- 
 nation. ' ' 
 
 In this extract we find the following assertions or propositions 
 to be contained, or palpably insinuated, viz : 
 
 1. That the detestation of intolerance cannot exist in that Church, 
 under w^hose authority, the inquisition of Spain was established in 
 1814. 
 
 2. That if the Catholics of England and Ireland detest intoler- 
 ance, they ought not to cling to the See of Rome, which is the source 
 of intolerance. 
 
 3. That if the British and Irish Catholics detest intolerance, they 
 are improved by having been under their Protestant government. 
 
 4. That the Roman Catholic Church shows its old disposition of 
 persecution unchanged, wheresoever it has exclusive influence. 
 
 5. That the Roman Catholic Church induced Spain and the South 
 American governments, to forbid their subjects and citizens for ever 
 to choose their religious tenets, at the very moment that they proclaimed 
 free constitutions, and that this was an odious act. 
 
 6. That she did all this mischief by her silence; neither Pope nor 
 Bishop lifting his voice against the detestable act. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 355 
 
 7. That the legislators were obliged to make those laws against their 
 own conviction, because the Church left the people under an impression 
 that such was their duty. 
 
 8. That they who assert that intolerance does not belong exclusive- 
 ly to the Catholic Church are blinded by the party spirit. 
 
 9. That the Catholic Church is answerable for the persecution of 
 her own children by Protestants, when at one time the Protestants did 
 persecute. 
 
 10. That Protestants do not believe their Church is infallible, and 
 therefore can use no compulsion. 
 
 11. That an infallible judge of doctrine considers himself divinely 
 commissioned to stop the progress of error. 
 
 12. That Rome never doomed her opponents to the flames for their 
 errors, but for their contumacy. 
 
 Believe me, my friends, when in the sincerity of my soul I assure 
 you, that I never approached any subject with awe and disgust, equal 
 to w^hat I now feel at the necessity of examining and exhibiting the result 
 of the examination of those propositions. Would to God, I could do so 
 without the harrowing of soul which is produced by heartless men who 
 force us to recollect what we would strive to forget ! ! I believe that 
 several of my Protestant fellow-citizens read these letters. Let me assure 
 them in all the sincerity of soul, that I do not attribute to them as a body, 
 nor to their Churches, at present, the horrid sentiments which if I were 
 disposed to act like Blanco White, and Bishop Kemp, and Dr. Wilmer 
 and their associates, I could with strict logical justice charge upon al- 
 most every Protestant Church in the United States ; whilst I shall also 
 show that by no principle of logic, by no rule of right reason, could 
 the Catholic Church be charged with what those assailants have thought 
 proper to impute to her. 
 
 I would once for all address my Protestant fellow-citizens to the 
 following effect : 
 
 "Friends and Brethren, — Your fathers have been led to separate 
 themselves from our fathers, and to charge upon them several religious 
 errors. Your fathers were invited to cast off the superstitions and the 
 impostures which they were told our fathers and they had been slaves to. 
 They were invited to search the Scriptures, that in them they might find 
 the knowledge of truth. They took up the sacred volume, and in their 
 search for truth, which is one and invisible, they have been separated 
 into hundreds of sects, all contradicting each other. Centuries have 
 elapsed, and the progress of years only multiplies your divisions; even 
 you, yourselves have so far lost all hope of discovering in those sacred 
 
356 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 books an uniform and a consistent declaration of truth, that in your des- 
 pair of effecting it, you have adopted the extraordinary conclusion that, 
 although you could not remain in our communion, because we held er- 
 roneous doctrine, still you may agree to contradict each other in harmony 
 and affection. This evil is not of your own creation. But whilst you 
 thus despair of union, and are multiplying your divisions and your con- 
 tradictions, we, by following up the same principle which kept your 
 progenitors and ours during centuries in a happy union of belief and 
 affection, are still an united body, though spread through every nation 
 of the universe ; and we still hold as the standard of our faith, not only 
 the sacred volume of the inspired writings, but every decision which our 
 predecessors, during eighteen centuries, have given for its explanation. 
 
 '*We do not think that we ought to abandon this host of evidence; 
 and should we leave it, we know not whither to have recourse for any 
 testimony of nearly equal value. 
 
 "But it is not the chief ground of my appeal and remonstrance, 
 that we are told that it is erroneous, on our part, to hold fast to this 
 principle; no, I complain that we are grossly misrepresented to you. 
 Your fathers and ours have unfortunately not kept within the bounds 
 of moderation, or of decorum, or of justice, or charity. They have per- 
 secuted each other. Do not imagine that I intend to wound your feelings, 
 when I assert that I could easily prove that in the mutual persecutions 
 which occurred, and still are occurring, our fathers have suffered, and 
 our brethren are suffering ten-fold more than they inflicted. My first 
 cause of complaint then is, that the Roman Catholics are said to be the 
 sole, if not the principal, aggressors. My next complaint is, that from 
 inferences sought to be drawn from our tenets and our acts, it is at- 
 tempted to be proved that we must in principle be persecutors. Far 
 be it from me to charge you with being persecutors upon principle. 
 On the contrary, I give this public testimony to your general feelings 
 of liberality, and to your many acts of kindness to Roman Catholics 
 in many parts of this Union, although it has happened, as it must happen 
 in all large bodies, that there are amongst you men, whose virulent 
 spirit would lead them to be persecutors, if they had the power. How- 
 ever, as those arguments which they use can, I think, be best met by 
 turning their principle against themselves ; allow me to exhibit how 
 easily upon that principle it can be shown that Protestants are bound 
 by their religious tenets to persecute Catholics. If, then, we find that, 
 although such a conclusion flows from your books, and the acts of your 
 fathers; still it is neither your practice as a body, nor your disposition 
 as individuals; we might obtain from you in return a like acknowledg- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 357 
 
 ment in our regard, and thus the rhapsody of those mischievous men 
 who seek to excite you against us, may cease to produce any effect, save 
 that of placing themselves in that point of view which is their proper 
 station. 
 
 "In my deductions, then, although I shall prove that your books 
 and the acts of members of the Protestant communions, would exhibit 
 the most marked spirit of intolerance, my object is peace and harmony, 
 not irritation and reproach, and I altogether disclaim any intention of 
 charging intolerance upon either any one Church, or the aggregate of 
 the Protestant Churches of the United States. But I desire to create har- 
 mony, if I can, by my putting to silence, if possible, those who charge 
 the Catholics with intolerance and persecution." 
 
 Having given this prefatory explanation to my Protestant fellow- 
 citizens, I proceed to examine the assertion of Mi*. White's paragraph. 
 
 His first proposition is founded upon a falsehood. It was not under 
 the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, but under the authority 
 of King Ferdinand VII, of Spain, that the inquisition was established 
 in 1814. But this re-established tribunal has not burned, or hanged, or 
 beheaded any Protestants as far as I could learn. Again, when that 
 tribunal was abolished by the Cortes, and Ferdinand or some of his 
 courtiers desired its re-establishment about two years since, the Pope used 
 all his influence in favor of its suppression, and it has not been re- 
 established. This was so notorious a fact, that it could not have escaped 
 White's knowledge, and therefore his proposition contains an injurious 
 suppression of the truth, and a bold suggestion of falsehood. 
 
 Respecting his second proposition, in so far as it assumes that Rome 
 is more intolerant than Canterbury, I shall in the sequel prove it to be 
 a most unfounded charge. At present, all the Protestant Archbishops 
 in the world vote regularly to keep in force a code of persecution against 
 the British and Irish Catholics. The See of Rome persecutes no one on 
 account of religion. I call upon Bishop Kemp and his associates to name 
 the people, or the individual now persecuted for conscience' sake by 
 the See of Rome. 
 
 The third assertion is the most unfortunate which could have been 
 made, because that government which has now during nearly three cen- 
 turies been the most unrelenting and sanguinary in its inflictions upon 
 the score of religion is not the best calculated to teach toleration. How- 
 ever, there is one meaning which the isolated proposition might have, 
 whose truth I willingly admit, but that is not in the meaning which it 
 bears in Mr. White's context, viz. that the intolerance of the Protestant 
 government of Great Britain and Ireland has created in the British and 
 
358 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 Irish Catholics an extraordinary detestation of the principle of intoler- 
 ance; and as no person will more strongly detest injustice than he who 
 being naturally just has also been greviously afflicted by the injustica 
 of others. In this way, indeed, perhaps there has been strength added 
 to the natural detestation of intolerance, which has always characterized 
 the Irish nation, and which is common to British and Irish Catholics. 
 
 Respecting the fourth assertion, I beg leave to assure the Prelate 
 and his associates, that the Roman Catholic Church has no disposition 
 to persecute, that it had not at any time such a disposition, and that it 
 does not show it in any one place, and consequently not in those places 
 where it has exclusive influence. Let us go to Rome, and ask, are the 
 Protestants in that city persecuted? Through all Italy, in Austria, in 
 France, that Church has exclusive influence, and I defy the Prelate 
 and his party to adduce a single manisfestation as they charge. I say 
 the same of Bavaria ; I say the same of Portugal. I ask how many have 
 suffered persecution for their religion from the Roman Catholic Church 
 in Mexico? in Columbia? in Brazil? or on the whole continent of South 
 America? Let them name the Protestants who have suffered, and I 
 pledge myself to name a plundered and persecuted Catholic in Maryland, 
 and a Catholic priest put to death for his religion under Elizabeth, for 
 every such name they may adduce. The American people are not to 
 be treated like infants. They are not to be terrified with stories of a 
 raw-head and bloody bones. They have sound sense, keen discrimination, 
 calm and reflecting understanding ; they are accustomed to the examina- 
 tion of evidence; and the vague and general and sweeping assertions, 
 which would satisfy the mind of honest John Bull, will not pass current 
 wdth Jonathan. I cannot call upon Mr. "White, who is not here, to give 
 facts ; but I will call upon those who have linked their character to his 
 assertions to do so. 
 
 It will be observed, that I have omitted Spain in the above enumer- 
 ation. I will now adduce Spain herself. Not many months ago, the 
 papers contained an account of a Spanish Anto da fe, and told us, for 
 the discredit of the nineteenth century, that a Jew had been burned for 
 his religion in Spain, in the year 1826. I now upon the authority of the 
 European journals, pronounce this to be a vile fabrication of the rem- 
 nant of French Infidels, who, not content with having made their own 
 fine country the prey of wild anarchy, because of their hatred to relig- 
 ion, now endeavor to assail the Church in Spain, under the pretext of re- 
 forming the government. I ask, then, what Protestant has suffered per- 
 secution in Spain? I shall give you names upon names from England, 
 from Ireland, from Switzerland, and from other places. I call upon 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO "WHITE 359 
 
 those good men to show me in this last quarter of a century any case of 
 Catholic persecution of Protestants, in any part of the world, to equal the 
 single case of Mr. Haller, in Switzerland. 
 
 The fourth assertion is a vague, unsupported charge, which I am 
 prepared to rebut, when an attempt shall be made to support it by proof. 
 
 The fifth asertion has more semblance of truth than has any of the 
 others. It is true that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, that whilst 
 man is free to adopt apy civil constitution which may be most useful 
 to the general body, she declares that it now is, and ever will be unlaw- 
 ful for any man, or set of men to choose which of the revealed tenets 
 he will preserve, and which he will reject. It is a principle of natural 
 reason that man has no right to reject truth and choose error, because 
 adherence to truth is one of his fundamental and original obligations. 
 It is also a principle of Christianity that every tenet given by Christ is 
 true. It necessarily follows that although man may be at liberty to 
 choose his form of civil government, he has no right of choice and never 
 can have such right respecting the tenets of religion which God has re- 
 vealed. Although therefore I do not admit the fact that the Roman 
 Catholic Church induced Spain and South America to forbid this choice, 
 I am satisfied to assume all the consequences of admitting that they were 
 so induced. I would advise the persons who adopt Blanco White's as- 
 sertions to make the same charge upon North Carolina and New Jersey, 
 which allow no choice of Catholicism without disqualification. 
 
 It is a very extraordinary mode of persecution to be silent, yet this 
 is the extent of the sixth assertion. Great Britain exhibits it in another 
 mode, and when I come to contrast Protestant persecution with Catholic, 
 we shall find that the Protestant Churches knew how to speak. If the 
 Church should speak against persecution, it would be then perhaps 
 charged, if her advice was followed, that the people were priest-ridden. 
 I once knew a parish priest in Ireland, who was in danger of being 
 hanged because he interfered successfully with some Catholic insurgents 
 and saved the life of a Protestant opponent, upon whom they were about 
 to execute very summary justice or injustice. It was said, that other 
 Protestant and Catholic loyalists had been put to death, and it was evi- 
 dent that this priest, as he saved one man whom he saw, could, if he 
 would, have saved those whom he did not see; as he did not, he was 
 guilty of their blood, and ought to be hanged. Upon the next applica- 
 tion of Catholics for emancipation, it was argued in Parliament from a 
 few facts of this description, that the Catholics ought not to be eman- 
 cipated, because they were so far slaves to their priests that they were 
 unfit for freedom. A Protestant friend to emancipation, observed in 
 
360 CONTEOVERSY Vol. 
 
 jest to one of his acquaintances, that he would advise the priests to inform 
 their flocks that there was no chance of their obtaining justice until they 
 violated every law of the decalogue, and every ordinance of the Church, 
 to show their fitness for freedom. This is a miserable subterfuge; we 
 shall pass to the next. 
 
 In sober sadness, I would ask, can those men who join White in 
 complaining that a legislator has conformed to the will of his constitu- 
 ents, be American citizens? Thus, what is the jet of this proof of perse- 
 cution? The people tell their legislators, that they want no choice of 
 religious tenets ; the legislators adopt the language of the people in their 
 enactment. Who has been persecuted? Is it the people who call for 
 the article ? Is it the legislator that enacted it ? Upon what evidence is 
 it stated that this was done against the conviction of those who did it? 
 There is no proof of the truth of the assertion, but there is prima facie 
 evidence of its falsehood : and the principle of the complaint [contained 
 in it] is a direct attack upon the rights of the people. 
 
 I have already made this letter so long that I do not wdsh to enter 
 upon any examination of the remaining assertions until my next. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, 
 
 B. c. 
 
 LETTER XIX 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Jan. 15, 1827. 
 To the Roman CatJiolics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — I shall dwell very slightly at present upon the eighth 
 assertion in the passage which I quoted from White's work, viz. "That 
 they who assert that intolerance does not belong exclusively to our Church 
 are blinded by party spirit." The proposition is divisible into these 
 parts. I. The Roman Catholic Church is intolerant. If the meaning of 
 this is, that she cannot tolerate that error should be taught as truth, I 
 am very free to admit its correctness, and that of the other parts, be- 
 cause indeed, and she only makes it a condition for her communion 
 that you shall receive all truth and reject all error : whilst almost every 
 other Church, with truth and error before you, allows you to select pretty 
 freely. In general there are some tenets which each peculiar division 
 insists upon, and some others w^hich it requires you to reject; but as 
 respects the great bulk of doctrine you may please yourself. Thus the 
 Episcopalian Protestant requires that the order and character and gov- 
 ernment of Bishops be recognized, but as regards the doctrine of the 
 Eucharist, each person is left free to choose any one of the variety of 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 361 
 
 methods which have been devised to explain the words, "This is my 
 body." Neither is it necessary to conform to any particular standard 
 as to a variety of other doctrines concerning which it is acknowledged 
 specific tenets were taught by the Saviour. But this is not what is 
 meant by the intolerance which White and his abettors charge upon the 
 Catholics exclusively : the word in its context means persecution, or the 
 infliction of temporal pains or penalties. I then deny that the Roman 
 Catholic Church does inflict persecution for errors in faith, although 
 Roman Catholic temporal governors and legislators did at times inflict 
 them, not generally for error, but for its consequences to civil society. 
 White himself says that Rome never doomed her victims to the flames 
 for their errors. 
 
 The second part of the assertion is : Our Church only was thus in- 
 tolerant. I have denied that the Church persecuted; it is not my bus- 
 iness to prove the negative, it is their business to prove the truth of their 
 assertion ; when they attempt it, I shall meet them, if God spares my life. 
 Now I assert that Protestant governments were and are intolerant. 
 
 I shall not adduce the examples of ages long gone. I shall not 
 leave Bishop Kemp much trouble. I say the Protestant government of 
 Maryland is intolerant. I say, the Protestant colonial governments of 
 New England and Virginia, and the Carolinas, of Georgia, and of New 
 York, were intolerant. At this day the Protestant governments of 
 North Carolina and of New Jersey are intolerant. In Europe the Cath- 
 olic government of France is tolerant, the Protestant government of Eng- 
 land is persecuting. I will not go farther at present, though I could 
 add to the catalogue at each side. With those facts before their eyes, 
 how could those pastors of Churches, make to the American people, 
 through Blanco White, that third part of their assertion, that the declara- 
 tion of those facts could be made only by persons blinded by party spirit? 
 I apprehend my readers will think the party spirit might be found on 
 the other side. 
 
 The ninth assertion is indeed the most extraordinary that ever is- 
 sued from the pen of any writer. When it became too evident for the 
 most hardy to deny, that Protestant reformers and governments did 
 persecute Catholics and each other, the miserable subterfuge was taken 
 of asserting that this was done only by the patriarchs of the reforma- 
 tion, who had not sufficiently laid aside the bad principles of Popery, 
 and thus Popery, and not Protestantism, was justly chargeable with the 
 atrocity. Maclaine, in a note which he appends to his translation of 
 Mosheim, gives it as the excuse for Calvin's procuring the burning of 
 Servetus. The assertion is one of those whose very boldness almost as- 
 
362 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 tounds so as to unfit the mind for examining its foundation: however 
 it is one whose very absurdity is so apparent, that we need only con- 
 template, we need not reason for its refutation. In whom is the spirit 
 of Protestantism to be founded, if not in Luther, in Calvin, in Cranmer, 
 in Beza, in Knox? Will Bishop Kemp and his associates blush for the 
 conduct of their leaders? Surely those great lights of religion are not 
 to be called Roman Catholics, whilst they endeavor to demolish the Roman 
 Catholic Church? [In this case,] they would now be rejected by both 
 Catholics and Protestants. Suppose in addition to all the crimes im- 
 puted to us, or if they will, committed by us or our forefathers, we take 
 the crimes of their patriarchs upon our shoulders; still an enormous 
 load remains to be disposed of. Did the persons who persecuted the 
 English Puritans, bring their principles from our Church? Did the 
 Puritans who persecuted the Episcopalians, bring their principles from 
 our Church? Was it from our Church they whom the Maryland Cath- 
 olics gave a place of refuge from their mutual destroyers, and elevated 
 to an equality with themselves, learned to unite against their generous 
 hosts, and repay their affection by a plundering persecution? Was it 
 our Church taught the English nonconformists to persecute the Bishops, 
 and those Bishops and their adherents to persecute the non-conformists? 
 Was it our Church taught them both to unite in devising against herself 
 the most atrocious code of systematic persecution that any legislator 
 [has ever] enacted, or any savage executed? Is it the Catholic Church 
 which teaches the British house of Lords to continue to persecute her 
 own children? Let those questions be answered before the assertion be 
 again made without a blush. But there is a disingenuousness in the ad- 
 mission of the writer, which is more discreditable than even if he had 
 been silent. "When at one time the Protestants did persecute." Let 
 him name a day from the origin of the secession from our Church, and 
 their obtaining the aid of the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, and other 
 princes, to the present day, on which they did not persecute more or less 
 extensively. Thus the one time, began three centuries ago, and God 
 only can say when it will terminate. 
 
 The tenth is but the assertion of a principle, as flowing from an 
 acknowledged fact; the truth of which is freely admitted, viz. "Prot- 
 estants do not believe their Church infallible, and therefore can use no 
 compulsion." I will only suggest the correct conclusion, "and therefore 
 ought not to use compulsion." In the name of all that is extraordinary, 
 how can a Protestant charge a Catholic with error, if neither that Protest- 
 ant, nor his Church, is infallibly certain of what is truth? How can one 
 Protestant say that another errs or mistakes, when he has no certainty 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 363 
 
 that he is himself right? Upon what principle do the Constitutions of 
 North Carolina and New Jersey exclude Catholics from offices ? Yet we 
 have before us abundant evidence of three centuries of persecution inflict- 
 ed by Protestants upon Papists for their errors ! ! ! "We shall see, at an- 
 other time, the pretty names which we are called in confessions of faith 
 and books of homilies, and catechisms printed and published in the 
 United States, by the highest ecclesiastical authorities of several Protest- 
 ant denominations, within the few years of the present century. 
 
 But this assertion is made by the very man who tells the parliament 
 of England, that the Duke of Norfolk ought not to be admitted to his 
 seat amongst the peers of England, because he is a Roman Catholic. 
 Shall I be answered that I am blinded by party spirit if I say this is 
 intolerance and inconsistency? This is the man who stated the necessity 
 of a political incarceration for the fellow-countrymen and fellow-religion- 
 ists of his ancestors, because they would not apostatize from the Roman 
 Catholic religion. Shall I be told that I am blinded by party spirit, 
 if when I see a Protestant government and a Protestant hierarchy reduce 
 the principle to practice, I say, that intolerance does not belong exclusive- 
 ly to the Roman Catholic Church ? What a multiplicity of contradictions 
 is he involved in, who undertakes to defend a bad cause? Did the Right 
 Reverend and reverend approbators give their attention to this passage ? 
 Will they understand to reconcile contradictions ? 
 
 The eleventh assertion is, ''that an infallible judge of doctrine con- 
 siders himself divinely commissioned to stop the progress of error." I 
 shall upon this, remark that the judicial and the executive powers are 
 not always united ; hence it does not follow that because the Church has 
 received a divine commission to decide with infallible certainty as to 
 what doctrine God has revealed, she has also a divine commission to exe- 
 cute the process for checking the error in any other way than by her 
 judicial decision. But though White's logic is bad, yet in truth the 
 Church does hold a divine commission to execute the sentence of the 
 judicial tribunal. But another very obvious question remains, viz. To 
 what can that sentence extend? I assert that it cannot extend to life, 
 or to limb, or to any compulsory, corporeal infliction, or to any civil 
 pains or disfranchisements, or to any pecuniary mulct. The authority 
 which the Church has and claims is purely spiritual, and these are in- 
 flictions by virtue of temporal power, which the Church does not possess 
 or claim, except by compact or concession. 
 
 The infallible judge of doctrine is then divinely commissioned to 
 stop the progress of error, by spiritual power, and not by any persecu- 
 tion or temporal or civil punishment. If the good gentleman will pro- 
 
364 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 duce to nie any canon of the Church which decides that it is our doc- 
 trine that the Church or council has the power of inflicting penalties of 
 such a nature, let them be produced ; until they are so produced, let the 
 charge be considered not proved, denied, unfounded. 
 
 Here, though I would by no means be thought to justify or to palliate 
 the acts of a persecutor because he was a Catholic, I may very clearly 
 point out an enormous aggravation which necessarily, from the very 
 nature of the case, and by White's avowal, marks the crime of the Pro- 
 testant persecutor. The Catholic having the testimony of truth from 
 what he believes to be an infallible tribunal, has no doubt of the cor- 
 rectness of his own doctrine and is certain that his opponent is in error. 
 When he persecutes this opponent, he is convinced that if even by this 
 mode he can procure his change of belief he will do the sufferer a spirit- 
 ual good: and he feels that he is only endeavoring to eradicate error, 
 and to establish truth. The Protestant persecutor, on the other hanJ, 
 having no infallible guide, is liable to err: he cannot be certain that 
 he holds the true doctrine, it is possible the truth may be on the side 
 of the sufferer. Thus he is exposed to the hazard of wresting the truth 
 of God, and banishing his doctrine from the earth as far as in him lies. 
 I would call each persecutor a criminal, but White himself must ac- 
 knowledge that the Protestant is far more criminal, not because of the 
 greater liberality of his Church, which we shall find not to be the case ; 
 but because he acts, not from a plain certainty that his is the cause oC 
 truth and of God, because for that, he must claim to be infallible; but 
 from his attachment to perhaps an erroneous opinion. 
 
 In the case of Great Britain the crime of the Protestant is still 
 farther aggravated. The Catholic doctrine was universally prevalent, it 
 was handed down from generation to generation as what Christ had 
 taught, it was conformable to what the great bulk of Christendom had 
 received from preceding generations, and all testified to have been the 
 system established by the Redeemer: the Protestants introduced what 
 was then a novelty, asserting that it was what had originally been 
 given, but subsequently lost; and to support their assertion they gave 
 their opinion that such was the meaning of the scriptures, avowing that 
 in this opinion they might be under a delusion, because they were not 
 infallible. The Catholics told them that in fact they were mistaken in 
 the interpretations which they gave the text; and that they not only 
 had the testimony of their progenitors, and the bulk of Christendom to 
 support this assertion, but that they had the judicial decision of the 
 tribunal which from the earliest ages had been considered the infallible 
 witness of the proper meaning of the Scriptures, in their own favor. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 365 
 
 But, aided by the civil power, those very Protestants who admit the pos- 
 sibility of their error, persecute the Catholics who say they cannot be 
 wrong, because they will not abandon this host of evidence to embrace 
 opinions which they look upon as erroneous, and whose very orignators 
 and abettors avow [that they] might possibly be wrong. Yet White vin- 
 dicates this process, and still declaims against persecution ; and I blush 
 to add; his book is published with official approbation in the United 
 States, by men who would be considered liberal and charitable ! ! ! 
 
 White's twelfth assertion was, "that Rome never doomed her op- 
 ponents to the flames for their errors, but for their contumacy." So, 
 then. White contradicts all those who assert that Rome burns people for 
 their erroneous doctrines! Really this from him is a very precious ad- 
 mission. Why I have read productions which are as firmly believed as 
 is the Gospel by millions of our fellow-citizens, relating the horrid suf- 
 ferings of persons burned for their imputed errors, by Rome; and I 
 have no doubt but honest John Bull, who really has a soft heart, has 
 shed as many tears as would extinguish all the fires of all the auto da fes 
 of Spain and Italy over the detail of those sufferings. How many a 
 thunderer from stump or pulpit, at our own side of the Atlantic has 
 horrified his auditory by the appalling recital? How general is the im- 
 pression at this very moment through these States, that Rome would if 
 she could burn every one who holds what she calls error? But now 
 White tells us that she never doomed them to flames for their error ! ! ! 
 But she did it for their contumacy. Here then I close with the abettors 
 and applauders of White, and I ask Bishop Kemp to furnish the public 
 with the name of any one person of the religion professed by him or 
 by any one of his associates, whom Rome ever doomed to the flames. I 
 wish to meet the opponents of my Church openly and plainly upon 
 fair ground, before the American public. Before that tribunal I love 
 to plead : for although the current of public opinion, and of public feel- 
 ing is strongly running against my side of the question, I know, that if 
 I can once get the mind of America to examine the case fully and fairly, 
 I shall have ample justice. Here then is a bold statement that Rome 
 has doomed her opponents to the flames. The assertion has been made 
 so frequently and in so many ways, as to create upon the public mind 
 the impression that this is, or at least was an usual occurrence, that it 
 was systematic and flowing from principle. If true, it is susceptible of 
 proof : that proof is easy : it consists merely in enumerating names, and 
 relating the circumstances. I now call publicly for the proof. What 
 are the names of those Protestants or other religious opponents whom 
 Rome condemned to the flames? What contumacy arising from error 
 
366 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 did they exhibit? What was the alleged error of the sufferer? Under 
 what Pope, and in what year was he doomed to the flames? Was he 
 burned? In what credible history is the statement to be read? I call 
 upon Bishop Kemp and his associates, and to them I say, "produce 
 your proof, or be silent, and convicted of having made a horrible charge 
 which you cannot substantiate, a charge which is untrue. I charge you 
 with having calumniated the Roman government, and the Roman Cath- 
 olic Church. The Editors of the Miscellany have promised to insert 
 your specifications in answer to my questions, if you furnish them: 
 thus you can have no excuse for your neglect, neither is it a trivial and 
 an unimportant concern, that you have wantonly assailed by the re- 
 publication and adoption of White's calumnies, more than two hundred 
 thousand of your fellow-citizens. Give then the names and the par- 
 ticulars, and save your names from the result of your charge and your 
 neglect; neither can it be an excuse for you, that I do not affix my 
 name to this demand ; that name, humble as it is, shall never be withheld 
 when circumstances may require its manifestation ; for the present it 
 is enough that you have assailed a body of which I am one, and you 
 are answerable to every or any one of us, until you shall have proved 
 that we are guilty, and that you are innocent. You have not only as- 
 persed our moral character, and flung contumely upon our understand- 
 ings; but you have endeavored to exhibit us as monsters, unfit for the 
 participation of those rights and liberties which we hold in common 
 with yourselves. You have done this to a body of which I am an indi- 
 vidual member, and I call upon you for the proof of one of the most 
 trivial of your assertions. Your respect for own character demands 
 from you the proof, if you possess it. You have but to write and 
 transmit it, and it shall be published." 
 
 I have thus disposed for the present of the passage so far as re- 
 gards your own Church. It is time before I enter upon other topics to 
 try the Churches of some of the Protestant champions, by the same prin- 
 ciple which they have used for our annoyance. This I shall do in my 
 next letter, promising that I shall lean very lightly upon them, unless 
 I should see good cause for being more severe. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XX 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Jan. 22, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — In this letter, I shall lay before you a very few 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 367 
 
 facts, and refer to a few documents, for the purpose of showing how 
 easily, if we were so disposed, we might treat the Churches of our op- 
 ponents as they are in the habit of treating ours ; and perhaps, unpleas- 
 ant as the experiment is, we may find that carrying the war into their 
 own dominions, would more speedily insure for us an honorable peace, 
 and reduce to silence those who have no charitable disposition towards 
 us. I shall begin with the religion of the file-leader of our opponents. 
 Bishop Kemp states, that in spiritual concerns his religion is the same 
 as that of the Church of England. Suppose I were to assert that the 
 detestation of intolerance cannot exist in that Church under whose au- 
 thority the Catholics were persecuted in the year 1826, and then pro- 
 duce the penal laws of the British government against Catholics, which 
 laws the commons of Great Britain desired to have repealed, and the 
 clergy petitioned to have continued, and which the Archbishops and 
 Bishops of the Church of England exerted themselves successfully to 
 keep in force. I would add to this, the fact, that Bishop Kemp and 
 several other clergymen of this Church recommended to the American 
 public a book published in England in the previous year, the object of 
 which was to call upon the legislature of England to continue the per- 
 secution, and to justify its intolerance. Can the leader of our opponents 
 make out against the Catholics a case like this? Did the French Cath- 
 olic clergy petition their legislatures to withhold any of their rights 
 from the French Protestants? Did the Archbishops and Bishops of 
 France who are Catholics, vote against granting equal rights to their 
 Protestant fellow subjects? Did they not vote in favor of such grants, 
 and did they not give their consent to the paying of the Protestant 
 clergy, and to granting in several instances to the Protestants Churches 
 which had been built with the money of Catholics for Catholic worship : 
 whilst in Ireland the Catholics are by force deprived of the Churches 
 which their ancestors built, and which are capable of containing the 
 thousands of Catholics, who are, for want of better accommodation, 
 obliged to kneel in the fields, and in the streets outside their own build- 
 ings, which are far too small and too few for their niunbers; whilst 
 in the edifices from which they have been driven, sometimes a dozen, 
 sometimes, perhaps, one hundred persons are seen scattered over an 
 area in which they appear to be lost. In the Cathedrals of Dublin, 
 which are the best attended, only that part which the Catholics used as 
 the choir and sanctuary, are occupied by the Protestants, who have the 
 present possession, and very frequently that portion is not half filled 
 with the occupants of pews, and the vast aisles and transepts which 
 were destined to accommodate the laity, are a gloomy desert, separated 
 
368 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 from this diminished place of worship, whilst large buildings erected 
 by the Catholics have a succession of masses from day-break till the 
 afternoon, in order to afford the opportunity of successive attendance to 
 seven or eight congregations, who are crowded together upon the floors, 
 in the galleries, and the streets in the vicinity. Is it a spirit of toler- 
 ation which deprives the Catholics of their Churches, the possession of 
 which is a standing reproach to the unjust retainers? 
 
 Suppose I desired to be as unjust towards members of the as- 
 sociate Church and the reformed, as some of their ministers who sent 
 forth Blanco White's book, were to us. I need only take their Con- 
 fession of Faith, published in 1813, by Woodward, in Philadelphia, 
 and copy therefrom "the solemn league and covenant" which is found 
 in page 411 — a very few extracts from which I shall give here. 
 
 They swear, "II. That we shall in like manner, without respect of 
 persons, endeavor the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, (that is. Church 
 government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors, and commis- 
 saries, deans, deacons, and chapters, archdeacons, and all other ec- 
 clesiastical officers, depending on that hierarchy,) superstition, heresy, 
 schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to 
 sound doctrine and the power of Godliness, lest we partake in other 
 men 's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive their plagues ; and that 
 the Lord may be one, and his name one in the three kingdoms," (viz. 
 England, Scotland and Ireland.) 
 
 In page 393, is found the national covenant (of Scotland) or the 
 confession of faith, subscribed by the king in 1580, and by persons of 
 all ranks in 1581, and again in 1590, and by barons, noblemen, gentle- 
 men, burgesses, ministers and commoners in 1638, approved by the gen- 
 eral assembly (general council) in 1639, and in that year signed again 
 by persons of all ranks and qualities, and ratified by an act of parlia- 
 ment upon the supplication of the general assembly in the year 1640, 
 and to which King Charles II was obliged to affix his signature at Scone, 
 in 1650. 
 
 By this, all persons are required to profess and affirm, "before God 
 and the whole world, that this only is the true Christian faith and re- 
 ligion, pleasing to God, and bringing salvation to man." It is also 
 called "God's eternal truth, and only ground of our salvation." 
 
 From this document we may judge of the intolerance of those who 
 penned and subscribed the confession of faith : take an extract. 
 
 "And therefore we abhor and detest all contrary religion and doc- 
 trine; but chiefly all kind of Papistry in general and particular heads, 
 even as they are now damned and confuted by the word of God and kirk 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 369 
 
 of Scotland. But, in special, we detest and refuse the usurped authority 
 of that Roman Antichrist upon the scriptures of God, upon the kirk, the 
 civil magistrates, and consciences of men; all his tyrannous laws made 
 upon indifferent things against our Christian liberty ; his erroneous doc- 
 trine against the sufficiency of the written word, the perfection of the 
 law, the office of Christ, and his blessed evangel ; his corrupted doctrine 
 concerning original sin, our natural inability and rebellion to God's law, 
 our justification by faith only, our imperfect santification and obedi- 
 ence to the law ; the nature, number, and use of the holy sacraments ; his 
 five bastard sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false doe- 
 trine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments without the word 
 of God ; his cruel judgment against infants departing without the sacra- 
 ment ; his absolute necessity of baptism ; his blasphemous opinion of 
 transubstantiation, or real presence of Christ's body in the elements, and 
 receiving of the same by the wicked, or bodies of men ; his dispensation 
 with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage forbidden in the 
 word ; his cruelty against the innocent divorced ; his devillish mass ; his 
 blasphemous priesthood ; his profane sacrifice for sins of the dead and 
 the quick; his canonization of men; calling upon angels or saints de- 
 parted, worshipping of imagery, relics, and crosses ; dedicating of kirks, 
 altars, days; vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayers for the dead; 
 praying or speaking in a strange language, with his processions and 
 blasphemous litany, and multitude of advocates or mediators ; his mani- 
 fold orders ; auricular confession ; his desperate and uncertain repen- 
 tance; his general and doubtsome faith; his satisfactions of men for 
 their sins ; his justification by works, opus operatum, works of superero- 
 gation, merits, pardons, peregrinations, and stations; his holy water, 
 baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits, crossing, sayning, anointing, con- 
 juring, hallowing of God's good creatures, with the superstitious opin- 
 ion joined therewith; his worldly monarchy, and wicked hierarchy; his 
 three solemn vows, with all his shavellings of sundry sorts, his er- 
 roneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the subscribers 
 or approvers of that cruel and bloody band, conjured against the kirk 
 of God. And finally, we detest all his vain allegories, rites, signs, and 
 traditions brought in the kirk, without or against the word of God, 
 and doctrine of this true reformed kirk ; to the which we join ourselves 
 willingly, in doctrine, faith, religion, discipline, and use of the holy 
 sacraments, as lively members of the same in Christ our head: promis- 
 ing and swearing by the great name of the Lord our God, that we 
 shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this 
 kirk, and shall defend the same, according to our own vocation and 
 
370 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 power, all the days of our lives; under the pains contained in the law, 
 and danger both of body and soul in the day of God's fearful judgment. 
 
 "And seeing that many are stirred up by Satan, and that Roman 
 Antichrist, to promise, swear, subscribe, and for a time use the holy sac- 
 raments in the kirk deceitfully, against their own conscience; minding 
 hereby, first, under the external cloak of religion, to corrupt and sub- 
 vert secretly God's true religion within the kirk; and afterward, when 
 time may serve, to become open enemies and persecutors of the same, 
 under vain hope of the Pope's dispensation, devised against the word 
 of God, to his greater confusion, and their double condemnation in the 
 day of the Lord Jesus : we therefore, willing to take away all suspicion 
 of hypocrisy, and of such double dealing with God and his kirk, pro- 
 test, and call the Searcher of all hearts for witness, that our minds and 
 hearts do fully agree with this our confession, promise, oath, and sub- 
 scription: so that we are not moved with any worldly respect, but are 
 persuaded only in our conscience, through the knowledge and love of 
 God's true religion imprinted in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as we 
 shall answer to him in the day when the secrets of all hearts shall be 
 disclosed. ' ' 
 
 This extract not only contains such intolerance as I defy the as- 
 sociated assailants of our Church to produce a worse from any quar- 
 ter; but it does more, for it makes false and calumnious charges upon 
 the Roman Catholic Church. For instance, I would ask what were the 
 bloody decrees made at Trent? And upon what do they ground the 
 atrocious charge of hypocritical deceit in using the sacraments of the 
 kirk against Catholics? And upon what do they found the charge of 
 the Papal dispensations for hypocrisy, and deceit, and sacrilege? 
 
 The following extract will exhibit not only the spirit of the ec- 
 clesiastical body that drew up the Confession of Faith, but also the 
 spirit of the legislature which enacted the laws therein recited; it is 
 taken from the same Confession of Faith. 
 
 "Like as many acts of Parliament, not only in general do abro- 
 gate, annul, and rescind all laws, statutes, acts, constitutions, canons, 
 civil or municipal, with all other ordinances, and practique penalties 
 whatsoever, made in prejudice of the true religion, and professors there- 
 of ; or of the true kirk, discipline, jurisdiction, and freedom thereof; or 
 in favor of idolatry and superstition, or of the Papistical kirk: As 
 Act 3, 31, Parliament 1 ; Act 23, Parliament 11 ; Act 114, Parliament 11 
 of King James, VI. That papistry and superstition may be utterly sup- 
 pressed, according to the intention of the Acts of Parliament, repeated 
 in Act 5, Parliament 20, King James VI. And to that end they ordain 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 371 
 
 all Papists and Priests to be punished with manifold civil and ecclesi- 
 astical pains, as adversaries to God's true religion, preached, and by- 
 law established, within this realm, Act 24, Parliament 11, King James 
 VI ; as common enemies to all Christian government, Act 18, Parliament 
 16, King James VI ; as rebellers and gainstanders of our sovereign Lord's 
 authority. Act 47, Parliament 3, King James VI ; and as idolaters, Act 
 104, Parliament 7, King James VI. But also, in particular, by and at- 
 tour the Confession of Faith, do abolish and condemn the Pope's au- 
 thority and jurisdiction out of this land, and ordains the maintainers 
 thereof to be punished, Act 2, Parliament 1 ; Act 51, Parliament 3 ; Act 
 106, Parliament 7; Act 114, Parliament 12, King James VI, do con- 
 demn the Pope's erroneous doctrine, or any other erroneous doctrine re- 
 pugnant to any of the articles of the true and Christian religion, publicly 
 preached, and by law established in this realm ; and ordains the spread- 
 ers and makers of books or libels, or letters or writs of that nature, to 
 be punished, Act 46, Parliament 3 ; Act 106, Parliament 7 ; Act 24, Par- 
 liament 11, King James VI, do condemn all baptism conform to the 
 Pope 's kirk, and the idolatry of the mass ; and ordains all sayers, wilful 
 hearers, and concealers of the mass, the maintainers and resetters of the 
 priests, Jesuits, trafficking Papists, to be punished without any exception 
 or restriction, Act 5, Parliament 1; Act 120, Parliament 12; Act 164, 
 Parliament 13; Act 193, Parliament 14; Act 1, Parliament 19; Act 5, 
 Parliament 20, King James VI, do condemn all erroneous books and 
 writs containing erroneous doctrine against the religion presently pro- 
 fessed, or containing superstitious rites and ceremonies. Papistical, 
 whereby the people are greatly abused, and ordains the home-bringers 
 of them to be punished. Act 25, Parliament 11, King James VI, do con- 
 demn the monuments and dregs of bygone idolatry, as going to crosses, 
 observing the festival days of saints, and such other superstitions and 
 Papistical rites, to the dishonor of God, contempt of true religion, and 
 fostering of great error among the people ; and ordains the users of 
 them to be punished for the second fault, as idolaters. Act 104, Parlia- 
 ment 7, King James VI." 
 
 The Presbyterian Church of the United States published their Con- 
 fession of Faith in the year 1821. It was published in Philadelphia by 
 Anthony Finley. In page 125, under the head "Of the Church," is 
 the following: 
 
 Article II. "The visible Church, which is also Catholic or uni- 
 versal under the gospel, (not confined to one nation as before, under 
 the law) consists of all those throughout the world, that profess the true 
 religion, together with their children ; and is the kingdom of their Lord 
 
372 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no or- 
 dinary possibility of salvation." 
 
 Article V, page 127. "The purest Churches under heaven are 
 subject both to mixture and error: and some have so degenerated, as to 
 become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan." 
 
 Article VI. "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof ; 
 but is that Anti-Christ, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that ex- 
 alteth himself in the Church, against Christ, and all that is called God." 
 
 But this is still farther exhilaited in chapter xxiv, page 121, "Of 
 marriage and divorce. ' ' Section 2 : " It is lawful for all sorts of people 
 to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent, yet it is 
 the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such 
 as profess the true reformed religion, should not marry with Infidels, 
 Papists, or other Idolaters: neither should such as are godly, be un- 
 equally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their 
 life, or maintain damnable heresies. ' ' 
 
 I shall follow up this no longer. For the present, I shall only add, 
 that before these good gentlemen charged us with intolerance, they ought 
 to have looked at home, to see how their own standard works spoke. 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XXI 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Jan. 29, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of A^nerica. 
 
 My Friends — I have given in my last letter a very short and im- 
 perfect exhibition of the grounds upon which I might retort the charge 
 of "Intolerance," with a direful effect upon the principal assailants of 
 our Church, in their recommendation of the Reverend Joseph Blanco 
 White, A.M., and so forth. 
 
 The writer, in the passage which I have reviewed, incidentally treats 
 of "Infallibility;" but, as a more appropriate occasion Avill offer here- 
 after for the examination of this topic, I shall now dismiss with two 
 observations the whole of what is raised as an implied dilemma. It is 
 found in page 64 of the Evidence : 
 
 "If the Roman Catholic Church can thus allow detestable dogmas 
 to act in full force within the inmost recesses of her bosom, those Cath- 
 olics who differ from her notions, so far as her apologist, Mr. Butler, 
 might guide themselves in religious matters, without the assistance of 
 her infallibility." 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 373 
 
 This means that "religious intolerance" by which is meant an in- 
 junction to persecute because of religious error, is a dogma of the Ro- 
 man Catholic Church, and consequently taught to Roman Catholics, as 
 a portion of their doctrine, by her infallible tribimal. The supposition 
 is a glaring assumption of what is untrue. The infallible tribunal of 
 the Roman Catholic Church teaches no such dogma. It has indeed, been 
 laid down by her opponents as the principle by which they themselves 
 were guided. It is to be found expressly embodied in their confessions 
 of faith ; but I defy them to show it taught by our Church, as a dogma. 
 Even the miserable man White himself dare not assert that it is a 
 dogma of our Church ; for his expression is sufficiently guarded to avoid 
 the direct charge, and sufficiently framed to imply it, and thus to 
 make a false impression upon the general reader. He only charges that 
 she allows detestable dogmas to act with full force, and so forth, — he does 
 not charge that she teaches, — and nothing is a doctrine of her's which 
 she does not teach. 
 
 Thus, he had also but one dogma under consideration ; and with the 
 same species of dishonesty, and equal want of candor, of logic, and of 
 truth, he shifts to the plural, detestable dogmas. A writer of this de- 
 scription in religious inquiry ought to be avoided as you would a de- 
 tected swindler in your pecuniary transactions. Do you, or can you, 
 imagine a more dangerous being, than one who knowingly and dis- 
 honestly quibbles w^ith you, deceives you, and misleads you in your 
 anxious inquiry for the salvation of your soul? The miserable man 
 who, urged by want, dishonestly tricks you into the loss of a few dol- 
 lars, is dragged before the public tribunal of the country, is exposed to 
 official and general reproach, and bears about him through the world 
 the indelible mark of deserved infamy ; but what ought to be the fate of 
 him who, by juggling falsehood, endeavors to decoy his fellow-beings 
 from the service of their Creator? 
 
 Not only, then, is the Roman Catholic not taught by his Church, 
 as a doctrine, or as a principle, that he ought to persecute his neighbor 
 for his religious errors, but he is taught to love his neighbor as himself, 
 for the love of God; he is taught that they who differ from him in re- 
 ligion are his neighbors; and we saw that even White acknowledged, 
 page 65, that Rome did not persecute for error. Then the Roman 
 Catholic Church does not persecute for error, does not teach persecu- 
 tion; consequently, the detestable dogma of religious intolerance is not 
 taught by her infallible tribunal; consequently the rejection of this 
 dogma was not in opposition to that tribunal, nor incompatible with its 
 
374 CONTROVEESY Vol. 
 
 decisions. What then is the value of White's dilemmas? Perhaps 
 Bishop Kemp can inform you, for I cannot. 
 
 I now proceed to another extract, which is the passage succeeding 
 the one last examined: 
 
 "The Roman Catholics have been accused of holding a doctrine 
 which justifies them in not keeping faith with heretics. This charge is 
 false as it stands ; but it has a foundation in truth, which I will lay be- 
 fore you, as an important consequence of the claims of your Church to 
 infallibility. The constant intercourse with those whom you call heretics 
 has blunted the feeling of horror, which the Roman Church has as- 
 siduously fomented against Christians who dissent from her. It is, in- 
 deed, a happy result of the Reformation, that some of the strongest pre- 
 judices of the Roman Catholics have been softened, wherever the Pro- 
 testant religion has obtained a footing. Where this mixture has never 
 taken place, true Roman Catholics remain nearly what they were in the 
 time when Christendom rejoiced at the breach of faith which committed 
 Huss to the flames, by the sentence of a general council. In England, 
 however, far from pretending to such advantages, the Roman Cath- 
 olics resented the suspicion that their oaths, not to interfere with the 
 Protestant establishment, may be annulled by the Pope. The settled 
 and sincere determination to keep such oaths, in those who appeared 
 ready to take them, I will not question for a moment; but I cannot 
 conceal my persuasion, that it is the duty of every Roman Catholic pas- 
 tor to dissuade the members of his flock from taking oaths which, if 
 not allowed in a spirit of the most treacherous policy, would imply a 
 separation from the communion of the Church of Rome. Let me lay 
 down the doctrine of that Church on this important point." 
 
 It certainly is a very novel mode of proving a charge, by com- 
 mencing with a declaration that it is false, and then proceeding to prove 
 that it has a foundation in truth ; yet such is Mr. White 's exhibition of 
 himself! Did his American sponsors undertake to carry him through 
 this difficulty? Do they charge upon their fellow-citizens the horrid 
 crime here imputed to the great bulk of Christendom, of which the Ro- 
 man Catholics of this Union form a portion? Is it possible that they 
 impute to the venerable survivor of that patriot band, which gave lib- 
 erty and power to our glorious republic, that there is a true foundation 
 for the charge, that he would not keep faith with heretics ? Was there 
 a foundation of truth for the charge, that Lafayette, Rochambeau, Pu- 
 laski, De Grasse, and so many other Roman Catholics did not keep faith 
 with heretics ? Was Arnold a Roman Catholic ? Did the Pennsylvania 
 line, which was eminently Catholic, keep faith with heretics ? Did Louis 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 375 
 
 XVI keep faith with heretics? My friends, there is a point at which 
 the mind almost loses its power of argument, and indignation becomes a 
 virtue. Who would stoop to argument with a seducer ? Who would dis- 
 pute upon the impropriety of defamation? Who would endeavor to 
 convince a calumniator ? There was a time when the gross multitude of 
 ignorant Englishmen was duped by the knavery of an unprincipled 
 court, which deluded one portion of its subjects, that it might be en- 
 abled to grind down other nations, and thus play the tyrant over a 
 divided and debased population; but when that court made its essay 
 at this side of the Atlantic, young America rose in the vigor of her in- 
 tellect, the power of her strength, and the pride of her independence; 
 and, with the aid of a Catholic nation, broke a tyrant's sceptre, and 
 placed her foot upon his crown ; whilst the delighted eagle of her Appala- 
 chian hills played around her head, leaving in his track the halo of her 
 glory and of his joy; and shall the American mind at this day be en- 
 thi'alled by the calumnious influence of the British court? Shall our 
 country, whilst she ranks high amidst the nations of the earth, still be 
 debased by her children, in being made the receptacle of the vilest libels 
 of the most persecuting court in Christendom? Is this the liberality of 
 our clergy? Is this the learning of our ministers of religion? Is this 
 the independence of our spirit? Is this the affection of our fellow-citi- 
 zens? Is this the honor of America, that, when even Hodge declares 
 that the Pope of Rome has neither tail nor horns; when, from John 
 O 'Groat's house to the cliffs of Dover, it is avowed that he is not a scar- 
 let lady; when a starving population proclaims that it has been de- 
 ceived by a bloated clergy, and robbed and degraded by an oppressive 
 government? Is this the honor of America, that at such a time as 
 this, when a Catholic people is told by a profligate prince, who has been 
 publicly convicted before the parliament of his country, of making the 
 highest offices of the nation the price of his paramours' crimes, that as 
 God shall help him they shall be kept in bondage, the clergy of the Pro- 
 testant Churches of America should combine to fling upon their Catholic 
 fellow-citizens the dregs of the calumnies which have emanated from 
 such a source, and give to the American people the offal, which the 
 very rabble of Great Britain has rejected? For shame! That our 
 country shduld have so low a place, as that Bishop Kem.p and his as- 
 sociates have no other mode of assailing us, save the fragments of those 
 poisonous arrows, which they collect from the fields in which their dis- 
 comfited brethren have fallen in Europe! And must I, need I, exhibit 
 the absurd and contradictory statement thus taken up. The charge is 
 false, as it stands, but it has a foundation in truth ! ! 1 
 
376 CONTROVEKSY Vol. 
 
 If it be true that Catholic prejudice has been softened, by an 
 intercourse with Protestants, I lament much that the prelate and his 
 associates have not hearts equally susceptible ; for, indeed, it is out of 
 my power to return Blanco White's compliment in their favor. 
 
 The same bad spirit, which pervades the entire publication, is ap- 
 parent in this passage; the same spirit of falsehood prevails. (1). It is 
 not true that Christendom rejoiced at the breach of faith which com- 
 mitted Huss to the flames. (2). It is not true that Huss was com- 
 mitted to the flames by the sentence of a general council. (3). It is not 
 true that any breach of faith was committed by any person in the case 
 of the burning of the unfortunate man, who fell the victim of his own 
 delusion. 
 
 As the refutation of every distinct falsehood contained in the pro- 
 duction of our opponents, would lead to almost the labor of a life, and 
 as those have been often before refuted, and as often repeated without 
 proof, I shall content myself with placing my denial upon record, and 
 declaring that when either of our assailants shall think proper to at- 
 tempt the proof of either of the propositions which I have denied, T 
 shall meet him with its refutation. 
 
 The conclusion of this passage of White's contains the most atro- 
 cious charge upon us: let us therefore see the reasoning: 
 
 *'I will assume the most liberal opinion of the Catholic divines, and 
 grant that the Pope cannot annul an oath in virtue of his dispensing 
 power. 12 But this can only be said of a lawful oath; a quality which no 
 human law can confer upon an engagement to perform a sinful act. A 
 promise under oath, to execute an immoral deed, is in itself a monstrous 
 offence against the divine law; and the performance of such a promise 
 would only aggravate the crime of having made it. There are, how- 
 ever, cases where the lawfulness of the engagement is doubtful, and the 
 obligation burthensome, or, by a change of circumstances, inexpedient 
 and preposterous. The interference of the Pope, in such cases, is, ac- 
 cording to the liberal opinion I am stating, improperly called dispensa- 
 tion. The Pope only declares that the original oath or vow was null and 
 void, either from the nature of the thing promised, or from some circum- 
 stances in the manner and form of the promise ; when, by virtue of his 
 
 " Thomas Aquinas, whoso authority is most highly reverenced in these matters, 
 maintains, however, that there exists a power in the Church to dispense both with a 
 vow, which, according to him, is the most sacred of all engagements, and conse- 
 quently, with an oath. Sicut in voto aliqua necessitatis seu honestatis causa potest 
 fieri dispensatio, ita et in Juramento. Secunda Sccundae, Quest. Ixxxix, art. ix. The 
 Popes, in fact, have frequently exercised this dispensing power with the tacit consent 
 of the Church. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 377 
 
 authority, the head of the Church removes all spiritual responsibility 
 from the person who submits himself to his decision, I do not consider 
 myself bound to confirm the accuracy of this statement, by written au- 
 thorities, as I do not conceive the possibility of any Roman Catholic di- 
 vine bringing it into question." 
 
 It is very extraordinary that this man should impute to us a doc- 
 trine which we do not hold, and then state that it is impossible for us to 
 deny that the doctrine is ours, and therefore he need not prove that we 
 hold it. I have now extended this letter too far to allow me to disprove 
 this charge, but I deny that he has correctly stated our tenet, and must 
 reserve my further remarks for my next. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XXII 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Feb. 5, 1827. 
 To the Roman CatJiolics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — I proceed to examine the grounds upon which White 
 'rests his monstrous charge that there is no dependence to be placed 
 upon the oaths of Roman Catholics to a Protestant government: the 
 passage which contains his argument upon this head, has been laid be- 
 fore you in my last letter. Let us, however, see the true state of the 
 question, by considering the special case which gave rise to White's re- 
 marks. 
 
 Roman Catholics believe that their Protestant brethren have de- 
 parted from the true doctrines of our Saviour: in Great Britain, King 
 Henry VIII, the guardians of Edward VI, and Queen Elizabeth, made 
 the Parliaments deprive the Roman Catholics of that property and of 
 those establishments which had been given to their Church by their pre- 
 decessors of the same faith : a considerable portion of this property was 
 given by the crown, in bribes to those who were principally influential in 
 sanctioning the plunder ; and the remainder was given to form an estab- 
 lishment for a new church modeled upon the form which pleased the 
 plunderers. It is time for us, my friends, to call these people by their 
 true names ; no person could attempt to do so, whilst our republics were 
 colonies of Britain; custom perpetuated the appellation which power 
 originally insisted upon : America still was the suckling of England in 
 literature; but she has been weaned; and her mental independence 
 makes rapid progress : her children will upon examination acknowledge 
 that I have given to the courtiers of Henry, of Edward, and of Eliza- 
 beth, their appropriate appellation. 
 
378 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 The British State thus linked to a Church of its own creation, com- 
 menced a most atrocious persecution against the adherents of the old 
 religion ; the annals of the world exhibit no parallel to the frightful code 
 and its protracted execution. By the most unnatural and ruinous sys- 
 tem of taxation, the British empire achieved the most prominent situ- 
 ation in the world: and her pride and her cruelty equalled her pros- 
 perity. She met her first reverse when she unconstitutionally attempted 
 to make her American colonies share in the payment of her wanton 
 expenses : wounded by the talons of our young eagle, she sought to con- 
 ciliate the wretched Catholics whom she had so severely smitten; but 
 w^hen the conscious criminal found herself under the necessity of miti- 
 gating her tortures, she felt how unseemly her conduct must appear un- 
 less there was some pretext for the relaxation. She had previously, to 
 attempt a justification of her misconduct, charged upon her victims 
 crimes of which she had herself created the semblance, that she might 
 impute to them the reality ; she now required of them to disavow tenets 
 which they never held, that upon the ground of the disavowal she might 
 rest at once her present concession and the palliation of her former 
 injustice. Thus the misfortune of the British nation was the cause of the • 
 first mitigation of her barbarous code in 1778, as the dangerous state of 
 Sc9tland and of England in 1745, was the cause of the first relaxation 
 of the Irish government in its execution of statutes which depopulated 
 one half the kingdom and barbarized the other half ; because in a state 
 of active persecution the torturer and the tortured are equally made 
 ferocious. When in 1793, the convulsions of France, shook Europe to its 
 center, Ireland trembled and Britain felt the vibration; more conces- 
 sion was found to be absolutely necessary. The Catholic Universities 
 had been seriously asked the most insulting questions, and upon their 
 declarations that the religion of Christendom was not a tissue of blas- 
 phemy and execrable crime, and also upon requiring the Catholics to 
 swear that they would not take away the plunder from the Church 
 of the State to give it to their own Church, and that they would not 
 seek for a restitution of the lands of which their families had been 
 robbed because they would not join the Church of the State, they re- 
 ceived farther concessions. 
 
 Since that period, thirty-four years had elapsed; an entire gener- 
 ation had passed away: and no semblance of a charge could be made 
 against that generation for having deviated from the spirit or the letter 
 of that oath. An immense portion of this persecuting code still afflicts 
 the present generation : though they have by the British House of Com- 
 mons been repeatedly declared worthy of the full restitution of their 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 379 
 
 rights: the present King, Lords and Commons have solemnly declared 
 by more than one act of the legislature, that the crimes imputed to their 
 fathers, and upon the supposed existence of which, several of those per- 
 secuting laws were enacted, were base fabrications supported only by the 
 flagrant perjury, in several instances, of a clergyman of the established 
 Church, and of his equally criminal associates. The present generation 
 complains that notwithstanding their blood and treasure having been 
 profusely lavished in the cause of their persecuting government, and 
 their willingness to abide by their oaths as their fathers have done, still 
 they are degraded and afflicted: the House of Commons votes their re- 
 lief, and a large portion of the Peers are known to be favorable to the 
 great principle of civil and religious liberty; the great dignitaries of 
 the established Church whisper to their friends and dependents, that if 
 the Catholics are restored to their rights, they will be stripped of those 
 possessions which were originally taken from the Catholics, and there- 
 fore, they must oppose the concession of their rights to a persecuted 
 people. Call you this the spirit of the Gospel ? Is this the characteristic 
 of apostles? Are these the followers of him who sent without scrip or 
 purse those men to whom they claim succession? But mark the means 
 which are used in addition. White, an apostate Spanish priest, a man 
 whom I shall yet prove from his own book not to be in the doctrinal 
 communion of that English Church, is employed to publish a gross libel 
 to defame the Catholics, and to assert amongst other falsehoods, that this 
 oath which they tendered, taken and observed, is no security : that ac- 
 cording to the most liberal opinion of Catholic divines, the promissory 
 oath of a Eoman Catholic is no guarantee for his performance. The 
 Irish Catholics have given such an answer to this charge when it was 
 made by men more worthy of notice than White, as ought to have caused 
 their calumniators to be forever silent. "Produce to us," say they, "a 
 single instance in which we violated our oaths or our engagements to 
 you. We charge you with having violated the law of nations in our 
 regard, we charge you with having induced the British King William 
 III, to forfeit the sacred faith of plighted majesty ; we charge you with 
 having induced the privy council to violate their oaths of office; we 
 charge you with the most disgraceful and flagrant violation of a solemn 
 treaty made at the walls of Limerick. Upon your pledged faith we 
 laid down our arms, and you enslaved us ; we confided in your honor, 
 and you betrayed us ; we knelt before our altars to adore our God, and 
 you who swore to permit us to do so without molestation, dragged us 
 from the holy place in chains ; seized upon our buildings, confiscated our 
 inheritance, thrust us into your dungeons, murdered thousands, and 
 
380 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 made millions hewers of wood and drawers of water: you have taunted 
 us in our afflicting degradation; you have violated your own oaths! 
 and misrepresented us to the world ; you sent us to every foreign shore 
 with contumely, and you charge us with not being worthy of credit on 
 our oaths ! How well it becomes you to make the charge ! Do you judge 
 of us by yourselves? We spurn the comparison. Though you may 
 bend our bodies, you cannot debase our souls ; our honor is untarnished, 
 our faith is preserved, our promises are fulfilled, our oaths are unvio- 
 lated: wipe from yourselves the disgrace of your ancestors: talk not of 
 oaths, until you do us justice." Such is the answer of the Irish Catho- 
 lic to the British Churchman. 
 
 But the most extraordinary part of the whole case remains. A num- 
 ber of American Protestant Clergymen of contradictory denominations 
 unite under the leadership of a Bishop of a Church which sprung from 
 that created in England, to reprint in America White's calumny against 
 the British Catholics ! What can be their object? That of the people la 
 England was palpable. Was the object of the American Clergy th'3 
 same ? To prevent Catholic emancipation ; to try whether they could by 
 telling their flocks that British Catholics were not credible on their 
 oaths, cool down that generous ardor which led the American Protestant 
 and Catholic to associate in the cause of suffering Ireland and in the 
 cause of suffering Greece ? Could it be possible that this was the object 
 of Bishop Kemp and his associates? I hope not. I should be sorry to 
 think that so many men, holding such stations in our republics, should 
 have formed a holy alliance against the great principle of civil and re- 
 ligious liberty. But what is the alternative? If the object was not to 
 charge the criminal principle solely upon the British Catholics, for the 
 nefarious purpose of continuing their debasement, it must be, as they 
 say themselves, to exhibit the true principles of the Catholic religion; 
 thus they make the charge upon every American Catholic, and upon 
 every Catholic in the world ; that is, upon nearly two hundred millions 
 of the most civilized portion of the human race ! ! ! And for this pur- 
 pose they adopt the atrocious and miserable sophistry and falsehood of 
 White. Let us examine its value. 
 
 He sets out with a statement that it is the most liberal opinion of 
 Catholic divines that the Pope cannot annul an oath in virtue of his dis- 
 pensing power. As most of this man's deceit consists in the ambiguity 
 of his phrases, I must be rather tedious in their examination. In this 
 place it is right to have an accurate notion of what is the meaning o£ 
 the Pope's dispensing power. I have known persons to assert that it 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 381 
 
 was a doctrine of our Church that the Pope could dispense with the ob- 
 servance of the law of God. 
 
 A dispensing power pre-supposes an obligatory power, because a 
 power of dispensing means power to release from an obligation. We 
 must then know what is the power which binds, before we can know 
 properly what is the power which can release. Man is a creature depend- 
 ent upon God who is his supreme ruler and legislator; this legislator 
 has bound man to the observance of certain great principles, which are 
 discoverable by the natural exercise of his reason, and the collection of 
 those principles, is called the natural law: the same legislator has also 
 by means of revelation, given certain precepts for man's conduct, the 
 collection of those precepts is called the divine law. The natural law 
 and the divine law emanating from the God of truth and immutability, 
 must be consistent and changeable. A universally acknowledged 
 maxim of law is, that no power inferior to that which made a law 
 can repeal it, or dispense with its observance; but the power which en- 
 acted may repeal its own act, or may restrict its force by exempting cer- 
 tain individuals or communities from its operation. It is also acknowl- 
 edged that the legislator who makes a general law, can depute to an in- 
 dividual, or to a community, a power in certain cases, of dispensing 
 with its observance; and the dispensation will in this case be equally 
 valid as was the original enactment: in such a case, it is not required 
 that the power of the deputy should be equal to the power of the legis- 
 lator, because in fact his delegated poAver is not his own, but that of his 
 principal, who is the legislator. Thus the governors of several of our 
 States, who certainly have not the power of legislation, dispense, in sev- 
 eral instances, by the authority of the State or its legislature, with the 
 execution of several criminal laws of the State. If the people had 
 power to dispense with observance of the natural law, or of the divine 
 law, it must be in virtue of a special delegation for that purpose given 
 by God : which delegation should be fully proved. 
 
 Besides the natural and divine law, man is bound by the laws of 
 society, that is, by the law of nations, or that collection of general prin- 
 ciples which all civilized societies have agreed upon as the basis for their 
 intercourse, and by the laws of that particular nation in which the indi- 
 vidual resides. The delegation of the nations which form society is 
 necessary to be exhibited as the ground for a valid dispensation from 
 the law of nations, and the delegation of the particular nation must also 
 precede the power to dispense in any one of its enactments: the same 
 principle is of equal force through all lawful associations down to the 
 humblest club of mutual aid. 
 
382 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 The Church is a society established by God himself for spiritual 
 purposes. Roman Catholics believe that the great Creator of this body 
 did not form or sanction the formation of conflicting ecclesiastical bodies, 
 but made his Church one in her government and doctrines. They be- 
 lieve, that this single society has received from God for its constitution, 
 first, the natural law, secondly, the divine negative law; that is, a col- 
 lection of ordinances by God, in which he forbids at all times and under 
 all circumstances the doing of certain acts : they believe that he did not 
 leave to the Church the power of repealing or dispensing in any portion 
 of either of those sections of its constitution. They further believe that, 
 thirdly, he gave certain positive ordinances, or laws [commanding] to 
 do certain acts, which were never to be omitted altogether, but that he 
 left to the Church the power of enacting, according to circumstances of 
 time and place, when and how these duties were to be performed. Such 
 was that of observing the Sabbath as a holy day, which obligation the 
 Church has subsequently transferred to the Lord's day — such also was 
 the precept of fasting, but the designation of the special time and man- 
 ner he left to the Church : fourthly, that he gave to this Church a form 
 of government, which it had no authority to change, and that this 
 government received from him legislative, judicial and executive powers; 
 [also that] as the Church was one body, he constituted a president who 
 was to be the principal judge, and the supreme administrator of this 
 society, who was to have certain inalienable rights and powers. This 
 supreme head is the Pope, and his power of dispensation, upon legal 
 principles, cannot reach to the constitution of the Church; thus he can- 
 not dispense in any obligation of the natural law, nor in any obligation 
 of the divine negative law; for instance, he cannot make it lawful for 
 a child to injune a parent, or for a parent to abandon his child ; nor 
 can he make murder innocent, or a lie guiltless ; neither can he dispense 
 with the divine positive law, so as to exempt a person continually from 
 its operation, though he has power to dispense for sufficient cause, with 
 the positive enactment of the Church, regulating the time and manner; 
 for instance of that public worship which God has commanded, or of 
 that fasting or mortification which he generally established; nor can 
 he dispense with or change that form of Church government which is of 
 divine institution ; hence, properly speaking, the Pope has power only, 
 upon sufficient grounds to grant a dispensation from the observance of 
 the general ecclesiastical laws ; but not from the observance of the natural 
 law, or of the divine law. 
 
 Having thus ascertained the nature of the Pope's dispensing power, 
 we proceed to ascertain by what law is an oath binding. A promissory 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 383 
 
 oath is a promise made with a solemn adjuration of God to do some act, 
 or to avoid some act. The divine negative law decrees : — ' ' Thou shalt 
 not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." — Hence the divine 
 negative law binds to the performance, and the power of dispensing 
 therein resides in God alone, unless he has granted a delegated power 
 to another; and of that delegation, there must be sufficient evidence. 
 But as White now says St. Thomas asserts that there exists in the 
 Church a power of dispensing with vows, which are solemn promises 
 made to God, and with oaths which are the next in solemnity, as being 
 adjurations of God ; it becomes necessary to examine farther. 
 
 God left in his Church judicial power, that is, a power of deciding 
 as well Avhat were general principles of the law which he gave, as also 
 what were the particular cases to which they were applicable. In the 
 tribunal the general decision is made, that a promissory oath binds under 
 pain of damnation to the performance of the promise. I shall now 
 adduce a special case. A person has vowed or sworn to pay yearly dur- 
 ing his life a certain sum of money towards the propagation of the Chris- 
 tian Religion in a heathen country: the oath was the sanction of a law- 
 ful promise to do a meritorious act ; he is evidently bound to its per- 
 formance. Years elapse, his means are diminished, his friends are im- 
 poverished, and his parents are cast upon his bounty for their sub- 
 sistence; yet he has the means of supplying his own wants and of 
 observing his oath; but by so doing he must neglect his parents; and if 
 he gives the usual contribution for the propagation of the Gospel, his 
 wretched family will perish through want : he applies to the tribunal 
 to know whether he is still bound to fulfill his vow or to observe his 
 oath, that vow and oath which were originally lawful, and meritorious, 
 and binding. I do not treat of an unlawful oath, or of a sinful oath 
 which never could create any bond or obligation. The tribunal of the 
 Church will tell him to observe the natural law, and the law of charity, 
 which bind him to support his parents, and by the power which God left 
 of binding and loosing, w^ill now loose him from the oath or vow, and 
 dispense with an observance which though originally meritorious, would 
 now be a violation of the supreme law of nature, of the best law of 
 charity. 
 
 The oath or vow here was originally good and binding, yet White 
 asserts in page 68, that in such a case "The Pope only declares the 
 original oath or vow was null and void." And this is the theologian 
 whom Bishop Kemp and his associates hold forward as eminently qual- 
 ified to tell the Protestants of America, what are the doctrines of the 
 Roman Catholic Church ! ! ! Do those good men themselves know our 
 
384 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 doctrines? If they do, why misrepresent them? If they do not, why 
 presume to testify upon a subject concerning which they are ignorant? 
 White concludes his assertion of this false imputation, in the manner 
 which is usually characteristic of that arrogance which undertakes to 
 make tenets for our Church without studying our authors. "I do not 
 consider myself bound to confirm the accuracy of this statement by 
 written authorities, as I do not conceive the possibility of any Roman 
 Catholic divine bringing it into question." 
 
 So it is; the mere assertion of the most puny and unprincipled 
 libeller of our Church is to pass current as proof ; and he need never pro- 
 duce evidence of the correctness of his statements ; all our declarations, 
 documents and writers, are of no avail against the simple calumny of 
 our accuser. Whether America will in this respect follow the example 
 of Europe, remains yet to be seen. White continues, 
 
 "The Roman Catholic doctrine on the obligation of oaths being 
 clearly understood, sincere members of that Church can find no difficulty 
 in applying it to any existing test, or to any oath which may be ten- 
 dered, in future, with a view to define the limits of their opposition to 
 doctrines and practices condemned by Rome. In the first place, they 
 cannot but see that an oath binding them to lend a direct support to 
 any Protestant establishment, or to omit such measures as may, without 
 finally injuring the cause of Catholicism, check and disturb the spread 
 and ascendancy of error; is in itself sinful and cannot, therefore, be 
 obligatory. In the second place it must be evident that if, for the 
 advantage of the Catholic religion suffering under an heterodox ascen- 
 dancy, some oaths of this kind may be tolerated by Catholic divines, 
 the head of that Church will find it his duty, to declare their nullity 
 upon any change of circumstances. The persevering silence of the 
 papal see in regard to this point, notwithstanding the advantages which 
 an authorized declaration would give to the Roman Catholics of Great 
 Britain and Ireland, is an indubitable proof that the Pope cannot give 
 his sanction to engagements made in favor of a Protestant establish- 
 ment. Of this, Bossuet himself was aware, when to his guarded opinion 
 upon the scruples of James II against the coronation oath, he subjoined 
 the salvo: — "I nevertheless submit with all my heart to the supreme 
 decision of his Holiness." If that decision, however, was then, and is 
 now, withheld, notwithstanding the disadvantages to which the silence 
 of Rome subjects the Roman Catholics it cannot be supposed that it 
 would at all tend to remove them. To such as are intimately acquainted 
 with the Catholic doctrines, which I have just laid before you, the con- 
 duct of the Roman see is in no way mysterious." 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 385 
 
 Of course my friends you perceive that this whole sentence is built 
 upon a false supposition, namely, that he did clearly lay down our doc- 
 trine on the obligation of oaths. In the next place he states a distinct 
 falsehood, viz. that the oath which Roman Catholics in Great Britaia 
 take, not to use their political power to disturb the Protestant establish- 
 ment for the purpose of substituting a Roman Catholic establishment in 
 its stead, is an oath binding them to lend direct support to the Protestant 
 establishment. It is no such oath; it is only a covenant made as a con- 
 dition upon which they seek to be admitted to their rights, that they will 
 not reclaim for their own Church the plunder which the Protestant 
 holds ; in other words, it is a relinquishment of any claim to restitution, 
 it is compounding for a part of their rights. Such a composition is not 
 sinful; it is not more criminal than it was for a friend of mine in Ire- 
 land to compound for a portion of his property when the whole was in 
 danger. Bishop Kemp might love to learn the facts. Two first cousins 
 well known in one of the southern counties were Roman Catholics in the 
 year 1790, and had good estates ; one of them squandered and the other 
 improved; the spendthrift, finding his property vanished, went to the 
 Protestant Church and abjured the errors of Popery, and was thence- 
 forth known by the appellation of "Protestant Tom." The industrious 
 cousin, "Catholic Tom," received notice that a bill was filed against 
 him, i7i equity, by his good cousin discovering against him, for that he 
 being a Papist held a landed estate, value three thousand pounds sterling 
 yearly, which estate was claimed by "Protestant Tom" as having duly 
 conformed to the Church by law established, and being therefore legally 
 entitled to the same. It is by means of such bills of discovery, the Irish 
 Catholics have been impoverished and sent as conscientious and impov- 
 erished exiles into every region of the earth. "Catholic Tom" had no 
 valid plea, in bar of his cousin's claim, because he really was a Catholic 
 and had the land : he however called upon his goodly cousin, and com- 
 pounded with him by selling him half his estate, for sixpence, and thus 
 procuring the bill of discovery to be taken off the file of the equitable 
 Chancellor of Ireland. I have seen and known both; "Protestant Tom" 
 I knew to be a most loyal subject, a most zealous member of the Bible 
 distribution, [who] had his sons duly educated in the principles of 
 the Church by law established, and provided with commissions in his 
 majesty's army and navy, whilst his cousin sometimes fills the chair at 
 the aggregate meeting of his county, and sees his sons toiling through 
 the labors of a profession, or cultivating the remnant of his patrimony. 
 Was it a sinful act in him to make this composition? As little sin is 
 there in the Catholic body swearing that they will relinquish to the 
 
386 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 Protestant Church, that establishment which it already possesses. It is 
 lawful to relinquish one part of your rights to secure the remainder: 
 when you by an oath engage yourself to the performance of a lawful 
 act, your oath is binding and valid; though no previous claim bound, 
 the oath now binds him who takes it, though it can make no good title 
 for him who exacts it, and no tribunal, Papal or other, can declare 
 that what is originally valid, was originally invalid. It is also untrue 
 to assert, as "White here does, that Rome has been silent on this topic: 
 for the oath in which this clause is contained, has been repeatedly exam- 
 ined, and approved of at Rome.. I shall add but one more remark. 
 This oath is a bond or pledge to a solemn contract made by the authority 
 of the State, in which the dominion of property exists ; such a contract 
 involves the rights of both parties, the release of one would be an injus- 
 tice to the other, without the free consent of this other party, or that 
 of the State was given : this is a principle of natural law, in which the 
 Pope has no dispensing power : hence, where a lawful contract is made, 
 and conj&rmed by an oath, no tribunal has the power of dispensing with 
 that oath, for this dispensation would involve the violation of the con- 
 tract. 
 
 How many falsehoods, and how much gross ignorance of theological 
 principles are contained in this passage, which asserts that no reliance 
 is to be placed upon the oaths of Catholics? Does not Bishop Kemp 
 know, and do not his associates know, that the insulted Irish and British 
 Catholics need only commit one perjury, and get absolution from Rome, 
 and they would be upon an equal footing with their Protestant fellow- 
 citizens? But because they value their oaths, and Rome has no such 
 absolutions or dispensations to give; they still are under the thraldom 
 of Protestant persecution, in violation of a solemn treaty ratified by 
 Protestant oaths on earth, and by the adjuration of Heaven above, 
 by the Protestant monarch, who pledged himself to observe this violated 
 contract. 
 
 Good God! what will Europe say of our liberality, when she shall 
 hear that a congregation of Protestant Clergy-men, with a Bishop at 
 their head, charge the Roman Catholics of the United States with hold- 
 ing the most detestable doctrine, and with being unworthy of credit on 
 their solemn oaths? When she shall find them advocating the violation 
 of the treaty of Limerick, and calumniating the persecuted British and 
 Irish Catholics? 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 387 
 
 LETTER XXIII 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Feb. 13, 1827. 
 To the Roman CatJiolics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — Having shown that we have been grossly misrepre- 
 sented by White in his charge of our disregard of oaths: having also 
 shown how flagrantly the solemn oaths of stipulations and contracts with 
 the Irish Catholics were violated by the British Protestants ; I shall add 
 only one fact, to which I challenge Bishop Kemp and his associates to 
 find me a parallel. Doctor Dopping, the Protestant Bishop of Meath, in 
 Ireland, preached publicly from the pulpit of a Protestant Church in 
 Dublin, that no treaty of Protestants favorable to Catholics was binding 
 or ought to be observed. It is true that some of his brethren dissented 
 from this doctrine, but it is equally true that the King of England, the 
 head of his Church, followed the Bishop of Heath's principle in prac- 
 tice : it is equally true that the Irish parliament has done likewise ; not 
 only has this sermon been practically observed by William and Mary, 
 the supreme head in earth of the English Protestant Church, but also 
 of their successors in the same headship, viz. Anne, George I, George 
 II, George III, and his present sacred majesty George IV, supreme 
 head on earth of the Churches of England and Ireland. Also by their 
 several privy councils, also by the British parliament, since the union; 
 which councils and parliaments were all Protestant, and were and are, 
 in fact, the supreme governing power of the English Protestant Church. 
 
 I shall conclude this topic with inserting the following documents : 
 
 Extract from the declaration of the Catholic Bishops in Great Britain, 
 in the year 1826. 
 
 Section VII. On the Ohligation of an Oath. 
 
 ''Catholics are charged with holding that they are not bound by any 
 oath, and that the Pope can dispense them from all the oaths they may 
 have taken. 
 
 "We cannot sufficiently express our astonishment at such a charge. 
 We hold that the obligation of an oath is most sacred: for by an oath 
 man calls the Almighty searcher of hearts to witness the sincerity of 
 his conviction of the truth of what he asserts; and his fidelity in per- 
 forming the engagement he makes. Hence, whoever swears falsely, or 
 violates the lawful engagement he has confirmed by an oath, not only 
 offends against truth, or justice, but against religion. He is guilty of 
 the enormous crime of perjury. 
 
 ''No power in any Pope, or council, or in any individual or bodj"- 
 
388 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 of men, invested with authority in the Catholic Church, can make it law- 
 ful for a Catholic to confirm any falsehood by an oath ; or dispense with 
 any oath by which a Catholic has confirmed his duty of allegiance to 
 his sovereign, or any obligation of duty or justice to a third person. 
 He who takes an oath is bound to observe it, in the obvious meaning 
 of the words, or in the known meaning of the person to whom it is 
 sworn. ' ' 
 
 Extract from the "True Principles of Catholics," puhlished in 1826, 
 hy the Liverpool Catholic Defence Society, heing the repetition of 
 what has been frequently established hy the British Catholics. 
 
 Sixth. "Catholics believe that in order to enter into eternal life, 
 we must keep the commandments of God, and that, Avith his grace, they 
 can be kept: 'And they were both righteous before God, walking in all 
 the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.' {St. Luke, 
 i, 6). And that whosoever dies under the guilt of a wilful breach of any 
 one of these divine precepts, will be eternally lost. That no power on 
 earth can grant any man leave to break the least commandment of God, 
 or commit a sin of what kind soever, or to do evil with an intent that 
 good may proceed from it. That neither the Pope, nor any man living, 
 can dispense with the laws of God, or make it lawful for any one to lie, 
 to forswear himself, or do any thing whatsoever that is forbidden by 
 the divine law." 
 
 Extract from a series of curses to which every Catholic is prepared to 
 answer "Amen," repeatedly puhlished hy the English Catholic 
 divines in answer to their Protestant calumniators. 
 
 ' ' Cursed is he who believes that the Pope can give to any, upon any 
 occasion whatsoever, dispensations to lie or swear falsely; or that it is 
 lawful for any, at the last hour, to protest himself innocent in case he be 
 guilty. Catholic, Amen." 
 
 "Cursed is he who teaches that it is lawful to do a wicked thing, 
 though it be for the interest and good of the Mother-Church; or that 
 any evil action may be done, that good may ensue from it. Catholic, 
 Amen. ' ' 
 
 "Cursed be all Catholics who teach or believe that infamous doc- 
 trine called Popery, as Protestants understand it; and cursed may we 
 be, if we do not detest all those hellish practises and doctrines which 
 they force on us. Catholic, Amen." 
 
 "Cursed be all Catholics who will not obey the lawful commands 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 389 
 
 of all Protestant authorities, ^^ or who will not fulfil their duty, in 
 every respect, to their lawful Protestant king and country. Catholic, 
 
 "Cursed be all Catholics, if in answering or saying Amen to any 
 of these curses, they use any equivocations or mental reservations, or 
 do not assent to them in the common and obvious sense of the words. 
 Catholic, Amen, Anien.'^ 
 
 To these is appended the following note in the publication of thd 
 above named society: 
 
 These principles have been a thousand times attacked, and a thou- 
 sand times proved to be our true principles, to the full satisfaction of 
 thousands of well disDosed Protestants, many of whom, in their last 
 moments, were reconciled to the Catholic Church ; and in our days, noth- 
 ing is more common, than such like reconciliations, particularly in Lon- 
 don, Manchester, and Liverpool. Now, we defy our adversaries to prove 
 one solitary instance of a Roman Catholic, who, in his last moments, 
 called for a clergjonan of any other persuasion than that of his own. 
 Bishop Porteus failed in the attempt, w^hen challenged to do so, by the 
 Right Reverend Dr. Milner, a Roman Catholic Bishop. 
 
 A warning to Protestants: "Thou shalt not bear false witness 
 against thy (Catholic) neighbor." Eighth Commandment. 
 
 An extract from an exhortation of the Roman Catholic clergy of Dublin, 
 read from their altars on the 3d of October, 1757. ^* 
 
 "We are no less zealous than ever in exhorting you to abstain 
 from cursing, swearing and blaspheming: detestable vices, to which the 
 poorer sort of our people are most unhappily addicted, and which must 
 at one time or other bring down the vengeance of heaven upon you in 
 some visible punishment, unless you absolutely refrain from them. 
 
 "It is probable, that, from hence, some people have taken occasion 
 to brand us with this infamous calumny, that we need not fear to take 
 false oaths, and consequently to perjure ourselves; as if we believed 
 that any power upon earth could authorize such damnable practices, 
 or grant dispensations for this purpose. How unjust and cruel this 
 charge is, you know by our instructions to you both in public and pri- 
 vate, in which we have ever condemned such doctrines as false and 
 impious. Others, likewise, may easily know it from the constant behav- 
 iour of numbers of Roman Catholics, who have given the strongest 
 
 " Spiritual matters excepted. 
 
 "From the Dublin Journal of Oct. 4, 1757. 
 
390 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 proofs of their abhorrence of those tenets, by refusing to take oaths, 
 which, however conducive to their temporal interest, appeared to them 
 entirely repugnant to the principles of their religion. 
 
 ''To conclude, be just in your dealings, sober in your conduct, 
 religious in your practice, avoid riots, quarrels, and tumults; and thus 
 you will approve yourselves good citizens, peaceable subjects, and pious 
 Christians." 
 
 The Catholic's Test of Allegiance prescribed by the 13th and 14th, 
 Geo. Ill, chapter xxxv. 
 
 I, A B, do take Almighty God and his only Son Jesus Christ my 
 Redeemer, to witness, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance 
 to our most gracious sovereign lord. King George the Third, and him 
 defend to the utmost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts 
 whatever, that shall be made against his person, crown and dignity; 
 and I will do my utmost endeavor to disclose and make known to his 
 majesty, and his heirs, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies, which 
 may be formed against him or them; and I do faithfully promise to 
 maintain, support and defend, to the utmost of my power, the succession 
 of the crown in his majesty's family, against any person or persons 
 whatsoever, hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring any obedience or 
 allegiance unto the person taking upon himself the style and title oE 
 Prince of Wales, in the lifetime of his father, and who, since his death, 
 is said to have assumed the style and title of King of Great Britain 
 and Ireland, by the name of Charles the Third, and to any person 
 claiming or pretending a right to the crown of these realms; and 
 I do swear, that I do reject and detest as unchristian and impious to 
 believe, that it is lawful to murder or destroy any person or persons 
 whatsoever, for or under pretence of their being heretics ; and also that 
 unchristian and impious principle, that no faith is to be kept with 
 heretics ; I further declare, that it is no article of my faith, and that I 
 do renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion, that princes excommunicated 
 by the Pope and council, or by any authority of the See of Rome, or by 
 any authority whatsoever, may be deposed or murdered by their sub- 
 jects, or by any person whatsoever; and I do promise, that I will 
 not hold, maintain, or abet, any such opinion, or any other opin- 
 ion, contrary to what is expressed in this declaration; and I do 
 declare, that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any 
 other foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to 
 have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre- 
 eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm; and I do solemnly, 
 in the presence of God, and his only Son, Jesus Christ, my Redeemer, 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 391 
 
 profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every 
 part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, 
 without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever, and 
 without and dispensation already granted by the Pope or authority of 
 the See of Rome, or any other person whatever; and without thinking 
 that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this 
 declaration, or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person 
 or persons, or authority whatsoever, shall dispense with or annul the 
 same, or declare that it was null and void from the beginning. So 
 help me God." 
 
 QUERIES TO FOREIGN UNIVERSITIES, WITH THEIR ANSWERS. 
 
 "When the committee of the English Catholics (for they had a 
 committee with whom the English ministers of the crown did not dis- 
 dain to communicate) waited on Mr. Pitt, he requested to be furnished 
 with authentic evidence of the opinions of the Catholic clergy, and the 
 Catholic universities abroad, "with respect to the existence and extent 
 of the Pope's dispensing power." Three questions were accordingly 
 framed and sent to the universities of Paris, Louvain, Alcala, Douay, 
 Salamanca, and Valladolid, for their opinions. 
 
 The queries and answers are as follows : 
 
 THE QUERIES, 
 
 1. Has the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any indi- 
 vidual of the Church of Rome, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, 
 or pre-eminence whatsoever, within the realm of England? 
 
 2. Can the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individ- 
 uals of the Church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his majesty's sub- 
 jects, from their oath of allegiance upon any pretext whatsoever ? 
 
 3. Is there any principle in the tenets of the Catholic faith, by 
 which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or other 
 persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transaction, 
 either of a public or a private nature ? 
 
 THE ANSWERS. 
 
 University of Paris : After an introduction, according to the usual 
 forms of the university, the Sacred Faculty of Divinity of Paris answer 
 the first query by declaring : 
 
 Neither the Pope, nor the Cardinals, nor any body of men, nor any 
 other person of the Church of Rome, hath any civil authority, civil 
 
392 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 power, civil jurisdiction, or civil pre-eminence whatsoever, in any king- 
 dom ; and, consequently, none in the kingdom of England, by reason 
 or virtue of any authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence, by 
 divine institution inherent in, or granted, or by any other means be- 
 longing to the Pope, or the Church of Rome. This doctrine the Sacred 
 Faculty of Divinity of Paris has always held, and upon every occasion 
 maintained, and upon every occasion has rigidly proscribed the contrary 
 doctrines from her schools. 
 
 Answer to the second query. Neither the Pope, nor the Cardinals, 
 nor any body of them, nor any person of the Church of Rome, can, by 
 virtue of the keys, absolve, or release the subjects of the King of Eng- 
 land from their oath of allegiance. 
 
 This and the first query are so intimately connected, that the answer 
 of the first immediately and naturally applies to the second, and so 
 forth. 
 
 Answer to the third query. There is no tenet in the Catholic 
 Church, by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with 
 heretics, or those who differ from them in matters of religion. The tenet, 
 that it is lawful to break faith with heretics, is so repugnant to common 
 honesty and the opinions of Catholics, that there is nothing of which 
 those who have defended the Catholic faith against Protestants, have 
 complained more heavily, than the malice and calumny of their ad- 
 versaries in imputing this tenet to them, and so forth. 
 
 Given at Paris in the General Assembly of the Sorbonne, held on 
 Thursday, the 11th day before the Kalends of March, 1789. 
 
 Signed in due form. 
 
 University of Douay : To the first and second queries the Sacred 
 Faculty answers — That no power whatsoever, in civil or temporal con- 
 cerns, was given by the Almighty, either to the Pope, the Cardinals, 
 or the Church herself, and, consequently, that kings and sovereigns 
 are not in temporal concerns, subject by the ordination of God, to any 
 ecclesiastical power whatsoever ; neither can their subjects, by any author- 
 ity granted to the Pope or Church, from above, be freed from their 
 obedience, or absolved from their oath of allegiance. 
 
 This is the doctrine which the doctors and professors of divinity 
 hold and teach in our schools, and this all the candidates for degrees 
 in divinity maintain in their public theses, and so forth. 
 
 To the third question the Sacred Faculty answers — That there is 
 no principle of the Catholic faith by which Catholics are justified in 
 not keeping faith with heretics, w'ho differ from them in religious opin- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 393 
 
 ion. On the contrary, it is the unanimous doctrine of Catholics, that 
 the respect due to the name of God, so called witness, requires that the 
 oath be inviolably kept, to whomsoever it is pledged, whether Catholic,. 
 Heretic, or Infidel, and so forth. 
 
 Signed and sealed in due form, at a meeting of the Faculty of Di- 
 vinity of the University of Douay, January 5, 1789. 
 
 University of Louvain: The Faculty of Divinity at Louvain, hav- 
 ing been requested to give her opinion upon the questions stated, does 
 it with readiness — but struck with astonishment that such questions 
 should, at the end of this eighteenth century, be proposed to any learned 
 body, by inhabitants of a kingdom that glories in the talents and dis- 
 cernment of its natives. The Faculty being assembled for the above 
 purpose, it is agreed with the unanimous assent of all voices to answer 
 the first and second queries absolutely in the negative. 
 
 The Faculty does not think it incumbent upon her in this place to 
 enter upon the proofs of her opinion, or to show how it is supported by 
 passages in the Holy Scriptures, or the writing of antiquity. — That has 
 already been done by Bossuet, De Marca, the two Barclays, Goldastus, 
 the Pithffiuses, Argentre Widrington, and his Majesty King James the 
 First, in his dessertation against Bellarmine and Du Perron, and by 
 many others, and so forth. 
 
 The Faculty then proceeds to declare that the sovereign power of 
 the State is in no wise (not even indirectly as it is termed) subject to, 
 or dependant upon any other power, though it be a spiritual power, or 
 even though it be instituted for eternal salvation, and so forth. 
 
 That no man or any assembly of men, however eminent in dignity 
 and power, not even the whole body of the Catholic Church, though 
 assembled in general council, can upon any ground or pretense whatso- 
 ever, weaken the bond of union between the sovereign and people; still 
 less can they absolve and free the subjects from their oath of allegiance. 
 
 Proceeding to the third question, the said Faculty of Divinity (in 
 perfect wonder that such a question should be proposed to her) most 
 positively and unequivocally answers — That there is not, and there 
 never has been among the Catholics, or in the doctrines of the Church 
 of Rome, any law or principle which makes it lawful for the Catholics 
 to break their faith with heretics, or others of a different persuasion 
 from themselves in matters or religion, either in public or private con- 
 cerns. 
 
 The Faculty declares the doctrine of the Catholics to be, that the 
 divine and natural law, which makes it a duty to keep faith and prom- 
 
394 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 ises, is the same; and is neither shaken nor diminished, if those with 
 whom the engagement is made, hold erroneous opinions in matters of 
 religion, and so forth. 
 
 Signed in due form 18th of Nov., 1788. 
 
 University of Alcala: To the first question it is answered — That 
 none of the persons mentioned in the proposed question, either indi- 
 vidually, or collectively in council assembled, have any right in civil 
 matters; but that all civil power, jurisdiction and pre-eminence are de- 
 rived from inheritance, election, the consent of the people, and other 
 such titles of that nature. 
 
 To the second it is answered, in like manner — That none of the 
 persons above mentioned have a power to absolve the subjects of his 
 Britannic Majesty from their oaths of allegiance. 
 
 To the third question it is answered — That the doctrine which would 
 exempt Catholics from the obligation of keeping faith with heretics, or 
 with any other persons who dissent from them in matters of religion, 
 instead of being an article of Catholic faith, is entirely repugnant to 
 its tenets. 
 
 Signed in usual form, March 17, 1789. 
 
 University of Salamanca: To the first question it is answered — 
 That neither Pope nor Cardinals, nor any assembly or individual of the 
 Catholic Church, have as such, any civil authority power, jurisdiction, 
 or pre-eminence in the kingdom of England. 
 
 To the second it is answered — That neither Pope nor Cardinals, 
 nor any assembly or individual of the Catholic Church, can, as such, 
 absolve the subjects of Great Britain from their oaths of allegiance, or 
 dispense with their obligation. 
 
 To the third it is answered — That it is no article of Catholic faith, 
 that Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or with 
 persons, of any description, who dissent from them in matters of religion. 
 
 Signed in the usual for, March 7th, 1789. 
 
 University of Valladolid: To the first question it is answered — 
 That neither Pope nor Cardinals, or even a general council, have any 
 civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence, directly or in- 
 directly, in the kingdom of Great Britain; or over any other kingdom 
 or province in which they possess no temporal dominion. 
 
 To the second it is answered — That neither Pope nor Cardinals, 
 nor even a general council, can absolve the subjects of Great Britain 
 from their oaths of allegiance, or dispense with their obligation. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 395 
 
 To the third it is answered — That the obligation of keeping is 
 grounded on the law of nature, which binds all men equally, without 
 respect to their religious opinions; and with regard to Catholics, it is 
 still more cogent as it is confirmed by the principles of their religion. 
 
 Signed in the usual form, Feb. 17th, 1789. 
 
 With these documents before us, we must necessarily say that if 
 Catholics are regardless of the obligation of an oath, the British Cath- 
 olics and the Irish Catholics give us the most extraordinary exhibition 
 which the world ever saw ; men suffering persecution during ages, from 
 which persecution tbey might be relieved merely by taking an oath, and, 
 yet refusing to take an oath, and thus remaining under affliction, in 
 preference to swearing against their conviction, though we aje told, 
 they believed that they may be dispensed with from the observation of 
 the oath, by the head of their Church. Is it possible that Bishop Kemp 
 and his associates could believe this to be the fact? If they do, what 
 must we think of their intellect ? 
 
 Two years have not yet elapsed since the practical illustration of 
 this libel upon Catholics was made in this State of South Carolina, in 
 presence of the honorable Judge Gaillard, whilst he presided in the court 
 at York district. I have the fact from himself, with his leave to use it as 
 I may think proper. A criminal whose guilt was proved, was about to 
 be left to the jury for their verdict, when his lawyer seriously offered to 
 prove that the principle witness was suspected of being a Catholic, and 
 therefore incredible upon oath, and consequently that his testimony 
 should go for nothing ! Judge Gaillard, though a member of the same 
 Church as Bishop Kemp, has liberality and good sense, and knows more 
 of the doctrine of our Church than, I believe, does the Bishop, disposed 
 of the objection as he ought. But what shall we think of a body of the 
 clergy of those States who publish this libel in White 's book ? 
 
 I now copy the extract from White upon which I shall next pro- 
 ceed to comment. 
 
 "It would be much more difficult to explain upon what creditable 
 principle of their Church the Catholic divines of those kingdoms can 
 give their approbation to oaths tendered for the security of the Protest- 
 ant establishment. The clergy of the Church of England have been 
 involved in a general and indiscriminate charge of hypocrisy and sim- 
 ulation, upon religious matters. It would ill become one in my pecu- 
 liar circumstances to take up the defence of that venerable body; yet 
 I cannot dismiss this subject without solemnly attesting, that the strong- 
 est impresions which enliven and support my Christian faith, are de- 
 rived from my friendly intercourse with members of that insulted clergy ; 
 
396 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 while, on the contrary, I knew but very few Spanish priests whose talents 
 or acquirements were above contempt, who had not secretly renounced 
 their religion. Whether something similar to the state of the Spanish 
 clergy may not explain the support which the Catholic priesthood of 
 these kingdoms seem to give to oaths so abhorrent from the belief of 
 their Church, as those which must precede the admission of members 
 of that Church into parliament ; I will not undertake to say. If there be 
 conscientious believers among them, which I will not doubt for a moment, 
 and they are not forced into silence, as I suspect it is done in similar 
 cases, I feel assured that they will earnestly deprecate and condemn 
 all engagements on the part of the Roman Catholics, to support and de- 
 fend the Church of England. Such an engagement implies either a 
 renunciation of the tenet excluding Protestants from the benefits of 
 Gospel promises, or a shocking indifference to the eternal welfare of 
 men. 
 
 "If your leaders, whom it would be uncharitable to suspect of the 
 latter feeling, have so far receded from the Roman creed as to allow 
 us the common privileges of Christianity, and conscientiously swear 
 to protect and encourage the interests of the Church of England, let 
 them, in the name of truth, speak openly before the world, and be the 
 first to remove that obstacle to mutual benevolence, and perfect com- 
 munity of political privileges— the doctrine of exclusive salvation in 
 your Church. Cancel but that one article from your creed, and all 
 liberal men in Europe will offer you the right hand of fellowship. Your 
 other doctrines concern but yourselves; this endangers the peace and 
 freedom of every man living, and that in proportion to your goodness: 
 it makes your very benevolence a curse. Believe a man who has spent 
 the best years of his life where Catholicism is professed without check 
 of dissenting opinion; where it luxuriates on the soil, which fire and 
 sword have cleared of whatever might stunt its natural and genuine 
 growth ; a growth incessantly watched over by the head of your Church, 
 and his authorized representatives, the Inquisitors. Alas! 'I have a 
 mother!' outweighed all other reasons for a change, in a man of genius,!^ 
 who yet cared not to show his indifference to the religious system under 
 which he was born. I, too, 'had a mother,' and such a mother as, did 
 I possess the talents of your great poet, tenfold, they would have been 
 honored in doing homage to the powers of her mind and the goodness of 
 her heart. No woman could love her children more ardently, and none 
 of those children was more vehemently loved than myself. But the 
 
 "Pope: see his letter to Atterbury on this subject. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 397 
 
 Roman Catholic creed had poisoned in her the purest source of affection. 
 I saw her, during a long period, unable to restrain her tears in my pres- 
 ence. I perceived that she shunned my conversation, especially when 
 my university friends drew me into topics above those of domestic talk. 
 I loved her; and this behaviour cut me to the heart. In my distress T 
 applied to a friend to whom she used to communicate all her sorrows ; 
 and, to my utter horror, I learnt that, suspecting me of Anti-Catholic 
 principles, my mother was distracted by the fear that she might be 
 obliged to accuse me to the Inquisition, if I incautiously uttered some 
 condemned proposition in her presence. To avoid the barbarous neces- 
 sity of being the instrument of my ruin, she could find no other means but 
 that of shunning my presence. Did this unfortunate mother overrate or 
 mistake the nature of her Roman Catholic duties ? By no means. The 
 inquisition was established by the supreme authority of her Church; 
 and, under that authority, she was enjoined to accuse any person what- 
 ever, whom she might overhear uttering heretical opinions. No excep- 
 tion was made in favor of fathers, children, husbands, wives : to conceal 
 was to abet their errors, and doom two souls to eternal perdition. A sen- 
 tence of excommunication, to be incurred in the fact, was annually pub- 
 lished against all persons, who having heard a proposition directly or 
 indirectly contrary to the Catholic faith, omitted to inform the inquis- 
 itors upon it. Could any sincere Catholic slight such a command ? 
 
 "Such is the spirit of the ecclesiastical power to which you sub- 
 mit. The monstrous laws of which I speak, do not belong to a remote 
 period: they existed in full force fifteen years ago: they were repub- 
 lished, under the authority of the Pope, at a later period. If some of 
 your writers assume the tone of freedom which belongs to this age and 
 country ; if you profess your faith without compulsion ; you may thank 
 the Protestant laws which protect you. Is there a spot in the universe 
 where a Roman Catholic may throw off his mental allegiance, except 
 where Protestants have contended for that right, and sealed it with 
 their blood? I know that your Church modifies her intolerance accord- 
 ing to circumstances, and that she tolerates in France, after the rev- 
 olution, the Hugeunots, whom she would have burnt in Spain a few years 
 ago, and whom she would doom to some indefinite punishment, little short 
 of the stake, at the present moment. Such conduct is unworthy of the 
 claims which Rome contends for, and would disgrace the most obscure 
 leader of a paltry sect. If she still claims the right of wielding 'the 
 sword of Peter,' why does she conceal it under her mantle? If not, 
 why does she not put an end to more than half the miseries and degra- 
 dation of Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Spanish America, by at once de- 
 
398 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 daring that men are accountable only to God for their religious belief, 
 and that sincere and conscientious persuasion must both in this and 
 the next world, be a valid plea for the pardon of error? Does the 
 Church of Rome really profess this doctrine ? It is then a sacred duty 
 for her to remove at once that scandal of Christianity, that intolerance 
 which the conduct of Popes and councils has invariably upheld. But if, 
 as I am persuaded, Rome still thinks in conformity with her former 
 conduct, and yet the Roman Catholics of these kingdoms dissent from 
 her on this point, they have already begun to use the Protestant right of 
 private judgment upon one of the articles of their faith; and I may 
 hope that they will follow me in the examination of that alleged divine 
 authority by which they are prevented from extending it to all." 
 This passage I shall consider in my next. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, 
 
 B. c. 
 
 LETTER XXIV 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Feb. 19, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — I proceed now to examine the paragraph of White's 
 Evidence, which I added to my last letter. 
 
 The extract commences with a fallacious change of terms, which 
 fallacy is continued with increased dishonesty through the entire pas- 
 age; every logician knows that a change of terms is the most criminal 
 species of bad reasoning. I need only exhibit to you the fact, and quote 
 the expression of White. 
 
 I have in my former letters shown that the object of this man's 
 employers was to perpetuate the exclusion of Roman Catholics from 
 the British houses of parliament. For this purpose he writes in page 53 : 
 
 "At the time when I am writing this, one branch of the legislature 
 has declared itself favorable to what is called Catholic emancipation; 
 and, for any thing I can conjecture, Roman Catholics may be allowed 
 to sit in parliament before these letters appear in public. A Roman 
 Catholic legislator of Protestant England would, indeed, feel the weight 
 of the difficulty to which my suggested question alludes, provided his 
 attachment to the Roman Catholic faith were sincere. ' ' 
 
 And in pages 56 and 57, he has the following passage addressed to 
 the Catholic clergy : 
 
 "A conscientious Roman Catholic may, for the sake of public peace, 
 and in the hope of finally serving the cause of his Church, obstensibly 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 399 
 
 give a free course to heresy. But, if it may be done without such dan- 
 gers, it is his unquestionable duty to undermine a system of which the 
 direct tendency is, in his opinion, the spiritual and final ruin of men. 
 Is there a Catholic divine who can dispute this doctrine? Is there a 
 learned and conscientious priest among you, who would give absolutiion 
 to such a person as, having it in his power so to direct his votes and con- 
 duct in parliament as to diminish the influence of Protestant principles, 
 without disturbing or alarming the country, would still heartily and 
 steadfastly join in promoting the interests of the English Church." 
 
 The Protestant dissenter who sits in the British Parliament is not 
 required to swear or to promise that he will "heartily and steadfastly 
 join in promoting the interest of the English Church." The Catholic 
 seeks admittance only upon that principle, upon which it has been con- 
 ceded to the Presbyterian, to the Baptist, to the Unitarian, and to the 
 Jew, for I believe there are members of that nation in the British Par- 
 liament, I know there were ; and I know there is nothing to prevent their 
 admission ; for the oath of supremacy and the Test Act are equivalently 
 repealed, and there is no oath now required, save that of allegiance, 
 and of abjuration of Popery. Thus, in fact, the British House of Par- 
 liament is open to every and to any person of any religion, or of no re- 
 ligion, unless he be a Roman Catholic. Hence, the case is grossly mis- 
 stated by "White, in asserting that a Roman Catholic would, upon enter- 
 ing parliament, be obliged to swear that he would "heartily and stead- 
 fastly join in promoting the interests of the English Church." The 
 Catholic only requires to have the oath and declaration against Popery 
 consigned, together with Test Act and the oath of supremacy, to the 
 tomb of all the Capulets. 
 
 But a difficulty arose in the minds of the English churchmen re- 
 specting Catholics, and was special in their case. They knew that all 
 their rich benefices were but the remnants of donations given by pious 
 Catholics during centuries to their own Catholic Church; and their 
 terrors arose at the prospect of restitution. It was not the pang of a 
 lacerated conscience, but the terror of an avaricious heart, which pro- 
 claimed, "Beware of those Catholics, for they will reclaim the property 
 of their Church." Thus the whole bench of Bishops, with him of 
 Osnaburg as their blaspheming leader, arose to vote for the eternal 
 exclusion of the Catholic. The whole, did I write? No! The good, the 
 just, the benevolent Bathurst of Norwich, and the fearless and upright 
 Bishop of Rochester, would not unite with the ruthless oppressors. The 
 Catholics assured the houses, long before, that upon this subject they 
 need have no dread, and swore, and continue to swear, that "they will 
 
400 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 not use any right or privilege which they now enjoy, and may become 
 entitled to, by any act of the legislature in their favor, in order to sub- 
 vert or disturb the establishment of the Church, now by law Protestant, 
 for the purpose of substituting a Roman Catholic establishment in its 
 stead." Thus they gave those oaths, whose value has endured so search- 
 ing a test as a guarantee that this terror was without foundation. Have 
 you, my friends, ever known the possessor of rapine disposed to believe 
 the declarations of the injured party, that he will seek no restitution? 
 Men generally judge of others by themselves. But this is not my ob- 
 ject. The truth is, then, that a Roman Catholic, if admissable to par- 
 liament, would not be required to swear that he would "promote the 
 interest of the Protestant Church;" but he would be required to swear 
 not "to take its income away, for the purpose of giving it to the Cath- 
 olic Church." 
 
 Thus the writer of the Evidence was guilty of misstatement, when 
 he insinuated that a Catholic would be required to swear ' ' that he would 
 heartily and steadily join in promoting the interests of the English 
 Church." In the passage before us, he commences by stating accurate- 
 ly the fact, in page 70, where he mentions that "the Catholic divines of 
 those kingdoms give their approbation to oaths tendered for the security 
 of the Protestant establishment. ' ' Security is not promotion of interest, 
 and there is a wide difference between a Church and an establishment, 
 as Bishop Kemp himself feelingly knows. Not only does this wide dif- 
 ference exist, but one still more palpable ; for if by any sophistry, the two 
 phrases could be brought to appear as equivalent to each other, still 
 the Catholic could not be said to promote the interests of the Protestant 
 Church by taking an oath ; but that interest is promoted by the Protest- 
 ant legislature, which, by requiring the oath, secures the establishment 
 against the aggression of the Catholics; so that the requisition of this 
 oath is perpetual evidence of the continued disposition of the Catholic 
 not to secure the establishment by his own act. Yet this is what White 
 calls, in page 71, "oaths abhorrent from the belief of their own Church, 
 w^hich must precede the admission of Catholics into parliament;" "en- 
 gagements on the part of the Roman Catholics, to support and defend 
 the Church of England." In page 72, "conscientiously swear to protect 
 and encourage the interests of the Church of England. ' ' The whole of 
 White's argument is, then, based upon a false assumption, viz. that 
 Roman Catholics seek admission into parliament upon the condition that 
 they will swear "heartily and steadily to protect and to promote the 
 interests of the Protestant Church. ' ' Whereas, the fact is, they seek it 
 only upon the condition of not asking to resume the property of which 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 401 
 
 they and their Church have been plundered by Henry VIII, the pro- 
 tectors of Edward VI, Elizabeth, the Stuarts, and the House of Hanover, 
 imder the pretext of reforming religion. And the writer of the Evi- 
 dence, by a gradual strengthening of his impressions, and using the 
 weaker and the stronger, as if their meaning was the same, deludes the 
 great body of his readers who hastily glance along his pages. Was this 
 the case with the body of the American clergy who gave the book to 
 their flocks? Were they misled by the sophistry? Or were they 
 ignorant of the facts? Or, knowing the delusion, did they recommend 
 the book for the charitable purpose of creating an unfavorable impression 
 of the claims of the persecuted Catholics of the British empire, and a 
 dislike of the Catholics of this Union ? 
 
 White next asserts, that ''the clergy of the Church of England have 
 been involved in a general and indiscriminate charge of hypocrisy and 
 simulation upon religious matters. ' ' As he does not specify the grounds 
 of the charge, nor the person by whom it is made, I am left solely to 
 conjecture. I have frequently heard a conclusion drawn from premises 
 which were never questioned; and this conclusion in some degree in- 
 volved the charge. (1). It is a notorious fact, that the clergy of the 
 Church of England subscribe, and perhaps swear, their assent and 
 consent to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church, on several occasions 
 of the most solemn and religious description. (2). It is a notorious 
 fact, that a vast portion of the clergy that have thus subscribed, pub- 
 licly declare that they do not believe the truth of several of those articles. 
 (3). It is a notorious fact, that during a very long period some divines 
 of that Church have maintained that no person can conscientiously sub- 
 scribe his assent and consent to articles which he believes to be false. 
 (4). It is a notorious fact that during an equally long period, some 
 divines of that Church have maintained that a person may conscientious- 
 ly subscribe his assent and consent to articles of religion which he believes 
 not to be true, provided he does not intend to preach against them, or 
 to teach a doctrine which contradicts them. (5). It is a notorious fact, 
 that the great bulk of the clergy of the Protestant Church of England 
 and of Ireland, avow that they subscribe upon this last principle, 
 and that they do not believe all the doctrines contained in those articles 
 to be true. From those facts, the inference has been frequently drawn ; 
 and I think that the writer of the Evidence acted very wisely in not 
 undertaking the defence of ' ' that venerable body. ' ' 
 
 I have already shown how very little reliance is to be placed upon 
 White as a witness, and therefore we can easily Imow the value of his 
 assertion that "the strongest impressions which enliven and support 
 
402 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 his Christian faith are derived from his friendly intercourse with mem- 
 bers of that insulted clergy." For my part I know from "White's own 
 book that he does not assent to the truth of the articles of the Church of 
 England or he writes what he does not believe, and besides this certain 
 knowledge, I am of the opinion that he has no Christian faith. I am 
 at a loss to know how the English Protestant clergy are insulted by 
 believing their own testimony of themselves, viz. that they do not as a 
 body believe in the truth of those articles to which they have sworn or 
 at least subscribed their assent and consent : and I must avow that it 
 would be adding to my stock of information, if the process were ex- 
 plained by which a man is confirmed in Christian faith by friendly inter- 
 course with a clergy who are not agreed as to the articles which ought 
 to be believed as being the revelation of Christ. But surely we would 
 be more to blame, if instead of taking the character of the Protestant 
 clergy of England from themselves, we were to seek out some profli- 
 gate, who had in his early youth undertaken the solemn obligations of 
 the ministry with a Imowledge that he had not the requisite qualifica- 
 tions; who spent his best years with irreligious companions in low de- 
 bauch, who studied the worst works of infidels, to destroy in himself 
 that faith which he preached to the people, upon which he lived, who 
 closed his career of ten years' hypocrisy by vilifying his family, and 
 who having fled from the punishment due to his multiplied crimes to a 
 land which persecuted the professors of his ancient Church, of his 
 father's land, earned the protection of its oppressive government by 
 entreating it to continue its persecution ; and calumniated his brethren 
 for the purpose of palliating the criminality of that persecution. In a 
 word, we prefer doing as we have done, to acting as Bishop Kemp and 
 his associates have done, when they adduced the wretched "White as the 
 witness against the Catholic world. From their own mouths we take 
 the testimony upon which we prove our charges against our opponents. 
 "We are assailed by the testimony of the profligates whom we have cast 
 out, bolstered up by men who fill respectable offices. 
 
 Upon such testimony as this, Bishop Kemp and his associates have 
 ventured to tell their flocks that there were "but few Spanish priests 
 whose talents or requirements were above contempt, who had not sec- 
 retly renounced their religion." I say they tell this to their flocks, 
 because they assure them that they may rely upon the statement of 
 "White who says, page 70, that he knew this to be a fact. I tell those 
 gentlemen that such is not the fact. But if it was, see the dilemma to 
 which they are reduced. They assert [that] the bigotry of the Spanish 
 clergy is the proof of the bigotry of Roman Catholics; they assert that 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 403 
 
 the Spanish clergy are not Roman Catholics. Now if they are not them- 
 selves members of our Church, why impute to us their bigotry, if they are 
 bigots? As for the miserable exception of those whose talents or ac- 
 quirements were below contempt: I can assure the "venerable body" 
 that it would be found very small indeed. "The ignorant clergy of 
 Spain" is a fashionable phrase, but if it is a true phrase, I believe we 
 shall find a very ignorant clergy in other parts of the world, and per- 
 haps even the Protestant clergy of Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Wash- 
 ington would not escape ; White is himself looked upon as not an ignor- 
 ant man in the English University of Oxford, and in 1817, he published 
 at Oxford a series of lectures upon the study of religion; yet he avows 
 in page 17, that he "was not of sufficient standing" to obtain a degree 
 of licentiate of divinity at the Spanish University of Seville, and he 
 avows in the note of that page, that a licentiate must undergo a severe 
 examination before he can obtain either the rights or the honors of 
 Doctorship. Some of the best informed theologians whom I have ever 
 met with were educated amongst this "ignorant Spanish clergy." In 
 their schools were formed some of the best teachers from whom I ever 
 imbibed any knowledge; and for my own part I must avow, [that] 
 when I hear any person speak of the gross ignorance of the Spanish 
 Clergy, I suspect he never had an opportunity of knowing what they are, 
 or was unable to turn that opportunity to account. I must avow my mis- 
 fortune , if misfortune it is, that I have studied under no better masters 
 than those formed altogether in the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Flemish, 
 the French, and the Italian schools : hence I may obtain some of the com- 
 miseration of the "venerable body," in regard to my stinted opportuni- 
 ties : and they will perhaps still more pity the delusion which leads me 
 to boast that I owe all my knowledge to priests, and to thank Heaven 
 that to England I owe nothing, save the detestation of her persecution 
 and the forgiveness of her injuries. This libellous attack of White's 
 upon the Spanish Clergy, has in Europe called forth a triumphant re- 
 futation, and the most ample testimonies have been given to the worth, 
 the learning and the virtue of the calumniated Spanish Clergy ; no per- 
 son will deny that there are criminals to be found in their body, as a 
 criminal was to be found in the Apostolic band; but collectively taken, 
 the Clergy are learned and virtuous. There must be exceptions, of 
 which White himself is an unfortunate exemplification. In Ireland 
 the venerable, learned, and virtuous Primate of Armagh, the amiable 
 and talented Primate of Dublin, the Archbishop of Tuam, the Bishops 
 of Ardagh and of Ossory, are, and the late Archbishop of Cashel, was, 
 an exhibition of the Spanish School, as the Bishop of Kildare and Leigh- 
 
404 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 lin, (Doyle,) and the Bishop of Waterford and Lismore are of the Por- 
 tuguese. In the searching examinations before the committees of the 
 British Parliament, most of those Prelates were closely and elaborate- 
 ly and ingeniously sifted, and won the approbation and esteem and 
 respect of their very enemies, whilst the only Protestant Prelate whom 
 Ireland exhibits as a theologian, Magee of Dublin, so far lost himself 
 in the House of Lords, that not only did he sink in the estimation of the 
 committee, but it was resolved that a portion of his testimony should be 
 expunged, and expunged it was ! The American Clergy who have drawn 
 us into this discussion, must be very ignorant of the state of things 
 across the Atlantic, or totally heedless of the consequence of their assaults 
 upon us here with their imported weapons. I advise them to be quiet. 
 
 The next passage is as little founded in decency as it is fact, "that 
 the Catholic priesthood of these kingdoms" are "in a state similar to 
 the Spanish clergy," that this "may explain the support which they 
 seem to give to oaths so abhorrent from the belief of their Church," viz. 
 "those which must precede the admission of Catholics into Parliament." 
 "If there are conscientious believers amongst the Catholic priesthood, 
 they are either forced into silence or they deprecate those oaths. ' ' 
 
 Here are a number of distinct and calumnious falsehoods brought 
 forward to explain a fable. 
 
 The fable is, that the Catholics previous to being admitted into Par- 
 liament engaged to swear that they will support and defend the Church 
 of England. The calumnious falsehoods are — 
 
 1. That very few Spanish priests whose talents or acquirements 
 were above contempt, adhered conscientiously to their religion. 
 
 2. That only the supposition of the Irish and English Catholic 
 priesthood being in a similar state could rationally explain their conduct. 
 
 3. That the oath required of Catholics previous to their admission 
 into Parliament, is abhorrent from the belief of their Church. 
 
 This proposition, perhaps, is not a falsehood, for it is nonsense. I 
 do not know how an oath can feel horror, or how it can be abhorrent 
 from belief: however, as Mr. White is a foreigner, I shall give what I 
 suppose he meant by what he wrote, viz: 
 
 The oath is in opposition to the tenets of the Catholic Church. 
 
 4. In those cases, conscientious believers deprecate and condemn 
 the oath and engagement. 
 
 5. But in those cases they are forced into silence. 
 
 6. Such force has been used in similar cases. 
 
 7. The engagement implies either a renunciation of the tenet ex- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 405 
 
 eluding Protestants from the benefits of the Gospel promises or a shock- 
 ing indifference to the eternal welfare of man. 
 
 The last is not so properly a false statement as a false inference, 
 and may be dismissed by merely observing that the disjunction is not 
 good, as several middle propositions might be found as alternatives ; and 
 next, as the engagement is only a promise not to seek for restitution of 
 Church property, it has nothing to do either with Gospel promises or in- 
 difference to man's salvation. 
 
 An attempt is made in the following, to sustain the sixth proposi- 
 tion : — 
 
 I recollect something about the persecution of Mr. Gandolphy, a London priest, 
 who was obliged to appeal to Rome against the persecution of his brethren, for expos- 
 ing too freely the doctrines which might increase the difficulties of the Catholic eman- 
 cipation. The Pope did not condemn him. Since I have seen the case of Mr. Gan- 
 dolphy stated in an able publication Croly's Popery and the Popish Question. Mr. 
 G's doctrines were highly approved at Rome. 
 
 It would have been much more to the purpose to state correctly and 
 fully the proof than to pretend it existed. Mr. Gandolphy's case has 
 nothing in it which can support the truth of the above proposition : as I 
 do not wish to encumber my matter unnecessarily, I shall only say, I 
 am ready to meet any attempt of this description when it shall be made. 
 
 It is very strange also to find that Mr. Gandolphy who wrote in 
 London, and published his book in that city, and who appealed, as it is 
 said, to Rome, and was, as it is said, sustained by Rome, was forced to 
 be silent. Could the "venerable body" explain what this sort of silence 
 means? Writing, speaking, printing, publishing, appealing, obtaining 
 the approbation of the supreme tribunal for what was so written, said, 
 printed and published, means, being forced into silence! ! Wonderful 
 discovery ! ! ! White, in addition to his other good qualities, has proved 
 himself to be the very pink of lexicographers. I must close this letter. 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XXV 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Feb. 26, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — I now come to the topic which has, during centuries, 
 afforded a most prolific source of calumny, and an abundant theme of 
 declamation to our opponents. I shall enter upon it at some length ; you 
 will therefore have need of patience, and my excuse must be found in the 
 importance of the subject and the injustice of our assailants. 
 
 White continues in the following strain : 
 
406 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 "If 3'our leaders, whom it would be uncharitable to suspect of the 
 latter feeling, have so far receded from the Roman creed as to allow us 
 the common privileges of Christianity, and can conscientiously swear to 
 protect and encourage the interests of the Church of England, let them, 
 in the name of truth, speak openly before the world, and be the first to 
 remove that obstacle to mutual benevolence, and perfect community of 
 political privileges — the doctrine of exclusive salvation in your Church. 
 Cancel but that one article from your creed, and all liberal men in 
 Europe will offer you the right-hand of fellowship. Your other doc- 
 trines concern but yourselves ; this endangers the peace and freedom of 
 every man living, and that in proportion to your goodness ; it makes your 
 very benevolence a curse. ' ' 
 
 The doctrine of exclusive salvation is the vision which appals the 
 lisping infant in the nursery, is given as the schoolboy's theme, rounds 
 the period of joyous graduates at commencement-day, affords scope 
 for the amplification of the spouter at the sanctified assembly of col- 
 lectors of cents, rouses the ire of the raving enthusiast, fills the eye of 
 deluded piety, and is as solemnly given by doting age as it is flippantly 
 stated by careless infidelity to be the attribute of Popery, the char- 
 acteristic of our Church, the mark of Antichrist. What in the name of 
 wonder is the meaning of this cabalistic phrase; this so frequently re-. 
 peated, and so little understood, expression? The phrase, taken in its 
 obvious meaning, is, that salvation is to be had only in some special way, 
 that is by that mode to the exclusion of all others. In this general prin- 
 ciple every human being agrees, that there is some one way which man 
 must follow to be saved. When I say every human being, I mean every 
 one who believes in a state of salvation and in a state of damnation; 
 even the Universalist, who says that all will ultimately be saved, is in- 
 cluded, for he believes that there is at least a purgatory, though not a 
 hell : and this purgatory is so far a state of damnation. 
 
 There is not a human being then who does not hold the doctrine of 
 exclusive salvation: the difference of their belief consists only in the 
 different extent and description of the exclusion. The Deist excludes 
 the murderer and the robber: the Mahometan excludes the infidel: the 
 Christian requires the belief of the doctrines of Jesus Christ and a 
 conformity to his law on the part of all those to whom that 
 law is promulgated; the Presbyterian, who believes in the Trinity, 
 excludes the Socinian and the Unitarian; the Episcopalian ex- 
 cludes those who have not apostolical ministry, or who wilfully or 
 carelessly follow corrupt doctrine. Thus, in a word, there is no re- 
 ligious division which does not exclude many persons from salvation. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 407 
 
 If, therefore, the doctrine of exclusive salvation be "an obstacle to per- 
 fect community of political privileges," every sect which in any way 
 acquired political privileges must suppose itself justified in not admitting 
 others to any participation therein. Is this the political doctrine of 
 Bishop Kemp and the "venerable body?" And yet how White and 
 they inveigh against Spain and South America! The doctrine of ex- 
 clusive salvation, then, means the belief that only some persons will be 
 saved. Would White have us believe that all persons will be saved? 
 Yet he would call himself a Christian, and a member of the Church of 
 England; of that Church whose 18th article is in the following words: 
 
 "They also are to be had accursed, that presume to say, that every 
 man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be 
 diligent to frame his life according to that law, and the light of nature. 
 For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ, 
 whereby men must be saved." 
 
 In 1814, White tells us, page 32, Evidence, that he subscribed this 
 article: thus he subscribed the doctrine of exclusive salvation. Bishop 
 Kemp, subscribed, this same doctrine, for he subscribed the same article. 
 
 In the Preshyterian Confession of Faith for the Church in the 
 United States, published in 1821, chapter x. Of effectual calling, section 
 iv, it is stated as follows : 
 
 "Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry 
 of the word, and may have some common operations of the spirit, yet 
 they never truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much 
 less can men, not possessing the Christian religion, be saved in any other 
 way whatsoever, be they sever so diligent to frame their lives ac- 
 cording to the law of nature, and the law of that religion they do pro- 
 fess; and to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious and 
 to be detested." 
 
 This Confession of Faith is adopted by some of the venerable body 
 which has charged the holding of the doctrine of exclusive salvation 
 to be making our very benevolence a curse, and makes us dangerous 
 to the peace and freedom of every man living. The same doctrine is 
 found word for word in the corresponding chapter and section of the 
 Confession of Faith of the Associate and Reformed Church, following 
 the Church of Scotland, in the United States of America, as published 
 in 1813. This denomination is, I believe, generally known by the ap- 
 pellation of "Covenanters." I add here, the questions and answers 
 upon the subject from the larger catechism, which are in the Presby- 
 terian and Covenanting Churches word for word the same, page 194, 
 Presbyterian. 
 
408 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 "Q. 59. Who are made partakers of redemption through Christ? 
 
 "A. Redemption is certainly applied, and effectually communi- 
 cated, to all those for whom Christ hath purchased it; who are in time 
 by the Holy Ghost enabled to believe in Christ : according to the Gospel. 
 
 "Q. 60. Can they who have never heard the Gospel, and so know 
 not Jesus Christ, nor believe in him, be saved by their living according 
 to the light of nature? 
 
 "A. They who having never heard the Gospel, know not Jesus 
 Christ, and believe not in him, cannot be saved, be they never so dili- 
 gent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, or the laws 
 of that religion which they profess; neither is there salvation in any 
 other, but in Christ alone, who is the Saviour only of his body, the 
 Church. 
 
 "Q. 61. Are all they saved who hear the Gospel, and live in the 
 Church? 
 
 "A. All that hear the Gospel, and live in the visible Church, are 
 not saved ; but only they who are true members of the Church invisible. 
 
 ''Q. 62. What is the visible Church? 
 
 "A. The visible Church is a society made up of all such as in all 
 ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their 
 children. 
 
 ' ' Q. 68. Are the elect only effectually called ? 
 
 "A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although 
 others may be and often are outwardly called by the ministry of the 
 word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their 
 wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly 
 left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ. ' ' 
 
 Surely the gentlemen who teach this catechism will not deny that 
 they teach a doctrine of exclusive salvation. 
 
 The Confession of Faith of the Reformed Dutch Church of the 
 United States of America, published in New York in 1815, has the xxviii 
 article of its doctrine in the following words : 
 
 "That every one is bound to join himself to the true Church." 
 
 "We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those 
 who are saved, and that out of it there is no salvation, that no person, 
 of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw himself, 
 to live in a separate state from it; but that all men are in duty bound 
 to join and unite themselves with it, maintaining the unity of the 
 Church; submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; 
 bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ ; and as mutual mem- 
 bers of the same body, serving to the edification of the brethren, ac- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 409 
 
 cording to the talents God has given them. And that this may be the 
 more effectually observed, it is the duty of all believers, according to 
 the word of God, to separate themselves from all those who do not be- 
 long to the Church, and to join themselves to this congregation, where- 
 soever God hath established it, even though the magistrates and the 
 edicts of princes were against it; yea, though they should suffer death 
 or any other corporeal punishment. Therefore all those, who separate 
 themselves from the same, or do not join themselves to it, act contrary 
 to the ordinance of God." 
 
 The doctrine of exclusive salvation is not only taught by those 
 whose Confessions and Catechisms I have here cited, but by all others, 
 as I have before asserted, and shall hereafter more fully show, but 1 
 have here quoted only a few as samples of all. 
 
 I have now arrived at this point, that the general principle of the 
 doctrine is not peculiar to our Church, but is common to every species 
 of religious association : that the only difference between them consists 
 on this head, of where the line is to be drawn within which, they who 
 are in the way of salvation are to be found, and without which, they 
 who are criminal and in a state of danger are left. 
 
 Before, however, I proceed to make that farther inquiry as to 
 whether the Church to which we belong, or its opponents, act more 
 reasonably and charitably in drawing this line, I shall make a previous 
 inquiry, in order to rectify vague impressions, which are but too com- 
 mon, and whose vagueness and indistinctness make the doctrine appear 
 what it really is not. 
 
 Suppose for instance I were to ask Bishop Kemp whether he has 
 the power of condemning any person to hell; he would very properly 
 and very naturally feel astonished at my gross ignorance, or unblush- 
 ing effrontery, and he would in all Christian humility assure me that 
 he had not. Let me ask the question of any one of his associates; I 
 know, very naturally, that I shall be told in the same manner that he 
 disclaims having any such power; that to pretend to its possession or 
 exercise would, in him, be arrogance and blasphemy. But I tell them, 
 that they have one and all, excluded from heaven and condemned to hell 
 a large portion of the human race: for they have decided upon their 
 damnation in those articles to which they have subscribed. The an- 
 swer of the venerable body, will be very simple, and I believe very suf- 
 ficient. It will be that in stating a plain fact, they only testify what 
 they know, but the regulation lay not with them: they will tell me, 
 that God, and he only, made the regulation, and that they only do as 
 
410 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 St. Paul did when he wrote, ^^ "Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor 
 idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with 
 mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor ex- 
 tortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God : ' ' they merely testify what 
 God has regulated, not what they are disposed to do, or have the power 
 of doing. They will still farther tell me that they consider it to be an 
 evidence of kindness towards an unfortunate sinner to give him this in- 
 formation ; that the declaration is made by the Apostle to remove a de- 
 lusion; to save the sinner from destruction, not to send him to per- 
 dition. They will add that the Apostle wrote also i^^ "Without faith it is 
 impossible to please him," (God) ; and that our Saviour said, ^^ "He that 
 believeth and is baptised shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shaU 
 be damned, ' ' and therefore it is charity and kindness on their part and 
 not any bad disposition towards the unfortunate fellow-beings whom 
 they desire to save, [which] urges them to testify that those things are 
 necessary to salvation. White himself, they would swear, agrees with 
 them in stating-, page 72, that approbation of error in doctrine would 
 argue "a shocking indifference to the eternal welfare of man." Such, 
 I am convinced, would be their answer substantially, if not in words. 
 The conclusions which they would have us draw from it are, "That 
 to declare plainly what we believe is required by God for salvation, is 
 not to dictate to God upon what terms he must save man." "That our 
 plain declaration of what we believe to be against God's law, is not on 
 our part to doom to hell, the guilty person." "That our simple decla- 
 ration of what we believe to be necessary for salvation, accompanied 
 with an admonition to those who refuse conformity, of the danger of 
 their destruction; is not a v/ant of charity for them: in several in- 
 stances, would be the best evidence of our affection for themselves, and 
 of our zeal for their welfare." 
 
 I am, for own part, fully satisfied with the correctness of this 
 reasoning: 1 give the full benefit of it to the venerable body, upon the 
 condition that they do in like manner to me; and we shall then have 
 arrived at this conclusion : The doctrine of exclusive salvation is no evi- 
 dence of uncharitableness in those who hold it. It might create party 
 spirit, but not as its necessary consequence. 
 
 Having cleared up so much of our way, I now^ complain of that 
 gross and palpable injustice which makes criminal in the Catholic what 
 is not rebuked in his opponents; which perpetually accuses us of il- 
 
 "I Cor. vi. 9. — King James's Version. 
 " Heb. xi, 6. 
 ''Mark xvi, 16. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 411 
 
 liberality for what is never charged as illiberal against our assailants: 
 I complain that too many persons talk of uncharitable doctrines where 
 they do not exist : and exhibit us as exclusively uncharitable in holding 
 a tenet which is not peculiar to ourselves, but which is held in com- 
 mon by every religious society : because in truth all hold the doctrine of 
 exclusive salvation, but the point of dispute is, where shall the line be 
 drawn. 
 
 I shall state where we draw it, let others draw for themselves. The 
 first principle of a Roman Catholic is : man is bound to believe all that 
 God teaches, and to do all that God commands: whosoever refuses to 
 believe what God proposes or to obey what he commands, is not in 
 God's Church; and out of his Church there is no salvation. A question 
 next presents itself, as to how the fact of what God teaches and com- 
 mands can be ascertained by man, and upon this a Roman Catholic be- 
 lieves, that when God made the revelation of his truths and of his pre- 
 cepts, he entrusted their preservation to a society for which he estab- 
 lished a special constitution and government; and that this society was 
 by his ordinance to continue at all times the witness of the facts, and 
 that this divinely commissioned witness was his Church; whether we 
 view it in the patriarchal aggregation before the days of Moses ; in the 
 Aaronitic and Levitical body and their adherents to the coming of 
 Christ ; or in the Apostles and their successors and adherents, thence, to 
 the end of the world. The Roman Catholic believes that the testimony 
 of this body is the evidence of the truth of doctrine, and of precept, and 
 of divine institution to those to whom that testimony is given ; and that 
 the unbounded mercy of God may provide extraordinary help for those 
 who have never received this testimony or who have never clearly seen 
 its foundation of certainty based upon the truth and power, and com- 
 mission of God himself. Thus all they who profess their belief of what 
 God has taught by the testimony of the Church are in its invisible so- 
 ciety : but several comprised in this society will be excluded from salva- 
 tion, because of their violation of the precepts; and probably several 
 who do not now appear in that society, may by the extraordinary grace 
 and favor of our merciful God be brought within its bosom by belief, 
 and practice, and profession : and though this external profession should 
 never be made, we cannot pass our judgment upon individuals of whose 
 opportunities and dispositions God alone can judge. We therefore say 
 that all who are separated from the Church are in error : but we cannot 
 say that all who are now in error will be excluded from heaven : neither 
 can we say that all who die under delusion are criminal : because there 
 can be no criminality without either neglect of the opportunities which 
 
412 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 existed, for the discovery of truth, or the obstinate rejection of dis- 
 covered truth, or the base shame of professing what one knows to be 
 truth: and we may charitably hope that those exceptions will cover a 
 multitude. Thus our doctrine of exclusive salvation unites truth and 
 charity together. ^^ 
 
 I shall pursue this subject in my next. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XXVI 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Nov. 5, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — It has too long and too generally been the impression 
 in these States, that the doctrine of exclusive salvation is peculiar to 
 the Roman Catholic Church; you now perceive that such is not the 
 fact; you are aware of its being the doctrine of every religious society. 
 Having ascertained this point, I now proceed to make an historical in- 
 quiry, of great importance to the cause of Christianity, and to the vin- 
 dication of our own character. The general impression is also in America, 
 that it was our Church which, with a ruthless and tyrannical spirit, 
 created that separation of Christians which here so lamentably exists: 
 that it was we who banished from our society, and denounced damnation 
 against the Protestants for their merely being obedient to the dictates 
 of conscience ; — are these facts ? — Let us examine. 
 
 Of one fact there can be no doubt, viz. that in Europe at the com- 
 mencement of the fifteenth century, Christians were in a religious 
 unity; we will, if our opponents require it, admit, for argument sake, 
 that this was a unity of error. But if this error were not calculated to 
 destroy man's hope of salvation, there could be no excuse for departing 
 therefrom: whoever went out could justify that procedure only upon 
 the ground of the error into which that united body had fallen, being 
 
 " The vigorous Bishop here, leans towards the milder interpretation of the doc- 
 trine that * ' Outside the Church there is no salvation. ' ' It would make interesting 
 reading: to place in parallel lines this opinion of Bishop England and the uncom- 
 promising interpretation given the same doctrine by the no less vigorous and equally 
 kind Bishop Hay, author of The Sincere Christian. Bishop England, by no means, 
 intends to console Protestants with the thought that the sects to which they may 
 belong are the way to salvation — Nor does he wish to convey the idea that the 
 attainment of salvation is as easy for the Protestant as it is for the Catholic. There 
 is absolutely no hope for the Protestant unless he be in entire ' ' good faith ' ' and 
 faithfully fulfil his duties to God and man according to the knowledge which he i3 
 possessed. No man can enter heaven unless he be in sanctifying grace. Considering 
 the pronenesss of human mating to mortal sin and the almost insuperable difficulty 
 of obtaining pardon save through the medium of the Sacrament of Penance, the hope 
 of Salvation for Protestants is reduced to the minimum. — Ed. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 413 
 
 so grievous, as that a communion therein would exclude the participator 
 from salvation. And in fact, the persons who led off the separatists 
 gave this as the reason for their secession ; they called upon all others to 
 follow them, as they loved their souls and desired to avoid damnation. 
 In the words of a very uncharitable and libellous Protestant Catechism 
 printed in 1824, by J. Crissy, and G. Goodman, in Philadelphia; and 
 published by The Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church, for the 
 advancement of Christianity in Pennsylvania, for The Episcopal Fe- 
 male Tract Society of Philadelphia, we find what they have stated : 
 after the assertion of several calumnies it asks, 
 
 Q. Can you name any other errors and corruptions of the Church 
 of Rome? 
 
 A. Several others might be named; but those already mentioned 
 are abundantly sufficient to show that the Church of Rome hath, in a 
 great measure, changed the pure and holy religion of Christ, into a 
 most wretched and dangerous superstition. 
 
 Q. What do you think of those who live in the communion of so 
 corrupt a Church? 
 
 A. That they are under a most grievous bondage; and therefore 
 
 I heartily pity them and pray for their conversion. 
 
 Q. What do you think of those who separate themselves from the 
 Church of Rome ? May they do it lawfully ? 
 
 A. They not only may, but are indispensably bound by God's 
 command to renounce all such idolatrous and sinful practices, and may 
 rest assured of his favor in so doing. ''Come out from among them, 
 and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing ; and I will receive 
 you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 
 
 II Cor. vi, 17. 
 
 As one of the objects of their pity, I feel under such obligations to 
 the good ladies of this society in the city of Philadelphia, that if God 
 spares my life, I shall pay them no slight or evanescent attention. Mean- 
 time I shall feel obliged to any friend who will forward to B. C. through 
 the office of the Miscellany, the list of the officers and members of this 
 society in the year 1823, and thence to the present period ; and I hereby 
 tender my thanks to the person who forwarded this pretty tract to the 
 Bishop, from whom I have received it; I had not previously seen a 
 copy. My statement then is, that if there be want of charity in calling 
 persons by provoking names for holding alleged doctrinal errors; that 
 want of charity did not originate with Roman Catholics; if there be 
 criminality in asserting that persons cannot be saved by following their 
 fathers in the profession which they had made of the Christian faith, 
 
414 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 that criminality is not of Catholic origin ; if separation because of doc- 
 trinal error is a curse to the world, that curse was not inflicted by 
 Catholics. I shall proceed to show that we have been sinned against, 
 and that the transgressors have imputed to us their own acts. I repeat 
 my former assertion: and I shall fully prove its truth. We did not 
 separate from the Protestants. Their fathers and our fathers were in 
 the same Church, and their fathers left ours, alleging that they could 
 not be saved if they remained in the communion from which they de- 
 parted. AVith them originated the charge against our predecessors: let 
 them retract the charge and renew the union : let them bring back things 
 to that state in which they were at the time of this unf orunate division : 
 let them come in amongst us and we shall do every thing in our power 
 to gratify, and to conciliate them: but we cannot charge our commoQ 
 ancestors with having destroyed the purity of Christ's religion, for we 
 do not believe they did. How then, shall we be re-united, unless they 
 come to us, or we follow them? We state that we have kept the doc- 
 trine unchanged — if such be the fact, and they do not object to our 
 present doctrines, their fathers made a sad mistake, which it is the 
 duty of our friends to correct: if our present doctrines are such as 
 they do not object to, we ask them only to embrace those doctrines 
 which we now hold, but if they tell us that these are damnable and 
 idolatrous, are they not now repeating the assertion of the first separatists 
 that there is no salvation in our Church, and that they cannot come 
 back ; that the union would destroy truth which God commanded them 
 to preserve. Thus we only stand upon that ground of doctrine upon 
 which their fathers and ours, have during centuries, stood together : their 
 fathers left us and made new Churches, alleging, that they would be 
 criminal if they did not : we perpetually invite their re-union, and they 
 answer by telling us, that all who desire salvation ought to leave us, 
 for that we have corrupted the purity of God's religion; we state that 
 our consciences testify to us that we have not, and that the evidence of 
 history proves that we have only followed the Apostles, and made no 
 doctrinal changes; we invite them to follow what this evidence makes 
 plain, and to be re-united. We are again told that we are superstitious 
 and idolatrous, and that their value for the salvation of their souls pre- 
 vents their uniting in our idolatry, and they have the modesty to state 
 that we shock the pious and destroy charity by our doctrine of ex- 
 clusive salvation. "Cancel but that one article from your creed, and 
 all liberal men in Europe will offer you the right-hand of fellowship." 
 Is not this worse than ludicrous? But the next assertion is, more ab- 
 surd if possible. "Your other doctrines concern but yourselves." Why, 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 415 
 
 was it not upon the very score of those other doctrines the separation 
 was made? is it not upon their score the separation is continued? If 
 you, good gentlemen of the "venerable body," will unite with us in 
 professing the other doctrines, we shall cancel this as far as it regards, 
 you. No ! you cannot, you say, adopt our doctrines. Why then exliibit 
 such an absurdity as the assertion that those doctrines concerned only 
 ourselves? I have frequently had to wade through nonsense and self- 
 contradiction, but never have I felt it so thick and muddy as in this 
 book, so lauded, by so venerable a body! 
 
 This topic must not be too hastily passed over ; I shall take two or 
 three of the divisions of our opposed phalanx, and test the assertion by 
 facts. I shall with all due deference begin with him who has been put 
 forward as the leader in our denunciation. Bishop Kemp, and shall pay 
 my respects to his Church. 
 
 In examining the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States 
 of America, I shall use only her own standard book, and the thirty -nine 
 articles as she has curtailed them : so that, I shall not be accused of do- 
 ing as they have done who published White's Evidence. I shall treat 
 them with all fairness and honor. 
 
 In article xviii, as was seen in our last, she teaches that they are to 
 be accursed, that presume to say that men may be saved in any law or 
 sect, for there is only the name of Christ whereby man must be saved. I 
 take the meaning of this to be, that all who do not hold the right and 
 true Christian faith, are excluded from salvation. 
 
 The xxxvth article is in the following words : — 
 
 Art. XXXV. Of Homilies. 
 
 "The Second Booh of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have 
 joined, under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, 
 and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, 
 which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth ; and therefore we 
 judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers diligently and dis- 
 tinctly, that they may be imderstanded of the people. 
 Of the Names of the Homilies. 
 
 1. Of the right Use of the Church. 
 
 2. Against Peril of Idolatry. 
 
 3. Of Repairing and Keeping Clean of Churches. 
 
 4. Of good works ; first of Fasting. 
 
 5. Against Gluttony and Drunkenness. 
 
 6. Against Excess of Apparel. 
 
 7. Of Prayer. , 
 
416 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 8. Of the Place and Time of Prayer. 
 
 9. That Common Prayer and Sacraments ought to be ministered 
 in a known Tongue. 
 
 10. Of the Reverent Estimation of God's Word. 
 
 11. Of Alms-doing. 
 
 12. Of the Nativity of Christ. 
 
 13. Of the Passion of Christ. 
 
 14. Of the Resurrection of Christ. 
 
 15. Of the unworthy receiving of the Sacrament of the Body and 
 Blood of Christ. 
 
 16. Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 17. For the Rogation-days. 
 
 18. Of the State of Matrimony. 
 
 19. Of Repentance. 
 
 20. Against Idleness. 
 
 21. Against Rebellion." 
 
 The exception taken by the American Church is in the following 
 words : 
 
 This Article is received in this Church, so far as it declares the 
 Book of Homilies to be an explication of Christian doctrine, and in- 
 structive in piety and morals. But all references to the constitution 
 and laws of England are considered as inapplicable to the circumstances 
 of this Church, which also suspends the order for the reading of said 
 Homilies in Churches, until a revision of them may be conveniently 
 made, for the clearing of them, as well from obsolete words and phrases, 
 as from local references. 
 
 This exception is an adoption of the doctrine contained in the 
 Homilies — whatever therefore has no local reference, or is not based 
 upon the British constitution, or British law, in the Homilies, is adopted 
 as a good explanation of the doctrine of the American Church. 
 
 Those Homilies are stated in the article to be comprised in two 
 books ; the first was set forth m the time of Edward VI, the second in 
 the time of Elizabeth. They are both stated "to contain godly and 
 w^holesome doctrine," "and necessary for the time," viz. a time of 
 transition from the Catholic to the Protestant doctrine. 
 
 My quotations are taken from the edition by Swords, 160 Pearl 
 street, New York, 1815. In the third part of the Sermon on Salvation, 
 page 25, is the following passage: 
 
 "For the right and true Christian faith is not only to believe holy 
 Scripture, and all the foresaid articles of our faith, are true; but also 
 to have a sure trust and confidence in God's promises, to be saved from 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 417 
 
 everlasting damnation by Christ: whereof doth follow a loving heart to 
 obey his commandments." 
 
 I shall now state what I take to be the constituent parts of Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Faith. (1). A belief of the doctrines contained in 
 the Scriptures; the Nicene and Apostles' Creed are but partial specifica- 
 tions under this general head; I assume that the belief of the articles 
 themselves is another specification. (2). Confidence in the promises of 
 salvation through the merits of Christ. (3). And, as a consequence of 
 this belief and confidence, the love of God manifested in the observance 
 of his commandments. Thus, what they call faith comprises, our, 1, 
 faith; 2, hope; 3, charity. 
 
 Now the want of any constituent part of faith destroys its exist- 
 ence; hence, erroneous belief being a want of belief of true doctrine, is 
 destructive of faith, and consequently excludes from salvation. 
 
 I shall now advert to a very few of our doctrines, which the English 
 Church and the American Church call erroneous, and for the holding of 
 which, we are upon their principles excluded from salvation. 
 
 I shall not now stop to examine either of the articles x, or xi, or xii, 
 but I shall take the xiiith. The Roman Catholic Church always held 
 that in the Scriptures we are taught, that no work is deserving of God's 
 kingdom, or of everlasting salvation, unless it be done by the special 
 aid or grace of God, given for that purpose, through the merits of Jesus 
 Christ ; but she also taught, that many good, moral acts might be done by 
 persons who had no faith, or the belief of the true doctrine, which acts, 
 though not deserving of heaven, were yet performed in virtue of God's 
 special aid ; and so far from being sinful, were frequently rewarded by 
 God with temporal blessings, and were also, as it were, inducements to 
 him to bestow more ample and abundant and efficacious graces upon 
 those persons who corresponded with his first aid. Those moral, good 
 works were done before the performer had faith, or was justified; but 
 they frequently made him meet for sanctifying grace, and by a sort of 
 congruity or fitness deserved from the mercy of heaven, through the 
 merits of the Redeemer, what could not be claimed upon the score of 
 justice. 
 
 The Protestants, in the days of Edward VI, said that this was a 
 blasphemous error of the Catholic Church, and stated that those works 
 done without faith were all sins, and however good they might appear, 
 yet they not only were not preparations for grace, but had the nature 
 of sin. Thus, a man M^ho erred concerning a doctrine, or who wanted 
 full confidence in the promises of salvation through Christ, committed 
 sin, when he relieved his sick or destitute brother from motives of mere 
 
418 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 humanity or compassion. Yes, I repeat the statement. The Catholic 
 said it was an act of human virtue, and done in consequence of God's 
 aid, and was meet to receive some reward, perhaps grace, from God's 
 mercy ; but the Protestant said it was a sin, as being done without faith, 
 and deserved therefore no reward, and that it was a blasphemy to be- 
 lieve as the Catholic Church did; and that whoever desired salvation 
 should separate themselves from the superstitions and blaspheming 
 Catholics. Let me not be condemned until my proof shall have been 
 examined. 
 
 The thirteenth article of the Protestant Episcopal Church is — 
 
 "Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his 
 spirit, are not pleasant to God, for as much as they spring not of faith 
 in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as 
 the school authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea rather, for that 
 they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, 
 we doubt not but they have the nature of sin." 
 
 What would be said of our bigotry and infatuation were we to as- 
 sert that a benevolent Unitarian, or a humane Quaker, neither of whom 
 has Protestant faith, had no merit for relieving a sick family, but that 
 we doubted not but this act of his had in it the nature of sin ? The doc- 
 trine of our predecessors was, as ours is, that the act would be meri- 
 torious of increase of eternal life, through the merits of Christ, if done 
 under the influence of his grace by a justified person; but, under any 
 circumstances, when done even through mere motives of natural virtue, 
 from pure benevolence without faith, it would not be sinful, but would 
 be virtuous, and would have a sort of claim of congruity upon the 
 Author of good to bestow some favor upon the benevolent performers. 
 This, however, is one of our Papistical errors, and one of so deep a dye 
 of criminality, as to be a cause for leaving our communion ! As I be- 
 lieve several of my readers may yet be inclined to doubt the truth of 
 my statement, the above article notwithstanding, I shall go more fully 
 into the case. 
 
 In the second paragraph of the Homily on Salvation, page 21, after 
 stating a variety of arguments, of the value of which I now take no no- 
 tice, to support the doctrine of the article xi, that we are justified by 
 faith only, and upon which rests chiefly the assertion in article xiii, that 
 works done before faith have the nature of sin, the following passage is 
 found: "This faith the Holy Scripture teacheth us; this is the strong 
 rock and foundation of the Christian religion ; this doctrine all old and 
 ancient authors of Christ's Church do approve; this doctrine advanceth 
 and setteth forth the true glory of Christ, and beateth down the vain 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 419 
 
 glory of man ; this whoever denieth is not to be accounted for a Christian 
 man, nor for a setter forth of Christ's glory, but for an adversary to 
 Christ and his Gospel, and for a setter forth of man's vain glory," and 
 so forth. 
 
 In the next page, the compiler of the homily insinuates a gross 
 falsehood, viz. that Catholics claimed to be justified by their works, 
 when, in fact, they assert that man is justified only by God, but they 
 do not assert that useful works done with good natural motives were 
 sinful, though the performer of those works were an infidel. 
 
 They always held that the works of natural virtue were not bad, 
 though not sufficient for salvation ; that he who aided by God performed 
 such works, had by his obedience to the natural law, and his co-oper- 
 ation with the aid of heaven, a claim of congruity upon the further aid 
 of a merciful God, so that by his co-operation with the first grace, or aid 
 and preparation, or disposition, he became meet to receive from a mer- 
 ciful God a second grace, by means whereof God might justify him in 
 his sight. 
 
 Now, if I can show that the Protestant Churches stated as a reason 
 for their separation from the Roman Catholics, that our Church erred in 
 extending the possibility of salvation to a greater number of persons, 
 and a more diversified description of persons than Protestanis did, I 
 shall have shown that their doctrine of exclusive salvation is more il- 
 liberal than is ours. 
 
 Having taken the general view which I laid before you, we are 
 better prepared to enter upon the examination of details. And first, we 
 have seen that in article xviii they are called Accursed, who say that 
 a man may he saved by diligently framing his life, according to the 
 principles of the law of his sect and the light of nature, for he cannot 
 be saved unless by the name of Christ. In article xvii, we are informed 
 who they are that shall be saved, viz. the predestined, they who be justi- 
 fied freely, who are "made the sons of God by adoption," who "be made 
 like to the image of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ," who "walk re- 
 ligiously in good works." In article xiii, we are told that works which 
 spring not of faith in Jesus Christ are not good, but they have the na- 
 ture of sin. In article xii, good works "do spring out necessarily of a 
 true and lively faith." In article xi, "we are justified by faith 
 only." In the first part of the Sermon on Faith {Homilies, page 
 29), "without faith no good works can be done, which shall be 
 acceptable and pleasant to God." In the homily, page 25, we are 
 told that the foundation of this faith is the belief of the doctrines of 
 Christ. "For the right and true Christian faith is not only to believe 
 
420 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 that Holy Scripture and all the foresaid articles of our faith are true, 
 but also to have a sure trust and confidence in God's merciful promises, 
 to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ, whereof doth follow 
 a loving heart to obey his commandments." Here the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church is, at least, equally exclusive in principle as is ours. I 
 shall now point out an essential difference in favor of the liberality of 
 our tenets. First, we do not exclude from the chance of salvation those 
 persons who, not having heard of the name of Jesus Christ, are diligent 
 to frame their lives according to that law which they have received, and 
 to the light of nature : though we may run the risk of being denounced 
 by Bishop Kemp as Accursed for our presumption ; we refer him for our 
 excuse to the second chapter of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. 
 Secondly, we do not say that all works which do not spring from faith 
 have the nature of sin, and thus we do not say that the acts of benevo- 
 lence and sincere prayers of Unitarians or Deists are offensive to God, 
 as everything must be which has the nature of sin. Thirdly, we do not 
 say that God is not moved by those works, to look with kindness upon 
 the performers, but we do say that, although these works were not the 
 result of his sanctifying or justifying grace, they were the results of the 
 co-operation of the free will of the performer with the sufficient grace 
 which God had bestowed ; and that this co-operation was an act of virtue 
 which makes the agent meet to receive grace, and inclines God to be- 
 stow it : that although the agent has no claim of justice upon the author 
 of grace, by reason of his co-operation, yet by reason thereof, and the 
 mercy of heaven, there is a congruity of fitness for more grace. White 
 would never have written as he did, if he were even a tolerable theologian ; 
 perhaps the tenets of their own Churches, as exhibited in their own 
 doctrinal books, will appear strange to many of our assailants. The 
 truth is, they generally speak and write upon subjects of which they 
 know little, and are therefore inconsistent with themselves. I defy them 
 now to subvert this proposition : ' ' The doctrine of exclusive salvation, 
 as taught by the Roman Catholic Church, is far more liberal and more 
 charitable, than the doctrine of exclusive salvation taught by the Pro- 
 testant Church of England, or by the Protestant Episcopal Church of 
 the United States of America." Should this be questioned by any per- 
 son, I shall take no notice of rhapsody or of rhetoric, but I am ready 
 to maintain its truth by documentary evidence, and the only docu- 
 ments which I will use or admit, are the doctrinal decisions or formu- 
 laries, and authorized interpretations of public official bodies, or officers 
 of both Churches. 
 
 I shall now proceed to shew that one of the reasons for separating 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 421 
 
 from our Church was her alleged error upon the above and other heads 
 of doctrine. In the second part of the Sermon on Good Works, (Homi- 
 lies, page 41,) the professed object is to shew what works spring out of 
 true faith and lead men to everlasting life, and it is answered the ob- 
 servance of God's commandments. The sermon then continues to shew 
 how men left the commandments, and devising what they called good 
 works, fell into idolatry. God sent Moses to take away their blindness ; 
 but the Jews "esteeming their own fantasies and devotions to be better 
 than the institutions of God," invented pilgrimages and precious deck- 
 ings of images, censing them," and so forth. "Priests and people were 
 corrupted and blindly deceived with these abominations," until Josa- 
 phat, Josias, and Ezechias and others destroyed the same clearly, and 
 brought the people from such their feigned inventions, unto the very 
 commandments of God." When Christ came, he reproved them for sub- 
 stituting the traditions of men for the commandments of God. In the 
 third part of the sermon, page 45, it is stated that the same dereliction 
 of the commandments of God for "such works as men have studied out 
 of their own brain," has displeased God, — after a long enumeration of 
 the "false doctrine, superstition, idolatry, hypocrisy, and other abuses," 
 and the usual subterfuge of conscious calumny, page 46, "which super- 
 stition, although (thanks to God) it had been little used in this realm, 
 yet in divers other realms, it had been and yet is used among many, both 
 learned and unlearned," the following expressions are found, — "Honor 
 be to God, who did put light in the heart of his faithful and true min- 
 ister of most famous memory, King Henry VIII, and gave him the 
 knowledge of his word, and an earnest affection to seek his glory, and 
 to put away all such superstitious and pharisaical sects, by Anti-christ 
 invented and set up against the word, of God, and glory of his most 
 blessed name, as he gave a like spirit unto the most noble and famous 
 princes, Josaphat, Josias, and Ezechias. God grant all us the King's 
 Highness' faithful and true subjects, to feed of the sweet and savoury 
 b^read of God's own word and (as Christ commanded) to eschew all our 
 Pharisaical and Papistical leaven of men 's feigned religion : which al- 
 though it were before God most abominable, and contrary to God 's com- 
 mandments and Christ's pure religion, yet it was praised to be a most 
 godly life, and brightest state of perfection," and so forth. After an 
 enumeration of several "other kinds of Papistical superstitions and 
 abuses," the Homily towards its conclusion, page 49, exhorts to "Flee 
 all idolatory, witchcraft," and so forth. 
 
 For the present, I believe that I have proved our doctrine of ex- 
 clusive salvation to be more liberal than that of Bishop Kemp, and 
 
422 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 next, that it was "that true and faithful minister of God, King Henry 
 VIII, who put away the superstitious, idolatrous, and Pharisaical ad- 
 herents of Antichrist" the Papists. Thus we did not turn out our Pro- 
 testant brethren to be damned, but they left us, lest they should bo 
 lost by remaining in our communion. Is it then not ridiculous in Blanco 
 "White and his American sponsors of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 to upbraid us with our doctrine of exclusive salvation? Do they ex- 
 pect that we shall make ours as illiberal as is theirs? God forbid, that 
 we should exclude from every hope of salvation the poor Indian who 
 dies knowing nothing of Christ, or the Protestant Episcopalian who 
 is perhaps kept from our communion only by the gross misrepresenta- 
 tions of those who ought to know better. God forbid that although 
 we deplore their want of faith, we should say that their works of 
 benevolence, and their sincere prayers have the nature of sin ! If they 
 have for us the charity which we have for them, they will not bear 
 false witness against us. I shall continue this subject. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XXVII 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Mar. 12, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — It is well to keep our eye closely fixed upon the 
 subject of our examination. I am not at present inquiring as to the 
 correctness or the incorrectness of the doctrines of our opponents : but 
 I am ascertaining their several doctrines upon the subject of exclusive 
 salvation, in order to show that our tenets on this head are more liberal 
 than theirs ; and therefore that the charge of illiberality upon this score 
 came with a very bad grace from them : next, I desire to show that it 
 was not we who left their communion, alleging that we could not be 
 saved if we remained therein, but that it was the assertion of their 
 predecessors, that they could not with safe consciences remain in the 
 Church, which was common to them and to our fathers ; and therefore 
 they went out from us. Thus the charge of holding corrupt and 
 damnable doctrines was made upon us, not by us. If it be illiberal and 
 uncharitable for any division of Christians to make such charges against 
 their brethren, let the imputation of want of liberality and charity be 
 east upon those who deserve it: for our parts, nothing will gratify us 
 so much as to receive our brethren back to our communion. Let them 
 only destroy those documents which charge us with having corrupted 
 the doctrine of Christ : let them only admit that we have not erred from 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 423 
 
 the truth of the Gospel, and there shall be peace, harmony and com- 
 munion between them and us again. 
 
 In my last, I have shown that the Church of England, and the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church of America, are more confined in their 
 doctrine of exclusive salvation than is the Koman Catholic Church. I 
 have also shown how they praise God for having raised up that ' ' faithful 
 and true minister of most famous memory. King Henry VIII," to put 
 away our doctrine, "to eschew all our Pharisaical and Papistical leaven 
 of man's feigned religion." I now proceed to the exhibition of the 
 tenets of the Presbyterian Church of the United States : in doing which 
 I use their Confession of Faith and Constitution of their Church, as 
 printed in Philadelphia, and published by Anthony Finley, corner 
 of Chestnut and Fourth streets, 1821, copy-right secured by the Rever- 
 end Ezra Stiles Ely, D. D., by order of the General Assembly, on behalf 
 of the Trustees of the General Assembly of the said Church. 
 
 The chapter iii of the Confession of Faith is "Of God's Eternal De- 
 cree." I select a few of the sections of this chapter. 
 
 "III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, 
 some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others 
 fore-ordained to everlasting death. 
 
 "IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, 
 are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so 
 certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished. 
 
 "V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, be- 
 fore the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and 
 immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his 
 will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere 
 free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or 
 perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as 
 conditions, or causes moving him thereto; and all to the praise of his 
 glorious grace. 
 
 "VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by 
 the eternal and most free purpose of his will, fore-ordained all the 
 means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, 
 are redeemed by Christ, are efi'ectually called unto faith in Christ by 
 his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and 
 kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other 
 redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and 
 saved ; but the elect only. 
 
 "VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the un- 
 searchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth 
 
424 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his crea- 
 tures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their 
 sin, to the praise of his glorious justice." 
 
 From these sections I gather the doctrine of that Church to be, 
 (1) That God has predestined some men to salvation; (2) That he has 
 predestined the rest of mankind to damnation; (3) That those who are 
 predestined to salvation, and who are called the elect, are so chosen, 
 not by reason of any good which they do, but merely because God so 
 wills; (4) That they who are predestined to damnation are so doomed, 
 not by reason of any prevision of their misconduct, for his decree by 
 which they are so predestined was not made because he foresaw that mis- 
 conduct as future; for 
 
 "II. Although God knows w^hatever may or can come to pass upon 
 all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he 
 foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass, upon such 
 conditions;" 
 
 but for the manifestation of his glory, as is stated in section iii; (5) 
 That as they who are elected are effectually called to faith in Christ, 
 and kept through faith unto salvation ; no person will be saved without 
 faith. 
 
 The seventh chapter of the Confession of Faith is, "Of God's Cove- 
 nant with Man." 
 
 "III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by 
 that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called 
 the Covenant of Grace: wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and 
 salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they 
 may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained 
 unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe." 
 
 This still farther evinces the position which I have taken ; as does 
 chapter viii, ' ' Of Christ the Mediator. ' ' 
 
 "VIII. To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, 
 he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate to the same; 
 making intercession for them ; and revealing unto them, in and by the 
 word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his 
 Spirit to believe and obey ; and governing their hearts by his word and 
 Spirit ; overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, 
 in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and 
 unsearchable dispensation. ' ' 
 
 To these I may add, chapter x, "On Effectual Calling." 
 
 "III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved 
 by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 425 
 
 pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being 
 outwardly called by the ministry of the word. 
 
 "IV. Others not elected, although they may be called by the min- 
 istry of the word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, 
 yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: 
 much less can men, not possessing the Christian religion, be saved in 
 any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives 
 according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do 
 profess; and to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, 
 and to be detested." 
 
 I might here add several other passages, but enough has been given 
 to shew that the Presbyterian Church teaches a doctrine of exclusive 
 salvation, because to attain salvation, faith is necessary. It is now time 
 to see what that faith is. Chapter xiv is "Of Saving Faith." 
 
 "I. The Grace of Faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe 
 to the saving of their souls, is the work of the spirit of Christ in their 
 hearts ; and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word : by which 
 also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is 
 increased and strengthened. 
 
 "II. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is 
 revealed in the word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein ; 
 and acteth differently, upon that which each particular passage thereof 
 containeth ; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threat- 
 enings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which 
 is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiv- 
 ing and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctifieation, and 
 eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace." 
 
 "III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong, may be 
 often and many ways assailed and weakened, but gets the victory ; grow- 
 ing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, 
 who is both the author and finisher of faith." 
 
 What we call faith, or the belief of whatsoever has been revealed 
 by God, being an integral portion of what is here described as faith ; 
 of course the Presbyterian Church holds fully as exclusive a principle 
 as we do when we profess that without this true Catholic faith, no one 
 can be saved : and as her faith, which is necessary for salvation, contains 
 or comprehends more than does ours, so the number of individuals within 
 the extent thereof must be fewer, and consequently her principle of 
 exclusive salvation is less liberal than ours. 
 
 Having thus, upon the general view, established my position, I 
 shall confirm it by enumerating some particulars. In my last, I, at 
 
426 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 some length, and I fear very tediously, but I trust clearly, showed how 
 far more liberal the doctrine of our Church is, than that of the Protes- 
 tant Episcopalian Church, regarding the works of such as are not jus- 
 tified, or have not faith. The same observations apply here with equal 
 force at least. Chapter xvi, "Of Good Works." 
 
 "VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter 
 of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both 
 to themselves and others ; yet, because they proceed not from an heart 
 purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner, according to the word, 
 nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefor sinful and can- 
 not please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And 
 yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God." 
 
 I shall only remark here that if we were to teach that a benevolent 
 Presbyterian did a sinful act in relieving a sick brother ; and that an 
 Episcopalian who neglected to do so committed a greater sin, we should 
 expect to be assailed for our illiberality by every human being. Our 
 Church teaches us that the Presbyterian would have done a good moral 
 work, and that the Episcopalian would do well to join him in its per- 
 formance : we know hundreds of our separated brethren of both those 
 Churches who do those good acts; we respect and applaud them for 
 their good moral conduct ; we acknowledge that in the performance of 
 those meritorious works they frequently give good example to our breth- 
 ren in the faith, and we know that God will give them a reward ; we trust 
 they may be rendered meet for the grace of true faith. How gladly 
 would we hail their return to that ancient Church which first gave the 
 Gospel to their fathers! 
 
 In the above extracts it wall be seen that the doctrine of exclusive 
 salvation taught in the Freshyterian Confession of Faith, is not more 
 liberal than that taught in the Protestant Episcopal Church, w'hich I 
 have before shown to be more illiberal than that taught by our Church. 
 I shall now proceed to examine more minutely other portions of the 
 Presbyterian Confession of Faith. 
 
 The Roman Catholic Church teaches us, whether correctly or not 
 is not now to the purpose, that we may pray for all persons ; for heretics, 
 schismatics, infidels, excommunicated persons, and notorious criminals: 
 some of her public prayers are specially framed to beseech God to be- 
 stow his grace upon those persons to convert them, to bless them, and so 
 forth. She teaches her children that it is an act of charity to pray fre- 
 quently for them. The Church also with confidence in the mercies of 
 the Saviour tells us that it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 427 
 
 the dead. The Presbyterian Confession of Faith tells us, chapter xxi, 
 ' ' Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath day, ' ' page 107 : 
 
 "IV. Prayer is to be made for things lawful, and for all sorts of 
 men living, or that shall live hereafter; but not for the dead, nor for 
 those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto 
 death." 
 
 Here, we are not only prohibited from praying for the dead, but 
 also for some living description of sinners; so that upon this score we 
 ought not to be taxed for illiberal tenets of exclusive salvation by the 
 gentlemen who adhere to this confession of faith. 
 
 I have shown that the predecessors of the Episcopalians, and ours, 
 were in one Church which they left, and upon the plea that they could 
 not be saved if they remained therein; and I concluded that we were 
 not then the persons who denounced damnation against those who went 
 out, for having gone, but they denounced it against us for not going. 
 I shall show you that we are denounced in the same way by the con- 
 fessions of other Churches. Still continuing to look at the Presbyterian 
 Confession, chapter xxv, ' ' Of the Church, ' ' page 125 : 
 
 "II. The visible Church, which is also Catholic or universal under 
 the gospel, (not confined to one nation as before under the law) consists 
 of all those throughout the world, that profess the true religion, together 
 with their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility 
 of salvation." 
 
 In this it is plainly taught that there is no salvation to be had, 
 ordinarily, out of the visible Church. In page 127, we are taught : 
 
 "V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mix- 
 ture and error ; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches 
 of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always 
 a Church on earth, to worship God according to his will. ' ' 
 
 The next article, page 128, sets very quietly at rest all question as 
 to what was meant by a Church which had so degenerated as to become 
 a synagogue of Satan. 
 
 "VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. Nor can the Pope of Eome in any sense be head thereof; but 
 is that anarchist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth 
 himself, in the Church, against Christ, and all that is called God." 
 
 There can be little doubt, then, of their having gone out from us 
 upon the allegation of our being joined to Antichrist, and being children 
 of perdition: even at this day, in those States, we are frequently com- 
 plimented with the appellation, in papers which are called religious, 
 
428 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 and by writers who are said to be considered gentlemen, and who have 
 some pretensions to scholarship. I do not notice that vehement brawl- 
 ings of unlettered fanatics, nor the yelling denunciations of infuriated 
 rhapsodists; of this each returning Sunday brings sufficient for itself. 
 I allude to the deliberately written, and the deliberately selected vitu- 
 peration of the Pope and Papists which forms a large portion of the 
 contents of our religious publications. 
 
 The confession counts as one of our errors, a distinction which we 
 draw between lesser offences of God which we call venial, and greater 
 offences which we call mortal. We teach that God will not condemn 
 to everlasting torments in hell, those persons who die guilty of only 
 venial sin; we say they will endure only a temporary punishment pro- 
 portioned to their offences, after which endurance they will be admitted 
 into heaven: and that only they who die guilty of mortal or grievous 
 sins will be condemned to hell for eternity. The Confession, chapter 
 XV, page 76, says: 
 
 "IV. As there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; so 
 there is no sin so great that it can bring damnation upon those who truly 
 repent. ' ' 
 
 Yet we are taxed with the illiberality and cruelty of our doctrine, 
 by the adherents of the confession!!! In chapter xxx, "Of Church 
 censures," page 145: 
 
 "Church censures are necessary for the reclaiming and gaining of 
 offending brethren ; for deterring of others from like offences ; for purg- 
 ing out of that leaven which might infect the w^hole lump; for vindi- 
 cating the honor of Christ and the holy profession of the Gospel; and 
 for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the 
 Church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be 
 profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders." 
 
 This power is that of which they complain as most tyrannical usur- 
 pation of divine prerogative, in our Church, and yet they use it them- 
 selves and thus exclude from that visible Church, and from the ordinary 
 means of salvation, notorious and obstinate offenders. We have seen 
 before that in giving instructions to their flocks whom not to marry, we 
 were specially noticed: "therefore such as profess the true reformed 
 religion should not marry wnth Infidels, Papists, or other Idolators:" 
 nor "with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain 
 damnable heresies." All this advice might be very good, but it really 
 was very curious and amusing to find that portion of the venerable 
 body which subscribed this Confession of Faith with sober and grave 
 countenances telling the Roman Catholics to "remove that obstacle to 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 429 
 
 mutual benevolence, and perfect community of political privileges, th.? 
 doctrine of exclusive salvation, from their Church. ' ' Perhaps this might 
 explain, why to this day the Roman Catholics are left without that com- 
 munity of political privileges, I would call them rights, in North Caro- 
 lina and New Jersey. I am really tired of this disgusting topic, although 
 I have not produced half of my testimony ; I shall however take a respite 
 for to-day and conclude by asserting what I think I have proved, viz. 
 that our doctrine of exclusive salvation is not as extensively illiberal 
 as that of either the Episcopalian or the Presbyterian ; that we did not 
 turn them out from our body, but they left us, alleging that with safety 
 to their souls, they could not stay in our communion; and that besides 
 having left us to damnation for our corruption of God's pure religion, 
 they put us into very bad company and called us very unbecoming 
 names; and then modestly tell the world that our doctrine of exclusive 
 salvation is really too shocking. I must test the claims of our other 
 opponents. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XXVIII 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Mar. 19, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — I have exhibited to you the grounds of my assertion 
 that the doctrine of exclusive salvation as taught in the Roman Catholic 
 Church, is not as excluding as that taught in the Protestant Episcopalian 
 and Presbyterian Churches. The next portion of those gentlemen who 
 appeared to be shocked at the illiberality of our tenets, which I shall 
 consider, is that of the Congregational Church. Their doctrine in the 
 Confession of Faith, published by W. W. Woodward, No. 52, South 
 Second, corner of Chestnut street, Philadelphia, 1813, which is the 
 Westminster Confession, is in all the articles and sections quoted in my 
 last letter, word for word, the same as that of the Presbyterian Church, 
 saving only one word, which I look upon to have been an error of the 
 printer, in the Presbyterian copy, which in section iv, chapter x, has ' ' not 
 psossesing the Christian religion," where this of the Congregationalist 
 Churches has "not professing the Christian religion." Therefore, the 
 observations made upon the one apply with equal force to the other. 
 
 The Confession was "agreed upon as a part of the covenanted 
 uniformity in religion betwixt the Churches of Christ in the kingdoms 
 of Scotland, England, and Ireland," "by an assembly of Divines at 
 Westminster with the assistance of commissioners from the Church of 
 
430 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 Scotland." The assembly was opened by the authority of Parliament 
 on the first of July, 1643, and the Confession was received by the as- 
 sembly at Edinburgh on the 27th of August, 1647, and was ratified and 
 approved of by the Scotch Parliament on the 7th of February, 1649. 
 
 But previously to this, the Church of Scotland had made its Na- 
 tional Covenant or the Confession of Faith, which may be found in 
 page 393, of the book published by Woodward. I have before adverted 
 to this document which was first subscribed in 1580, and ratified by the 
 general assembly on several occasions — and by the Scotch Parliament 
 on the 11th of June, 1640, on which occasion also it was enacted with 
 civil pains against recusants. Let us see what is its doctrine of exclu- 
 sive salvation. The subscribers "protest, believe with their hearts, con- 
 fess with their mouths, subscribe with their hands, and constantly affirm 
 before God and the whole world, that this only is the true Christian 
 faith and religion pleasing to God, and bringing salvation to man,'^ 
 "defended," page 394, "as God's eternal truth, and only ground of sal- 
 vation, ' ' they ' ' abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine ; but 
 chiefly all kinds of Papistry in general and particular heads." If you 
 look to my Letter twenty, you will find the special heads enumerated, 
 which occupy more than a page of the book. In page 398, they declare 
 all who gainsay the doctrine of the confession of their faith or refuse 
 their ministration of the sacraments, "to be no members of the true 
 kirk within this realm and true religion presently professed, so long as 
 they keep themselves so divided from the society of Christ's body," 
 also, "that there is no other face of kirk nor other face of religion, than 
 was presently at that time, by the favor of God, established within this 
 realm," which therefore is "ever styled God's true religion, Christ's 
 true religion, the true and Christian religion, and a perfect religion." 
 All within this realm are bound "to recant all doctrines and errors 
 repugnant to any of the said articles." "Papists" are "adversaries 
 of the true religion. ' ' In page 402, they swear by the great name of the 
 Lord our God, to "resist all these contrary errors and corruptions" "all 
 the days of our life," the errors and corruptions were "novations and 
 evils" amongst the Protestants, which they "are obliged to detest and 
 abhor them amongst other particular heads of Papistry abjured therein." 
 
 In "the solemn league and covenant for the reformation of religion 
 and other purposes, agreed upon by commissioners from the Parliament, 
 and the assembly of Divines of Scotland and the like commissioners on 
 the part of England, in 1643: in the preamble it is stated, page 411, 
 to be caused by the necessity of opposing the practices, and so forth, 
 "of the enemies of God, against the true religion," and so forth. The 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 431 
 
 second article, page 412, binds them to "endeavor the extirpation of 
 Popery, Prelacy, superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatso- 
 ever else shall be found contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of 
 godliness, lest they partake of other men's sins, and thereby be in danger 
 to receive of their plagues," and so forth. In the concluding paragraph, 
 page 414, they pray God to bless them for the "encouragement to other 
 Christian Churches groaning under or in danger of the yoke of Anti- 
 christian tyranny, to join in the same," and so forth. 
 
 In the Directory for public worship agreed upon by the assembly 
 of Divines at Westminster, under the head "Of Public Prayer before 
 the Sermon," the minister is directed amongst other things to call upon 
 the Lord to this effect, page 442 : 
 
 "To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ 
 to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gen- 
 tiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of 
 our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from 
 the tyranny of the antichristian faction, and from the cruel oppressions 
 and blasphemies of the Turk; for the blessing of God upon all the re- 
 formed churches, especially upon the churches and kingdoms of Scot- 
 land, England and Ireland, now more strictly and religiously united in 
 the solemn national league and covenant ; and for our plantations in the 
 remote parts of the world: more particularly for that church and king- 
 dom whereof we are members, that therein God would establish peace 
 and truth, the purity of all his ordinances, and the power of godliness; 
 prevent and remove heresy, schism, profaneness, superstition, security 
 and unfruitfulness under the means of grace; heal all our rents and 
 divisions, and preserve us from breach of our Solemn Covenant." 
 
 Under the head "Of Preaching the Word," page 446, the minister 
 is directed how to act in confuting false doctrines. 
 
 Under the head "Of Prayer after Sermon," page 448, the minister 
 is directed to give thanks for the admirable goodness of God in freeing 
 the land from Antichristian darkness and tyranny, and so forth. 
 
 Under the head "Concerning Visitation of the Sick," the minister 
 is directed, page 460, to convince the sick person "to apprehend the 
 justice and wrath of God, before whom none can stand but he that lost 
 in himself, layeth hold upon Christ by faith." 
 
 In the directions for family worship, the fifth direction, page 473 
 is the following: 
 
 "V. Let no idler who hath no particular calling, or vagrant person 
 under a pretence of a calling, be suffered to perform worship in families, 
 to or for the same; seeing persons tainted with errors or aiming at 
 
432 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 division, may be ready (after that manner) to creep into houses, and 
 lead captive silly and unstable souls." 
 
 In the Form of Church Government, Rule 3, for examination of 
 a candidate for Ordination, page 503, inquiry is to be made "of his 
 knowledge of the grounds of religion and of his ability to defend the 
 orthodox doctrine contained in them, against all unsound and erroneous 
 opinions. ' ' 
 
 In the clause, six, "The Directory for the Ordination of Ministers," 
 it is directed that the candidate shall be asked in the face of the congre- 
 gation, after the sermon, by the minister who hath preached, amongst 
 other things "concerning his faith in Christ Jesus, and his persuasion 
 of the truth of the reformed religion, according to the scripture," "his 
 zeal and faithfulness in maintaining the truth of the gospel, and the 
 unity of the church, against error and schism. ' ' 
 
 From these the conclusions are obviously, 1. That the true Chris- 
 tian faith only will bring man to salvation; and hence the orthodox 
 ministers are to strive against and confute heresies, errors in faith, and 
 all unsound doctrines. 2. That Roman Catholics who are the adher- 
 ents to the Pope, who is called Antichrist, chapter xxv, article vi, page 
 136, are declared to be enemies of God and of the true religion ; they are 
 divided from Christ 's body, they are no members of the true kirk ; their 
 errors and corruptions of papistry, are to be detested and abhorred. 
 Yet the reverend gentlemen who have subscribed and adopted this col- 
 lection of doctrinal documents as their standard of belief, have the 
 modesty to tell us through White, that our doctrine of exclusive salva- 
 tion, is an obstacle to mutual benevolence, and perfect community of 
 political privileges ! ! ! 
 
 Before I proceed farther in the examination of the claims to con- 
 sistency of those who, holding a more liberal doctrine than ours, charged 
 us with being intolerant and uncharitable, let us take a momentary 
 glance at their opinions of each other; after which a curious question 
 would be, how such discordant parties could give the public so curious 
 an exhibition. 
 
 In the "solemn acknowledgement of public sins, and breaches of 
 the covenant," and so forth, made by order of the commission of the 
 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, passed at Edinburgh, 
 October 6th, 1648, the first solemn promise which they make is the fol- 
 lowing, page 426 : 
 
 "1. Because religion is of all things the most excellent and pre- 
 cious, the advancing and promoting the power thereof against all ungod- 
 liness and profanity, the securing and preserving the purity thereof 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 433 
 
 against all error, heresy and schism, and namely Independency, Anabap- 
 tism, Antinomianism, Arminianism, and Socinianism, Familism, Liber- 
 tinism, Scepticism, and Erastianism, and the carrying on the work of 
 uniformity, shall be studied and endeavored by us before all worldly 
 interests, whether concerning the king, ourselves, or any other what- 
 somever. ' ' 
 
 It is a little curious to find several of those whose errors, heresies, 
 and schisms are here said to be against the purity of religion, uniting 
 with those who made the promise to God against them, or the successors 
 of those sponsors, against us as their common object of assault. But 
 how fares Bishop Kemp and his "Apostolic Church'' in this point of 
 view 1 We shall here give a passage from the preface to the Directory, 
 page 435 : 
 
 "Howbeit, long and sad experience has made it manifest, that the 
 liturgy used in the Church of England (notwithstanding all the pains 
 and religious intentions of the compilers of it) hath proved an offence, 
 not only to many of the godly at home, but also to the reformed Churches 
 abroad. For, not to speak of urging the reading of all the prayers, 
 which very greatly increased the burden of it, the many unprofitable 
 and burdensome ceremonies contained in it have occasioned much mis- 
 chief, as well by disquieting the consciences of many godly ministers 
 and people, who could not yield unto them, as by depriving them of the 
 ordinances of God, which they might not enjoy without conforming or 
 subscribing to those ceremonies. Sundry good Christians have been, by 
 means thereof, kept from the Lord's table; and divers able and faith- 
 ful ministers debarred from the exercise of their ministry (to the endan- 
 gering of many thousand souls, in a time of such scarcity of faithful 
 pastors), and spoiled of their livelihood, to the undoing of them and 
 their families. Prelates and their faction have labored to raise the 
 estimation of it to such an height as if there were no other worship, or 
 way of worship of God amongst us, but only the service-book; to the 
 great hindrance of the preaching of the word, and (in some places 
 especially of late) to the justling of it out as unnecessary, or, at best, 
 as far inferior to the reading of common prayer, which was made no 
 better than an idol, by many ignorant and superstitious people, who, 
 pleasing themselves in their presence at that service, and their lip-labor 
 in bearing their part in it, have thereby hardened themselves in their 
 ignorance and carelessness of saving knowledge and true piety. 
 
 "In the meantime. Papists boasted that the book was a compliance 
 with them in a great part of their service ; and so were not a little con- 
 firmed in their superstition and idolatry, expecting rather our return to 
 
434 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 them than endeavoring the reformation of themselves; in which expec- 
 tation they were of late very much encouraged, while, upon the pre- 
 tended warrantableness of imposing of the former ceremonies, new ones 
 were daily intruded upon the Church. 
 
 "Add hereunto (which was not foreseen, but since hath come to 
 pass), that the liturgy hath been a great means, as on the one hand, to 
 make and increase an idle and unedifying ministry, which contended 
 itself with set forms made to their hands by others, without putting 
 forth themselves to exercise the gift of prayer with which our Lord 
 Jesus Christ pleaseth to furnish all his servants, whom he calls to that 
 office; so, on the other side, it hath been (and ever would be, if con- 
 tinued) a matter of endless strife and contention in the Church, and 
 a snare both to many godly and faithful ministers, who have been per- 
 secuted and silenced upon that occasion, and to others of hopeful parts, 
 many of which have been, and more still would be, diverted from all 
 thoughts of the ministry to other studies ; especially in these latter times, 
 wherein God vouchsafeth to his people more and better means for the 
 discovery of error and superstition, and for attaining of knowledge in 
 the mysteries of godliness, and gifts in preaching and prayer." 
 
 Suppose I were to leave that Church which they have so thought- 
 lessly assailed, could the venerable body give me an unanimous vote 
 as to which of themselves I should join to be more secure of my salva- 
 tion? 
 
 The article xxxvi of Bishop Kemp's Church is "Of Consecration 
 of Bishops and Ministers." 
 
 "The Book of Consecration of Bishops and Ordering of Priests and 
 Deacons, as set forth hy the General Convention of this Church, in 1792, 
 doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering; 
 neither hath it any thing that, of itself, is superstitious and ungodly; 
 and, therefore, whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to said 
 form, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated 
 and ordered." 
 
 The preface to the book thus approved of, and declared to be free 
 from superstition is the following: 
 
 "It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and 
 ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these 
 orders of ministers in Christ's Church: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. 
 Which offices were evermore had in such reverend estimation, that no 
 man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, 
 tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for 
 the same; and also by public prayer, with imposition of hands, were 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 435 
 
 approved and admitted thereunto by lawful authority. And, therefore, 
 to the intent that these orders may be continued, and reverently used 
 and esteemed in this Church, no man shall be accounted, or taken to be 
 a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in this Church, or suffered to exe- 
 cute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and 
 admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter following, or hath 
 had episcopal consecration or ordination." 
 
 Thus the Protestant Episcopal Church rejects as invalid, Presby- 
 terian ordination, and declares as sound doctrine, that her own form is 
 not superstitious. The Directory, page 493, under the head "Of Classical 
 Assemblies," denies that it is evident to all men reading the Scriptures, 
 that there were those three orders in the Church, and undertakes to 
 show, [that] "the Scripture doth hold out a presbytery in a Church." 
 
 The Directory denies the necessity or propriety of Episcopal con- 
 secration or ordination, but declares it to belong to the preaching min- 
 isters or presbj'ters, as under the head touching the doctrine of ordina- 
 tion, page 499, paragraph 4 — "Every minister of the word, is to be 
 ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by those 
 preaching presbyters to whom it doth belong. ' ' And in page 501, under 
 the head concerning the doctrinal part of the ordination of ministers, 
 column 4, it is repeated, and in column 10, we read: "Preaching pres- 
 byters orderly associated, either in cities or neighboring villages are those 
 to whom the imposition of hands doth appertain, for those congregations 
 within their bounds respectively." 
 
 The general assembly of the kirk of Scotland, in its act approving 
 the propositions concerning kirk government and ordination of ministers, 
 passed at Edinburgh, on the 10th of February, 1645, gave as one of 
 the reasons of its assent : ' ' and considering, that as in former times there 
 did, so hereafter, there may arise, through the nearness of contagion, 
 manifold mischiefs to this kirk from a corrupt form of government in 
 the kirk of England." A very slight reference to the passages before 
 quoted concerning the Prelatical faction and the superstitious ceremonies 
 of the common prayer, and service book, will show what was thought of 
 the Episcopal ordination service. 
 
 I would then merely remark that we have those persons who joined 
 in the cry against us, here arrayed against each other, each proclaiming 
 the doctrine of exclusive salvation, each claiming to have the truth on 
 his side, and the error on the side of his opponent, one denying the 
 validity of the ordination of the other, and the person thus unchurched, 
 proclaiming that he who condemns him is corrupt, and superstitious. 
 Yet it is by a group of gentlemen of this description we are assailed for 
 
436 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 holding a much milder doctrine of exclusive salvation than either of 
 themselves. 
 
 It has been always the cry of our brethren of the Protestant 
 Churches, that we held such intolerant and uncharitable doctrines as 
 made us unfit for society: they must have been very thoughtless when 
 they made the charge, because they not only denounced us, but de- 
 nounced each other. Until the period of their separation from us, and 
 from each other, there was unity and peace; they made the separation 
 upon the ground of our being in a state of damnable idolatry and error, 
 yet, they soon began to charge each other in like manner: unity was 
 lost, peace was banished, charity was seldom found, discord and dis- 
 sension have unfortunately characterized the separation. This fact is 
 admitted, and is deplored in the Book of Homilies even in the days of 
 Edward VI, in the first part of the Sermon against Contention and 
 Brawling, page 112 : 
 
 "St. Paul could not abide to hear among the Corinthians these 
 words of discord or dissension, 'I hold of Paul, I of Cephas, and I of 
 Apollos:' what would he then say if he heard these words of conten- 
 tion, which be now almost in every man's mouth? He is a Pharisee, 
 he is a Gospeller, he is of the new sort, he is of the old faith, he is a 
 new^-broached brother, he is a good Catholic father, he is a Papist, he is 
 an heretic. how the Church is divided ! how the cities be cut and 
 mangled ! how the coat of Christ, that was without seam, is all rent 
 and torn! O body mystical of Christ, where is that holy and happy 
 unity, out of the which whosoever is, he is not in Christ ? If one member 
 be pulled from another, where is the body ? If the body be drawn from 
 the head, where is the life of the body? We cannot be joined to Christ 
 our Head, except we be glued with concord and charity one to another. 
 For he that is not of this unity is not of the Church of Christ, which is 
 a congregation or unity together, and not a division. St. Paul saith, 
 'That as long as emulation or envying, contention, and factions or sects 
 be among us, we be carnal, and walk according to the fleshly man. ' And 
 St. James saith, 'If ye have bitter emulation or envying, and contention 
 in your hearts, glory not of it : for where contention is, there is unstead- 
 fastness and all evil deeds.' And why do we not hear St. Paul, which 
 prayeth us, whereas he might command us, saying, * I beseech you in the 
 name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you will speak all one thing, and 
 that there be no dissension among you ; but that you will be one whole 
 body, of one mind, and of one opinion in the truth.' If his desire be 
 reasonable and honest, why do we not grant it? If his request be for 
 our profit, why do we refuse it ? And if we list not to hear his petition 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 437 
 
 of prayer, yet let us hear his exhortation, where he saith, ' I exhort you, 
 that you walk as it beeometh the vocation in which you be called, with 
 all submission and meekness, with lenity and softness of mind, bearing 
 with one another in charity, studying to keep the unity of the Spirit 
 by the bond of peace : for there is but one body, one Spirit, one faith, one 
 baptism.' There is, saith he, but one body, of the which he can be no 
 lively member, that is at variance with the other members. There is 
 one Spirit, which joineth and knitteth all things in one. And how can 
 this one Spirit reign in us, when we among ourselves be divided ? There 
 is but one faith; and how can we then say, he is of the old faith; and 
 he is of the new faith? There is but one baptism; and then shall not 
 all they which be baptized be one ? Contention causeth division, where- 
 fore it ought not to be among Christians, whom one faith and baptism 
 joined in an unity. But if we contemn St. Paul's request and exhor- 
 tation, yet at the least let us regard his earnest entreating, in the which 
 he doth very earnestly charge us, and (as I may so speak) conjure us 
 in this form and manner, "If there be any consolation in Christ, if 
 there be any comfort of love, if you have any fellowship of the Spirit, 
 if you have any bowels of pity and compassion, fulfil my joy, being all 
 alike affected, having one charity, being of one mind, one opinion, that 
 nothing be done by contention, or vain-glory. "Who is he, that hath 
 any bowels of pity that will not be moved with these words so pithy? 
 Whose heart is so stoney, that the sword of these words, which be more 
 sharp than any two-edged sword, may not cut and break asunder? 
 Wherefore, let us endeavor ourselves to fulfil St. Paul's joy here in this 
 place, which shall be at length to our great joy in another place. Let 
 us so read the Scripture, that by reading thereof we may be made the 
 better livers, rather than the more contentious disputers. If any thing 
 be necessary to be taught, reasoned, or disputed, let us do it with all 
 meekness, softness and lenity. If any thing shall chance to be spoken 
 uncomely, let one bear another's frailty. He that is faulty, let him 
 rather amend, than defend that which he hath spoken amiss, lest he fall 
 by contention from a foolish error into an obstinate heresy." 
 
 How have the separations and heresies multiplied since then? the 
 Episcopalian and the Presbyterian, and the several sorts of Indepen- 
 dents, all find some heresy in each other: do they not all then teach the 
 necessity of unity, and the necessity of belonging to the true Church, 
 and of holding the true doctrine? And does not each of them assert 
 that his is that Church and that doctrine? And what more does the 
 Catholic ? Why then impute to us as a crime, what in themselves is con- 
 sidered a religious duty? We believe that no man will be saved who 
 
438 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 does not exert himself and use every opportunity which God affords 
 him, to learn what God has taught that he may believe it ; to learn what 
 God commands, that he may fulfil it ; we believe that Christ gave to the 
 Apostles those doctrines and those precepts to be by them transmitted 
 to the latest generations through their successors in the ministry; that 
 all were to hold together in unity, receiving and preserving this testi- 
 mony. Our succession is acknowledged, we say the truth has been pre- 
 served together with that succession: they have charged our body with 
 having substituted damnable error for pure truth, and formed new 
 societies: each society claims exclusively to be that which holds God's 
 truth. I shall examine a few more of them. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XXIX 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Mar. 26, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — I stated at the outset that I would enter at some 
 length upon the topic of exclusive salvation. I shall in this letter con- 
 tinue the investigation. Allow me to remind you of the object I seek 
 to attain. I desire not to set you above your Protestant competitors, 
 to make you look down upon them as bigoted, illiberal, or ill-disposed; 
 I desire not to make wider those breaches between the Christian denom- 
 inations which are already too many and too large ; I desire not to hurt 
 the feelings of our fellow-citizens, who may not be pleased at reading 
 the exhibition of their own tenets, as given in their own books ; I desire 
 not to create, to excite, or to continue unpleasant altercations. My 
 object is two-fold: first to shew the incorrectness of White's statement 
 "that the doctrine of exclusive salvation in our Church was the obstacle 
 to mutual benevolence and perfect community of political privileges, 
 and that if we cast it away, all liberal men would give us the right hand 
 of fellowship;" and next to teach a little moderation to those persons 
 who so unsparingly abuse us for what they call a blemish, which is 
 found in every one of themselves. My object is to endeavor to repress 
 the unmeasured contumely of ourselves and of our religion by persons 
 who do not know their own. And if I can effect this, I shall have done 
 more to establish charity, harmony and good will between Catholics and 
 Protestants, than has been done for some time. I do avow that I am 
 most anxious to attain this object ; but I know that it is not to be attained 
 without convincing persons, who have been too long permitted to indulge 
 the notion that they were our superiors in liberality and charity, that 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 439 
 
 they have been under an egregious mistake. My task is very difficult, 
 and probably I shall not succeed; but if I fail I shall have at least the 
 consolation of knowing that I have marked out the path and been the 
 pioneer to some more fortunate follower. 
 
 I now proceed to examine the doctrine of the Baptist Church upon 
 exclusive salvation; I shall quote from the second Charleston edition, 
 printed by J. Hoff, No. 117 Broad street, for the Charleston Baptist 
 Association, of A Confession of Faith, put forth hy the elders and 
 irethren of many congregations of Christians (baptized upon profession 
 of their faith) in London and the country, adopted hy the Baptist Asso- 
 ciation of Philadelphia, September 25, 1742, and by the Charleston in 
 1767. The preface states that the Confession was first put forth about 
 the year 1643, by seven congregations then gathered in London, in order 
 to correct mistakes as to the tenets of the societies; when copies of this 
 became scarce, the members finding in their body a general agreement 
 upon most topics with the Westminster Confession, adopted its plan and 
 method, and in most instances, its very expressions: hence I may gen- 
 erally state that their doctrine of exclusive salvation is equally illiberal 
 as is that of the Westminster Confession : there is, however some mitiga- 
 tion of expression as regards papists; for instance, in chapter xxvi "Of 
 Marriage, ' ' the article 3 is the following : 
 
 "3. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able 
 with judgment to give their consent; yet it is the duty of Christians to 
 marry in the Lord ; and therefore such as profess the true religion should 
 not marry with infidels, or idolators; neither should such as are godly 
 be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are wicked in their life, 
 or maintain damnable heresy. ' ' 
 
 Here we are not ranked with other idolators, but we find a distinc- 
 tion made between those who hold the true religion and infidels, idol- 
 ators, or they who maintain damnable heresy: of course a damnable 
 heresy excludes from salvation, so does infidelity and so does idolatry. 
 Therefore the Baptist Church teaches the doctrine of exclusive salva- 
 tion. 
 
 There is also in this Confession a very serious difference from the 
 Westminster Confession upon the doctrine of predestination: the Bap- 
 tist is far a milder doctrine upon this head, and approaches much 
 nearer to the Catholic belief : still we are told in chapter xxvii ' ' Of the 
 Church," that the invisible Church consists of the elect. The second 
 article, page 54, is the following: 
 
 "2. All persons, throughout the world, professing the faith of the 
 Gospel, and obedience unto God, by Christ, according unto it, -not 
 
440 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 destroying their own profession by any errors, everting the foundation, 
 or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints ; and 
 of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted." 
 
 In the next article we are told that there is a Church of believers 
 and a synagogue of unbelievers. 
 
 "3. The purest Churches under heaven are subject to mixture 
 and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no Churches of 
 Christ, but Synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, 
 and ever shall have, a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of 
 such as believe in him, and make profession of his name." 
 
 The fourth article is by no means delicate in the denunciation of 
 that Synagogue of Satan, at the head of which is to be found the Pope. 
 
 "4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, in whom, 
 by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, 
 order or government of the Church, is invested in a supreme and sov- 
 ereign manner, neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head 
 thereof, but is Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that 
 exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called 
 God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." 
 
 Two conclusions are now evidently established, viz. that the main- 
 taining of some errors and heresies are sufficient to exclude from sal- 
 vation, and next, that the Pope is Antichrist and our Church a Syna- 
 gogue of Satan. This is indeed very charitable and complimentary and 
 kind. 
 
 But let us go a little farther through the document, lest it should 
 be asserted that we did not take a sufficiently extensive view. In page 
 22, chapter vii, "Of God's Covenant," article two, is the following: 
 
 "2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the 
 law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a Covenant of Grace, wherein 
 he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requir- 
 ing faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto 
 all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make 
 them willing, and able to believe." 
 
 The Covenant here is faith, by aid of which man is saved. We 
 shall see the same doctrine in article 3: 
 
 "This Covenant is revealed in the Gospel; and was first of all to 
 Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and after- 
 wards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed 
 in the New Testament; and it is found in that eternal covenant trans- 
 action, that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption 
 of the elect ; and it is alone by the grace of this Covenant, that all of 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 441 
 
 the posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were saved, did obtain life and a 
 blessed immortality ; man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with 
 God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency. " 
 
 The next article of chapter viii, page 26, shows how faith is com- 
 municated to the elect. 
 
 "8. To all those for whom Christ hath obtained eternal redemption, 
 he doth certainly and effectually apply, and communicate the same; 
 making intercession for them; uniting them to himself by his Spirit; 
 revealing unto them, in and by the word, the mystery of salvation; 
 persuading them to believe, and obey; governing their hearts by his 
 word and spirit, and overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power 
 and wisdom; in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his 
 wonderful and unsearchable dispensation; and all of free and absolute 
 grace, without any condition foreseen in them, to procure it." 
 
 In page 29, we find in chapter x, "Of Effectual Calling," that 
 those in other modes of belief, howsoever moral or just, cannot be saved 
 unless they become Christians, and of course not Roman Catholics, who 
 adhere to Antichrist. 
 
 "4. Others not elected, although they may be called by the min- 
 istry of the word, and may have some common operations of the spirit; 
 yet, not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will, nor 
 can truly come to Christ ; and therefore cannot be saved ; much less can 
 men that receive not the Christian religion be saved, be they never so 
 diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law 
 of that religion they do profess. ' ' 
 
 In chapter xi, "Of Justification," article 2, we are justified by faith 
 alone. 
 
 "2. Fa^th, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteous- 
 ness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the 
 person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, 
 and is no dead faith, but worketh by love. ' ' 
 
 The same is repeated in the 5th article : but to know the nature of 
 that faith, I shall give you the articles, 2 and 3, of chapter xiv, "Of 
 Saving Faith." 
 
 "2. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is 
 revealed in the word, on the authority of God himself; and also appre- 
 hendeth an excellency therein above all other writings; and all things 
 in the world; as it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes, the 
 excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power and fulness 
 of the Holy Spirit in his working and operations; and so is enabled 
 to cast his soul upon the truth thus believed, and also acteth differently 
 
442 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 upon that which each particular passage thereof eontaineth; yielding 
 obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embrac- 
 ing the promises of God, for this life, and that which is to come : but 
 the principal acts of saving faith, have immediate relation to Christ, 
 accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone, for justification, sanc- 
 tification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. 
 
 "3. This faith, although it be different in degrees, and may be 
 weak, or strong, yet it is in the least degree of it, different in the kind, 
 or nature of it, (as is all other saving grace) from the faith and common 
 grace of temporary believers; and therefore, though it may be many 
 times assailed and weakened, yet it gets the victory, growing up in 
 many, to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both 
 the author and finisher of our faith. ' ' 
 
 We have now clearly established the fact; that the doctrine of 
 exclusive salvation, "without this our true faith, no person can be 
 saved, " is as much a doctrine of the Baptist as it is of the other Churches 
 which I have brought in review before you. 
 
 Where the Roman Catholic Church believes that they who die 
 guilty of venial sin alone, will go only to temporary suffering, the Bap- 
 tist Church teaches that they will be damned perpetually, page 36, 
 chapter xv, "On Repentance unto Life and Salvation, article 5. 
 
 "5. Such is the provision which God hath made through Christ 
 in the covenant of grace, for the preservation of believers unto salva- 
 tion, that although there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; 
 yet there is no sin so great that it shall bring damnation on them that 
 repent; which makes the constant preaching of repentance necessary." 
 
 In page 38, we are taught in chapter xvi, ' ' On good Works, ' ' article 
 7, that "all the works of persons who have not Baptist faith, are sins." 
 
 "7. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of 
 them they may be things which God commands and of good use, both to 
 themselves and others ; yet because they proceed not from a heart puri- 
 fied by faith, nor are done in a right manner according to the word, 
 nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are sinful and cannot please 
 God, nor make a man meet to receive grace from God: and yet their 
 neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing to God." 
 
 This really is a sad dilemma for an unfortunate man. "If you 
 relieve that distressed man you commit a sin, if you neglect it you com- 
 mit a most grievous offence. ' ' 
 
 I shall here close for the present this tedious exhibition with the 
 doctrine of the Reformed Dutch Church of the United States of America, 
 as given in its constitution, printed and sold by George Forman, New 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 443 
 
 York, 1815. I shewed in a former letter that in the xxxviiith of its 
 Confession of Faith it was declared that out of the holy congregation 
 of the true Church there is no salvation. I give here now chapter xxix, 
 from page 32 : 
 ' ' Of the marks of the true Church, and wherein she differs from the false 
 
 Church. 
 
 "We believe that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern 
 from the word of God, which is the true Church ; since all sects which 
 are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we 
 speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, 
 yet are not of the Church, though externally in it : but we say that thii 
 body and communion of the true church must be distinguished from 
 all sects, who call themselves the Church. The marks, by which the true 
 Church is known, are these : if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached 
 therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as 
 instituted by Christ; if Church discipline is exercised in punishing of 
 sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure word of 
 God, all things contrary thereto rejected; and Jesus Christ acknowledged 
 as the only Head of the Church. Hence the true Church may certainly 
 be known ; from which no man has a right to separate himself. With 
 respect to those who are members of the Church, they may be known 
 by the marks of christians, namely, by faith; and when they have re- 
 ceived Jesus Christ the only Saviour, avoid sin, follow after righteous- 
 ness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the 
 right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this 
 is not to be understood, as if there did not remain in them great infirmi- 
 ties ; but they fight against them through the spirit, all the days of their 
 life, continually taking their refuge to the blood, death, passion, and 
 obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they have remission oi^ 
 sins, through faith in him. As for the false Church, she ascribes more 
 power and authority to herself and her ordinances, than to the M^ord of 
 God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does 
 she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his word, but 
 adds to, and takes from them, as she thinks proper ; she relieth more upon 
 men than upon Christ ; and persecutes those, who live holily according 
 to the word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and 
 idolatry. These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from 
 each other. ' ' 
 
 In this we not only have exclusive salvation, for we are told that 
 the true Church is distinguished from all the sects which assume the 
 name of the Church, that no man has a right to separate himself from 
 
444 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 it, that its members are known by faith, and so forth. The calumnies 
 which are cast upon the Roman Catholic Church are given as her char- 
 acteristics, and she is designed as " a false church, " ' ' a persecutor of the 
 saints," "having errors," "being idolatrous," and "being covetous." 
 This is indeed complimentary ! 
 
 I ask any person who has had the patience to read my four pre- 
 ceeding letters and this present one, whether it is not as extraordinary 
 and ridiculous an exhibition as he has ever known, to find a number 
 of clergymen of Churches professing as their doctrine those tenets, de- 
 liberately charge us with being criminals in holding that God has made 
 true faith a requisite for salvation? When our doctrine upon the sub- 
 ject is compared with theirs it is far less harsh, and much milder in its 
 import; for aught that I know they may imagine the Pope to be An- 
 tichrist, but it is certainly no great recommendation to their doctrine 
 that it is more harsh and uncharitable than that which is taught by 
 Antichrist himself, and received by the synagogue of Satan, as we are 
 politely and charitably said to be. Do these gentlemen really believe 
 Pope Leo XII is Antichrist ? Do they believe sincerely that their fellow- 
 citizens are idolators and constitute a portion of the synagogue of Satan ? 
 If they do not, why keep such language in their confessions of Faith? 
 I must continue. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, 
 
 B. c. 
 
 LETTER XXX 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Apr. 2, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — I shall in this letter endeavor to conclude the testi- 
 mony of doctrine from the Protestant Churches upon the subject of 
 exclusive salvation. If I have selected some and omitted others, it was 
 not from any predilection or dislike on my part : to me they are all alike, 
 they equally denounce me as a corrupter of the pure doctrine of Christ, 
 and a member of the Church whose errors are too numerous and too 
 gross to allow their fathers to remain in her communion, or to permit 
 them to return without danger of eternal ruin. So far as charity is 
 concerned I hold the individuals of those several Churches upon a per- 
 fect equality, and feel convinced that it is my religious duty, as I trust 
 it is my disposition to do them every service in my power, and to meet 
 them in all the relations of society as friends, neighbors, fellow-citizens, 
 or brethren of the human family. It would be too tedious to examine 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 445 
 
 the doctrine of every denomination, but it was necessary to select a few, 
 and in making the selection, I have as far as I knew, taken the Churches 
 to which those gentlemen belonged who so zealously aided White in his 
 charge against us. As those gentlemen charged us with holding a doe- 
 trine which made our very benevolence a curse and rendered us unfit 
 to participate in an equality of political rights, with our fellow-Chris- 
 tians, I thought it to be only just to try themselves by their own test. 
 I believe, that the Methodist doctrine is that which alone of the assailants 
 has not yet been exhibited. Allow me now to dwell for a short time upon 
 their Confession of Faith. 
 
 The Doctrines and Principles of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 the twentieth edition, New York, published hy N. Bangs & T. Mason, 
 for the Methodist Episcopal Church. J. C. Totten, printer, 9, Bowery, 
 1820 — shall be my text book. 
 
 It is very obvious to all who know any thing of the origin of our 
 several Protestant denominations, that Methodism was originally but a 
 regular and methodical practice of the religious duties of the Church of 
 Protestant England, but in process of time it has come to be a separate 
 denomination, between which and the church whence it emanated there 
 are many things not only discrepant but contradictory : not only things 
 indifferent or upon which there might be difference without breach of 
 communion: but upon what is really, and [is] known to be essential. 
 However, we must necessarily expect to find in many instances a great 
 similarity of doctrine. Hence as we know that the Church of England 
 and the American Protestant Episcopal Church hold the doctrine of 
 exclusive salvation ; it must be also held by the Methodist Church unless 
 it has been specially abandoned. As we have no evidence of this special 
 abandonment, we must be of opinion that it continues to be still a tenet 
 of the society. This, though a good presumptive argument, and nearly 
 conclusive as to fact, is not however such ground as I should be willing 
 to rest upon, especially in a case like the present. I shall therefore use 
 positive proof. 
 
 To establish my position, will require the attainment of two results : 
 the first, that according to the Methodist Church doctrine, without faith 
 there is no salvation, and secondly, that this faith exists only in those 
 who believe the doctrine of Christ. I shall add another, viz. that Roman 
 Catholics have not that doctrine, and it will follow that Roman Catholics 
 are excluded from salvation. 
 
 The work which I shall use contains two parts, the spiritual and the 
 temporal : section ii, of the first part, contains the ' ' Articles of Religion : ' ' 
 they are generally taken from those of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 
 
446 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 Article v, page 8, corresponds with article vi of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church, and is in the following words : 
 
 "The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation: 
 so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is 
 not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article 
 of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." 
 
 The only difference is in the introducing the particle The at the 
 commencement in this, and omitting the particle the before faith. Hence 
 it is clearly implied if not fully declared; that the belief of an article 
 of faith is necessary to salvation. In page 10, we have the following 
 article VIII ''Of Free Will." 
 
 * ' The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he can- 
 not turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, 
 to faith, and calling upon God ; Wherefore we have no power to do good 
 works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by 
 Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with 
 us, when we have that good will. ' ' 
 
 This is exactly the same as article x of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, save that it omits the word good before "works" where it first 
 occurs, and which word good is in the article of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church. From this article we are necessarily led to infer that our good 
 works depend upon faith, or are identified therewith, and that we can- 
 not obtain this faith, or do those works without the aid of God's grace; 
 indeed the plain meaning is that grace produces faith, and faith produces 
 the works. So that we have no good work without faith as its foundation 
 — hence it is obvious that as we cannot be saved without faith or good 
 works, or both, he who has not faith cannot be saved. The next article 
 removes all doubt from the question, article ix, page 11 "Of the Justifi- 
 cation of Man. ' ' 
 
 "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our 
 Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works of 
 deserving; — Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most 
 whosesome doctrine and very full of comfort." 
 
 This is word for word so far as it has reference to the xith article 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church; the latter refers to the book of 
 Homilies for an explanation of the manner in which we are justified by 
 faith only, and how it is wholesome and comfortable. My conclusion is, 
 the Methodist Church requires faith for justification, hence either a 
 person might be saved without being justified, or he cannot be saved 
 without having faith : our Methodist friends are far from asserting that 
 an unjustified man can be saved, and they necessarily teach what we have 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 447 
 
 previously seen to be their doctrine, that only they who have faith will 
 be saved : and this is the doctrine of exclusive salvation in its fullest ex- 
 tent and acceptation. We shall see this further confirmed in the tenth 
 article "Of Good Works." 
 
 "Although good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow 
 after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of 
 God's judgments: yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, 
 and spring out of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a 
 lively faith may be evidently known, as a tree is discerned by its fruit." 
 
 The variance between this and the article xii of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church consists in although being substituted for albeit, the word 
 judgment being made plural, and omitting the word necessarily after 
 spring out. The article in each ease exhibits to us good works as the 
 consequence of faith : and in each case shows the necessity of faith for 
 salvation. There is however a wide difference between the substantial 
 doctrine in each, for the Methodist does not assert in this article that good 
 works are a necessary consequence of faith : he here admits the possibility 
 of the existence of faith without being necessarily productive, whereas 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church asserts that the works must necessarily 
 spring out from faith wherever it does exist; they both agree that the 
 exhibition of good works is an evidence of the existence of faith, or belief, 
 without which there is no justification. We next come to page 12, article 
 xiii "Of the Church." 
 
 "The visibile Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, 
 in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly 
 administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of 
 necessity are requisite to the sam?." 
 
 This article is alike in both churches, and an essential mark of the 
 Church is that the pure word of God is preached therein. They who 
 will not believe these doctrines cannot have faith, cannot be in that true 
 Church, cannot be justified, cannot be saved. For my own part I can 
 see no ground for saying that any Church or religious society that I ever 
 heard or read of, is not equally chargeable as is ours with holding this 
 doctrine. I shall now proceed to examine a few of the code passages 
 in which the Protestant Episcopal and Methodist Churches apply the 
 principle specially to our Church. 
 
 In page 13, article xiv: "Of Purgatory." 
 
 "The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardon, worshipping, 
 and adoration, as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of 
 saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrant 
 of Scripture, but repugnant to the word of God. ' ' 
 
448 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 This is also the article xii of the Protestant Episcopal Church. We 
 are here distinctly ejected from the Church, since we teach what is re- 
 pugnant to the word of God, consequently not the pure word of God, 
 but that which is repugnant thereto, and of course not grounded upon 
 the warrant of Scripture. The next article charges us with what is also 
 said to be repugnant to the word of God, article xiv which is article 
 xxiv of the Protestant Episcopal Church, ' ' Of speaking in the congrega- 
 tion in such a tongue as the People understand. ' ' 
 
 ' ' It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God, and the custom 
 of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church, or to min- 
 ister the sacraments, in a tongue not understood by the people. ' ' 
 
 Will any person w^ho will peruse this evidence for a moment hesi- 
 tate to say that we are treated not only very unceremoniously, but very 
 illiberally, by gentlemen whose first principle is, that neither we nor 
 they can know with infallible certainty what is the meaning of the pas- 
 sages of the Bible, and that each person is to seek for knowledge from 
 God and not to depend upon the testimony of any Church, because each 
 Church is liable to err ? 
 
 In page 14, we are charged with corrupt following of the Apostles ; 
 this is in article xvi and corresponds with article xxv of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church. I really do not understand what the gentlemen mean, 
 unless it be what I cannot believe they intended, that they charge the 
 Apostles with corruption, and consequently that we are criminal in fol- 
 lowing them. But in page 15, paragraph the second of article xviii, 
 "Of the Lord's Supper," there is another specific opposition to God's 
 pure doctrine charged upon us. 
 
 " Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and 
 wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is 
 repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of 
 a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. ' ' 
 
 This corresponds to article xxviii of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church. Hitherto we were charged with opposing the word of God, 
 and being superstitious. Now the sounds begin to grow more portentous : 
 our Presbyterian, Baptist, and other friends, not content with this, 
 which in all conscience was severe enough, add ' ' is repugnant to common 
 sense and reason, and hath been and is the cause of gross idolatries." 
 Poor, senseless. Popish Idiots, and gross Idolators! Thank you gentle- 
 men ! It becomes you to lecture us and to rebuke us for illiberality. Let 
 us, however, hear a little more to soothe our pride and excite our vanity. 
 In page 16, article xix, the Methodist Church has, "Of both kinds." 
 
 * ' The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay-people : for both 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 449 
 
 the parts of the Lord's Supper, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, 
 ought to be administered to all Christians alike. ' ' 
 
 The Protestant Episcopal Church has the word sacrament for sup- 
 per. The declaration herein contained is that communion under one 
 kind is contrary to the ordinance and commandment of Christ ; of course 
 then we are charged with this criminality. In the same page, article 
 XX agrees word for word with article xxvi of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, except that the verbs which I have put in italics are in the past 
 tense there ; here they are in the present, and the fable and deceit here, 
 are there in the plural : "Of the one oblation of Christ, finished upon 
 the Cross." 
 
 "The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, 
 propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both 
 original and actual ; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that 
 alone. Wherefore the sacrifice of masses, in which it is commonly said, 
 that the Priest doth offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have re- 
 mission of pain or guilt, is a Nasphemous fahle and dangerous deceit." 
 
 Our friends of the Reformed Dutch Church, at the conclusion of 
 their xxxvth article, have this passage for our benefit : 
 
 "Therefore we reject all mixtures and damnable inventions which 
 men have added unto, or blended with the sacraments. ' ' 
 
 And in the Catechism for the xxx Lord's Day, page 58, Q. 80, we 
 are further complimented : 
 
 "Q. 80. What difference is there between the Lord's Supper and 
 the Popish Mass ? 
 
 "A. The Lord's Supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon 
 of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once 
 accomplished on the cross ; and, that we, by the Holy Ghost, are ingrafted 
 into Christ, who, according to the human nature, is now not on earth, 
 but in heaven, at the right hand of God his Father, and will there be 
 worshipped by us ; hut the mass teacheth that the living and dead have 
 not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is 
 also daily offered for them hy the Priests; and further, that Christ is 
 bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be wor- 
 shipped in them ; so that the mass at bottom, is nothing else than a denial 
 of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idol- 
 atry." 
 
 The good gentlemen will please to allow me to know what the mass 
 is ; and with that knowledge I beg leave to inform them that I do not be- 
 lieve even White himself would have been so barefaced as to assert that 
 the propositions which I have marked in italics in the answer which they 
 
450 CONTROVEKSY Vol. 
 
 teach their children are true. Roman Catholics do not teach either of 
 those two propositions, and the mass teaches nothing. Our Baptist 
 brethren, page 61, kindly join our Presbyterian brethren in the following 
 assertion, chapter xxix, article 2 : 
 
 ' ' So that Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abomin- 
 ably injurious to Christ's own and only sacrifice, the alone propitiation 
 for the sins of the elect. ' ' 
 
 The Methodist, in page 45, prescribing the trial for candidates for 
 the ministry, in answer 2, places a requisite condition "a just conception 
 of salvation by faith," and at an ordination of an elder, page 141, re- 
 quires him to be " ready with faithful diligence to banish and drive away 
 all erronneous and strange doctrines contrary to God 's word ; ' ' and in 
 ordaining a Bishop, page 154, requires of him, in addition, to promise 
 "both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the 
 same." 
 
 I have been tedious, but upon this topic I have done for the present. 
 I believe then, it must appear extraordinary that clergymen of those 
 several Churches should have combined to unite with the writer of the 
 Evidence in the following paragraph : 
 
 "If your leaders, whom it would be uncharitable to suspect of the 
 latter feeling, have so far receded from the Roman creed as to allow us 
 the common privileges of Christianity, and can conscientiously swear^ 
 to protect and encourage the interests of the Church of England, let 
 them, in the name of truth, speak openly before the world, and be the 
 first to remove that obstacle to mutual benevolence, and perfect commun- 
 ity of political privileges — the doctrine of exclusive salvation in your 
 Church. Cancel but that one article in your creed, and all liberal men 
 in Europe will offer you the right hand of fellowship. Your doctrines 
 concern yourselves ; this endangers the peace and freedom of every man 
 living, and that in proportion to your goodness: it makes your very 
 benevolence a curse." 
 
 My friends, we have too long suffered under injuries and unfounded 
 imputations : we have been accustomed to hear ourselves vilified as the 
 only tolerant Church in Christendom, as the only Church which taught 
 the doctrine of exclusive salvation ^ we ought not to permit this any longer 
 — without any diminution of charity, without any violation of friend- 
 ship, without any loss of affection for our brethren of other Churches, 
 let us make them feel that we are at least as liberal as any of them. I 
 am fully aw^are that several who hail under the names of those Churches 
 will answer, that they do not believe all the doctrines which those 
 Churches teach. But surely the clergy will not say so ; they at all events 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 451 
 
 believe what they profess to teach, and of course they believe this doc- 
 trine. When the other gentlemen shall have determined upon what they 
 will please to believe, and give us an exhibition of their tenets, we shall 
 be able to make the case as plain in their regard provided they go but 
 one line beyond this position. Every person, good and bad, that ever 
 was created will be saved, without any endurance of punishment: and 
 truth and error are equally acceptable to God : neither does he take into 
 account whether a person has been indifferent to the discovery of truth, 
 or engaged in its investigation, nor whether he has made it the rule of 
 his conduct, or been careless as to what rule he observed. The least ad- 
 vance beyond this line is embracing a doctrine of exclusive salvation. 
 I shall proceed to examine the other portions of the Evidence. 
 Yours, and so forth, 
 
 B. c. 
 
 LETTER XXXI 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Apr. 9, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — I have, I trust, fully established the following points : 
 viz. 1. That a doctrine of exclusive salvation is taught by every re- 
 ligious society. 2. That the Roman Catholic Church did not drive 
 out the Protestant sectaries, because of their refusal to abandon the doc- 
 trines which their predecessors had given them, as derived from the 
 Apostles. 3. That the first Protestants went out from the Roman Cath- 
 olic Church, because she would not abandon the doctrines which she had 
 received from the Apostles through their successors, and which Roman 
 Catholics also believed to be in accordance with the Scriptures. 4. That 
 the persons who so left the Roman Catholic Church, asserted that she 
 erred in keeping those doctrines, and that their regard for the salvation 
 of their souls and the purity of their religion obliged them to leave her 
 communion. 5. That this is on their part an assertion that only they 
 who reject false doctrine and adhere to the pure and true doctrine can 
 be saved. 6. That they have separated from each other into a vast 
 number of sects and divisions, each of which denounces the rest as er- 
 roneous in one or more points of doctrine, and justifies its separation 
 upon the ground of the high obligation of adhering to truth and reject- 
 ing error. 7. That they all denounce the Roman Catholic Church as 
 bigoted and intolerant and tyrannical, for not admitting as true, a prin- 
 ciple whose truth they all deny, viz. that it is a matter of indifference 
 in the sight of God whether a person adheres to religious truth or to 
 
452 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 religious error, provided he is a good, moral man. 8. That whilst they 
 complain of being styled heretics or choosers of doctrines, by the Roman 
 Catholic Church, they feel themselves justified in calling her a corrupter 
 of God's word, the false Church, a lying harlot, the synagogue of satan, 
 the scarlet .... of Babylon ; her members idolaters ; her clergy, lying 
 prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing, imps of the devil; and their chief 
 Bishop, Antichrist, the man of sin, the son of perdition. 9. That this 
 unbecoming language is not only that of ages gone by, but that of the 
 present day; not that which is used in a moment of irritation, but in 
 the hours of deliberate and most solemn and serious reflection; not by 
 the rabble drawcansirs, who seek for temporary notice and a daily morsel, 
 without any farther hopes, but by dignified prelates, learned ministers, 
 wise elders, provident deacons, and grave synods; it is language em- 
 bodied in the awful formularies of Faith, for the edification of the sancti- 
 monious, for the direction of the preacher, for the information of the in- 
 quirer, and to be used in the formation of the youthful mind, even from 
 the first lispings of artless and unsuspecting infancy. 
 
 Yes, my friends, whilst the Church of Bishop Kemp, and those of 
 his associates, use such language as this, they dare before a judicious 
 public to arraign us who have not returned railing for their railing, 
 or reproach for their scoffing, though they have thus denounced us in 
 their doctrinal works. I have never known efl'rontery to equal that of 
 which those Right Reverend and reverend approvers of the Reverend 
 Joseph Blanco White are guilty. They may, if they will, set to work 
 upon the amendment and revision of their doctrinal formularies, they 
 may, if they will, make their religion more pure ; with all this we have 
 no concern ; but we should not suffer them with impunity to charge us 
 with holding a more intolerant doctrine than they do, when in truth 
 ours is more liberal, than is the most liberal of theirs. 
 
 I have done for the present with the doctrine of exclusive salvation ; 
 not that I have exhausted my topics, but that I fear having tired my 
 readers. Should the holy alliance of our opponents desire it, they shall 
 be treated to as much more as they be pleased to call for : I have it made 
 up by me, ready to order. 
 
 White now passes to another topic, page 72. 
 
 "Believe a man who has spent the best years of his life where Cath- 
 olicism is professed without the check of dissenting opinions; where it 
 luxuriates on the soil, which fire and sword have cleared of whatever 
 might stunt its natural and genuine growth; a growth incessantly 
 watched over by the head of your Church, and his authorized represent- 
 atives, the Inquisitors." 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 453 
 
 This portion of the chapter, according to its heading in the title, 
 I expected, would give us abundant evidence of all the atrocities of 
 the Inquisition, and I therefore looked for an opportunity of giving a 
 correct statement of the nature of that institution; but really there is 
 so little upon the subject, that I must leave that history to another place, 
 in which it shall be more appropriately introduced. After I shall have 
 concluded my examination of White's Evidence, 1 have by me another 
 work, in the examination of which it will be more properly given. 
 
 White calls upon us to believe him. Believe whom? — Look to my 
 Letters V, VI, and so forth, and will you believe him? — "Spain has 
 cleared the soil with fire and sword. ' ' At all events, the Inquisition was 
 no sword ; the Kings of Spain used it in their wars with the Moors ; but in 
 the name of common sense why are we to be made accountable for the reg- 
 ulations by which the Spanish government secured itself against the sec- 
 ret attempts of an enemy which had long kept its people in bondage, and 
 which now nearly driven out by the sword, sought to insinuate itself 
 concealed in the country, to make new attempts at its subjugation? 
 Let me put a case, which being of times now before us, will be better 
 understood, and will perhaps even justify the Spanish policy. Suppose 
 the cause of Greece triumphant ; would our American patrons of Blanco 
 White condemn the policy which would exclude the Turks from that 
 liberated country over which they had so long domineered ? Would they 
 condemn the policy which dreading the return of those oppressors, would 
 create a tribunal to inquire after such as might remain concealed or 
 disguised and watching for a favorable opportunity of again subjugating 
 their former tributaries? Yet this would be exactly what White calls 
 clearing the soil with the sword in the first instance, and if the tribunal 
 punished with death by burning those discovered enemies, it would be 
 clearing it by fire. This was the origin of the Spanish Inquisition, a 
 tribunal created in 1480, by Ferdinand and Isabella, to guard their ter- 
 ritories against the return of Saracenic dominion. Neither were the 
 Spanish Inquisitors the "authorized representatives of the head of our 
 Church. ' ' The King of Spain named the Inquisitor general for all his 
 territories; this name was transmitted to the Pope for his approbation; 
 the local Inquisitors were nominated by this general, but they had no 
 power in virtue of this nomination, until it was approved of and con- 
 firmed by the King : the monarch also appointed a council to sit with the 
 Inquisitor general, and by the King's authority familiars or officers of 
 the local tribunals were appointed from amongst the nobility, by the 
 supreme council : thus it was not a tribunal of authorized representatives 
 of the Pope, but of the Spanish monarch, and was established not against 
 
454 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 heretics, but against the ancient Saracenic enemies of the Spanish people. 
 The King of Spain seeing the desolating wars of Germany and the con- 
 vulsions of France, in consequence of the change of religion, and having 
 unity and peace at home, charged the same tribunal to prevent the in- 
 troduction into their territories of those strife-creating factions which 
 tortured the minds and afflicted the bodies of other nations ; they believed 
 that the way to heaven was open to the professors of the ancient religion, 
 and they saw no necessity for introducing theological discord and tu- 
 multous wranglers into a land which was now enjoying some repose, 
 It is indeed extraordinary that White should scarcely ever give even a 
 coloring of truth to his statements. His book was written in the year 
 1825, at a period when the Inquisition did not exist, when he well knew 
 there w^as no such tribunal in Spain, and yet he tells us that "the growth 
 of Catholicism is watched over by the head of our Church, and his author- 
 ized representatives the Inquisitors." 
 
 I have in a former letter taken to pieces the fable which he gives 
 us in page 73, concerning his mother and the Inquisition. I shall not 
 therefore now revert to it; but shall hasten to the conclusion of this 
 his second letter, page 74. 
 
 "Such is the spirit of ecclesiastical power to which you submit. 
 The monstrous laws of which I speak, do not belong to a remote period : 
 they existed in full force fifteen years ago : they were republished, under 
 the authority of the Pope, at a later period. ' ' 
 
 But Mr. White here asserts a deliberate falsehood. His letter is 
 addressed to the Roman Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland, and the 
 power which he describes is that of the Spanish Inquisition, which has 
 never been in force in Great Britain or Ireland. As w^ell might he tell 
 the Irish Catholics that the King of Spain could nominate the archbishop 
 of Armagh because the Pope consented to his nominating the archbishop 
 of Toledo : as well might he have asserted that the Church lands in Ire- 
 land belong to the Catholic Bishops, because the King of Spain agreed 
 with the Pope that the Church lands of his dominions should belong 
 only to Roman Catholics. This is the discreditable sophistry of en- 
 deavoring to establish general conclusions as the result of special premises. 
 I would be just as well warranted in charging the Protestant Bishops 
 of America with voting the persecution of the Irish Catholics. There 
 is here also a wilful concealment of the truth : viz. that the tribunal has 
 been abolished, and that the Pope refused to be concerned in its res- 
 toration — page 75, 
 
 ' ' If some of your writers assume the tone of freedom which belongs 
 to this age and country ; if you profess your Faith without compulsion ; 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 455 
 
 you may thank the Protestant laws which protect you. Is there a spot 
 in the universe where a Roman Catholic may throw off his mental al- 
 legiance except where Protestants have contended for that right, and 
 sealed it with their blood ? ' ' 
 
 Of all the barefaced effrontery which ever was possessed by any writ- 
 er, the compiler of this passage must have had the greatest share ; or he 
 must be the most ignorant man who has attempted to treat of such a sub- 
 ject. He is addressing the Roman Catholics of Ireland whose predeces- 
 sors have written at several periods, during centuries before they were 
 persecuted for adhering to their religion, with the same freedom that they 
 do now: to men whose fathers when they professed their faith before 
 Protestants existed did so without compulsion; the same is true of the 
 British Catholics. They were Catholics who refused to permit the Popes 
 to interfere with their national rights, with the provisions of the Great 
 Charter, who proclaimed that they would not have the laws of England 
 changed, who passed the statutes of Mortmain and of Praemunire. Is 
 it possible that the sponsors of White can, even in America, assert with- 
 out blushing that the British and Irish Catholics may now thank the 
 disgraceful code of Protestant laws by which they are persecuted for 
 their religion, for the ability to confess their faith without compulsion? 
 There never existed a law in Ireland to compel a man to profess any 
 faith or system or religion, until Protestant laws were made to compel 
 Catholics to profess the Protestant religion, and torture them if they 
 refused. Will Bishop Kemp have the goodness to produce the law if it 
 existed? or state a single instance of persecution upon the score of re- 
 ligion in Ireland until the time of King Henry VIII, whom God raised 
 up as he did Josias, and Ezechias ? 
 
 Protestants never contended for the right of conscience in Naples, 
 and never sealed it with their blood in that region or in Sicily, nor in 
 the States of the Church, nor in Brazil : yet in these and several other 
 spots of the universe, Roman Catholics may and do leave their Church, 
 and openly profess having thrown off their mental allegiance. Thus 
 every particle of this paragraph, is a tissue of untruth and unblushing 
 effrontery. One would imagine by his style and manner that he felt con- 
 fident that Protestants never interfered with the freedom of conscience. 
 What does he say to the penal laws whose continuance and Avhose enforce- 
 ment he advocates? Could George IV throw off his mental allegiance, 
 for I will not charge him with the imitation of White 's own. hypocrisy, 
 without losing his crown ? Could Mr. Canning hold his place as Secre- 
 tary of State if he became a Roman Catholic ? Could the Lord Mayor 
 of London wear his golden chain if he became a Roman Catholic ? Could 
 
456 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 the Duke of Sussex vote in the house of Peers if he became a Roman 
 Catholic? Could Sir Francis Burdett or Mr. Brougham retain their 
 seats in the House of Commons if they became Roman Catholics? 
 Could the Duke of Wellington retain his office of commander-in-chief, 'or 
 could Marquis Wellesley retain the government of Ireland, if they be- 
 came Roman Catholics? Could Sir Wm. M'Mahon keep his place as 
 Master of Rolls in Ireland, if he professed the religion of his parents 
 and of his youth? Could the beadle of any hall in a British or Irish 
 University, could the lowest officer of the meanest corporation retain 
 his place and change his religion? — Why did the Swiss Protestant can- 
 ton turn Mr. Haller, but three years since, from his place in her council ? 
 Because he took the liberty of changing his religion and returning to the 
 Church of his ancestors. 
 
 "I know that your Church modifies her intolerance according to 
 circumstances, and that she tolerates in France, after the revolution, the 
 Huguenots, whom she would have burnt in Spain a few years ago, and 
 whom she would doom to some indefinite punishment, little short of the 
 stake, at this present moment. Such conduct is unworthy of the claims 
 which Rome contends for, and w^ould disgrace the more obscure leader 
 of a paltry sect. If she still claims the right of wielding 'the sword of 
 Peter, ' why does she conceal it under her mantle ? If not, why does she 
 not put an end to more than half the miseries and degradation of Italy, 
 Spain, Portugal and Spanish America, by at once declaring that men are 
 accountable only to God for their religious belief, and that sincere and 
 conscientious persuasion must both in this and the next world, be a valid 
 plea for the pardon of error? Does the Church of Rome really profess 
 this doctrine ? — It is then the sacred duty for her to remove at once that 
 scandal of Christianity, that intoleranace which the conduct of Popes 
 and councils has invariably upheld. ' ' 
 
 Upon what does this rhapsody rest? Upon a false assumption, viz. 
 that the Roman Catholic Church has done w^hat she has not done: that 
 is, that she has enacted the civil laws of the various nations in which her 
 faith was professed. She neither tolerates the Huguenots in France, 
 nor has she desired to burn him in Spain, and she has no punishment to 
 inflict upon him. She asserts that he has departed from the doctrines 
 which his father received from the Apostles, and that his tenets are 
 not comformable to those which came doAvn from the beginning. She 
 wields indeed the sword of Peter, but not to cut off the ear of Malchus, 
 for such is not her commission, but to cut off from her communion those 
 who would corrupt her doctrine, or rebel against the authority committed 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 457 
 
 by Christ to those whom the Holy Ghost has placed as governors in the 
 Church of God. 
 
 For my part, I cannot see either misery or degradation in any place 
 equal to that which exists in Ireland, in consequence of the unholy effort 
 which the British Church and State have made to force a people to act 
 against her conscience. Will Bishop Kemp have the kindness to ex- 
 hibit to me any thing to equal what I produce? As to the next part, 
 the Church of Eome admits the principle with its proper restrictions; 
 but she denies that this sincere conviction upon sufficient groivnds, exists 
 in those cases where White assumes that it does, and I deny the fact 
 which White impliedly asserts, "that the conduct of Popes and Councils 
 has invariably upheld such intolerance as is the scandal of Christianity." 
 It is not my duty to prove a negative, but I am ready to meet any one 
 who undertakes to prove the affirmative, and to give him sufficient re- 
 turns for any instances which he might adduce. 
 
 "But if, as I am persuaded, Rome still thinks in conformity with 
 her former conduct, and yet the Roman Catholics of these kingdoms dis- 
 sent from her on this point; they have already begun to use the Pro- 
 testant right of private judgment upon one of the articles of their faith ; 
 and I may hope they will follow me in the examination of that alleged 
 divine authority, by which they are prevented from extending it to all. ' * 
 
 This is again begging the question, and assuming the truth of what 
 is untrue. The Catholics of Ireland and Britain do not dissent from 
 the doctrines of their Church upon that point, but they adhere thereto ; 
 and White misrepresents and involves [the question], and after having 
 endeavored to render it obscure, states that which is not the fact. 
 
 He appends a note to this letter, to show that the friar Alphonsus 
 de Castro, who preached against the persecution of the English Pro- 
 testants, under Mary, wrote a book, to prove that the laws which en- 
 acted civil and canonical punishment against heretics were just; and 
 that the Fourth Council of Toledo was not as liberal as Mr. Charles 
 Butler says it was. With respect to the friar, it is matter of notoriety, 
 and admitted history, that he preached against persecution. When the 
 good sponsors of White w^ill adduce a single passage from his book to 
 contradict the doctrine of his sermon, it will be time enough for me to 
 reply to their assertions. Let them produce the laws which he de- 
 fends. With respect to the Council of Toledo, it was a mere question 
 between Mr. Butler and White, in his mode of treating which. White 
 shows his own dishonesty. In his Evidence, he, as I have shown, en- 
 deavors to conclude, from the establishment of the Inquisition against 
 the Moors and Jews, that every Catholic country held the same principle, 
 
458 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 and that it was enforced by the Catholic Church against all dissenters 
 from her body. But in page 238, he discovers, for his own purposes, 
 the distinction which I have drawn, and protests against Mr. Butler's 
 deducing a general conclusion from a mere Spanish case; and founds 
 his explanation of a notorious fact upon the surmise of his own opin- 
 ion, and the induction of his own probability, page 239. I shall not 
 now, however, follow him into the explanation of a special case of 
 Spanish discipline, as my object is not to vindicate the kingdom of 
 Spain, but the Catholic Church; and the Council of Toledo is not a 
 General Council. 
 
 Upon the postscript to this letter, I shall make a very short re- 
 mark: 
 
 ^'Postscript. — Want of books, or rather want of sufficient health 
 to undergo the fatigue and discomfort of consulting them in public 
 libraries, had made me proceed in the composition of these Letters, 
 deriving the materials from my own stores, and from the book itself, 
 against the general tendency of which I was induced to take up the 
 pen. My knowledge of the Roman Catholic doctrines led me soon to 
 conclude that Mr. Butler was a writer who, on the fairest construction, 
 knew how to divert his adversaries from all the weak points of his cause. 
 Yet I trusted that the accuracy of his quotations might be depended 
 upon, especially when he gave us authorized statements of the Roman 
 Catholic Tenets. The translation of the creed of Pius IV, which Mr. 
 Butler inserted in his Book of the Roman Catholic Church, was, there- 
 fore, the only document of that kind from which I deduced my argu- 
 ments, to prove the duty incumbent on Roman Catholics to propagate 
 their religion by every means in their power. Whether I have suc- 
 ceeded or failed in proving that fact by inference, my readers will de- 
 cide. But, upon a revision of my arguments, I do not regret that an 
 omission, which I subsequently discovered, in Mr. Butler's translation of 
 that creed, deprived me, at first, of the easiest and most direct proof 
 which I could wish to support my assertion. For had I consulted the 
 original at once, the positive confirmation which that document gives 
 it, and my own familiar conviction of its truth, would have induced me 
 to save myself the exertion of fully developing my argument. As it 
 now happens, I flatter myself that my readers will give me some credit 
 for accuracy in the knowledge of the Roman Catholic doctrines, when 
 they shall see that a theoretical reasoning from her established general 
 principles, fully and accurately agrees with a positive injunction of the 
 Church of Rome, of which lapse of time had made me forget the ex- 
 istence. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 459 
 
 "Let us, then, compare the last article in Mr. Butler's translation 
 of the creed, with the original. 
 
 * ' Mr. Butler 's translation : ' This true Catholic faith, out of which 
 none can be saved, which I now freely profess, and truly hold, I, N., 
 promise, vow, and swear most constantly to hold and profess the same 
 whole and entire, with God's assistance, to the end of my life. Amen.' 
 
 "The Latin original: ^Hanc veram Catholicam fidem, extra quam 
 nemo salvus esse potest, quam in praesenti sponte profiteor, et veraciter 
 teneo, eandem integram, et inviolatam, usque ad extremum vitae spatium 
 constantissime {Deo adjuvante) retinere et confiteri, atque a mets 
 
 SUBDITIS, VEL ILLIS QUORUM CURA AD ME IN MUNERE MEO SPECTABIT, 
 TENERI, DOCERI, ET PRAEDICARI, QUANTUM IN ME ERIT, CURATURUM EGO 
 IDEM N. SPONDEO, VOVEO, AC JURO. ' 
 
 "Now, the words in small capitals, omitted by Mr. Butler, contain 
 the very pith and marrow of the strongest argument against the ad- 
 missibility of Roman Catholics to parliament. For if the most solemn 
 profession of their faith lays on every one of her members who enjoys 
 a place of influence, the duty of 'procuring' that all under him, by 
 virtue of his office, shall hold, teach, and preach the doctrines of the 
 Roman Catholic Church, and this under an oath and vow ; how can 
 such men engage to preserve the ascendancy of the Church of England 
 in these realms. 
 
 "When, in the New Times of the 5th of April, I exposed this im- 
 portant omission before the public, I thought that Mr. Butler would 
 have explained the origin of it. But I am not aware of his having 
 given any explanation. Neither on that, nor on the present occasion, is 
 it my intention to cast a suspicion on that gentleman's good faith? 
 He probably copied from some garbled translation, prepared by less 
 scrupulous members of his communion, who wished to conceal the real 
 tenets of their Church from a Protestant public. At all events, this 
 fresh instance in inaccuracy, on a most important thing, gives additional 
 propriety to caution in reading Mr. Butler's defence of Catholicism." 
 
 A more glaring untruth never was put forward than that which 
 is here asserted, in two instances. He charges Mr. Charles Butler with 
 having given as an exhibition of the Catholic tenets, a garbled docu- 
 ment, by omitting an essential part. That part which he says was sup- 
 pressed by Mr. Butler, he gives at full length. Now, that addition 
 which he gives, contains no expression of any tenet, but is a promise 
 and oath given by certain persons, to teach and to have taught the 
 tenets which had been previously expressed and enumerated by Mr. 
 Butler, therefore, when they had been so expressed and enumerated. 
 
460 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 there was no garbling of the document in the translation, by any mem- 
 ber of our communion, who wished to conceal the real tenets of our 
 Church from a Protestant public. In the next place, the oath is no 
 part of the tenets, and is not to be found in the creed. The original has 
 not the oath or promise. The last clause in the original is exactly that 
 which Mr. Butler has given before the passage, which is here stated as 
 the last article given by Mr. Butler, and which, in fact, is no article, 
 except in its first sentence, which is that concerning exclusive salvation : 
 but to this is appended a form of promise always made and sometimes 
 sworn to ; for the words ' ' vow and swear, ' ' are generally omitted ; they 
 are never used, except upon some very extraordinary occasion, such as 
 the reconciliation of apostates to the Church. But the question recurs, 
 did White forget the clause which he says was omitted ? No ; but by a 
 sort of deceit, which is highly censurable, he exhibits as an article of the 
 faith of every Roman Catholic, and sworn to by every Roman Catholic, 
 that oath which a Bishop swears after making the profession previously 
 to his consecration. 
 
 But this is not all ; for as the words evidently imply that this oath 
 binds a person in office, to see that all under his charge shall hold, teach, 
 and preach the recited doctrines; he with equal want of principle and 
 decency, concludes that it would bind a British Member of Parliament, 
 by virtue of that office or place, to use his best efforts to make the Pro- 
 testant clergy preach and teach the Catholic tenets ! And, thus, he en- 
 deavors to support his previous calumnies of our disregard for oaths, 
 or of the obligation of Catholic legislators robbing Protestant Churches. 
 The Church does not require that the oath shall be taken by such legis- 
 lator, and therefore the whole postscript is an unbecoming falsehood, 
 and of a piece with the rest of the book. How could Bishop Kemp and 
 his associates, before the civilized world, give the sanction of their names 
 to the truth of those assertions ? As well might I assert, that no member 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church ought to be permitted to take his 
 seat in our Congress, or State Legislatures, or that he could not, with a 
 safe conscience, take such seat, if elected thereto, because the Bishops 
 of his Church on the day of their consecration make a solemn declaration, 
 equivalent to an oath, that they will with all faithful diligence banish 
 and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine con- 
 trary to God 's word ; and both privately and openly call upon and en- 
 courage others to the same. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 461 
 
 LETTER XXXII 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Apr. 16, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — Hitherto White's remarks were upon topics more of 
 a political and personal than of a dogmatic description ; his third letter 
 however is more than the others, that of which the gentlemen of "the 
 holy alliance" should naturally be esteemed competent judges, and for 
 whose untruths or misrepresentations they are individually and col- 
 lectively as amenable to us and to the public, as is White himself. We 
 can excuse them for much, and only condemn their rashness and dis- 
 position to do us an unkindness, when they undertake to unite with Irish 
 Orangemen and British persecutors, in lecturing British and Irish 
 Catholics for their endeavors to regain their seats in their owti legis- 
 lative assemblies; and when they paint us who are Catholics, to our 
 fellow citizens, as persons sworn to violate the constitution of this 
 Union, and those of our States, by abusing the confidence of our consti- 
 tuents, should we be chosen to office or to seats in the legislatures. We 
 could even smile at their credulity, if we thought they really believed 
 what their friend, Blanco White, wrote concerning the situation of re- 
 ligion in Spain. But for their approbation of the Third Letter, the 
 gentlemen must stand or fall upon their own merits. Its title is as 
 follows : — 
 
 "Examination of the title to infallibility, spiritual supremacy, and 
 exclusive salvation, claimed by the Roman Catholic Church. Internal 
 evidence against Rome, in the use she has made of her assumed prerog- 
 ative. Short method of determining the question. ' ' 
 
 As theologians, the gentlemen must be presumed to have studied our 
 arguments in support of the doctrine of infallibility, before they pro- 
 nounced those arguments to be insufficient : for we cannot suppose them 
 to have solemnly protested before God and the world, that this doctrine 
 was erroneous, until they were fully acquainted with all that is adduced 
 to prove its truth. If therefore they suppress any of those arguments, 
 when they state the reasons by which we uphold the tenet, for the pur- 
 pose of refuting them, they have been guilty of that which I need not 
 describe. They have identified themselves with White ; his words there- 
 fore must be considered as theirs. His letter commences with the fol- 
 lowing passage : 
 
 "At the conclusion of my preceding Letter, I entreated you to ex- 
 amine the title by which your Church deprives her members of the right 
 of private judgment on religious matters, and denies salvation to those 
 
462 CONTROVEKSY Vol. 
 
 who venture to think for themselves. In making this request I may ap- 
 pear to have overlooked the very essence of your religious allegiance, and 
 to demand a concession which would at once put you out of the pale of 
 the Roman Church. But I beg you to observe, that whatever be the ex- 
 tent of the authority of that Church over you, there is one point which 
 it cannot withhold from the judgment and verdict of your reason. The 
 reality of her title to be the guide and rule of your faith, must be a 
 matter, not of authority, but of proof. He that claims obedience in 
 virtue of delegated power, is bound to prove his appointment. Any 
 attempt to deprive those who, without that appointment would be his 
 equals, of the liberty to examine the authority, nature and extent of the 
 decree which constitutes the delegate above them; is an invasion of men's 
 natural liberty, as well as a strong indication of imposture. If before 
 we come to God we must, through nature, believe that he is, surely be- 
 fore we yield our reason to one who calls himself God's Vicar, our reason 
 should be satisfied that God has truly appointed him to that superemi- 
 nent post." 
 
 For the phrase "who think for themselves" would be much more 
 correctly substituted "who select from the body of revealed doctrines 
 some which they choose to retain, whilst they reject the remainder as 
 not suiting their taste." It is impossible to prevent a man's thinking 
 for himself ; and he who believes every doctrine of the Church upon her 
 testimony, exercises this right as well and more judiciously than does 
 the person who selects for himself: because all revealed doctrines are 
 believed upon the authority of testimony, and that man who examines 
 the credibility of the witness, and is satisfied of the existence of those 
 characteristics which make him competent and credible, has necessarily 
 thought for himself during this examination ; but when the authority of 
 that witness is fully established, the selection of some portions of her 
 testimony is not thinking judiciously, but choosing arbitrarily: and 
 hence the person who so chooses is called Algerixos, a chooser. The 
 right of private judgment as to the character of the witness must neces- 
 sarily precede the decision upon her authority, but that authority once 
 recognized, it would be a contradiction to suppose a right of choice to 
 remain : the co-existence of authorized testimony, and of a right of choice, 
 is impossible. The Catholic Church does not therefore deprive her mem- 
 bers of the right of private judgment upon her own character as an 
 authorized witness: nor does she deny salvation to those who think for 
 themselves ; but she teaches that they who choose for themselves, do, by 
 so acting, contradict the first principles of reason, and the first maxims 
 of religion. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 463 
 
 Had the writer laid down these maxims without having had re- 
 course to that sophistry of language, which in the very choice of its ex- 
 pressions begs the question in debate, I should without any remark, have 
 admitted his position, that "the reality of the title of the Roman Cath- 
 olic Church to be the guide and rule of our faith, must be a matter not 
 of authority but of proof, " as I would also have granted him the propo- 
 sition which precedes that statement. 
 
 I have here to expose another of those subterfuges which the writer 
 has frequent recourse to in the process of his work, the use of ambiguous 
 phrases, so as to destroy the distinction between objects which are very 
 unlike. It is observable that many of our opponents in speaking of our 
 Church, call it the "Roman Church," others the "Romish Church," 
 and others the "Church of Rome." I am aware that in a great many 
 cases it is caused by pure unmixed ignorance, in others by dislike and 
 bigotry, but many use it more for the purposes of sophistry. This 
 latter description of persons know that the Roman Church, or the 
 Church of Rome, is only the diocese which is superintended by the Pope 
 as an individual Bishop : that the Catholic Church is spread throughout 
 the w^orld, but as in several parts of the world there are separatists of 
 various descriptions, who claim to be portions of the Catholic Church, 
 those Catholics who are in communion with the See or Church of Rome, 
 and who acknowledge it to be the mother and mistress of all other 
 Churches, are designated by the addition of the pr^enomen Roman, and 
 therefore, that although the Roman Catholic Church is spread through 
 the w^hole world, the Church of Rome does not extend beyond the walls 
 of that city. White here tells the persons whom he addresses, as "the 
 impartial amongst the Roman Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland," 
 that a certain concession would at once put them ' ' out of the pale of the 
 Roman Church." This is just as if Bishop Kemp should tell me who am 
 a citizen of Charleston, that doing a certain act would put me out of 
 the citizenship of Baltimore, of which place I never was a citizen. If 
 the Roman Catholic who resides in the archdiocese of Dublin, should re- 
 move his residence to the diocese of Rome, he would be immediately 
 recognized and received, because of his quality of Roman Catholic, and 
 would become a member of the Roman Church, ceasing to be a member 
 of the Church of Dublin; as the Bishop, if he is an American citizen 
 would be received and admitted a member of our city, upon his com- 
 ing hither and ceasing to be a citizen of Baltimore. Thus every member 
 of the Roman Church is a Roman Catholic, but very few Roman Cath- 
 olics are members of the Roman or Romish Church, or Church of Rome, 
 Having thus adverted to the manner in which the terms are confounded, 
 
464 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 I shall only lay down the general principle upon which we may fre- 
 quently detect the sophistrj-. Our opponents prove that some act has 
 been done by the Roman Church, and charge it upon the Roman Cath- 
 olic Church, and thus draw an universal conclusion from particular 
 premises ; which is just as fair a mode of reasoning, as if I was to charge 
 the murder of Morgan the freemason, upon all the freemasons in the 
 world. Christians, Jews, Turks, Indians, and all others of the fra- 
 ternity. 
 
 I will not quarrel with the amplification which goes to exhibit what 
 I before admitted "the reality of her title to be the guide and rule of 
 your faith, must be matter not of authority but of proof — " the word 
 her refers to that Church ; that Church again is of no meaning, unless it 
 refers to your Church, which depriving the members of their right of 
 private judgment, asserts her title to be the guide, and so forth. Thus 
 the question which in this case is proposed, for examination, is the title 
 of the Church of the Roman Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland; 
 the Church to which they submit is not the Roman Church, but the 
 Roman Catholic Church, spread through the whole world, and which 
 they profess to be for them an infallible guide to the faith; her rule of 
 faith they look upon to be correct. White sets out with a promise to 
 examine the proof of the reality of her title. And he does not even touch 
 upon the examination ! ! ! Even in this first sentence of his letter he 
 thrice changes the very state of the question. He first gives us the Ro- 
 man Catholic Church, then the Roman Church, he returns to the Roman 
 Catholic Church, or he states w^hat is not true ; and last of all he under- 
 takes to examine, not the proofs of the infallibility of the Church, either 
 Roman or Roman Catholic, but whether God has truly appointed as his 
 Vicar, one who calls himself such, and to whom we are called upon to 
 yield our reason. And this is theology! ! ! Verily it might pass at 
 Oxford, but no degree would be conferred at Seville for such theology 
 as this! In the name of common sense are those two questions the 
 same? 1. Is the Roman Catholic Church an infallible guide to the 
 knowledge of w^hat God has revealed? 2. Ought we yield our reason to 
 one who calls himself God's Vicar? For my part I think they are as 
 far asunder as the poles: and I should first like to know whether there 
 ever was an individual w'ho called himself God's Vicar, whilst he de- 
 manded the sacrifice of reason : I avow myself to be one who never 
 heard of such a claim having been made, and who am not prepared to 
 make the sacrifice. My reason teaches me that I ought to believe the 
 doctrines of God, and that I shall infallibly arrive at their knowledge by 
 the testimony of the Roman Catholic Church, and in receiving that testi- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 465 
 
 mony, I do not yield my reason, but I act conformably to its clearest 
 dictates. 
 
 White proceeds to state his case after having slabbered through his 
 preliminary sentence — 
 
 "How then stands the case between the Church of Rome and the 
 world 1 
 
 "The Church of Rome proclaims that Jesus Christ, both God and 
 man, having appeared on earth for the salvation of mankind, appointed 
 the Apostle Peter to be his representative ; made him the head of all the 
 members of his Church then existing; and granted a similar privilege 
 to Peter's successors. Christ ensured an infallible knowledge of the 
 sense of the Scriptures, and an equally infallible knowledge of certain 
 traditions, and their true meaning. On the strength of this divine ap- 
 pointment, the Church of Rome demands the same faith in the decisions 
 of her head, when approved 'by the tacit assent or open consent of the 
 greatest part of her Bishops,' as if they proceeded from the mouth of 
 Christ himself. The divine commission, on which she grounds these 
 claims, runs in these words of Christ to the chief of his Apostles : ' Thou 
 art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church ; and the gates of 
 hell shall not prevail against it : And I will give unto thee the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall 
 be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be 
 loosed in heaven. ' ' ' 
 
 This sentence I divide into three parts, and I deny the correctness 
 of the preliminary allegation, viz. that the question is between the Church 
 of Rome and the world : the parties are by no means properly designated. 
 The tirst party is not the Church of Rome, but is the Roman Catholic 
 Church: the second party is not the world, but is the congregation of 
 all the different sorts of sectaries which have ever separated from the 
 Catholic Church, from the followers of Ebion, or Nicholas, or Cerinthus, 
 or Simon Magus, down to the last denomination, whatever it may be, 
 which has raised a pulpit for its peculiar teacher. I assert that the 
 Roman Catholic Church has in her communion at least one hundred 
 and fifty millions of the present inhabitants of the world : they must be 
 deducted from Blanco White's world. We must next deduct a much 
 larger number who have no share whatever in the contest, who know 
 nothing of the question, who therefore are not parties in the ease; the 
 bulk of the inhabitants of China, of Japan, of India, of Persia, of 
 Thibet, of Tartary, of Arabia, of Turkey, of Africa. After making this 
 deduction, we shall have but a very small portion of the world, and 
 from even this we must deduct the Israelites, and pure Deists. We 
 
466 CONTEOVERSY Vol. 
 
 shall have the Greek Church, which is separated from the communion of 
 Rome, together with the miserable remnants of Nestorians, Eutychians, 
 Macedonians, Sabellians, Arians, Monothelites, and the Russian estab- 
 lished Church : to these I add all the various descriptions of Protestants ; 
 and I believe I overrate their amount in making the entire of those who 
 profess the Christian religion, but are not Roman Catholics, sum up at 
 seventy-five millions. Thus an accurate and honest writer would have 
 commenced, by stating that the parties in the case w^ere the Roman 
 Catholic Church on the one side, and all other denominations on the 
 other: and he would have added, if he desired to be exact in his state- 
 ment, that although their aggregate did not exceed half the number of 
 the Roman Catholics, this was the only case in the whole range of doc- 
 trine, upon which they could possibly be brought in array together 
 against her: — on every other point they waged war upon each other, a 
 large portion of them upon every other question voting in support o£ 
 the Roman Catholic tenets, and condemning as erroneous those with 
 whom they now united for the moment. Thus he w^ould have stated, 
 upon this question, the fact that this is Christ's doctrine, is supported 
 by the testimony of all Christendom, with a majority of two to one, and 
 in every other doctrinal question, with a much greater majority; and 
 thus instead of coming to the examination with that prejudice which is 
 excited by the wrong description of the parties at issue, the readers of 
 the Evidence would not only have that prejudice removed, but would be 
 led to ask themselves this question, "Has the majority been always at 
 the same side ? " To which I assert, the history of the Christian Church 
 would have answered, "Yes." I would then leave to their own fate the 
 following questions: "And is it possible that at all times the majority 
 of the Christian world were ignorant of the true Christian doctrine?" 
 "And upon what rational grounds shall I follow the testimony of the 
 minority, or of some subdivision of that minority, or my own individual 
 conjecture, in opposition to the testimony of the great body of 
 Christians?" 
 
 The first proposition of "White's sentence is that the Roman Catholic 
 Church teaches the supremacy of St. Peter, and his successors, to the 
 end of the world. The second proposition is, that Christ promised, ac- 
 cording to the doctrine of that Church, a certain specified infallibility to 
 the Church, united under Peter and his successors. The corollary from 
 this second proposition is stated to be that the Roman Catholic Church 
 demands acquiescence to her decisions, when made in a specified man- 
 ner — and the third proposition is, that the only proof of this commission 
 is the words quoted, as spoken by Christ to the chief of his Apostles. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 467 
 
 I will admit the truth of the first proposition. In viewing the sec- 
 ond, I find White to be grossly incorrect in these expressions, "An in- 
 fallible knowledge of certain traditions, and their true meaning." I 
 shall allow the corollary, but his third proposition is altogether incor- 
 rect. 
 
 There is a wide distinction to be taken between a certainty that we 
 are to receive the testimony of true doctrine with infallible correctness 
 from a designated witness, and a certainty of the special mode by which 
 that witness will give that infallibly correct testimony, or obtain the 
 knowledge necessary to give such testimony. When the people of Israel 
 beheld the miracles which Moses wrought, they had the testimony of 
 heaven, and of course the utmost certainty that he was to declare to 
 them the truth of God: the object of the Lord being to make him a 
 witness, whose testimony would give them infallibly correct knowledge 
 of the will of God. Nothing more was necessary than the declaration, 
 on the part of the Most High, that his will would be taught by Moses. 
 Whether the Lord gave the knowledge to Moses by inspiration, or by 
 conversation, or by writing, or by vision, or by strengthening his natural 
 powers of reasoning, made no difference : still he was the authorized in- 
 terpreter of the will of Heaven ; for God had declared that he had com- 
 missioned him for that purpose. The Roman Catholic Church states 
 that God has made her the authorized witness of what he has revealed, 
 and that her testimony, given by the decision of the great majority of 
 her Bishops together with their head, is the infallibly correct rule of as- 
 certaining what has been revealed. In a word, she says that the error 
 of hell will never prevail over her testimony of the truth of heaven. 
 She does not state in this general principle, the special mode by which 
 she will arrive at the knowledge which she communicates : it might, or 
 it might not be the mode which White designates : but one truth is ob- 
 vious, that if the commission was given at the time designated by the 
 writer, it could not have been then executed in the manner specified by 
 him, because the books containing Christ's doctrine were not then writ- 
 ten : and the first commissioners, who had no predecessors in their office, 
 could not know traditions of such predecessors. Neither White, nor his 
 abettors, thei?, having given to us what the Church states to be her com- 
 mission, it is proper that we should see what she claims. Her doctrine 
 is, that the testimony given by the judicial decision of the great majority 
 of her Bishops, together with the successor of Peter, who is the head of 
 the Church, is an infallibly correct mode of learning what Christ has 
 taught, as necessary to be believed, and necessary to be practised, in order 
 to obtain salvation. I admit the corollary drawn by White flows from 
 
468 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 this ; but I assert that what he lays down instead of this proposition, 
 differs very materially therefrom. 
 
 I stated that our opponents gave the commission which the Saviour 
 conferred on Peter, as above recited, as our only proof of the infallibility 
 of the Church. I used the expression only, because it is the only proof 
 of ours which they adduce, where the nature of the case fairly required 
 of them to adduce all, or at least several, or to state that there were 
 others. Now, as we produce several others, and they make no allusion 
 even to any one of them ; they are ignorant of their existence, or they 
 knew and wilfully concealed them. I shall not interfere with their 
 choice. 
 
 Before I proceed to remind you of what our proofs are, allow me to 
 conclude this letter by examining the manner in which even this argu- 
 ment, adduced by themselves, is met by White. 
 
 "It will not be denied, that between this unquestionable authority 
 and the statement which precedes it, there is no verbal agreement. A 
 man unacquainted with the system of divinity supported by the Church 
 of Rome, would probably perceive no connection between the alleged 
 passage and the commentary. But let us suppose that these words of our 
 Saviour contain the meaning in question : yet no man will deny, that if 
 they do contain it, it is in an indirect and obscure manner. The fact 
 then is, that even if the Church of Rome should be really endowed wdth 
 the supernatural assistance which she asserts, the divine founder of 
 Christianity was pleased to make the existence of that extraordinary 
 gift one of the least obvious truths contained in the Gospels. ' ' 
 
 Now I am one of those who will make that very denial which he 
 says will not be made : for I find a verbal agreement between the sub- 
 jects of both propositions, "the Church united under Peter and his 
 successors, " " My Church built upon Peter, " or if the holy alliance will 
 so have it, though such is not the text, ' ' The Church built upon the faith 
 of Peter." I also find a plain agreement between the attributes, "infal- 
 lible knowledge of Avhat heaven reveals" — and "not to be prevailed 
 against by the gates of hell ' ' or the power of hellish error. I find it also 
 in the circumstance which joins them in each ease, viz. the promise of 
 Christ. I am a man, and I deny that the assurance is only either ob- 
 scurely or indirectly contained in the words, but I assert that it is con- 
 tained plainly and directly in them, and that it is one of the most obvious 
 truths in the Gospels. Nor am I singular in this. I have the majority 
 of Christendom, during successive ages, at my side: of course our op- 
 ponents will assert, with their usual modesty and love for republican 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 469 
 
 principles, that the minority must be right. White continues to disprove 
 our proof in the following manner, page 84: 
 
 ''It might have been expected, however, that Peter, in his Epistles, 
 or in the addresses to the first Christians, which the Acts record, would 
 have removed the obscurity ; and that, since the grant of infallibility to 
 him, to his peculiar Church, and to his successors in the See of that 
 Church, (either independently of the infallibilitj^ of others, or in combi- 
 nation with other privileged persons — for this is also left in great ob- 
 scurity,) was made the only security against the attacks of hell: he would 
 have taken care to explain the secret sense of Christ's address to him. 
 Peter, however, does not make the slightest allusion to his privilege." 
 
 In this passage, all that is contained is reducible to this semblance 
 of proof, "Peter does not state that infallibility was granted to the 
 Church; therefore it was not granted." Suppose I were to admit the 
 truth of the first proposition, the second is not a necessary consequence 
 of that admission. St. ]\Iatthew, who does state it, is as good a wit- 
 ness as is St. Peter; and the silence of one does not destroy the testi- 
 mony of the other. The holy alliance and their associates never doubted 
 the fact of Peter's denial of Christ, though he never mentions that fact 
 in his Epistles, and Peter was more disposed to state his faults than his 
 privileges : nor need he in his Epistle testify of that infallibility which 
 no Christian called in question at the time of his writing. But I have 
 farther to object to this passage than dishonesty of construction, to which 
 I have before alluded, a changing of terms; here we have "the grant of 
 infallibility to him:" in page 81, it was the reality of her title to be the 
 "guide and rule of your faith:" here we have "his peculiar Church," 
 that is, the Roman Church: in page 81, it was "your church," "the Ro- 
 man Catholic Church," which by his confusion of terms he attempted 
 to identify with the ' ' Roman Church, ' ' Peter 's ' ' peculiar Church. ' ' We 
 have here his successors ; and a new step is made to take infallibility 
 from the Church and bestow it upon the individual, "independ- 
 ently of the infallibility of others," which is not what he laid 
 down in this statement upon page 63: "the decisions of her head, 
 when approved by the tacit or open consent of the greatest part of her 
 Bishops:" we have here "privileged persons." No mention is made of 
 such persons even in his own statement, for no privilege was given to 
 persons, but authority to give infallibly correct decisions was given to 
 an aggregate body, not to the separate members who compose that body, 
 in their individual or personal capacities; as no power of legislation is 
 given to either the President or to any individual member of Congress 
 taken alone ; neither of them has the personal privilege of making a law, 
 
470 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 but the legislative authority is vested in their aggregate body. Nor is it 
 true there ' ' is obscurity, ' ' nor is it true that there is any ' * secret sense of 
 Christ's address to Peter." Thus there are a dishonest change of terms, 
 and two false assumptions, together with three or four insinuations of 
 untruth, in this illogical sentence. 
 
 "His successors being not named in the supposed original grant of 
 supremacy, it was in course that, by an express declaration, Peter would 
 obviate the natural inference, that they were excluded from his own 
 personal prerogatives. But Peter is equally silent about his successors; 
 and to add to the original mysteriousness of the subject, he never men- 
 tions Rome, and dates his Epistles from Babylon. Babylon may figura- 
 tively mean Rome ; the silence of both our Saviour and his Apostle may, 
 by some strange rule of interpretation, be proved to denote those suc- 
 cessors ; the whole system, in fine, of the Roman Catholic Church, may be 
 contained in the alleged passage; but, if so, it is contained like a dia- 
 mond in a mountain. ' ' 
 
 Mr. White is a member of the Church of England, Bishop Kemp is 
 a member of the Protestant Episcopal Church of America; let them 
 adopt the principle here in its application to the hierarchy which they 
 say they have, and upon what ground will they prove that the Bishops 
 were to succeed the Apostles? Upon what ground will the gentlemen 
 of other denominations prove that any person was to succeed to a power 
 of administering a sacrament ? If they deny that the successor of Peter 
 was to succeed to the power of Peter, they must deny that any minister 
 was to succeed to the power of the first ministers of the Christian re- 
 ligion, because Christ never used the word successors. This has, how- 
 ever, no connexion with the question of infallibility. But the Church 
 was to be built upon Peter, for such is the expression in the original ; the 
 subterfuge that the given name of the Apostle does not in the English 
 language signify what it does in the Syro-Chaldaic, will be too miserable 
 to be attempted by any person having respect for his character. White 
 must acknowledge that the proper translation is, ' ' Thou art a Bock, and 
 upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall never 
 prevail," and so forth. The rock, Peter being the foundation, must con- 
 tinue as long as the edifice ; for the gentlemen will not assert that we were 
 to have a baseless edifice, and thus the office then instituted in the per- 
 son was to continue as long as the Church itself, which was to the end 
 of the world. It has now continued during nearly eighteen centuries. 
 The next quibble is indeed a miserable piece of sophistry. We do not 
 state that the Saviour mentioned Rome, nor was it necessary. We say 
 the successors of Peter or the Rock were to be the chief pastors of the 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 471 
 
 Church ; had Peter continued at Antioch, the Bishops of that See would 
 have inherited his power. The facts of his death and the designation of 
 his See, and the recognition of his successor, and not the declaration of 
 the Saviour or his own, pointed out where the power originally given 
 by Christ was to continue. Neither do we say that it is the silence but 
 the institution of the Saviour, and the declaration of his Apostles, which 
 denoted the successors of Peter, nor do we say that the whole system of 
 the Eoman Catholic Church— how quickly the gentleman changes his 
 terms — is contained either in that passage or in a mountain. 
 
 "The plainest sense' of any one passage of the Scriptures cannot 
 be so palpable as the obscurity of the present. It follows, therefore, 
 with all the force of demonstration, that the divine right claimed by the 
 Pope and his Church to be the infallible rule of faith, having no other 
 than an obscure and doubtful foundation, the belief in it cannot be ob- 
 ligatory on all Christians, who are left to follow the suggestions of their 
 individual judgment as to the obscure meaning of the Scriptures, till the 
 Scriptures themselves shall be found to demand the resignation of that 
 judgment." 
 
 Now I believe the gentleman will be found here begging all his posi- 
 tions, for the passage is not obscure; the only demonstration which he 
 has made is that of his own dishonesty; and he concludes by assuming 
 that which we deny, that if the Scriptures be obscure, th^re is no way 
 of knowing their meaning until they shall be made clear by themselves. 
 This is another question, which I must lay aside for the present. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XXXIII. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Apr. 23, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — I have shown you in my last letter, White's false- 
 hoods, and dishonesty respecting our doctrine of infallibility. We shall 
 see in his next passage what is in perfect accordance with his last as- 
 sumption, viz. ' ' That individuals are by the Christian law left to follow 
 the suggestions of their individual judgment as to the obscure meaning 
 of the Scriptures, till the Scriptures themselves shall be found to de- 
 mand the resignation of that judgment." In other words this is an as- 
 sertion that Christ gave us only the Scriptures to lead us to a knowledge 
 of his doctrine. The assertion contains two mistakes, because the Saviour 
 did not give us the Scriptures ; and the mode of learning the doctrine 
 which was established by him, and followed by his Apostles, was not 
 
472 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 by submitting the meaning of the Scriptures to the judgment of indi- 
 viduals. And indeed St. Peter tells us that many persons who proceeded 
 upon this plan did thereby procure their own damnation. 
 
 White's object, as is that of all those who are engaged in the same 
 cause with him, is to persuade mankind, first, that every individual is 
 equally authorized to pass his private judgment upon the meaning of 
 every text, and next to bring them to a belief that from a vast number 
 of the passages which are so obscure, no person can with certainty know 
 the doctrine which God taught, and hence they must inevitably arrive 
 at these conclusions : That God revealed to man doctrines for his belief, 
 which doctrines he cannot discover: or else that he gave a revelation 
 which being unintelligible, man is at liberty to reject : or else that man 
 is bound to believe doctrines which are not only undiscoverable, but also 
 unintelligible. This I submit, is not very complimentary to God, to 
 man, to the Bible, or to Christianity; and has been the chief cause of 
 that extensive infidelity which we now witness. Mark what he has writ- 
 ten, and what the holy alliance has approved and recommended to the 
 perusal of their flocks, page 85 : 
 
 "I request you to observe, that the force of my argument does not 
 depend upon the erroneousness of the Roman interpretation of the pas- 
 sages alleged for the spiritual supremacy ; all I contend for is the doubt- 
 fulness of their meaning: for to suppose that the divine founder of 
 Christianity, while providing against doubt in his future followers, would 
 miss his aim by overlooking the obscurity in which he left the remedy 
 he wished to appoint ; is a notion from which Christians must shrink. It 
 follows, therefore, either that Christ did not intend what the Romanists 
 believe about Peter and his Church; or that, since he concealed his 
 meaning, an obedience to the Roman Church cannot be a necessary con- 
 dition in his disciples." 
 
 How would the venerable gentlemen answer the Baptist from whom 
 the majority of them differ, when he tells them, "At least my friends, 
 you have only your surmises that infants are capable of baptism. You 
 must admit that it is doubtful if they are, you must then admit that 
 Christ did not intend infant baptism to be a necessary doctrine for his 
 disciples. ' ' What will the venerable body say to the Unitarian, who de- 
 fies them to produce a single text from the Scriptures which would even 
 create a doubt in favor of what he is pleased to call the monstrous and 
 absurd doctrine of a Triune God? Especially as several of them have 
 very generously, and with becoming liberality made him a present of the 
 7th verse of the fifth chapter of St. John's First Epistle. Upon their 
 principle there 'must be more or less of doubt as to every doctrine : upon 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 473 
 
 ours there is no doubt respecting any doctrine. When therefore the 
 gentleman and his abettors assume what we deny, and draw inferences 
 from the assumption, it is not reasoning, it is unbecoming sophistry; 
 and all that is built upon such a foundation must totter and fall. They 
 assume that what we assert to be clear, plain, and distinct, is obscure and 
 doubtful. They next tell us that what is doubtful proves nothing; we 
 admit the principle, but we deny its applicability to the case before us. 
 
 The value of the succeeding paragraph is easily settled, after the 
 view which I have thus taken, page 86 : 
 
 "The liberty which, upon the supposition most favorable to Rome, 
 Christ has granted to believers in his Gospel, the Pope and his Church 
 most positively deny them. Placing themselves between mankind and 
 the Redeemer, they allow those only to approach him, who first make a 
 full surrender of their judgment to the Popes and councils. A belief in 
 Christ and his work of redemption, grounded on the Scriptures and their 
 evidences, is thus made useless, unless it is preceded by a belief in Ro- 
 man supremacy, grounded on mere surmises. Christianity is removed 
 from its broad foundation, to place the mighty fabric upon the moveable 
 sand of conjectural meaning." 
 
 The first passage begs the question : the second is an untruth, for we 
 say "the Pope and his Church" only remain where the Redeemer placed 
 them, we place them nowhere: and there is no surrender of judgment 
 in receiving the judicial testimony of an authorized witness. The third 
 passage is a pitiable misrepresentation, containing the insinuation of an 
 impossibility, the statement of an untruth, and a shifting of the case ; be- 
 cause there could be no scripture evidence without the testimony of the 
 Church ; and the evidence of the right and power of the Church to give 
 that testimony, rests upon plain facts, and not upon mere surmises ; and 
 the question is not concerning Roman Supremacy, but concerning the in- 
 fallibility of the Roman Catholic Church. The concluding passage, as 
 being the result of the others, contains the combination of their faults. 
 
 The following passage upon which it is now necessary for me to 
 remark, winds up his observations, page 87 : 
 
 ' ' This looks more like love of self than of Christ ; more like ambi- 
 tion than charity. The title to infallibility and supremacy being at the 
 best doubtful, the benefit of the doubt should have been left to Christian 
 liberty. But may not the opposite conduct of the Roman Church have 
 arisen from sincere zeal for what she conceived to be the true intention 
 of Christ? Christian candor would demand this construction, were it 
 not for the use she has made of the assumed privilege : yet if we find 
 that, having erected herself into an organ of heaven, all her oracular 
 
474 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 decisions have invariably tended towards the increase of her own 
 power; it will be difficult to admit the purity of her intentions." 
 
 Before I commence the examination of his succeeding topics, I now 
 feel authorized plainly to charge White and his American sponsors with 
 having grossly imposed upon his readers. They concur with him in as- 
 serting that the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to infallibility in 
 her doctrinal decisions rests only on the text adduced in page 83. I have 
 before given my reasons for the introduction of the word only. Now this 
 text is by no means the only ground upon which we rely : there are very 
 many prior and very many subsequent facts besides that of the promise 
 made by the Redeemer on this occasion ; and there are several other con- 
 siderations, a few of which I shall rather allude to, than enlarge upon. 
 
 The first ground which I rest upon, is the very nature of faith. 
 Faith is a divine virtue by which we believe what God teaches: this 
 belief is founded upon the impossibility of a mistake on the part of the 
 Omniscient Being who makes the revelation; and the impossibility of 
 deceit, on his part, as being essential truth. God cannot be himself 
 deceived, nor can he deceive us ; therefore the mind rests with the utmost 
 certainty of truth upon his declarations : the heavens and the earth may 
 pass away, but his word will not fail. The truth of God being the 
 foundation of faith, the soul cannot admit the shadow of a doubt as 
 to the truth of his declaration; faith is lost at the very instant that 
 any deliberate doubt is wilfully entertained in the soul. Thus it is not 
 a profession of faith to declare that I think it highly probable that there 
 are three persons in one God: that such is my opinion, but that I may 
 be in error: that possibly there is but one person, and that I am under 
 a delusion. This would not be a declaration of my firm belief of what 
 God had taught, but a declaration of what was my own individual opin- 
 ion. Thus the very nature of faith requiring that it should be a firm 
 and unshaken belief of what cannot possibly be an error ; not only must 
 the God who reveals, but also the witness who gives me the testimony 
 or the revelation, be infallibly identified with truth, so far as that testi- 
 mony is concerned; otherwise I might be deceived, I could not have 
 certainty, and therefore [would] not have Faith. Upon this view of the 
 nature of Faith, it can exist only in those souls to which God has given 
 special and individual revelation of his doctrine; or else, if he made a 
 general revelation for mankind, and appointed teachers of that revela- 
 tion, he must have made their testimony an infallible evidence of his 
 doctrine to those whom he sent them to instruct : and the moment it 
 ceased to be such evidence, the foundation of Faith was altogether re- 
 moved. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 475 
 
 Suffer me to put a plain case to which this principle will apply. 
 It is now nearly eighteen centuries since Christ was on earth and gave 
 his revelation. He required ; as I am led to believe that it was essential 
 to that Faith which is necessary for salvation [that he should do] ; that 
 all who heard him should believe truly and firmly in the nature of God, 
 and of the Redeemer. Had I [had] the happiness to live at that period 
 when he was on earth, and heard from his lips what that nature was, I 
 would firmly believe his declaration. I have not had that consolation, 
 but a Bible which I am told, is believed to contain his doctrine upon 
 this head, is put into my hands : I read, and an Episcopalian tells me, 
 that it clearly teaches that there is a Triune God, and that the Redeemer 
 is a God-man. An Unitarian on my other side asks me where that is 
 found in the book, and tells me that my Episcopalian friend 
 mistakes the meaning of those passages. I ask the Episcopalian 
 upon what grounds he will show that this explanation is inot 
 incorrect, and besides the texts which he adduces, he tells me that he 
 can show that in the several ages of the Church they were explained 
 as he now explains them: the Unitarian asks him whether those men 
 were infallibly correct in their explanations; and whether in fact it be 
 not true that "the Church of Hierusalem, of Antioch, and Alexandria, 
 as also that of Rome, have erred not only in their living and manner of 
 ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith," (art. xixth, of Protestant 
 Episcopal Church). And further: whether it be not true "that Laity 
 and Clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of men, 
 women and children of whole Christendom, (an horrible and most dread- 
 ful thing to think) have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry, 
 of all other vices most detested of God, and most damnable to man, 
 and that by the space of eight hundred years and more." — {Homilies, p. 
 201.) The Episcopalian acknowledges that it is a fact that those 
 Churches did err in matters of faith, and that all Christendom, Clergy 
 and Laity was during upwards of eight hundred years drowned in 
 abominable idolatry. The Unitarian still presses him to know whether 
 he or his Church is less liable to error than all Christendom, and if he 
 is equally liable to err, what assurance has he that he is not now in error, 
 when he asserts that there is a Triune God ; and how is he certain that he 
 is not guilty of damnable idolatry in adoring as God, Jesus who died 
 upon the cross? I ask whether either of them claims to be infallibly 
 correct, and perfectly competent to inform me of any one doctrine with- 
 out the possibility of being mistaken. They tell me, "No, we do not 
 claim infallibility." But they tell me to read and to decide for myself. 
 Really I can only form a good conjecture, but I look at the Episco- 
 
476 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 palian's text, I John, v, 7, "For there are three that bear record in 
 Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost : and these three are 
 one." The Unitarian assures me that this text is not a part of the 
 divine revelation, but is an interpolation. This the Episcopalian denies, 
 — and is asked by his opponent, whether he is infallibly certain that it 
 was a part of the original text. Thus at my very outset, I am left at a 
 perfect loss not only to know the meaning of phrases, but whether the 
 very phrases are genuine. And in this situation, I feel [that] one of 
 two results must be the consequence: either God has established for my 
 guidance some witness which will infallibly lead me to a knowledge of 
 what I could not discover with certainty, and thus I must have an infal- 
 lible witness of doctrine ; or faith is not attainable, and is not necessary 
 for salvation. We find the first to be true in fact as well as in theory. 
 Our Protestant friends, whilst they teach the necessity of Faith, have 
 by denying the infallibility of the Church, created in their societies 
 the impression that Faith is not necessary, nor indeed attainable. It 
 is not my business to reconcile contradictions : but the very nature of 
 Faith implies the necessity of an infallible witness of revelation. 
 
 We also find another ground in the very object of revelation. That 
 object is to give man from heaven, easily and perfectly, knowledge to 
 which he could never or only with great difficulty attain by natural 
 means, and perhaps then only imperfectly. Thus the communication of 
 divine knowledge upon which man might build his hopes and regulate 
 his conduct, was a principal object of the divine communications. With- 
 out revelation, man was left to conjecture, to probability, to the wander- 
 ing of his private judgment. But Avith the testimony of God for his 
 guidance, knowledge succeeds to conjecture, certainty to probability, and 
 public and unchanging evidence to private and erring judgment. The 
 truth which is given to all, becomes the great rule for the guidance of all ; 
 and the perplexity of disquisition being removed, the minds of the sage 
 and of the simple are equally taught by their common Creator and 
 Father, the common truths respecting his nature and theirs, and their 
 duties which are the results. The object being then to give to man the 
 certain knowledge of heavenly doctrine ; that could be attained only by 
 some mode which would give that knowledge with infallible certainty: 
 and this could be effected by no less means than by giving to us the 
 utmost certainty of the infallible competency of the witness. Thus if 
 I might be misled or deceived by the witness who testifies to me what 
 is the doctrine, one of the great objects of revelation is defeated. 
 
 Suppose I am certain that Christ taught the doctrine of Heaven 
 in Jerusalem on the day of his ascension ; of what avail will that be to 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 477 
 
 me unless I know what that doctrine was? — Suppose I am convineeil 
 that the book which is in my hands contains the expressions which he 
 used ; of what avail is that to me, unless I know what he meant by those 
 expressions? If I have the, expressions without any certainty of what 
 ideas he intended to convey by them, of what use is his revelation to me? 
 I am not thereby instructed. AVhen it is my misfortune to live at a 
 time when several divisions of his followers are contradicting each other 
 as to the meaning of every phrase, and the nature of every doctrine, if 
 I have no infallible guide to lead me from the labyrinth, how shall I 
 be extricated? Of what use to me is an unintelligible book ? The great 
 object of his revelation, viz. a certain knowledge of what he taught, is 
 to me unattainable, without an infallible guide, one that cannot lead me 
 into error; and because they have been persuaded that there is no such 
 guide to be found, millions have abandoned in utter despair and dis- 
 gust, all inquiry for the doctrines of Christ. 
 
 Another great object of revelation was to restrain, and to humble 
 the pride of man's understanding, as it was by the indulgence of this 
 guide he fell, and as its exaltation is a principal obstacle to his spiritual 
 perfection: so far from being attained, this object is counteracted by 
 the principle of submitting each doctrine to the private judgment of indi- 
 viduals. 
 
 These general principles lead to the conclusion that for the knowl- 
 edge of revealed truth, for the existence of faith, and healing the 
 ravages which the pride of intellect has made in the human soul, it is 
 absolutely necessary that the witness of doctrine should be infallible. 
 
 Allow me to expatiate a little upon the application. Let me now 
 be desirous of learning what God has revealed at any time to any portion 
 of the human race ; clearly I can obtain that knowledge only in one of 
 two ways, either by the testimony of God himself, or by some other 
 testimony. Few if any will assert that God himself is to be to me indi- 
 vidually the witness of what he has formerly, for instance, manifested 
 to Moses, to Abraham, or to St. Paul. To indulge this supposition would 
 be, indeed, to assert that the communications of heaven to one indi- 
 vidual, were absolutely useless to every other. Yet there have been sects 
 in the reformed Churches that held the principle ; for they taught, that 
 the only evidence which we can have of revealed truth is from the Spirit 
 of God making manifest to our spirit that this is the doctrine : and until 
 we are prepared to come to this point fully and entirely, it is not possible 
 to adopt the maxim that the private judgment of each individual is to 
 be the rule of his doctrine of faith. I shall now add but little on this 
 subject. 
 
478 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 One of the best arguments used against our claim to Church infal- 
 libility is the alleged contradiction of our decisions upon doctrine; for, 
 say our opponents, God cannot teach contradictions. We admit the cor- 
 rectness of the principle : and when they shew us in fact such contradic- 
 tory decisions of doctrine, even upon one single point, I shall cease to 
 be a Roman Catholic; I will publish my name, retract what I have 
 written, and depart from your communion. Admitting then the force of 
 the principle, I find in all the individuals as well as Churches that claim 
 this evidence of the Spirit, palpable doctrinal contradiction; and I 
 therefore conclude, that what has thus perpetually misled, cannot be 
 the evidence of the God of truth. 
 
 I must then find some other testimony; and clearly it must be that, 
 either of a document, or of an individual, or of a body : by one of these 
 I must be taught what I desire to know. Suppose a document is handed 
 to me; it will not be evidence until I receive sufficient testimony of its 
 nature, and value. I cannot receive this from the Spirit speaking to my 
 spirit, as I saw before. My witness must be either an individual or a 
 body ; and unless that witness can give me infallible certainty, I cannot 
 have perfect assurance of what God has taught; and without this per- 
 fect assurance, I cannot have unshaken belief, which alone is faith. 
 Hence, if Faith is firm and unhesitating belief of what God has taught. 
 it must be founded upon infallible certainty, and this certainty must 
 rest upon infallible evidence, which evidence I can receive only from an 
 infallible witness ; this infallible witness cannot be one which has been 
 detected in frequent and flagrant contradictions, it cannot be the private 
 spirit or judgment of individuals. Where then am I to find this witness ? 
 I shall in my next give the outline of our doctrine upon this head. Not 
 to enter into the reasoning by which it is upheld ; but to prove the truth 
 of the assertion which I made that White and his associates did not state 
 our case fairly. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XXXIV 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Apr. 30, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — In my last letter, I exhibited to you an outline of the 
 reasons which show that, without an infallible guide to the knowledge 
 of doctrine, it is impossible to have faith; and that the great objects of 
 revelation would be unattainable. I proceed now to show you that, 
 whenever revelation was given, such a guide was pointed out. The books 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 479 
 
 of Moses contain no revelation of man's immortality, nor of his ac- 
 countability in another world, for the actions done in his mortal state. 
 Yet it is manifest, that the people of Israel did believe in the immortality 
 of the soul, and in a future judgment, which was to be followed by a 
 state of eternal reward and of eternal punishment, and that they be- 
 lieved it as a revelation made by God, and not as a mere discovery of 
 human reasoning ; also that they believed it before the books themselves 
 were written by Moses. How was this revelation given? How was it 
 preserved ? What was the evidence of its infallible truth and certainty ? 
 God himself gave the evidence of his presence, and made his declara- 
 tions to the patriarchs, and continued those manifestations to them in 
 the midst of their families, who were frequently witnesses of such rev- 
 elations, and thus during the period which preceded the days of Moses, 
 there existed in the unanimous testimony of the heads of the families 
 of Israel, unquestionable evidence that God had spoken to their fathers, 
 and revealed to them the few doctrines, the belief of which he required, 
 and gave to them the short but cheering and simple promises upon 
 which their hopes rested, and instituted the few but significant cere- 
 monies of their external worship. The faithful Israelite received the 
 testimony given by his fathers, admitted and preserved by his kindred, 
 and in that testimony saw the infallible evidence of what God had taught, 
 promised, and instituted; this he believed, looked for, and adhered to. 
 The public testimony of the whole body, and not the internal inspiration 
 of his own mind, or the discovery of his private judgment, was his rule 
 of faith and practice, before the days of Moses, whether he wandered 
 in Canaan or served in Egypt. 
 
 Thus, from the fall of Adam to the death of Joseph, the faithful 
 adorers of the true God were never bereft of a living witness, to whom 
 God had spoken, and who, in the midst of his people, testified to them 
 the communications of the Most High; his commission to announce to 
 them the will of God was placed in sufficient evidence, and his doc- 
 trines agreed exactly with those of his predecessors ; and hence there was 
 full and infallible testimony upon which faith was to be built. Their 
 eye always beheld the cloud of witnesses by day; and in the night, the 
 splendor of heavenly guidance led them in the path to their salvation. 
 
 From the death of Joseph to the birth of Moses, there elapsed about 
 sixty years ; and though we possess little documentary testimony to 
 show that, during this period, there had been any special revelation 
 given to continue for a century the special interference of heaven, in a 
 miraculous manner, for the preservation of the doctrine; still, from 
 the history of the former, and of the subsequent periods, it will not be 
 
480 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 a very outrageous supposition that God did occasionally and specially 
 make a renewed disclosure and promise. Josephus, the Jewish historian, 
 in chapter ix, book ii, tells us that Amran, the father of Moses, had a 
 special revelation previous to his son's birth. If, then, this mode which 
 had commenced in the days of Adam, continued to the arrival of Moses, 
 when he claimed from Pharao the liberation of his brethren, there was 
 no moment in which the people of God had not to that period in their 
 sight a miraculously authorized witness, who, together with those that 
 heard his predecessors, testified with infallible certainty the nature of 
 the doctrines which God had taught, and of the religious institutions 
 which he had established. If a century elapsed without such a miracu- 
 lously taught commissioner, there existed the concordant testimony of 
 the heads of the house of Israel, teaching what had been given to them as 
 delivered by the God of their fathers. Thus to the period of the public 
 ministry of Moses, faith was founded upon the infallible testimony of 
 a public witness, not upon the opinions and surmises, and conjectures of 
 the private judgment of individuals ; and thus the facts in the his- 
 tory of the religion to the days of Moses, are in perfect accordance with 
 the principles which I have exhibited in my last letter. 
 
 It will not be disputed that during his life time, Moses was, after 
 leading out the people of Israel, an infallibly correct witness of the 
 doctrines of heaven; and that through him the revelation was given to 
 the multitude, after his commission had been fully exhibited. Nor will 
 it, .1 suppose, be questioned, that the preservation of the law then given, 
 and its explanation was committed not indiscriminately to the individuals 
 of the multitude, but to a special tribunal then established for this 
 amongst other purposes, by God himself. Nor will it be denied, that 
 this tribunal was to continue as long as the law itself should be in force, 
 and that the special and particular manner in which its members were 
 to be selected and appointed was established by God himself. It will 
 also be conceded, that no human power could abrogate what the divine 
 power established, and that the wisdom of God foresaw the future con- 
 tingencies for which it would be necessary to provide. 
 
 The Aaronitic priesthood was established by God, to last in authority 
 until the arrival of the Messias, at which period the Mosaic law was 
 to terminate. It was established and confirmed by God, that the high 
 priest, together ivith his council, was to have a final appellate juris- 
 diction in all cases, as well of religion as of rites, and other matters 
 of the Levitical law. Thus, from the establishment of the Aaronitic 
 priesthood, the high priest, with the Sanhedrim, was the witness of 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 481 
 
 doctrine ; and as such was established by God himself, [who] allowed 
 no appeal from their decision. 
 
 Let us now suppose a case, and try it by the contradictory principles 
 of our opponents and our own. Suppose an individual in the Jewish 
 nation finding no mention in the books of Moses of a future life, and its 
 state of rewards and punishments, were to assert that this book written 
 by the direction of God himself was to be the sole rule of his faith, and 
 that his own private judgment was to direct him to its true meaning: 
 that he is not bound to believe any doctrine which he does not read as 
 clearly written in that book, or evidently deducible therefrom ; that the 
 doctrine of the immortality of the soul and of a future state of reward 
 and punishment is not clearly written, or evidently deducible from the 
 books of Moses, and therefore he is not bound to believe such doctrine 
 as an article of faith : that he may fairly teach what he is convinced is 
 true; and therefore he teaches this doctrine in Israel, that man's exis- 
 tence terminates at death. Suppose this man to be a ruler of a syna- 
 gogue. The high priest and the Sanhedrim testify that, although not 
 contained in the Pentateuch, nor perhaps deducible from any passage 
 therein, the doctrine of immortality and future rewards and punishments 
 had been revealed to their fathers repeatedly before the days of Moses, 
 and believed before and since the revelation of Sinai; that they have 
 abundant evidence of the fact of the revelation of this doctrine, though 
 not in that precise book, and that in their capacity as the public tribunal 
 to testify doctrine and to expound the law, they declare that the immor- 
 tality of the soul is a doctrine of faith. This man will not receive their 
 decision, and will say, if they are not a tribunal which can testify with 
 infallible certainty of truth, they might err ; if they might err, he may 
 perhaps be right, and in adopting their decision, he might not be led 
 to truth, but to falsehood. Yet God constituted this a supreme tribunal, 
 to whose decisions he commanded obedience under the penalty of death ; 
 are we then to say that God commanded that a man should be put to 
 death for not perhaps abandoning the truth ? because such is the incon- 
 sistency, if the tribunal be not infallible. All this difficulty and ab- 
 surdity, however, vanish upon the simple supposition, that the Deity 
 constituted that tribunal the infallible witness of his doctrine ; and such 
 was the light in which this great council was viewed by the Jewish 
 people, and therefore it was not only made the witness of the ancient 
 revelations, which it had received by traditionary evidence, but also 
 of the written revelation given by Moses, and the judicial tribunal to 
 explain the meaning of both in all cases of doubt ; and they who broke 
 
482 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 away from its communion, were not considered to be in the true faith of 
 the law of ]\Ioses. 
 
 Let us for a moment dwell upon this case. Would God have estab- 
 lished this tribunal to teach, and commanded that its decisions should 
 be received under penalty of death, if he foresaw that it would or could 
 lead into error, in place of guiding to truth? Is not his command to 
 obey its decisions, considered in connexion with his essential connexion 
 with truth, a guarantee to those, to whom the precept is given, that the 
 decision will be infallibly true? If, in obeying the precept by receiv- 
 ing the decision, we were led into error, would not God be the author of 
 that error ? Will common sense or religion permit us to disobey the pre- 
 cept of our Creator requiring our submission, or permit us to charge him 
 with having forced us to embrace error in obeying his law ! It cannot 
 be error. It must infallibly be truth. 
 
 Forgetting for a moment the fact, that God commanded this sub- 
 mission to the decisions of the Jewish council, and supposing no such 
 precept to exist, and no such power to be vested in this body, how was 
 this ruler of the sjniagogue, who taught that man did not survive the 
 grave, to be corrected ? Or, if he was right, how was that ruler who con- 
 tradicted him, and taught the erroneous doctrine of the immortality of 
 the soul to be corrected? Or how was an inquirer after truth to know 
 which doctrine God had revealed, for he could not have revealed them 
 both? If the Church of Israel had not in her high priest and council 
 an infallible witness of God's revelation, how was that revelation to be 
 known? These are difficulties which to me are perfectly insoluble. 
 They may, perhaps, be easily and satisfactorily explained by Blanco 
 White, or the Rev. William Hawley. I feel convinced, that with- 
 out an infallible witness of doctrine, there is no rational ground for 
 faith; and I see, in fact, that from the day God spoke to Adam, down 
 to the arrival of the Messias, such a witness was found, in the line of 
 Patriarchs to Moses, and in the Sanhedrim to Jesus Christ. By this 
 testimony, the doctrines of revelation, written and unwritten, have been 
 preserved and presented to the world. This was the doctrine of the 
 Jewish Church, at the period of Christ's arrival, and so far from mark- 
 ing it down as erroneous, he confirmed and approved it. He called the 
 Sanhedrim hypocrites ; but he declared that they sat upon the chair of 
 Moses: he reproved their works, and admonished the people not to 
 imitate their conduct ; but he charged the same people to hold their doc- 
 trines of faith and to obey their decisions. And if we believe that the 
 Holy Ghost inspired the Evangelist St. John to write his Gospel, we have 
 the distinct testimony of that divine Spirit {John xi, 49, 50, 51), that 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 483 
 
 Caiphas did in virtue of his ofifice, give a correct doctrinal decision, 
 though, with a bad intention, as if to show to the world that the crimi- 
 nality of an unworthy head would not create an untrue testimony, in a 
 tribunal which was even upon the point of losing its commission, and 
 when the very being, whose appearance was to be cotemporary with 
 its decline, was gathering the members of the body which was to be 
 substituted under a new jurisdiction in its stead. 
 
 But the good gentlemen, who charge us with having no grounds for 
 our doctrine of infallibility, either never knew, or affect to forget, that 
 the Christian religion is not a system which was put together by human 
 discovery, but one which was framed by the Saviour, and then delivered 
 to his disciples to be preserved. In place, therefore, of seeking for texts 
 upon which disputes might be raised (for ingenuity can raise them at 
 will upon the plainest expressions) we should look to the facts whose 
 existence is uncontroverted, and from which the truth can be with 
 facility deduced. It is plain that Jesus Christ was an infallibly correct 
 witness of the true doctrine, and that his infallible correctness was the 
 only basis of the faith of his disciples, and this infallibility being re- 
 moved, their faith could have no basis. If he required faith from the 
 persons who never saw or heard him, he must have given them an equally 
 good basis for their belief. Hence, when he sent his Apostles to teach 
 his doctrine to those who had neither seen nor heard himself, he empow- 
 ered them to work miracles, that they might thereby give evidence that 
 they taught truth with infallible certainty ; thus their disciples had the 
 evidence of infallible guides. Upon what principle could other nations 
 or succeeding generations be required to give similar assent of faith with- 
 out equally firm ground ? The principle of the necessity of such a guide 
 is recognized by us, and we exhibit now the fact of its existence. 
 Amongst the doctrines taught to those disciples by preaching, before a 
 single line of the Gospel was written, was that the doctrines of Jesus 
 were to be taught by virtue of a commission of the Saviour given to the 
 Apostles, to be communicated to others, and perpetuated to the end of 
 the world, in order that men might at all times be taught those doctrines 
 by proper authority; and that the Saviour declared, that whosoever 
 heard them, heard him, and whosoever despised them despised him; 
 and that he promised to them the Spirit of truth, who would bring to 
 their minds all things whatsoever he had taught them, and would perfect 
 the revelation, so that they should be witnesses to him; and that as he 
 sent them to teach all nations, to observe all things whatsoever he had 
 commanded, so he declared he would be with them all days to the end of 
 the world ; and that the Spirit of truth should abide with them always ; 
 
484 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 and that the gates of hell should never prevail against that Church which 
 he built upon Simon, the son of Jonas, whose name he changed to Rock 
 or Peter, and to whom he gave a memorable assurance, that he had 
 prayed for him that his faith should not fail ; and to whom he gave in 
 charge, when he should be converted after his fall, for Satan desired to 
 sift him as wheat, that he should confirm his brethren ; and that he also 
 gave to him, having previously required a declaration of greater love, 
 a charge to feed his lambs, and to feed his sheep, as he had promised to 
 give to him the keys, or power of vicegerent, as was designated in eastern 
 courts, by bearing the keys in the palace ; what he should bind on earth 
 should be bound in heaven, and what he would loose on earth would be 
 loosed in heaven. That the Apostles testified this, was evident to the 
 first Christians ; and, therefore, the fact of the authority to teach being 
 in them and in their successors, the pastors of that Church built upon 
 Peter, was evident to those Christians; and, indeed they had no other 
 mode of knowing the doctrines of revelation, but by such teaching. 
 Surely, then, there was no hunting for the evidence of this in texts which 
 as yet had not been written. They saw the Holy Ghost descend upon 
 those Apostles; they witnessed their miracles; they recognized them as 
 infallible witnesses of the truth ; they saw them associate others to their 
 commission ; giving them a part in their ministry ; making them co-wit- 
 nesses ; and when a discussion arose as to what the doctrine of Jesus was 
 upon certain points, they assembled those associates together with them- 
 selves, and instead of telling the disputants to read and judge for them- 
 selves, they made a judicial decision under the guidance of that Holy 
 Ghost that was given to remain always, for the purpose of leading them 
 into all truth; and having testified what the doctrine was, they com- 
 manded their decision to be followed. The Apostles thus exhibited the 
 tribunal of the pastors of the Church by the institution of Christ, and 
 under the influence of the Holy Ghost, [as] an infallible guide to lead 
 mankind to a knowledge of the doctrines of Christ, to the very end of 
 the world. As yet, the New Testament did not exist ; portions of it were 
 occasionally written, but it never was compiled as a summary of the 
 Christian doctrine; and, although all its contents are true, yet it was 
 not compiled to be the repertory of all the revealed truths of the new 
 law, nor was it to supersede that mode of teaching established by Christ, 
 and made evident by the Apostles; and certainly the Church was not 
 to have less power, because a portion of its doctrine and history was 
 committed to writing. 
 
 Nay, more, there were several spurious books published, purport- 
 ing to be the revealed doctrine of Christ; and it was only by the 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 485 
 
 authority of the Church that the early Christians were enabled to draw 
 the line of separation between that which was written under the inspira- 
 tion of the Holy Ghost and that which was not. If that Church was 
 not an infallibly correct guide, she might have rejected what was gen- 
 uine, and given the faithful as the doctrine of God, the invention of 
 man. Thus, if the Church was not infallible, we have no infallible cer- 
 tainty at the present day that the New Testament is the Scripture of 
 God. 
 
 Reason, the example of the Old Law, and the testimony of the 
 Apostles, and of the intermediate ages, prove to us the infallibility of 
 the Church, as they proved it to the first Christians, before the New 
 Testament was written; and that book itself could not be to us the 
 evidence of revelation, if the witness from which we receive it was 
 fallible. Thus there always was, and ever will be an infallible witness of 
 doctrine on earth. Mr. White and his coadjutors were then guilty of 
 gross misrepresentation, arising either from ignorance, or some less 
 creditable cause, when they stated that our whole proof lay in a passage 
 which White endeavors to render obscure, that he may destroy the evi- 
 dence which it contains, if he can bewilder his readers. I have not 
 here argued to maintain the doctrine, but [have] exhibited how grossly 
 the flocks of the holy alliance are deceived, if they believe White and 
 their pastors, as to what our arguments are. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XXXV 
 
 Charleston, S. C, May 7, 1827. 
 To the Boman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — Having seen that White stated unfairly and imper- 
 fectly the case of our claim to Church infallibility, and that he with 
 still more effrontery asserted that he gave our arguments in its support ; 
 I now come to examine the sequel of his remarks upon this topic. He 
 says in pages 86 and 87: 
 
 "The liberty which, upon the supposition most favorable to Rome, 
 Christ has granted to believers in his Gospel, the Pope and his Church 
 most positively deny them. Placing themselves between mankind and 
 the Redeemer, they allow those only to approach him, who first make 
 a full surrender of their judgment to Popes and Councils. A belief in 
 Christ and his work of redemption, grounded on the Scriptures and their 
 evidences, is thus made useless, unless it is preceded by a belief in Roman 
 supremacy, grounded on mere surmises. Christianity is removed from 
 
486 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 its broad foundation, to place the mighty fabric upon the moveable 
 sand of a conjectural meaning." 
 
 Here is one of the most extravagant and contradictory assertions 
 which I have ever met with, viz. that Christ granted to believers in 
 the Gospel the liberty of believing or rejecting what he taught. The 
 Pope and the Church do indeed deny that he granted any such liberty, 
 and they therefore most positively deny the truth of White's assertion 
 that he did grant such liberty; but they do not deny to any man the 
 exercise of that liberty which Christ bestowed: the question is concern- 
 ing the fact of its bestowal. This man every where assumes as true that 
 which is untrue, and whose truth is denied ; and then has the effrontery 
 to state that he has made the supposition most favorable to what he is 
 endeavoring to overthrow by his falsehood. The Roman Catholic doc- 
 trine is, ''Christ did not leave man at liberty to reject the doctrine of 
 infallibility." White's assertion is, "The supposition that you are at 
 liberty to adopt the doctrine of infallibility is the most favorable to 
 Rome." No, my friends, that supposition which is most favorable, 
 is that which is true, and that is, "Christ did not leave men at liberty 
 to reject or to adopt his doctrines at their caprice, he bound them to 
 believe what he teaches by the testimony of his Infallible Church." 
 That Church existed before the Gospel ; men know nothing of the Gospel 
 except through her testimony ; destroy her infallibility and the evidence 
 of the Gospel is lost. Thus St. Augustine said fourteen centuries ago, 
 "I would not believe the Gospel except for the testimony of the Church." 
 
 I cannot quarrel with White's English, as he is a foreigner; but I 
 do not well understand whom he means by themselves in the second 
 clause, "placing themselves between mankind and the Redeemer." If he 
 means the Apostles and their successors in authority, Christ placed them 
 between himself and mankind, when he constituted them his witnesses to 
 mankind, when he gave them as teachers to mankind, * ' teaching them to 
 observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." "You shall be 
 to me witnesses .... to the ends of the earth." St. Paul and the 
 Apostles themselves took this station as being appointed thereto by 
 heaven. The people who believed, considered them as the ministers of 
 God, ambassadors between the Redeemer and mankind. What does 
 Bishop Kemp say of himself? Does he not place himself between man- 
 kind and the Redeemer ? The Catholic Church never placed him there ; 
 nor did it so place any other member of the holy assailants. Yet they 
 place themselves there. Indeed they do not ask submission to the Church, 
 that is the Popes and Councils which succeed to Peter and his brethren ; 
 but they ask a full surrender to some body or individual which began 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 487 
 
 by denying to the whole Catholic world what it arrogates to itself, a 
 knowledge of the revelation of God. They destroy the power of the Pope, 
 that each teacher might exercise a greater dominion over the minds of 
 his hearers than the Pope and Council can exercise in the Church. 
 
 A belief in Christ and his redemption, grounded on the Scriptures, 
 without grounding those Scriptures upon any testimony, is indeed what 
 White in page 22 describes. "Was then Christianity nothing but a 
 groundless fabric, the world supported by the elephant, the elephant 
 standing upon the tortoise?" The belief in Christ rests on the Scrip- 
 tures: upon what do the Scriptures rest? Upon fallible testimony, and 
 then they are no security, or upon infallible testimony, and then 
 they are security; but it is the Church which testifies to them, 
 and therefore she is infallible. It is ridiculous to talk of rational belief, 
 founded upon a document for whose sufficiency I have not proper evi- 
 dence. The value of the Scripture is only as great as that of the tes- 
 timony by which it is established; and that witness is the Church. 
 There is but one mode of evading the force of this reasoning, and that 
 mode Bishop Kemp's associates of other Churches take, by making the 
 witness of Scripture the private inspiration of each individual, or the 
 Holy Ghost speaking within him ; thus they make the individual mem- 
 bers infallible, and deny infallibility to their aggregate : what each pos- 
 sesses alone, is lost to the whole when they assemble, because though 
 the Holy Ghost will guide each separately to the infallible knowledge 
 of the word of God and its meaning ; yet when from their combination 
 the Church is formed, the Holy Spirit will not lead that Church infallibly 
 to the same knowledge. This is indeed an extraordinary mode of evad- 
 ing the conclusion; separately and singly, even though you contradict 
 each other, you are guided by the Spirit of Truth; but if you join 
 together and agree, you are fallible and liable to error ! ! ! For the alter- 
 native must never be taken, viz, The Church is not liable to error. 
 Bishop Kemp very modestly renounces individual infallibility and 
 Church infallibility, and thus the individuals and the Church are liable 
 to err in pointing out the word of God, and in discovering its meaning ; 
 and therefore a belief in Christ and his work of redemption grounded 
 upon the Scriptures, and their evidences, is thus made not indeed use- 
 less but impossible; for there is no evidence, and to ground the belief 
 upon want of evidence, would be indeed an absurdity. We may find 
 ground for this evidence upon infallibility, and this we ground not 
 upon Roman Supremacy, or mere surmises, but upon irrefragable and 
 convincing proofs — and we thus place the mighty fabric of Christianity, 
 not upon the moveable sand of fallible opinion, or the notion of private 
 
488 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 individual inspiration, but upon the broad ground of that foundation 
 upon which Christ placed it, when he fixed as its basis a rock which the 
 world must always behold, and against which hell can never prevail. 
 
 White proceeds, page 87 : 
 
 ' ' This looks more like love of self than of Christ ; more like ambition 
 than charity. The title of infallibility and supremacy being at the best 
 doubtful, the benefit of the doubt should have been left to Christian 
 liberty. But may not the opposite conduct of the Roman Church have 
 arisen from sincere zeal for what she conceived to be the true intention 
 of Christ? Christian candor would demand this construction, were it 
 not for the use she has made of the assumed privilege: yet if we find 
 that, having erected herself into an organ of heaven, all her oracular 
 decisions have invariably tended towards the increase of her own power ; 
 it will be difficult to admit the purity of her intentions." 
 
 This mode of examining a question concerning a fact of revealed 
 religion is perfectly ridiculous: since the true question is not what 
 "it looks like," but whether "it is a divine institution." Moreover 
 the assertion is not true, for the love of Christ is the preservation of 
 his doctrine, "he that loves me will keep my word," and there can be 
 no mode of preserving his doctrine, save by proper testimony, there can 
 be for this no proper testimony, save that which will lead us without 
 danger of error to its knowledge. Christ himself points out that infal- 
 lible witness in that Church which he built upon Peter, and the adher- 
 ence to his institution is the best evidence of his love. 
 
 Charity leads us to seek what is for the welfare of our neighbor; 
 the preservation of that truth which will bring him to eternal life, is 
 the best mode of seeking his welfare. Ambition is an inordinate desire 
 of power to which we have no claim : the testifying what we have received 
 from others for the purpose of being transmitted by our testimony to 
 our successors, the assurance that we faithfully discharge this great 
 duty, the humble belief that Chl^st will fulfil his promise of not per- 
 mitting error to triumph over that testimony, and thereby destroy that 
 evidence, is not ambition. Much more does it savor of ambition in an in- 
 dividual to dogmatize against this testimony, and to declare in opposition 
 to ages and nations united, that his private judgment is better able to 
 know what Christ taught almost eighteen centuries before White was born. 
 
 It is not true that the title to infallibility, and supremacy is doubt- 
 ful : and there being no doubt, the benefit of the doubt could not be given 
 to Christian liberty. But what is meant by Christian liberty in this 
 place? Liberty to believe or to disbelieve according to your caprice. 
 Call you this faith? Liberty to be carried to and fro by every gust of 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 489 
 
 opinion. Call you this a blessing? Liberty of contradiction, so that I 
 might to-day say that Christ taught the doctrine of the real presence, 
 and to-morrow assert that he did not. Call you this knowledge ? Thus 
 it is, that sounds delude. Christian liberty properly understood means 
 that man is free where God has not bound him : but where God declares 
 what is his will, man is no longer free, he is at that moment bound to 
 believe ; knowledge is a blessing, faith is a privilege, it is the communi- 
 cation of heavenly wisdom, man should receive it as his best boon, as 
 the dearest pledge of his teacher's affection. How inestimable a benefit 
 is it to be taught by God ! How great the misfortune to be certain that 
 he spoke for our information, but to be uncertain of what he said ! Yet 
 this is the Christian liberty for which the holy alliance would contend! 
 White again unfairly changes his ground when instead of examining 
 the evidence of the fact, he speculates upon the motive of the Church 
 in assuming that she is infallible, and that her head is supreme : — and 
 because she does not decide that she has not the power which she received 
 from God, he would have us conclude that she has it not, and that she 
 knows herself to be without it. Thus according to this new system of 
 logic, if a judge declares that he holds the commission of his office the 
 declaration is evidence of his ambition, his ambition is evidence of his 
 unfitness, and his unfitness is proof that he has no valid commission; 
 if he states that he has no commission, then his word is good, and 
 because he has no commission he is to be believed. This would be a 
 convenient argument for every culprit to use against every judge. Sup- 
 pose one of his Presbyterian compeers told Bishop Kemp, that his claim 
 of holding a higher order than that of a Presbyter, looked more like 
 ambition than charity: what would be his answer? Suppose he was 
 told that his title was at best doubtful, and the benefit of the doubt ought 
 to be left to Christian liberty ; how would he reason with his old and new 
 associate? — Suppose the honest Quaker was to tell the whole collection 
 of our reverend assailants that the very use which they make of their 
 assumed privilege is proof of their fraud, and does not argue in favor 
 of their zeal for what they conceive to be the true intention of Christ ; 
 for they erect themselves into an organ of heaven ; and all their oracular 
 decisions invariably tend towards the increase of their own power: 
 what would the good gentlemen retort? Is not this charge daily made 
 upon them? Are they not told that they do these things for the sake 
 of filthy lucre? And do they not assert that the persons who thus 
 charge them are imps of hell, foes of the Gospel, enemies of Christ, liars 
 and blasphemers? 
 
490 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 I shall not give such names to those who bestow them, but I should 
 like to know their answer. 
 
 White now abandons every semblance of argument, and merely has 
 recourse to prejudice for his protection, page 87. 
 
 "By comparing the articles of the Church of Rome with those of 
 the Church of England, we shall find that the points of difference are 
 chiefly these : tradition, transubstantiation, the number of sacraments, 
 purgatory, indulgences, and the invocation of saints. Such are the main 
 questions on doctrine, at issue between the two Churches; for the dif- 
 ferences about free-will and justification might, I believe, be settled 
 without much difficulty, by accurately defining the language on both 
 sides. Now I will not assume the truth of the Protestant tenets on these 
 points, nor enter into arguments against those of the Roman Church; 
 my present concern is with their tendency." 
 
 Their tendency is not the question for a Divine, but their foundation 
 in the revealed truth of Heaven. There are a variety of other differences 
 which he passes over, but to magnify or to adduce which is not my 
 object. I shall always be happy to find our differences diminish. How- 
 ever, merely to show how little this man's statements respecting doc- 
 trine are to be depended upon ; the doctrines of purgatory and of indul- 
 gences, upon which he lays so much stress, rest altogether for their basis 
 upon our doctrine of justification. And certainly the question whether 
 an Unitarian or a Roman Catholic commits a sin in feeding a hungry 
 pagan, or clothing a shivering Greek, through mere motives of humanity, 
 is one on w^hich there is more than a mere verbal difference between the 
 Church of England and ours. The Church of England as does also 
 that of Bishop Kemp, and indeed the Churches of all our assailants 
 teach, that this act has in it the nature of sin ; our Church teaches that 
 it has not in it the nature of sin, but the nature of virtue, page 88. 
 
 ' ' To begin with tradition : let us observe how broad a field is opened 
 to the exercise of infallibilitj^, by the supposition that an indefinite num- 
 ber of revealed truths were floating down the stream of ages, uncon- 
 signed to the inspired records of Christianity. The power of inter- 
 preting the word of God by a continual light from above, might be 
 confined by the Scriptures themselves, as it would be difficult to force 
 doctrines on the belief of Christians, of which the very name and subject 
 seem to have been unknown to the inspired writers. Divine tradition, 
 the first-born of infallibility, removes this obstacle; and, so doing, in- 
 creases the influence of Rome to an indefinite extent. I do not here 
 contend that to place tradition upon the same footing with the Scriptures, 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 491 
 
 is an error ; but whether error or truth, it is certainly power in the hands 
 of the Roman Church. ' ' 
 
 I before remarked that White and his associates have disclaimed 
 the use of argument: therefore I have here nothing to refute, but I 
 have much to correct. 
 
 The supposition which he makes is gratuitous and untrue. When 
 he undertook to exhibit what tradition was, he ought to have been honest. 
 Tradition is the testimony of the revealed truth which exists in customs, 
 documents, and other evidence besides the sacred Scriptures, which 
 evidence is found in every age of the Church, and in every nation; it 
 is then, not "an indefinite number of revealed truths floating down the 
 stream of ages," but it is the testimony of the whole Church, exhibiting 
 what is revealed truth. Thus the universal custom of all the Churches 
 in every age, to pay the homage of adoration to the Redeemer, is not 
 consigned to the inspired records of Christianity, but is testified by other 
 records of Christianity ; and joined to the undoubted principle of Chris- 
 tians in every age and every nation, that God alorie should he adored, is 
 traditionary proof of the divinity of our Saviour. Whilst contending 
 sects fly to grammars, and to old and new parchments and papers, how- 
 copyists marked, introduced or omitted accents, or divided particles and 
 words — and whilst they array private individual judgment, and oppose 
 conjecture to conjecture: we have a glaring fact in palpable evidence, 
 and we pay the homage of our adoration with humble faith ; whilst they 
 are interminably quarrelling to know whether God inspired the writer 
 to place or to omit his accent or his aspirate, and to know how it ought 
 to be translated in either supposition. No doctrine is forced on the 
 belief of Christians save what God originally forced, if I may use the 
 expression, every one to receive: Scripture itself, and the very last 
 passage that ever an inspired penman wrote, testifies that God taught 
 doctrines and did acts which are not written by the inspired writers; 
 but it is dishonest to insinuate that what has not been written by them, 
 was unknown to them. We will readily admit, that the power of inter- 
 preting is power, as the power of testifying is also power. But it is 
 strange to tell us that whatever bestows power must be dangerous to 
 truth, at the same time, that it is avowed [that] Christ told the original 
 members of this tribunal "all power is given to me in heaven and on 
 earth." {Matt, xxviii, 18, 19, 20). "As my Heavenly Father sent me, so 
 I send you," {John xx, 21,). "You shall receive the power of the Holy 
 Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses to me." {Acts i, 8,). 
 
 I shall return to this. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
492 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 LETTER XXXVI. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, May 14, 1827. 
 To the Eoman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — The leading characteristic of that portion of what is 
 ludicrously designated as Evidence, which is now under considera- 
 tion, is an unhesitating assumption of the very question at issue. The 
 question is, whether the true doctrine of Christ is retained by our 
 Church, or has been lost by us. "White assumes, without proof, that 
 we have lost it ; and then proceeds to show the bad consequences of this 
 loss : in the exhibition of those consequences he again begs the question, 
 by assuming that what many others, as well as Protestants as Catholics, 
 look upon to be good and useful, are bad and mischievous effects: he 
 adds to this double fallacy, a dishonest blending together into what he 
 insinuates to be an inseparable unity, facts and circumstances which 
 are sometimes accidentally conjoined, which are frequently found in 
 separate existence, and never have been necessarily and essentially 
 united. The following passage is an exhibition of this dishonest and 
 fallacious mode of proceeding : page 89 : 
 
 "By the combined influence of tradition and infallibility, the 
 Church of Rome established the doctrine of Transubstantiation. From 
 the moment that people are made to believe that a man has the power 
 of working at all times, the stupendous miracle of converting bread and 
 wane into the body and blood of Christ, that man is raised to a dignity 
 above all which kings are able to confer. What, then, must be the 
 honor due to a Bishop, who can bestow the power of performing the 
 miracle of transubstantiation? What the rank of the Pope, w^ho is the 
 head of the Bishops themselves? The world beheld for centuries the 
 natural consequences of the surprising belief in the power of priests 
 to convert bread and wine into the incarnate Deity. Kings and Em- 
 perors were forced to kiss the Pope's foot, because their subjects were 
 m the daily habit of kissing the hands of priests — those hands which 
 were believed to come in frequent contact with the body of Christ." 
 
 The question as to the truth of our doctrine is not here even glanced 
 at, but its falsehood is magisterially assumed: and the whole series of 
 observations is made to rest upon a palpable falsehood, viz. "By the com- 
 bined influence of tradition and infallibility, the Church of Rome estab- 
 lished the doctrine of Transubstantiation." Had the writer substi- 
 tuted the following or an equivalent proposition for what he has here 
 given, I should have admitted its truth, viz. "By the evidence of tradi- 
 tion, and with the authority of infallible truth, the Church teaches the 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 493 
 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation." Yet this proposition, though true as 
 far as it goes, would be inadequate to express the whole of the facts, 
 because although the Church produces the evidence of Tradition, she does 
 not rest solely upon that proof even conjoined with her infallibility; 
 she has morever the evidence of the Scriptures, she has the testimony 
 of her adversaries, and she has the evidence of numerous, palpable, and 
 continued miracles. Thus this fundamental proposition upon which 
 White rests his observations, is false, because it is imperfect ; for it ex- 
 hibits but a small portion of our proofs as the entire: and because it 
 conceals that which he esteems the most valuable, and exhibits only that 
 which he deems to be of least worth. 
 
 The proposition is false upon another ground; because it gives a 
 deceptive view of the mode in which the doctrine is preserved and de- 
 livered. There are two descriptions of evidence by which truth is made 
 clear; to wit, that evidence by which what was never known or sus- 
 pected is for the first time discovered, and its truth becomes thus es- 
 tablished. Akin to this is the evidence by which what was formerly 
 known but forgotten, becomes revived and established: under this head 
 we may also place that evidence by which doubt is removed, and cer- 
 tainty obtained after a considerable lapse of time, or protracted inves- 
 tigation. In all those cases, ignorance or doubt pre-existed to knowledge 
 and certainty. When the ignorance is overcome, and the doubt is re- 
 moved, then evidence establishes the truth, and at every moment sub- 
 sequent to that of this establishment, it will be true that a correct doctrine 
 was then established. 
 
 The preservation of the truth thus discovered, and thus established, 
 is a very different process from the original investigation and discovery. 
 To preserve knowledge by correct testimony, is not then to establish 
 knowledge by investigation and discovery. It is plain that the doctrine 
 of Transubstantiation, supposing it to be that taught by the Saviour, was 
 established only by his teaching and by that of his Apostles ; the testi- 
 mony of the Church is the mode by which it is preserved, or by which 
 we establish the fact that Christ taught the doctrine ; this uniform and 
 uninterrupted and universal testimony we call Tradition ; when we say 
 that this testimony must infallibly lead us to a correct knowledge of 
 what Christ and his Apostles taught, this is Infallibility. Thus it is 
 not true that "by the combined influence of Tradition and Infallibility, 
 the Church of Eome established the doctrine of Transubstantiation," 
 for the doctrine was not established by the Church, but by the Saviour. 
 But it is true that by their combination the doctrine and its evidence are 
 both preserved ; and I am at a loss to know what better mode could be 
 
494 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 devised for their preservation than the uninterrupted, uniform testi- 
 mony of the Universal Church of eighteen ages and almost all nations; 
 I must own that it weighs more with me, than does the opinion of Bishop 
 Kemp, the sturdiness of Doctor Post, or the warlike impetuosity of the 
 Reverend Wm. Hawley, 
 
 The proposition which forms the ground work of the paragraph is 
 then a double falsehood; and the galaxy of our divines have adopted it 
 in their holy ardor against Popery. As Gustavus Vasa said to his Dala- 
 carlians: "0 how I admire their lovely, fierce impatience!" Show 
 them but a rag of scarlet, and like the spurning bull, each hero bellows 
 as he shakes his neck, and pushes with his frontlet. Their eagerness 
 for the overthrow of Antichrist leads them to the thoughtless, indis- 
 criminate adoption of all the means which their evil genius places within 
 their grasp, and thus they become partners in the falsehoods and follies 
 of the worst and weakest of our assailants. "From the moment that 
 people are made to believe that a man has the power of working at all 
 times the stupendous miracle of converting bread and wine into the body 
 and blood of Christ ; that man is raised to a dignity above all which kings 
 are able to confer." This being better expressed would be true; as it 
 stands, it is to say the least, very doubtful. Suppose the man had the 
 power though the people should never be made to believe that he had it, 
 he still is raised to the dignity; and if the people were made to believe 
 that he had this power which he really did not possess, he would not be 
 raised to the dignity : so that the dignity depends not upon the belief of 
 the people which might be founded on delusion, but upon the existence 
 of a power, which could be derived only from God. Nor is it strange 
 that the king of heaven should raise his ministers to a higher dignity 
 than earthly kings are able to confer ; so that the eternal evidence here 
 tells rather against White, who pays his court to his Majesty of England, 
 and the good sovereigns of the European holy alliance in rather an 
 awkward manner, by insinuating that it is a proof of the falsehood of 
 our doctrine, that God's minister is raised to a higher dignity than a 
 king's minister. 
 
 It certainly is to me a novelty to discoveo that the dignity of min- 
 isters is to be in the inverse ratio of their principles. Will Bishop Kemp 
 and his associates strike their oriflamme to the flag of the beloved Fer- 
 dinand ? The holy fathers would not : they all united in the declaration 
 that the dignity of the priesthood, in consequence of that very power 
 of consecration, was superior to that not only of kings themselves, but 
 even of angels and archangels. These however, were the Chrysostoms, 
 the Augustines, the Jeromes, the Basils, the Gregorys, the Prospers, the 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 495 
 
 Clements, and such other antiquated personages. Men who lived before 
 the discovery of the art of printing, before the invention of the mariner's 
 compass, before the construction of the blow-pipe, previous to the poly- 
 gamy of King Henry VIII (the godly Josias,) or even to the days of the 
 wise men of Gotham. Must we therefore be satisfied that they were ig- 
 norant of what Clirist taught the Apostles, and the Apostles communi- 
 cated to the Churches, and the Churches in their day exhibited as their 
 uniform doctrine? We however will be content to believe with those 
 holy fathers that the dignity of the Priesthood is above all which kings 
 are able to confer, though like them we may rest in dull, lethargic 
 insensibility to General Smith's Apocalyptic calculations, or Symes's 
 theory of concentric spheres, or the exact moment when Johanna's 
 Shiloh is to make his appearance, or when Rabbi Frey who writes in 
 the capacious receptacle of his own conscience, all the contradictions 
 of the sponsors of Blanco White, shall have obtained money enough 
 to purchase his brethren according to the flesh to brotherhood in spirit. 
 
 But to be serious : this language of White 's contradicts the language 
 of the Fathers ; and he charges upon us as consequences of false doctrine, 
 the exact result which they drew from what they called the doctrine of 
 Christ. It might be antiquated and unfashionable : but it is ours, and 
 it was that of the whole body of the writers of the best, the brightest, 
 and the earliest ages of the Church. White has left their communion; 
 we glory that we adhere to it, and that we believe as they did. White 
 proves here, for us, that we have not changed the doctrine. 
 
 One little correction is all that I shall add upon this topic. If we 
 were to believe that priests had a natural power to make this change 
 themselves, it would be indeed a surprising belief: but our faith is that 
 it is the supernatural power of the Deity which effects the change of 
 substance, but by the act of the priest ; and if White were a member of 
 the Church of England, he would believe that an unbaptized child was 
 stained with the guilt of original sin ; was a child of wrath, and exposed 
 to ruin : he would also believe that if he baptized that child, a most sur- 
 prising change would take place, by virtue whereof that sin would no 
 longer exist, that child would be a favorite of heaven and have a title 
 to everlasting life and glory. White would tell me that this change 
 was not the consequence of natural operation, but of supernatural power ; 
 that though the man was a minister, in truth God was the agent, and 
 that the change was not the less real and effectual because it was not 
 visible, or otherwise sensible; his word "surprising" is not then appli- 
 cable solely to the Eucharist, nor is it new, for it is at least as old as 
 
496 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 St. John Chrysostom, who believing as we do, used the phrase fourteen 
 centuries ago, regarding transubstantiation. 
 
 The concluding passage is not true in fact, nor honestly constructed, 
 even if the facts taken in their isolated character should be proved as 
 true. Suppose the two assertions were proved to be true, viz. that the sub- 
 jects of kings and emperors were in the habit of kissing the hands of 
 the priests, and that kings and emperors were forced to kiss the Pope's 
 foot, the truth of the facts would not be sufficient for the truth of the 
 proposition ; it should be moreover shewn that the latter fact was a con- 
 sequence of the former, for such is the assertion, "because their subjects 
 were in the daily habit of kissing the hands of the priests." This is 
 not only a gratuitous assumption, but it is a false assertion. It is next 
 to impossible for me to prove a negative, and therefore, I can here only 
 do as I have done frequently before in the course of these letters : pledge 
 myself to meet any of the reverend gentlemen whose glove I have taken 
 up, should he attempt to prove the truth of what I deny. I do not denr 
 that kings and emperors and their subjects did occasionally kiss the hands 
 of Priests and Bishops: but I do deny that the monarchs were forcel 
 to kiss the Pope 's foot, either because the people kissed the hands of the 
 priests, or because the hands of the clergy were believed to come in con- 
 tact with the body of Christ. Thus this paragraph contains several 
 falsehoods, and charges us with deviating from the doctrine of Christ, 
 whilst in endeavoring to maintain its position, it proves that our doctrine 
 agrees with that of the great Fathers of the Church and of the early 
 Christians. 
 
 He throws a note upon this subject into his Appendix, which I 
 shall next come to consider. He begins with the following paragraph, 
 page 242 : 
 
 ^'Transubstantiation. — An accurate and detailed history of the rise 
 and gradual progress of the doctrine of Transubstantiation would be a 
 valuable contribution to the philosophy of the human mind. "What ap- 
 pears to me most deserving the attention of philosophical observers, is 
 the concurrence of two perfectly unconnected errors, in giving birth to 
 this intellectual monster." 
 
 I once heard of a treatise written de omni re scihili, et quibuslihet 
 aliis, "concerning every thing which may be known, and some other 
 things;" such would be the accurate and detailed history of the rise 
 and gradual progress of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, unless it 
 was combined with that of the rise and gradual progress of the doctrine 
 of Christ; the history ought to be given if it could: and as the ^vriter 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 497 
 
 of the note attempts its outline, I shall follow him in his philosophical 
 observations : 
 
 "The natural propensity of mankind to refer their worship of the 
 invisible to the symbols employed to express it, is found even among the 
 early Christians. A great reverence for the bread and wine, which, in 
 the words of the Saviour, were called his flesh and blood, far from being 
 to blame in them, must be viewed as a direct consequence of the certainty 
 they possessed, that the Eucharist had been established by the Son of 
 God. But here the usual process of the vulgar mind began. Abstrac- 
 tions and distinctions are difficult and painful to the generality of man- 
 kind. The spiritual presence of Christ, the intimate connexion between 
 an external and simple act of eating and drinking, and the influence 
 of his grace on the soul of those who eat and drink by faith in his death 
 and passion, was soon lost sight of. Though Christ himself had declared 
 that ' the flesh profiteth nothing, ' the bread and wine gradually assumed 
 the character of his material flesh and blood. Yet neither the people 
 nor their leaders were able to use any definite language upon the mys- 
 terious work of consecration." 
 
 This is beginning philosophical inquiry with a vengeance ! In his 
 first three lines, he most illogically begs the question, by assuming 
 that the Eucharist is not what it is, and he most irreverently charges 
 the early Christians with a propensity to idolatrous worship. "The 
 natural propensity of mankind to refer their worship of the invisible 
 to the symbols employed to express it, is found even among the early 
 Christians." The philosopher has already done much to prove that the 
 Church of Christ became idolatrous at a very early period ; or else tha t 
 our doctrine of what he is pleased to call worshipping the symbols, is 
 not idolatrous! He next calls "bread and wine" what the Saviour, he 
 tells us, calls "his flesh and blood." The philosopher begins pretty 
 clearly in this place to lay his foundation for differing with the expres- 
 sions of the Saviour ; as he had previously condemned the worship of his 
 disciples; but he does not blame them for having a great reverence for 
 the "bread and wine," since this reverence is a direct consequence of 
 the Eucharist having been established by the Son of God. But the 
 philosopher would, I suppose, upon the same principle, not blame them 
 for having equal reverence for "water," since baptism in water has been 
 with equal certainty established by the Son of God. Yet we find the 
 early Christians pay no such reverence to the water in which they were 
 baptized, as to what the Saviour calls "his flesh and blood." Thus we 
 do not find amongst the early Christians the same propensity "to refer 
 their worship of the invisible to all the symbols employed to express 
 
498 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 it." Our philosopher ivill, I trust, admit the correctness of our logic 
 in rejecting parity of consequence, where analogy does not exist, and 
 in deducing similar conclusions where that analogy is found, and in not 
 drawing universal conclusions from particular premises : he must there- 
 fore admit that, if we do not find worship paid to the water of baptism, 
 and we do not find it paid to the symbols of the Eucharist, there must 
 be a very great difference between the nature of each symbol in the esti- 
 mation of the early Christian ; also that as both were equally established 
 by the Son of God, and one was worshipped, whilst the other was not, 
 the great reverence which was paid to what "the Saviour called his 
 flesh and blood" did not arise merely from the certainty that the Euchar- 
 ist had been established by the Son of God, but did arise from some other 
 cause, which was not to be found in baptism. 
 
 His next passage is worse than insulting to the Christian Church. 
 Good God! my friends, what kind of Christianity can that be, which 
 can only be built upon the abuse and vilifying of the best, the earliest, 
 and the most faithful disciples of Christ. "Vulgar minds." Such has 
 always been the language of vain, empty and petulant philosophists, 
 when describing the true followers of Christ during eighteen centuries. 
 The whole host of confused theologists, who have bewildered themselves 
 and their followers with such unintelligible jargon as the remainder of 
 this pasage contains, have ever been so entangled upon this subject, that 
 I must avow my "vulgar mind" could not catch at the ideas, if any, 
 which their words convey. I can understand what it is to eat bread 
 and drink wine, and to believe that Christ died to save me, and to hope 
 for his grace, and to trust that I might be animated by his Spirit; but 
 I cannot understand how I can eat a body which is not present, nor 
 drink blood which is not in my mouth. I do not understand what is 
 the idea of eating by faith; I can understand what believing by faith 
 means, but eating is an act of the body, and believing is an act of the 
 mind; and to believe is not to eat, as every one may easily experience. 
 It is not a subject upon which to indulge levity, or I should give abund- 
 ant demonstration. I shall have another opportunity of showing that 
 Christ's flesh profits much by its immolation upon the cross, and that 
 the meaning of the Saviour is here shamefully distorted. It is false, 
 that there was no definite language used by the people and their leaders 
 upon the mysterious work of consecration. Mark, then, the retreat of 
 the philosopher : * * The first Christians did not know the nature of the 
 Eucharist." Is this the result of philosophy? "The first Christians 
 did not know the doctrine of Christ. ' ' I shall continue the examination. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 499 
 
 LETTER XXXVII. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, May 21, 1827. 
 To the Eoman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — In my last I merely alluded to the passage of White's 
 note, in which he states that "Though Christ himself had declared that 
 'the flesh profiteth nothing,' the bread and wine gradually assumed the 
 character of his material flesh and blood." I shall now take up that 
 passage more at length. We must in the first instance see what was the 
 error of the Capharnaites which the Saviour corrected. The transac- 
 tion is related in the sixth chapter of ;S^^. John's Gospel, and in this place 
 the redeemer declared repeatedly that his flesh was meat indeed, and his 
 blood was drink indeed, and that the bread which he would give was his 
 flesh for the life of the world : he assured them that except they eat of 
 the flesh of the Son of man and drank his blood they could not have life 
 in them. Many of the people of Capharnaum apprehended that they 
 were to receive his body as they used to receive meat at the shambles, 
 and complained that this saying was hard, and who could bear it ? The 
 early writers testify to this to have been the erroneous impression of 
 this people. This is what we understand by eating material flesh and 
 blood: the Roman Catholic Church believes that Christ did not intend 
 to give his material flesh and blood thus to be taken, in this disgusting 
 manner. Our bodies in their natural or material state, are in a very 
 different mode of existence to what they will be in their supetnatural 
 or spiritualized state, after the resurrection ; as the Apostle St. Paul 
 testifies ; where he informs the Corinthians that what is sown is a cor- 
 ruptible body, what rises is an incorruptible body ; what is sown is a 
 natural body, what rises is a spiritual body. The Roman Catholic 
 Church believes that the body of Christ in the Eucharist is not in the 
 natural, corruptible, passible, animal state; but in the supernatural, in- 
 corruptible, impassible, spiritualized state in which glorified bodies shall 
 be after their resurrection, and in which his own body is since his resur- 
 rection. — And thus, although we know very little of the properties, and 
 nothing of the nature of the human body in its natural or material state, 
 we know still less of its properties in that supernatural or spiritualized 
 state : it is therefore ridiculous presumption for us to argue upon a case 
 of which we know so little : but reason tells us that respecting the body 
 of Christ, we act correctly in receiving the testimony of God, who fully 
 knows its nature in all its states. We know that the same identical bodies 
 which we have will arise from the dead, although they shall have been 
 first resolved to dust, but we know not how this will be effected : yet we 
 
500 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 know by revelation that we shall arise in the same bodies, not in newly 
 created bodies; thus, although the body will be changed in its mode of 
 existence, it will still be the same, now natural, material, then spirit- 
 ualized; now corruptible, then incorruptible. So the Catholic Church 
 believes that in the Eucharist is found the same identical body of Christ, 
 which was material in its natural state, now spiritualized in its super- 
 natural state. She does not teach the doctrine of the Capharnaites ; 
 on the contrary she condemns it ; hence "White and his sponsors allege 
 w^hat is not true when they assert, that we make "bread and wine 
 assume the character of his material flesh and blood." It is but one 
 of their ordinary calumnies to impute to us the errors which we con- 
 demn in others. And the words of the Saviour are by us applied 
 as they were by himself to condemn the error of the Capharnaites. There 
 was either a want of generosity, or injuctice, or of knowledge in those 
 who wrote and those who published this note, I cannot determine which. 
 I have before remarked upon the falsehood of his concluding passage, 
 "yet neither the people nor their leaders were able to use any definite 
 language upon the mysterious work of consecration. ' ' No person indeed 
 can tell how the God of Heaven produces the change, but all know by 
 his own declaration the fact that he does produce it, and all antiquity 
 is full of testimonies of their belief. At this day, if we are asked to tell 
 exactly what is the nature of a spiritualized and glorified body, we must 
 avow that we cannot tell ; the most erudite physician cannot tell us the 
 nature of a material body; he can inform us of several of its qualities 
 and properties, which he has learned from observation, experience, and 
 the testimony of other men ; we can tell him some of the qualities and 
 properties of spiritualized bodies which we have learned by the testimony 
 of God, which is to say the least, as good a criterion of the truth, as is 
 the observation and experience and testimony of man. I know not how 
 the Eucharist change is effected, but neither do I know how the myster- 
 ious operations of nature are produced: when our opponents shall 
 have explained to me how seeds are produced in trees and herbs, when 
 they shall have informed me how animal life is produced, communicated 
 and extinguished, I shall explain to them the "mysterious work of conse- 
 cration. ' ' 
 
 • I shall now proceed to another paragraph of our investigating phil- 
 osopher: and if we had not in Dohlado's Letters seen abundant evidence 
 by his own avowal, of his neglect of study, the passages which are now 
 to pass in review, would be sufficient to lead us to the same conclusion. 
 "It happened, however, in the metaphysical ages (such name, I 
 believe, would suit the period between the twelfth and the sixteenth cen- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 501 
 
 turies) that every system which successively occupied the attention of 
 the schools, had an effect not unlike that which is now produced by physi- 
 cal discoveries, though upon very dissimilar objects. A newly discov- 
 ered law or power of nature, in our days, puts the whole mass of Euro- 
 pean intellect into motion: a thousand applications are tried, ten thou- 
 sand hopes of improvement are raised, till the effervescence is sobered 
 down by experience and failure. A new metaphysical system produced 
 in those times a similar state of mind, among the class who pursued 
 abstract knowledge, with regard to the objects of their favorite studies, 
 and that without any thing to cheek it. Platonism first, and then Aris- 
 totleism were believed to be sufficient to explain every mystery in the- 
 ology. The success, however, of the latter was unrivalled in defining, 
 explaining, and demonstrating the as yet indistinct and fluctuating 
 theory of the Eucharist." 
 
 Upon this passage I shall make but few observations ; first, he might 
 have very properly stated the commencement of this period a century or 
 two earlier : second, though the schoolmen applied their ingenuity to ex- 
 plain the doctrines of theology by their philosophical systems, they never 
 believed or taught that those systems would be sufficient to explain any 
 one of the mysteries, so as to demonstrate its truth by reason, and make 
 it cease to be mysterious and above the comprehension of the human 
 mind : this point is easily settled : the position of White and of the holy 
 alliance will be fully established, and I shall be completely refuted, by 
 their producing names and works of those who made such statements; 
 these vague assertions will not answer. The last passage is a distinct 
 untruth, in as much as it asserts that it was believed that by means of 
 Aristotelic philosophy, the doctrine of the Eucharist could be demon- 
 strated, and in as much as it asserts that the theory; doctrine, (I know 
 of no theory of the Eucharist) was before or at that time either indistinct 
 or fluctuating: for in those ages as well as in the preceding centuries 
 the doctrine was distinct, settled, and universally received, that at the 
 consecration the substance of the bread and wine ceased to be under the 
 appearances, and the body and blood of Christ were really and sub- 
 stantially present, under the appearances. In those ages it is true, meta- 
 physicians began to inquire and to discuss in what manner the change 
 was effected, but that it was effected they were agreed, for such was the 
 doctrine that had come down from the Apostles, and was found in all 
 the Churches, Latin, Greek, Nestorian, Eutychian, and all throughout 
 the East and the West. The metaphysical question concerning the 
 manner in which the change was effected, is a very different one from 
 that which must have preceded, if the doctrine were fluctuating : for the 
 
502 CONTROVEKSY Vol. 
 
 schoolmen were sufficiently acute to know according to one of their 
 own axioms that the question of fact is previous to that of mode, and 
 they would have investigated whether a change actually did take place, 
 before entering upon the examination of the manner in which that change 
 occurred. The schoolmen adhered more rigidly to the rules of sound 
 logic than White has done, or dared to do with the case which he at- 
 tempts to support. The schoolmen were seldom found begging the ques- 
 tion, or deliberately writing palpable untruths under the guise of religi- 
 ous zeal: not so with the author of the Evidence who is comparable 
 
 To Sir Agrippa, for profound 
 
 And solid lying much reno^vn 'd. 
 
 And as the next paragraph will show, 
 
 JPoT mystic learning, wondrous able 
 
 In magic talisman and cabal. 
 
 By help of these, as he profess 'd. 
 
 He had first matter seen undress 'd: 
 
 He took her naked all alone, 
 
 Before one rag of form was on. 
 
 The Cahos too, he had descried 
 
 And seen quite through, er else he lied, 
 
 Beside, he was a shrewd philosopher 
 
 And had read every text and gloss over; 
 
 He Antroposophus and Floud, 
 
 And Jacob Behmen understood. 
 
 Mark his erudition in the following passage : 
 
 "One of the doctrines introduced by the Aristotelian system of 
 the school, is that of substantial forms or absolute accidents, ^o The 
 school-men suppose that the universe consists of a mass of matter invested 
 by certain forms or qualities which possess a real and substantial being. 
 This was a lucky discover}^ for the school divines. It explained the 
 bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament. The substance of the bread 
 and wine, they said, is converted into his body and blood; but the 
 absolute accidents, the substantial forms of both remain as before. — 
 Hence the word transuhstantiation.^' 
 
 The schoolmen are here either not understood by our learned phil- 
 osopher, or he plays Sir Agrippa with them. There is often to be found 
 amongst our modern philosophers an overweening contempt for their 
 predecessors of the period to which "White has alluded. I can have no 
 pretensions to rush into the ranks of the mighty men of mind who adorn 
 
 ™ The Schoolmen have foisted many of their absurdities upon the Greek philoso- 
 pher. From the definition which Aristotle gives of matter, it is evident that he 
 considered that word as the sign of an abstraction. 'Materia est neque quid, neque 
 quantum, nee aliud eorum quibus ens denominatur.' I quote the translation used 
 among the schoolmen. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 503 
 
 tlie present age. They have carried forward the discoveries in natural 
 philosophy of the laborious and scientific pioneers who have removed 
 many obstacles which impeded the progress of man in the regions of 
 air, of earth and of ocean. As White very properly remarks, this may 
 very justly be called the epoch of the investigation and improvement 
 of physical science. At a great distance I admire the men who so as- 
 siduously and successfully cultivate the field of knowledge ; my destiny, 
 perhaps my taste, and occasionally, it may be, my duty drew me in 
 another direction. I have gone amongst the schoolmen and conversed 
 with them in the dust in which they slept ; having roused them from their 
 slumbers, and brushed away the cobweb drapery in which they were en- 
 folded, I was left almost in solitude to learn their opinions and to re- 
 ceive their testimony. It was fashionable to laugh at them; they were 
 made objects of ridicule: and to sneer at the schoolman was to an idle 
 or a brainless youth, a more agreeable or easy occupation than to read, 
 to understand, or refute him: language has changed, and in the lapse 
 of time the variation of phrases and their translation have given ideas 
 altogether different from those which the scholastic writer intended to 
 convey. The dignified baron and the chivalrous knight of the 13th 
 century would have abundant theme for descant on the lisping fopling 
 who might strut or slide through a modern drawing room. There is 
 no period in which man in his civilized state does not exhibit in society 
 a blending of what is respectable and contemptible. In the days of the 
 schoolmen, the minds of the learned were not directed to the same objects 
 which now occupy the attention of our men of information, and could 
 the dunces of former ages see the lahors of our best philosophers, they 
 would lament, or affect to pity the ignorance of men whose productions 
 they were unable to estimate, just as the thoughtless and ignorant of 
 to-day sneer at schoolmen of w^hose valuable works they have scarcely 
 an idea. I do not think it useful to literature, to cast away with con- 
 tempt what has been the result of the disquisition and investigation of 
 powerful intellect at any former period. I would prefer seeing the cor- 
 rection of the errors or mistakes of our ancestors added to their knowl- 
 edge and our acquirements, rather than to witness the childish disregard 
 of every thing they knew because their system of natural philosophy 
 was imperfect, and their expressions were too formal, and are now an- 
 tiquated. This foolish fashion of treating them with contempt, has 
 deprived us of much valuable matter which they had collected and ar- 
 ranged in their o^vn way, and I must avow, however my nameless self 
 might suffer from the avowal, that I look upon their metaphysics to ex- 
 
504 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 ceed that of most of our moderns as much as our Imowledge of physics 
 exceeds theirs. 
 
 White is either ignorant of their language or studiously misrep- 
 resents its meaning ; he plays upon the word substantial, and is guilty of 
 a dishonest quibble in its use, or he knows nothing of the language of 
 schoolmen. The only difference which exists between us and them, is 
 in the mode of expression. In our language at present, substantial does 
 not mean what it did in the schools ; and any person w^ho would attach 
 to the word in the schools the same meaning which it has in present com- 
 mon usage W'Ould be grossly in error. In the schools it means real, not 
 chimerical. Appearances or secondary qualities of bodies which affect 
 our senses, are by modern philosophers said to be nothing in the body, 
 but are effects produced by the body upon us ; thus heat, according to 
 some, is a sensation of the soul produced by the disposition of the parts 
 of that body which is said to be hot. I find several bodies of unlike 
 substance but of the same temperature; iron, brass, lead, stone, cotton 
 are all different substances, but all have the same degree of heat. The 
 schoolman said that the accident of heat existed absolutely in each of 
 them, that they all had the same substantial form of heat : a modern will 
 tell you that they all emit the same quantity of caloric: another will 
 tell you that they are all so configured as to produce the same sensation 
 of heat : in fact they are but different modes of expressing the same idea ; 
 the expression being accommodated to the philosophical theory of the 
 day, which theory is as yet fluctuating and unsettled. White then as- 
 serts what is not the fact when he informs his readers that the schoolmen 
 supposed the "forms of qualities" to possess a real and "substantial 
 being" if by substantial he would have us believe any thing different 
 from or beyond what the modern mean by the same real existence of 
 those qualities. I shall give an illustration. In the book of Josue it 
 is stated that an angel appeared to that leader, in the shape of a warrior : 
 there w^as here an angelic substance clothed with human appearance. 
 The schoolman would say, the substance of a man was not there, but 
 the substantial form or absolute accidents of a man were there, and 
 clothed the angelic substance which was really there; thus the figure, 
 color, and so forth, of a human being existed where the substance did not : 
 a modern philosopher would tell you that those secondary qualities can- 
 not exist but in the substance of a human being, that therefore as the 
 substance of a human being was not here, these accidents which can 
 exist only in that substance did not exist here: but he acknowledges 
 that the angelic substance was really there, and that God miraculously 
 caused the impressions upon the senses of Josue to be the same as if 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 505 
 
 the substance of a human being and not that of an angel were present. 
 Thus the modern and the ancient differ only in their mode of expressing 
 the same identical idea, which is "the substance of an angel appeared 
 as that of man." Before the doctrine of substantial forms or absolute 
 accidents found its way into the schools, Christians believed that Christ 
 was really present in the Eucharist by virtue of a change produced by 
 God: when this philosophy prevailed, the schoolmen said that the 
 substance was changed, but the absolute accidents remained: when a 
 new philosophy succeeded, it was still taught [that] the bread and wine 
 are changed into the body and blood of Christ ; but [that] after conse- 
 cration, God produces upon our senses the same impressions by the 
 new substance that he would by the old, if no change had taken place; 
 thus all the parade of our philosopher is of no avail; the same idea 
 was still expressed in other terms suited to the age: the doctrine re- 
 mained unchanged. I doubt if many members of the holy alliance have 
 seen it before, but "White does not understand Aristotle's definition of 
 the matter. Upon his next paragraph I shall make little comment: 
 it is the following: 
 
 "The idea of a general mass shaped by these substantial forms or 
 moulds, is so agreeable to the external impressions of mankind, and so 
 analogous to the operations by which what we call materials are con- 
 verted into objects fitted for peculiar uses; that the words in which 
 the school philosophers expressed them, have been incorporated with 
 all the European languages. " ^i 
 
 The good gentleman, I am convinced, knows just as little of the 
 scholastic authors, and of the Aristotelic philosophy, as he does of the 
 materials of the moon. I shall leave him and Bishop Kemp to get, as 
 well as they can, out of transubstantiation of their own Churches. 01 
 one thing I must avow my own perfect ignorance, upon which perhaps, 
 some one might condescend to inform me, viz. "What is the doctrine of 
 the Church of England or what is the doctrine of the Protestant Episco- 
 pal Church of the United States respecting the nature of the Euchar- 
 ist." Do they believe the doctrine of the real presence? If they do, 
 which is it, by consubstantiation with the Lutherans, or by transubstan- 
 tiation with the Greeks and Latins? If they do not believe the real 
 presence of Christ's body how can they eat it? Can we eat what they 
 
 -^ " It is curious to trace to the same source even the word elements, which seems 
 to have been chosen by the Protestants as the most independent from the theory of 
 conceived to bear the qualities of things. Omnium elementa possunt invicem in 
 se transmutari, non generatione, sed alteratione. The bread and wine were elements 
 because they were supposed to be changed into the body and blood of Christ. See 
 Brucker, Hist. PMlos. i>art ii, lib. ii, c. vii. ' ' 
 
506 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 have not present ? What is the difference between eating and believing ? 
 Do the two phrases mean the same, "I eat," "I believe"? How could 
 the word elements be chosen to avoid expressing transubstantiation, it! 
 bread and wine were called elements because they were supposed to 
 be changed into the body and blood of Christ? I can understand the 
 doctrine of Zuingiius, who says that after consecration there is only what 
 was before ; but that in eating the bread and drinking the wine, you eat 
 and drink what you have present, viz. bread and wine, that in doing so 
 you may call to mind a former occurrence, and that for doing so, you 
 may receive grace from God : but this is not eating Christ 's body. I can 
 understand the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which says that at the 
 consecration although no apparent change occurs, yet a substantial 
 change takes place, and now Christ 's body and blood assume the appear- 
 ance of bread and wine, or have the substantial forms, or absolute 
 accidents of those substances or matters: in this case I eat Christ's body 
 which is present, but I eat not bread which has ceased to be present, 
 and I only require the power of God to perform the change, which 
 is wdthin that power. I can understand the doctrine of the Lutheran 
 Church which states that the body of Christ is placed together with the 
 substance of the bread under its appearance, for in this case I can 
 conceive two substances, under one appearance ; it requires more exten- 
 sive miraculous interference than does the Catholic doctrine, because 
 it requires that two bodies shall occupy the same space ; but in this case 
 the communicant eats the body of Christ, as also bread, because both 
 are present. But I cannot understand the person who tells me; "You 
 eat what is not present, you eat Christ's body although it is not there." 
 Nor is the proposition made intelligible by informing me that the mode 
 in which I eat the absent body is by Faith, because faith is belief, and 
 eating and believing are not in fact synonjTnous. Hence I have always 
 looked upon the doctrine of Bishop Kemp's Church on this sacrament 
 to be too abstruse for my conception, or to be sheer nonsense : it might 
 however be owing to my own stupidity. 
 
 We now come to the last paragraph of the note, page 245 : 
 ' ' That the doctrine of transubstantiation could not have been estab- 
 lished without the aid of Aristotle, any one who examines the technical 
 words of the Roman Catholic divines, upon that question, will readily 
 perceive. Of this they were so fully convinced but a short time ago, 
 that I recollect the opposition to which the modern system of natural 
 philosophy was still subject in my youth, as depriving the Roman 
 Catholic faith of its chief support, by the rejection of the substantial 
 forms. Indeed, transubstantiation conveys either no meaning at all, 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 507 
 
 or one entirely the reverse of what Rome intends ; unless we suppose the 
 separableness of substance, and forms or qualities. The substance of 
 the bread and wine, it is said, is converted into the body and blood of 
 Christ, which, translated into any language but that of the schools, 
 means that the body of Christ (I wish to speak reverently) chemically 
 analyzed in the consecrated bread and wine, will be found to consist 
 of every thing which constitutes bread and wine, i. e. the body and blood 
 of Christ will be found to have been converted into real bread and wine. 
 What else do we designate by bread and by wine but two aggregates 
 of qualities, identical to what the analytical process will show after con- 
 secration? Substance without qualities is a mere abstraction of the 
 mind; with qualities, it is that which the qualities make it. So here 
 we have a mighty miracle to convert Christ into bread and wine; for 
 such would be the substance of his body if it changed its qualities for 
 those of the two well known compounds which the Roman Catholics 
 adore. If it is said that Christ occupies the place of the bread and wine, 
 and produces the impressions peculiar to them on the senses, the sup- 
 posed miracle should change the name of transubstantiation into that of 
 delusion. Surely transubstantiation has for its basis the most absurd 
 philosophical system which ever disgraced the schools of' a barbarous 
 age!" 
 
 The first proposition here is altogether untrue, upon the old maxim 
 of the schoolmen, ah actu ad posse valet consecutio. The doctrine was 
 established long before the aid of Aristotle was sought to explain its 
 philosophy. Ages succeeding ages saw it spread through nations before 
 the principles of the Greek philosopher were applied to the subject; and 
 it now exists where that philosopher has been rejected, of which the self- 
 contradicting White himself bears evidence in this very passage; for 
 he admits that the modern system of philosophy co-existed with the belief 
 in the Spanish universities, though some advocates of the Aristotelic 
 system raised the difficulties which he states. Did he deny what he here 
 admits, I am prepared with abundant evidence to show the co-existence 
 of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and of the modern theory of natural 
 philosophy in the great majority of European universities, and in some 
 of them long before the birth of White, who avows his own idleness, and 
 consequently his own ignorance. Some of the most steady believers 
 in the doctrine have been some of the best contributors to modern science 
 in France, in Italy, in Germany, and even in Spain itself. 
 
 But of all the miserable attempts to put on the semblance of learn- 
 ing that ever fell under my eye, the following is the most abject. "What 
 do we designate by bread and wine but two aggregates of qualities iden- 
 
508 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 tical to what the analytical process will show after consecration." And 
 this is the man who laughed at substantial forms and absolute accidents ! 
 Surely he ought to have known that bread and wine are substances, and 
 not qualities, nor aggregates of qualities ! ! ! Bread is an aggregate of 
 identical qualities ! ! Bless him for the discovery ! He has at last gone 
 beyond my reach, "substance without qualities is a mere abstraction of 
 the mind." Granted, good Sir; and so are qualities without substance, 
 or as the old schoolmen would call them absolute accidents, also an ab- 
 straction of the mind; and yet White gives us this abstraction, this 
 aggregate of qualities for bread! "With qualities, it is that which the 
 qualities make it." By no means, good Sir; it is the substance which 
 produces the qualities, or, if you will, make them; and not they that 
 make the substance. 
 
 You must, in all natural cases, have the substance of gold before 
 you will have its color, gravity, taste, and so forth. It is not the taste 
 and smell which make the wine, but the wine which makes, or produces, 
 or causes them. Such is the case according to the laws of nature, and 
 hence, though the qualities do not make the substance, we will generally, 
 but not universally arrive at a knowledge of the substance itself, by as- 
 certaining what the qualities are ; this, I suspect, is what the philosopher 
 was blundering to express, when he compiled this paragraph of jargon. 
 I said this was not universally the ease ; for there are several instances 
 where our knowledge is so limited, that we draw our inferences too 
 hastily ; the principle upon which they are drawn is analogj^ and this is 
 not the most easily ascertained, our observation is not sufficiently close, 
 nor experience sufficiently extensive, nor acquaintance with nature suf- 
 ficiently intimate to save us from mistakes, and those of the most serious, 
 and not unfrequently of the most fatal description. But in miraculous 
 cases, it is totally inapplicable. I shall instance but one or two. The 
 "aggregate of qualities" in the apparition of the angel of Josue would 
 lead to the conclusion, that the substance was that of man. 22 Did the 
 qualities make the substance in this ease? The "aggregate of qualities" 
 would have made the Holy Ghost the substance of a dove in one in- 
 stance ;23 and the substance of fire in another.^* Will Bishop Kemp hold 
 to the "identical analytical process?" In those cases, the substance was 
 neither made nor detected by the qualities. And yet there was no 
 delusion, because there was a mode afforded for discovering by the decla- 
 ration of God and by faith, what could never have been detected or 
 
 " Josue V, 13. 
 "John i. .S2. 
 ^ Acts ii, 3. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 509 
 
 known by the unaided senses. But, mark the dishonesty of White, who 
 set out in this paragraph by stating that our doctrine could not be es- 
 tablished without the aid of Aristotle; and at its conclusion, gives its 
 explanation by modern philosophy. "Christ occupies the place of the 
 bread and wine, and produces the impressions peculiar to them on the 
 senses." Thus he shows that he knowingly wrote what was not true. 
 He however calls this delusion. What will he call the cases of the ap- 
 parition of angels and of the Holy Ghost ? It is not delusion ; because 
 we are informed that at the consecration a change is effected in sub- 
 stance, though not in appearance. God thus affords to us the means 
 of knowing the fact ; if we believe him there is no delusion ; if we will 
 not, we delude ourselves, and we are criminal; the fault is ours, not 
 that of our Creator. 
 
 I may then conclude this letter by stating, that of all the wretched 
 attempts of this man, that made by him in this note is the most un- 
 fortunate. It is, throughout, a combination of false imputations, un- 
 sound philosophy, undeserved sneers at men of extraordinary acquire- 
 ments and great natural ability, confusion of ideas, a betrayal of ignor- 
 ance and self-sufficiency, together with low blasphemy ; and this is what 
 the Right Rev. Bishop Kemp and the other members of the holy alliance 
 recommended to their flocks, by way of sound instruction! Surely 
 their doctrine has need of explanation, and it would be well for them, 
 if it was as intelligible as is the philosophical system of what they are 
 pleased to call a barbarous age. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XXXVIII. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, May 28, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — The next passage of White's that comes under our 
 observation commences at page 89. 
 
 "The abundance of ceremonies supposed to produce supernatural 
 effects, must magnify the character of the privileged ministers of those 
 ceremonies. Hence a Church possessing seven sacraments, is far super- 
 ior in influence to one who acknowledges but two. Add to this the 
 nature of four out of five Roman sacraments — penance, extreme unction, 
 ordination and matrimony — and the extent of power which she thereby 
 obtains, will appear. Penance, i. e. auricular confession, puts the con- 
 sciences of the laity under the direction of the priesthood. Extreme 
 unction is one of her means to allay fear and remorse. Ordination is 
 
510 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 intimately connected with the influence which the Roman Church derives 
 from transubstantiation, and its being made a sacrament, adds proba- 
 bility to the miraculous powers which it is supposed to confer. Finally, 
 by giving the sacramental character to matrimony the source and bond 
 of civil society is directly and primarily subjected to the Church." 
 
 Upon this I have little to remark — the principle having been prev- 
 iously disposed of, viz. That the possession of power in the Church is 
 evidence, ' ' internal evidence, ' ' that ours is not the true Church of Christ, 
 who said to his Apostles, and in their persons to the Church, "As my 
 Father hath sent me, even so I send you." ^5 ''But that you may know 
 the son of man hath power on earth," and so forth. 26 "They marvelled 
 and glorified God which had given such power to men."27 "And 
 when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power," 
 and so forth. -^ "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth, go 
 ye therefore, and teach all nations . . . teaching them to observe all 
 things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, 
 even unto the end of the world. " ^9 Yet in the very teeth of those decla- 
 rations. White and the holy alliance would tell us that her claim to 
 spiritual power is internal evidence of the corruption of our Church: 
 and there is not a single one of the sects to which they belong that does 
 not claim and attempt to use more power over its members than any 
 general council claims or uses in our Church. Suppose, then, I were to 
 admit the truth of White's first proposition, what would be the conse- 
 quence ? That the clergy had more spiritual power, because their com- 
 mission was more extensive. Is this untrue ? No Christian will deny its 
 truth, but even any rational man will say, that the important question 
 is not whether the character is magnified or diminished, but whether 
 any ecclesiastical ceremony is efficacious, and if so how many. The true 
 question is, to what does the commission extend? Thus the very ques- 
 tion which this man avoids is that which is important, and his rhapsody 
 is but got up for creating prejudice, not for investigating truth: hence 
 too his second proposition, and the whole sequel, are unfair and delusive. 
 The number and the nature of the sacraments are to be known by in- 
 quiring what Christ instituted ; not by asking what mankind may think 
 of his bestowing character or conferring power. 
 
 It is untrue that penance is auricular confession, or that auricular 
 confession is penance. I might as well assert that the Senate is the 
 
 -' John XX, 21. 
 
 =' Matt, ix, 6. 
 
 =" lb. ix, 8. 
 
 "^ilatt. X, 1. 
 
 "lb. xxsiii, 18, et seq. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 511 
 
 Congress, the main spring is a watch, the rudder is a ship, or the 
 axletree is a cart; in a word, that one of the parts of any thing is the 
 whole of that of which it is a part. Penance consists of three parts on the 
 side of the penitent, and one on that of the clergyman, that is, four 
 parts in the whole: and confession is but one of those four parts, and 
 very frequently the least necessary : so that it is a gross misrepresenta- 
 tion to identify penance and auricular confession in this offhanded mode 
 in which the untruth is here put forward. I will suppose the ease of a 
 man who has committed a theft to a large amount, and contrived to 
 shift the imputation of dishonesty upon an innocent father of a family, 
 by which his reputation is destroyed and his family is ruined. This 
 criminal may, however, through the merits of Christ's death, be forgiven 
 by the sacrament of "penance, i. e. auricular confession." The impres- 
 sion which this conveys to the mind, is naturally that according to the 
 tenets of our Church, the criminal has only to confess in the ear of a 
 priest, and be forgiven. Such, I am aware, is the notion entertained by 
 three or four millions of our enlightened fellow-citizens upon the subject. 
 Yet an ignorant Spaniard would tell us that this was by no means suf- 
 ficient amongst Catholics; that besides this confession, three other in- 
 gredients were necessary, viz. contrition and satisfaction on the part of 
 the sinner, and absolution by the clergyman. 
 
 Thus, in the case stated, the crime is easily told — but, a true and 
 sincere sorrow for having offended God, a sincere intention of avoiding 
 future transgressions, and of flying from temptation, true and perfect 
 repentance of heart, without which there can be no reconciliation with 
 heaven, is generally the result of reflection, prayer, and the grace of the 
 most high God. This first and essential requisite Mr. White altogether 
 omits when he tells us "penance, [and] auricular confession," mean the 
 same thing. Another ingredient of penance is satisfaction. In the case 
 before us, the criminal is bound to restore the sum which he had orig- 
 inally stolen to the person upon whom the theft was committed ; to make 
 good to him all the losses which he sustained in consequence thereof, and 
 if possible to compensate for the feelings of mortification, pain and bit- 
 terness which were endured. This is something more than "auricular 
 confession." But he has a far more extensive and difficult task to per- 
 form — he must use every exertion to restore the character of the in- 
 nocent man, who, by his contrivance, bore the punishment due to an 
 offence which he did not commit : he must compensate him for his losses, 
 he must endeavor to soothe his feelings : he must make reparation to his 
 family. This is something more than "auricular confession." This ex- 
 plains the horror with which dishonest Catholics contemplate confes- 
 
512 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 sion ; this accounts for their readiness to unite with Protestants in de- 
 crying and vilifjdng the tribunal of penance, and the difference of their 
 conduct as regards this sacrament is an almost infallible criterion by 
 which to judge of their general observance of the code of Christian 
 morality. Were there no obligation to do more than to make "auricular 
 confession, ' ' there would be no difficulty in penance : but confession 
 leads to satisfaction, and is useless unless accompanied by contrition or 
 repentance, and the clergyman is answerable with his own soul at the 
 bar of heaven for giving absolution, except where he has a moral cer- 
 tainty, after close examination, that the person to whom he gives it 
 has all the proper dispositions: but even then the mistake of the priest 
 will be no more security to the sinner than would be the sinner's own in- 
 sincerity : unless he be truly penitent, and fully disposed to satisfy the 
 justice of God and man, the absolution will be invalid, and his imperfect 
 attempt will be a sacrilege. Thus, if auricular confession places the con- 
 sciences of the laity under the direction of the priesthood ; it also places 
 those of the Pope, and of the Bishops, and of the Priests themselves, 
 under the same control, for they must have recourse to the same tribunal 
 for the same purpose, the remission of their sins ; and the law of God is 
 the great principle by which the director is to be guided, for when 
 Christ breathed upon his Apostles and said to them, "Receive ye the 
 Holy Ghost ; "Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them ; and 
 whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained;" 2*^ he committed to them 
 this power of remitting and retaining, to be exercised upon the principles 
 of his moral and religious institutions, and not according to their indi- 
 vidual caprice. As to their predecessors in the typical law of Moses, he 
 gave a power of offering an atoning sacrifice after the confessions of the 
 people, not upon their individual caprice, but in accordance with the 
 great principles of that law of which he constituted them the judges. ^^ 
 That there exists power in this tribunal of penance, we do not deny, but 
 we assert that it is a power bestowed by Christ, who is better able than 
 we are to judge of the necessity and propriety of its bestowal : and it is 
 a curious sort of logic which infers from the existence of power that our's 
 could not be the Church of Christ, though we prove that the Saviour left 
 such power in his Church. But whatever excuse the holy alliance in 
 America might have for using the argument, it comes with a very bad 
 grace from "White, who calls himself a clergyman of the Church of 
 England^one of whose rubrics is the following : 
 
 "Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession 
 
 '» John XX, 22, 23. 
 
 " Lev. V, 5 ; Num. v, 7 ; Deut. xvii. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 513 
 
 if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After 
 which confession the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily 
 desire it) after this sort: 
 
 ' ' Our Lord Jesus Christ who hath left power to his Church to ab- 
 solve all sinners which truly repent, and believe in him, of his great 
 mercy forgive thee thine offences, and by his authority committed to 
 me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen." 
 
 It is a little strange that White, a minister of the Church which de- 
 clares Christ left this power to his Church, and who, by Christ's author- 
 ity, is liable to be called upon for this exercise of power, should give us, 
 as one of the topics of Internal Evidence against Catholicism, the claim 
 of the Catholic Church to this power. What says Bishop Kemp to this? 
 I am aware that his Church disclaims the power, but the Church of Eng- 
 land claims it. But what says he to White's logic? What say the 
 holy alliance to this argument of their adopted child? Before I leave 
 this topic, I beg to remind Bishop Kemp that the first book of King Ed- 
 ward VI had this tailpiece to the above rubric : 
 
 "And the same form of absolution shall be used in all private 
 confessions. ' ' 
 
 Thus in the time of Edward VI the English Protestant Church had 
 private confession and absolution, of as strict necessity as in our Church. 
 In the time of Elizabeth the confession and absolution were only neces- 
 sary for the dying, subsequently the confession and absolution were 
 left to the discretion of the sick person, and the American Protestant 
 Episcopal Church got rid of them altogether : so that they could not all 
 be following the institution of Christ : Will the holy alliance vouchsafe 
 to inform us which of them was right ? 
 
 Were I to argue against the Church of England, or against the 
 Lutheran Church in Europe which preserves confession and absolution 
 as White does against the Roman Catholic Church, I would feel humbled 
 and degraded in my own estimation. I shall conclude this topic with 
 the following extract from the Cork Mercantile Chronicle, an Irish 
 paper, of the 2nd of last month, April, giving a portion of the assizes 
 news in that city. The trial of the cause was held before Mr. Justice 
 Torrens. De Lacour is the Treasurer of the County, and a Protestant. — 
 Ryan is we believe a Catholic. 
 
 "By an vs. De Lacour. 
 "This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum 
 of £408 from the defendant, being the amount of a presentment for 
 building a bridge on the Mallow-road, and which came on last assizes, 
 
514 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 but without being brought to any decision, a juror having been with- 
 drawn. 
 
 "In the course of the proceedings this day, a man named Riordan, 
 who was produced as a witness for the plaintiff, astonished the Court 
 and the jury by his declaration. He swore that the present action 
 was the result of a conspiracy against Mr. De Lacour ; that he had per- 
 jured himself at the last assizes, and that other witnesses for the pro- 
 secution were perjurers; and that £20 a head was to be the payment 
 for each perjurer. He said that he made this avowal now in conse- 
 quence of the advice which he had received from the Rev. Mr. Cotter, 
 the Roman Catholic Curate of Ballinamona, to whom he confessed his 
 guilt, and who suggested the present mode of reparation. Riordan was 
 committed for perjury on his own confession. 
 
 "At 5 o'clock a verdict was returned for the defendant, with 6d. 
 costs." 
 
 What would Mr. De Lacour say to auricular confession putting 
 the conscience of the laity under the direction of the priesthood ? What 
 do the holy alliance say to the restitution perpetually made in conse- 
 quence of this direction ? What say they to all the injustice and other 
 crimes prevented by this direction? The God who established this doc- 
 trine knows more of human nature than they do. 
 
 "Extreme unction is one of her means to allay fear and remorse." 
 
 Unquestionably, when received with proper dispositions. But who 
 made it so ? 
 
 "Is any sick amongst you? Let him call in the priests of the 
 Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the 
 name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick person, 
 and the Lord will raise him up ; and if he be in his sins they shall be for- 
 given to him." ^2 
 
 White before he wrote this passage, should have done as Luther 
 did : this holy father of the Reformation denied the Epistle of St. James 
 to be an inspired document : how have his followers admitted it ? White 
 should also have recollected, if ever he knew the fact, that the Protestant 
 Church of England retained extreme unction as a divine institution. 
 
 "If the sick person desires to be anointed, then shall the Priest 
 anoint him upon the forehead, or breast only, making the sign of the 
 cross, saying thus : 
 
 "As with this visible oyl thy body is outwardly anointed: so our 
 Heavenly Father, Almighty God, grant of his infinite goodness that thy 
 
 ^ James, v, 14. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 515 
 
 soul inwardly may be anointed with the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit 
 of all strength, comfort, relief and gladness. And vouchsafe for his 
 great mercy (if it be his blessed will) to restore unto thee thy bodily 
 health and strength to serve him ; and send thee release of all thy pains, 
 troubles, and diseases, both in body and mind. And howsoever his good- 
 ness, (by his Divine and unsearchable Providence.) shall dispose of thee ; 
 we his unworthy ministers and servants, humbly beseech the eternal 
 Majesty to do with thee according to the multitude of his innumerable 
 mercies, and to pardon thee all thy sins and offences, committed by all 
 thy bodily senses, passions and carnal affections; who also vouchsafe 
 mercifully to grant unto thee ghostly strength by his holy spirit, to 
 withstand and overcome all temptations and assaults of thine adver- 
 sary, that in no wise he prevail against thee, but that thou mayest have 
 perfect victory and triumph against the devil, sin and death: through 
 Christ our Lord, who by his death hath overcome the prince of death, 
 and with the Father and the Holy Ghost, evermore liveth and reigneth, 
 God, world without end. Amen. 
 
 ''Then follows the Psalm ^^ xiii. How long wilt thou forget me, 
 Lord, and so forth. Glory be to the Father, and so forth. As it was 
 in beginning," and so forth. ^^ 
 
 Bucer however, struck out the rubric and prayer, omitting the oil 
 he only retained the Psalm: leaving its use also a matter of discretion. 
 
 Si videtur commodum, dicatur etiam hie Psalmus, pro usitata, 
 ante haec tempora, unctione. Usequequo Domine, and so forth. ^^ 
 
 The ceremony of anointing was then used in the time of Edward 
 vi, in the Protestant Church of England, and the prayer expressed ex- 
 actly and fully those effects which the Roman Catholic Charch teaches 
 to be those of extreme unction : it is in perfect conformity to the direc- 
 tion of the Apostles and the usage of the holy Catholic Church in the 
 East and in the West : it was cast out by Bucer, omitted by Elizabeth, 
 and declaimed against by White and the holy alliance. Bucer {Censur, 
 page 486,) quoted by L 'Estrange, page 299, says, "It is clear, this rite 
 is neither ancient, nor commanded to the Churches practice, by any 
 either precept of God, or example of the primitive Fathers," and upon 
 those grounds he calls for its rejection, yet L 'Estrange confesses, that 
 it is Apostolical, and therefore ancient, and matter of a precept given 
 in St. James, of course, a precept of God, if the Epistle be the word of 
 God. As to the example of the primitive Fathers, we have the testi- 
 
 ^^ In the Catholic enumeration, Ps. xii. 
 
 ^*K. Edw. VI. First Book. Ord. Vis. Sick. 
 
 ^ Ed. Lat. Buceri. 
 
516 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 mony of Pope Innocent I, who succeeded to the Chair of Peter in the 
 year 402, who in his epistle to Decentiiis, c. viii, mentions it amongst 
 those sacraments instituted by Christ, derived from the Apostles and al- 
 ways administered in the Church. St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. 
 John Chrysostom, who lived at this period, make honorable mention of 
 Innocent, as a holy, learned, and extremely well informed pontiff. The 
 centuriators of Magdeburg, who were staunch Lutherans, acknowledge 
 that the administration of the rite was customary in this age, (cap. vi. 
 De Bit. Visit. Infirm.) In the sixty-ninth canon of the Arabic copy of 
 the Canons of Nice, the oil for the anointing of the sick, is mentioned 
 together with the oil of catechumens and the chrism. 
 
 White's passage regarding ordination, may go for what it is worth. 
 He and several of the holy alliance will at all events allow that it is a 
 visible ceremony instituted by Christ, to be permanent in his Church, 
 and that the person who is ordained with becoming dispositions will un- 
 doubtedly at the time of ordination receive the grace or gifts of the 
 Holy Ghost to enable him to discharge the important duties of the 
 ministry, and this is all that the Roman Catholic Church requires to 
 make it a sacrament. Whether it imprints an indelible character is an- 
 other question. The British Parliament which is the general council of 
 the English Protestant Church,' decided in the case of Home Tooke, that 
 it does. In the time of Edward VI, the teaching was otherwise: but 
 I believe the doctrine of Bishop Kemp's Church is that the character 
 of orders is indelible. I profess my ignorance of the doctrine of his as- 
 sociates of other Churches regarding this subject. White and Bishop 
 Kemp then at least ought not to quarrel with us upon the score of ordi- 
 nation, for they value what they have got of it, just as highly as we do. 
 
 With respect to matrimony, it is true that we raise it to an higher 
 dignity than our opponents do, and yet the good gentlemen cannot be 
 restrained from applying us to the text in which St. Paul condemns the 
 Encratites, the Marcionites, the Ebionites, and their successors the 
 Manicheans, who forbad marriage as criminal, and would never touch 
 particular meats or wine, which came from the devil, as they say. But 
 suppose we erred in believing that our blessed Redeemer did exalt this 
 most necessary and important of all human contracts to the high dig- 
 nity of a sacrament, and that since many religious duties are intimately 
 connected therewith, it ought on those two accounts be in a great meas- 
 ure subject to the superintendence of the Church, we are at least con- 
 sistent with our principle : nevertheless we do not deny the right which 
 the State governments have, in all parts of the world, to make by 
 reason of its being the "source and bond of civil society," such regula- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 517 
 
 tions as they might see necessary, provided they be not inconsistent with 
 the divine law in respect to this momentous concern. Upon our prin- 
 ciples, we can very consistently explain why a clergyman is called upon 
 for the celebration of marriage. But if it be only a civil contract ; and 
 the clergy have no concern in civil contracts ; upon what principle will 
 any gentleman of the holy alliance in the United States, who holds 
 no civil commission, and in whom the State recognizes no civil au- 
 thority, presume to be the principal official personage, and pocket fees 
 for doing a civil duty? The general impression in the United States 
 is that the clergy have no civil character beyond that of mere private 
 citizens, but it seems this is an error : for a clergyman is an official per- 
 sonage, who receives a considerable sum for regulating mere civil con- 
 tracts. The Roman Catholic Clergy do not pretend to be civil officers, 
 they merely attend to the administration of the sacraments of their 
 Church, and receive gratuities for discharging their duty as clergy- 
 men. 
 
 White continues, page 90. 
 
 * ' There still remain three exclusive offsprings of tradition, explained 
 and defined by infallibility, which yield to none in happy consequences 
 to the Roman Church — indulgences, purgatory, and the worship of 
 saints, relics, and images. 
 
 "The wealth which has flowed into the lap of Rome, in exchange 
 for indulgences, is incalculable. Even in the decline of her influence, she 
 still looks for a considerable part of her revenues from this source: 
 to which she also owes the degree of subjection in which she keeps the 
 Roman Catholic governments. My unfortunate native country shows 
 the nature and extent of this influence in a striking light." 
 
 He then continues upon the subject of indulgences to the 94tli 
 page. As this subject has been amply treated of in a former volume of 
 the Miscellany, and every topic which White introduces has been there 
 fully discussed, and all his positions disproved in those papers, I shall 
 only refer you to the examination of an article which appeared in the 
 North American Review, No. XLIV, for July, 1824, the remarks upon 
 which are found in No. 69 of the Miscellany, Sept. 22, 1824, and the 
 subsequent papers. After having read this examination, it will be 
 manifest that Rome derives no part of her revenues from indulgences. 
 His statement in page 93, that "the tax thus levied on the people of 
 Spain, is divided between the King and the Pope," is a plain simple 
 untruth, just as correct as the table given in Guthrie's Geography of 
 the rate at which Rome sells leave to commit the sins there enumerated. 
 But why should White have the hardihood to complain of the inability 
 
518 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 of the Spanish Cortes to reduce tythes one half, whilst he had full in 
 and connexion of her peculiar doctrines, have happened. The power 
 which he was writing to support, the power which grinds down the 
 Irish Catholic peasant with tythes and taxes to support a Protestant 
 Church. The Spanish people and not the Pope resisted the encroach- 
 ment of the Cortes. The Spanish peasant is supported by the charity 
 of the Catholic Church, the Irish peasant is beggared and maddened 
 by the rapacity of the Protestant Church; the Spanish peasants and 
 poor desire to prevent the impoverishment of their Church by infidels 
 who desired to enrich themselves, because the poor know that the Church 
 property is shared with them, whilst a great portion of the Cortes hav- 
 ing imbibed French infidelity, and having leagued with the infidels of 
 the rest of Europe, imitated France in their efforts to destroy religion, 
 and having disgusted a Catholic people, they made liberty and ir- 
 religion synonymous; and inflicted a deadly blow upon public free- 
 dom. "White misrepresents the political state of Spain as much as he 
 does the tenets of our Church: but my object being only to vindicate 
 the latter, I shall not enter farther into Spanish politics. I shall there- 
 fore pass forward to his portion on Purgatory. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XXXIX. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Aug. 27, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — I stated in my last letter that the next portion of 
 White's book which I would examine, was that regarding Purgatory. It 
 is the following, and is found in pages 94, 95 : 
 
 "The belief in Purgatory is so inseparable from the former tenet, 
 that I need not enlarge on the peculiar advantages which Rome has 
 derived from it. I will not observe how fortunately for the interests 
 of the Church of Rome, not only the existence, but even the mutual help 
 and connexion of her peculiar dectrines, have happened. The power 
 of remitting canonical penance would have been useless, on the cessation 
 of penitential discipline; but tradition, having about the same time 
 brought Purgatory to light, offered an ample scope to the power of the 
 Roman keys. Transubstantiation now presented the means of repeat- 
 ing the sacrifice of the cross for those who were supposed to be under- 
 going the purification by fire. The whole system, indeed, is surpris- 
 ingly linked together, and the very connexion of its parts, tending to 
 secure the influence and power of the source from whence it flows, gives 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 519 
 
 it the appearance of an original invention, enlarged from the gradual 
 suggestions of previous advantages." 
 
 The former tenet to which he refers is that respecting indulgences. 
 The passage now before us is one which it is not easy to refute, because 
 it asserts so little, and it assumes so much: some of its assertions also 
 are perfectly true, though the conclusions for whose insinuation they 
 are constructed are false. Thus, when he asserts that the harmony of 
 our doctrinal system is striking, he states only an obvious fact. It is 
 one of the great characteristics of truth to be perfectly consistent in all 
 its parts, as it is of error to exhibit multifarious inconsistencies. Surely 
 our blessed Saviour did not reveal to the world a system of contradictions 
 as the truth which descended from heaven, nor were his institutions 
 either at their origin, or to become at any future period, inconsistent 
 with his doctrines. As there was but one God, so there could be but one 
 code of his true doctrine ; and to say the least, the very exact accordance 
 of principles and practices, of doctrines and institutions in a Church 
 professing- to be that of Christ the God of truth, must create a strong 
 presumption in favor of her claim. ''Not so," however, says White, 
 "The w^hole system is, indeed, surprisingly linked together, and the 
 very connexion of its parts, tending to secure the influence and power 
 of the source from whence it flows, gives it the appearance of an original 
 invention, enlarged from the gradual suggestions of previous advant- 
 ages." Mark the dilemma which would arise from the admission of 
 White's principle. "If Catholics are at variance with each other in 
 their doctrines, or if their doctrines and institutions are discordant, 
 they cannot be professors of the true faith, because the true faith is 
 consistent and not contradictory ; if their professions and practice agree, 
 and they exhibit unity of faith and consistency of practice, their sys- 
 tem must be an invention of their own, gradually suggested, and not 
 the doctrine of Christ. ' ' Thus in no case will White allow any Christian 
 Church to have the doctrine of Christ ; because, if there existed incon- 
 sistencies, her doctrine cannot be truth; and if there be none, it must 
 be an invention. Such is the miserable retreat to which he is driven. It 
 is indeed an unenviable position. 
 
 Now, we adduce on our own part the fact of our unity of faith and 
 consistency of practice, as a strong and striking presumption, that our 
 doctrine has been given to us by a God of truth, not invented by our- 
 selves ; and that our practice is consistent with his law. We say our 
 conclusion is, upon this ground, more philosophical than his. 
 
 His next insinuation is, that our system must have been a gradually 
 suggested invention, "because it tends to secure the influence and power 
 
520 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 of its source." What is its source? We say God is its source. Is it 
 then an evidence of its falsehood, that our religious system tends to se- 
 cure the intiuence and power of God — of our Saviour? No; he says 
 that our sj^stem is not derived from God, but invented by ourselves; 
 and he says that the doctrine of Purgatory is one of our inventions. Let 
 us examine the charge to see its nature, and the facts to see its grounds. 
 "Tradition brought Purgatory to light about the time that penitential 
 discipline ceased." This proposition does not charge that the doctrine 
 of Purgatory is an invention in that sense which would render it un- 
 true, that it was a doctrine of Christ; most of White's fallacy consists 
 in the studied ambiguity of his phrases, of which this is a notable ex- 
 ample. When we say that any thing is brought to light, we usually 
 mean that w^hat is thus brought to light previously existed, though not 
 manifestly and generally exhibited, thus what is so brought out is not 
 an invention of imposture, but a finding of fact. What is discovered by 
 tradition is not an invention, for the first time, but is receiving the 
 testimony of a long-existing fact, which had been perhaps nearly or alto- 
 gether overlooked. Thus Avhen White charges that tradition brought 
 Purgatory to light, his charge does not assert, but it insinuates, that the 
 doctrine was an invention of folly or of imposture added to the doc- 
 trine of Christ, and this insinuation alone would be profitable for his 
 object, hence this is the meaning which I attach to his words, for this 
 must be what he intended. We have now only to fix the time of this 
 invention. Here, like all other opponents of our Church, and in almost 
 all their charges, he is cautiously vague and indistinct; "the time of the 
 cessation of penitential discipline" is a space spread over some two or 
 three centuries, and "about the same time" will give two or three cen- 
 turies more ; here then is a space of about six hundred years, whose pre- 
 cise commencement or termination is not fixed, and we are told that this 
 vague period was the era of the introduction of this doctrine. The peni- 
 tential canons had their origin in the days of the Apostles, but were 
 not arranged in their regular form of full perfection, before the middle 
 of the third century ; and at the close of the next century, public penance 
 was abolished by Nectarius the Bishop of Constantinople, and by his 
 successor, St. John Chrysostom ; their example was followed pretty gen- 
 erally in the eastern portion of the Church, but it was not until the 
 commencement of the eighth century that the penitential discipline be- 
 came considerably relaxed in the west, and it had not altogether ceased 
 in the tenth century; and it is about this period so vague and so unde- 
 fined, that White informs us that the doctrine of Purgatory was intro- 
 duced. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 521 
 
 Let us now see what is the doctrine itself. All that we are required 
 as Roman Catholics to believe upon the subject, consists in two propo- 
 sitions, viz. 
 
 1st. "That there is a Purgatory." 2d. "That the souls therein 
 detained may be aided by the prayers and suffrages of the faithful." 
 Upon the first of these propositions, a question naturally presents itself. 
 "What is meant by Purgatory?" Confining myself strictly to what 
 is of doctrine, I answer, that it is a place in which some souls suffer 
 for a time before they can enter heaven; but where that place is, or 
 what is the exact nature or duration of the suffering, or what is the 
 exact amount of relief which is received from the suffrages of the 
 faithful, are all topics of conjecture and of opinion, upon which no doc- 
 trine is delivered; there is, indeed, a very general belief, that the suf- 
 fering is from the action of fire, but this is not an article of faith. The 
 souls which are liable to this punishment are those, which, being recon- 
 ciled to God through the merits of Christ, and thus saved from the pun- 
 ishment of hell, have been subsequently stained with the filth of minor 
 offences, or venial sins, which his mercy does not deem worthy of hell, 
 but his justice deems worthy of punishment: also, those souls which, 
 being saved from perdition by repentance and mercy, yet like the an- 
 cient penitents, Moses, and David, and others, had a temporary punish- 
 ment substituted for the eternal, and not having through life endured 
 or expiated what divine justice thus imposed, are after death, subjected 
 to the temporary endurance equivalent to what remains. 
 
 My object now is to show that the belief of the existence of Pur- 
 gatory was openly professed in the Christian Church after, together 
 with and before, the existence of the penitential discipline, upon the 
 cessation of which. White says it was brought to light, or invented ; and, 
 therefore, that his assertion is untrue. 
 
 The Latin Church believed in its existence in the thirteenth century, 
 as no one will question ; and, although the general opinion then amongst 
 the Greeks was, that the suffering was not by fire, but by the endurance 
 of darkness, labor, and affliction : all those Greeks united with the Cath- 
 olic Church, and the vast majority of those separated from it, believed as 
 of faith, the two propositions which form the whole substance of our 
 doctrine, and the existence amongst the eastern Christians of a few, 
 who denied their truth, would as little tend to prove the rejection of 
 the doctrine by the Greeks, as the existence of the Albigenses and Vau- 
 dois, in the west, would tend to prove that it was rejected by the Latins. 
 
 I shall now adduce a few passages from the works of eminent wit- 
 nesses of the Christian faith, in several of the previous centuries, and it 
 
522 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 will be manifest, from their testimony, that the doctrine of the Church, 
 which in those centuries was conformable to that of those witnesses, was 
 that of our propositions. 
 
 1. St. Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux, in France, who died, aged 63 
 years, on the 20th of August, 1153, in his Sermon on the Death of Hum- 
 hert, has the following passage : 
 
 "My brethren the irrevocable time flies rapidly away, and whilst 
 you guard against a trifling endurance, you incur a much greater pun- 
 ishment. For be aware of this, that after this present life, those things 
 which we shall have neglected here, will be repaid to us a hundred fold 
 in the places of purgation ; yea, even to the last farthing. I know what 
 a hard thing it is for a dissolute man to undergo discipline, for a talk- 
 ative man to endure silence, for one accustomed to roving to remain 
 stationary, but it will be harder, much harder to endure future afflic- 
 tions." 
 
 2. St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, in England, was born 
 in Piedmont, in the year 1033, and died in 1109 ; in his Commentaries 
 upon chapter iii of / Corinthians, he writes, 
 
 "For we are to believe that for certain lighter offences there is a 
 purging fire before the resurrection of the bodies." 
 
 3. Cardinal Peter Damian, Bishop of Ostia, born at Ravenna, 
 about the year 988, and died on the 22d of February, 1072; in his 
 Second Sermon on St. Andrew, [w^rites] , 
 
 "Do not deceive yourself because a lighter penance is imposed 
 upon you, for a grievous fault, by a mild or a partial person, since 
 what you shall have here omitted must be supplied in the purging fires, 
 because the IMost High demands worthy fruits of penance." 
 
 4. Venerable Bede, a Priest in the province of York, in England, 
 born about the year 673, died in 735, on the the 26th of May: in his 
 Commentary on Psalm xxxvii he has left the following passage — (Prat. 
 Bib. Psalm xxxviii.) 
 
 ' ' Some persons commit venial sins more or less grievous, and there- 
 fore it is necessary that they should be rebuked in wrath, that is in the 
 fire of Purgatory ; now they are so placed before the day of judgment, 
 that whatsoever is unclean in them might be thereby burned away, and 
 so at length, they might be found fit to be with those who are to be 
 crowned on the right hand." 
 
 5. St. Isidore, Bishop of Seville, in Spain, succeeded to Leander, 
 Bishop of that see, who died in the year 600: Isidore died in 636: in 
 his chapter xviii of the first book Of Divine Offices, he writes, 
 
 "For when the Lord saith {3Iatt. xii) whosoever shall commit a 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 523 
 
 sin against the Holy Ghost it will not be forgiven to him neither in this 
 world, nor in that which is to come, he demonstrates that sins are to be 
 forgiven to some persons, and to be purged away by some fire of purga- 
 tion." 
 
 6. St. Gregory, the Great, was born at Rome, about the year 540, 
 and in 574 was made prgetor of the city by the Emperor Justin the 
 younger: the subsequent year he became a monk, and about five years 
 after he was sent by Pope Pelagius II as nuncio to Constantinople ; he 
 was recalled in 584, and in 590, upon the death of Pelagius, was ad- 
 vanced to the papacy. He had the faith established in England, and 
 died on the 12th of March, 604. In his Dialogues, Book iv, chapter 39, 
 we read, 
 
 "It is to be believed that there is a purgatory fire for some lesser 
 faults before the final judgment." 
 
 And in his Comment on the third penitential Psalm, {Psalm xxxvii) 
 he writes, 
 
 "I know that after the termination of this life, it will happen that 
 some persons will make expiation in purging fires, others will undergo 
 the sentence of eternal condemnation." 
 
 7. Boetius, the learned, the good, the honored and the afflicted, 
 master of the palace and Secretary of State to Theodoric, was born in 
 Rome in 470; deeply versed in science, and anxious for the promotion 
 of learning, besides his own discoveries, he gave to the world his trans- 
 lations from the Greek of Euclid, of Plato, of Strabo, of Archimedes, 
 and other authors of the ancient school. He was also a zealous defender 
 of the purity of faith, with whose doctrines he was intimately ac- 
 quainted. He was put to death by an unjust order of the barbarian to 
 whom he was endeavoring to teach the art of ruling with Christian jus- 
 tice and moderation : he died on the 23d of October, 585, at a castle, about 
 midway between Pavia and Rome. In his Works, Book iv, Prosa 4, is 
 the following passage — 
 
 "Do you leave no punishment of souls after the death of the body? 
 Yes, indeed, and very grievous, some of which I look upon as having 
 the bitterness of punishment, but others are inflicted with a clemency of 
 purgation. ' ' 
 
 8. Theodoret was born near the close of the fourth century in 
 Syria, and having received a most extensive and liberal education, he 
 bestowed his property in alms and entered a monastery near Apamea, 
 now Hems, not far from Aleppo. In 423, he was at an unusually early 
 period of life consecrated Bishop of Cyrus, a small and poor town 
 about eighty miles from Antioeh and one hundred and twenty from 
 
524 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 Apamea : he died in 458 : in his Greek Scholia upon chapter iii, of I Cor- 
 inthians, is the following passage iipon verse 13. 
 
 "We believe this to be that very fire of our purgatory in which 
 the souls of the departed are proved and repurged as gold is in the 
 crucible." 
 
 9. St. Augustin was born at Tagaste, in Numidia, on 13th of No- 
 vember, 354: he became a convert to a new life and to penance in 
 August, 386, and was baptized by St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, on 
 Easter eve in 387 ; he founded the institute of his hermits in 388, but 
 did not found his institute of nuns until after he was raised to the epis- 
 copate; he Avas ordained priest in 390, consecrated Bishop in December, 
 395, and continued to administer the See of Hippo, from the death of 
 Valerius in 396 to his own death in 430. He instituted the order of 
 canons regular in the early part of his episcopate. No Bishop was bet- 
 ter acquainted with the doctrines and practices of the Church than was 
 Augustin, and few have left to her a larger legacy of valuable works. 
 In his Book xxi. Of the City of God, chapter 16, making mention of 
 baptized infants, he writes of one, 
 
 "Not only is he not prepared for eternal torments, but after death 
 he undergoes no purgatorial affliction." 
 
 In the 24th chapter writing of faithful adults who die with lesser 
 sins, 
 
 "It is plain, that their spirits being purged before the day of 
 judgment by the temporal pain which they endure, will not be given 
 over to the punishment of eternal fire." 
 
 In his Book v, Homily 16. 
 
 "They who have done things worthy of temporal pains, will pass 
 through a certain purging fire, of which the apostle says: he will be 
 saved, yet so as by fire. ' ' 
 
 In his Book ii, de Genes, against the Manichces, chapter 20. 
 
 ' ' Whosoever will not till his field, but will allow it to be choked with 
 weeds, hath in this life the malediction of the earth in all his works, 
 and after this life will have either the fire of purgation, or eternal pun- 
 ishment. ' ' 
 
 There is a great number of similar passages upon the same subject 
 in his works and those of the other authors whom I have quoted, and of 
 several whom I have omitted. In his Book xxi Of the City of God, chap- 
 ter 26, and in his Enchiridion, this father states that a question may be 
 raised as to whether the punishment in Purgatory is by material fire, 
 and if so, whether by the same sort of fire as that of which mention is 
 made in Matt, xxv, "eternal fire." This is the distinction to which I 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 525 
 
 before alluded, and this question does not involve that of the existence of 
 a purgatory, but regards a topic in which faith is by no means involved, 
 viz. the nature of the punishment. 
 
 10. St. Jerom, the most learned commentator of the holy Scrip- 
 tures, was born at Stridonium, now Sdrigni, near the famous Aquileia, 
 about the year 330. Few, if any of the fathers of the Church had such 
 ample opportunities of knowledge or turned them to better account : he 
 died on the 30th of September 420. Amongst other testimonies of his, 
 is the following from the latter portion of his Commentary upon Isaias: 
 
 "As we believe that the torments of the devil, and of all those who 
 deny the truth, and of the impious who say in their hearts there is no 
 God, as well as of other impious sinners are eternal; so we believe that 
 there is a moderate sentence of the judge tempered with clemency for 
 those Christians whose works are to be tried by fire and purged. 
 
 11. St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, was a pious and learned prelate, 
 who died in the year 400 ; his see was in Cappadocia, near the lesser 
 Armenia; he was one of the fathers of the second general council, (1, 
 of Constantinople) in the year 381; and is an undoubted witness for 
 the faith of his day. In his Sermon for the Dead, are to be found the 
 following passages : 
 
 "1. Either being purged in the present life by prayers and the 
 practice of wisdom, or expiated after death by the furnace of a purging 
 fire, if he desires to return to his first happiness. 
 
 "2. Having gone forth from the body, he cannot become a par- 
 taker with the divinity, unless the fire of purgatory shall have taken 
 away the spots fastened in the soul. 
 
 "3. Others clearing away the stains of matter, after this life by 
 purging fire." 
 
 12. St. Ambrose, the renewned Bishop of Milan, was born about 
 the year 340, in Gaul, where his father was prefect of the Pretorium ; he 
 was educated in Eome, whither his mother returned after his father's 
 death, with the infant Ambrose, of whose education she took the most 
 special care. In 368, Anisius Probus, whom Valentinian made pnc- 
 torian prefect of Italy, appointed Ambrose his assessor, and subse- 
 quently governor of Liguria and Aemilia : in 374, at the unanimous re- 
 quest of the people, this governor was appointed Bishop of Milan, and 
 consecrated on the 7th of December : his administration exhibits several 
 most instructive lessons: and the prelate was conspicuous for learning, 
 eloquence, zeal, disinterestedness, independence and piety: he died on 
 April 4, in the year 397. I shall make but one quotation from his 
 
526 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 works: in his Comment on Psalm xxxvi, (Prot. Vers, xxxvii,) verse 14, 
 he has the following passage : 
 
 ' ' Though the Lord shall save his servants, we shall be saved by faith ; 
 we shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Though we may not be burned 
 utterly, we shall be burned. Yet how some shall remain in fire, and 
 others only pass through fire, the divine Scripture teaches us in another 
 place: for the people of Egypt was drowned in the Red Sea, but the 
 Hebrew people passed through ; Moses passed through, but Pharao was 
 overwhelmed therein; because his grievous sins sunk him down: so will 
 the sacrilegious be precipitated in the lake of burning fire. 
 
 13. St. Basil, Archbishop of Cajsarea, in Cappadocia, was born in 
 the year 329, of parents illustrious for their descent and station, as well 
 as their sanctity; his education was equally attended to for learning 
 and for virtue; and his labors, erudition, knowledge and sanctity, con- 
 spire to make him one of the brightest ornaments of the Church ; he died 
 on the 1st of January, 379. In his 9th chapter on Isaias, we have the 
 following paragraphs : 
 
 "I. If therefore by confession we shall have uncovered the sin, 
 we have thus dried upon the growing grass, such indeed as would have 
 been fit to be fed upon and devoured by the purging fire. 
 
 "2. He doth not in this place indeed threaten perfect death and 
 extermination, but he alludes to that purgation according to the state- 
 ment of the Apostle, he shall be saved yet so as by fire. ' ' 
 
 14. Eusebius, Bishop of Emissa, or Apamea, now Hems, the birth 
 place of Heliogabalus, about 30 miles from Aleppo in Syria, upon the 
 Orontes, flourished about the year 340. The Homilies attributed to him 
 are those of writers of not a later date; they are generally supposed to 
 be of some of the Gallican prelates : but whoever might have been the 
 writers, their doctrine is in perfect accordance with that of the Church 
 in the fourth century. In Homily 3, On the Epiphany we read, 
 
 "This punishment of hell awaits those who having lost or not pre- 
 served baptism will perish eternally; but they who shall have done 
 things worthy of temporary punishment will pass through a fiery flood, 
 through shallows dreadful with burning globes." 
 
 15. St. Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers in Gaul, was styled by St. 
 Augustin, the illustrious doctor of the Churches, and by St. Jerom, a 
 most eloquent man, the trumpet of the Latins against the Arians : he was 
 banished by the agency of Julian the apostate, in the reign of Con- 
 stantius, in 356; after spending some years in the East he was per- 
 mitted to return in 360 ; and died at Poictiers in the year 368. In his 
 Comment on Psalm cxviii, is the following passage: 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 527 
 
 "We must pass through that untiring fire, in which are to be 
 endured those heavy punishments of a soul undergoing expiation for 
 sins. ' ' 
 
 16. St. Cyprian, the eminent Bishop of Carthage, who suffered 
 martyrdom in the year 258, left some valuable testimonies of the faith. 
 In his Book iv. Epistle 2, we find the following passage, 
 
 " It is one thing for a person tormented because of sins to be purged 
 during a long period and to be corrected during a considerable time by 
 fire ; a different thing is it to have purged away all his sins by suffering 
 martyrdom." 
 
 17. Origen, the famous teacher of the Catechetical school of Alex- 
 andria, flourished in the year 250. Amongst other passages, he has left 
 us the following in his 6th Homily on Exodus, 
 
 "He that shall be saved, shall be saved by fire, as if there was in 
 him any thing of lead commingled, the fire would produce its effect 
 thereupon and resolve it, so that he might all become pure gold. ' ' 
 
 18. Tertullian, that most ancient witness, born in the year 160, 
 and died in 245, has left us amongst other passages the following in the 
 XXXV chapter of his Book of the Soul. 
 
 "He will commit you to the lower prison, whence you will not 
 be let go, unless by the delay of your resurrection, and every lesser 
 crime being expiated." 
 
 In the same book, chapter Iviii, is the following: 
 
 "Seeing then, we understand that prison which the gospel demon- 
 strates to be places below, and the last farthing we interpret every 
 small fault to be there punished by the delay of resurrection, no man 
 will doubt but the soul doth expiate something in the places below. ' ' 
 
 I am aware that to several persons my letters are tedious, and are 
 looked upon as too long, and not very interesting, but the subjects are 
 matters of importance, and I write not so much to amuse my readers, 
 as to instruct them : hence I am more anxious to produce a full con- 
 viction of truth than to please the fancy. I have here adduced a num- 
 ber of witnesses, selected from a far greater body, and considerably cur- 
 tailed their testimony : but I believe I have upset White 's position, that 
 purgatory was only invented after, or about the decline of the peni- 
 tential discipline, for I have showni that discipline not fully abolished in 
 the tenth century, although about the end of the fourth and the beginning 
 of the fifth, its decline commenced in Constantinople — and I have shown 
 the doctrine of the existence of purgatory, to have been in the Church 
 up to the middle of the second age : I shall afterwards show it to have a 
 much higher and more remote antiquity. Indeed if White believed as 
 
528 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 some of the best, and wisest, and most learned of the English Protestant 
 clergy did upon this point, he never would have written the wretched 
 passage which we now consider. 
 
 I shall here close this letter, and in my next I shall adduce evidence 
 to prove the perpetual usage of praying for the dead, after which I 
 shall lay before you the Scriptural proofs, and other historical and ra- 
 tional motives, to establish this conclusion, that it is one of the most 
 ancient and universal doctrines of true religion, that there is a purga- 
 tory, and that the souls therein detained are aided by the suffrages of 
 the faithful. — Meantime I remain. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, B. c. 
 
 LETTER XL. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Sept. 3, 1827. 
 To the Roman CatJwlics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — Before I proceed to adduce evidence of the fact, 
 that prayers were offered up for the deceased brethren by the Christians, 
 I shall premise that a purgatory might exist, and yet the souls therein 
 detained not be aided by the prayers of their friends on earth: but 
 when I shall have shewn that such prayers were offered, it is mani- 
 fest the object must have been, the benefit of the dead, or the solace of 
 the living, or both. In examining the evidence, therefore, you will ob- 
 serve what was the object of the prayer ; what benefit was expected ; did 
 they who prayed seek alleviation for the dead, or only solace for them- 
 selves? If we shall find that they expected the first effect, it will tend 
 much to support the conclusion at which I aim. It will be unnecessary 
 for me to give the character and era of the witnesses already described; 
 I shall therefore only explain the [character] of any additional persons 
 whom I may introduce. 
 
 1. St. Malachy, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, 
 was born in 1094, and died at the abbey of Clairvaux, in France, on the 
 morning of November 2d, 1148, being the solemnity of ''All Souls," as 
 is still observed. His life was written by St. Bernard, and he informs 
 us that the holy sacrifice was offered for him (chap, xxxi) and that 
 Malachy, upon coming to the monastery, informed the community that 
 he came there to die. 
 
 "You all know well the near approach of that day which I have 
 always desired should be that of my dissolution. I know in whom I 
 have placed my trust, and I shall not be defrauded of my desire, for I 
 already have a portion accomplished. He who by his mercy hath 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 529 
 
 brought me to this place which I have desired, will not refuse the ter- 
 mination which I have also sought. As regards this worthless body, 
 this is its place of rest: as regards my soul, God, who saveth those who 
 trust in him, will provide; nor is it a small hope which is laid up for 
 me respecting that day, upon which so many benefits are conferred by 
 the living upon the dead." 
 
 Such was the doctrine that had prevailed in the Irish Church re- 
 specting the prayers for the dead, upon the great solemnity of "All 
 Souls," and in this doctrine we shall see that she agreed with all other 
 portions of the universal body of the faithful. In chapter xxx, St. Ber- 
 nard relates the foundation of the knowledge which the monks of Clair- 
 vaux had of his desire to die upon the solemnity of "All Souls." When 
 Malachy had been on a former occasion at the monastery, 
 
 "Being asked, at one time, in what place, if he had the choice, he 
 should wish to die, for the brethren were conversing upon the subject, 
 as to the choice of each; he hesitated, but being pressed, 'If I go hence,' 
 said he, 'there is no place that I would prefer to that whence I may in 
 the resurrection arise with our Apostle,' he meant St. Patrick. 'But if 
 I were from home, and God so permitted it, I have chosen Clairvaux. ' 
 Being asked concerning the time, he said 'the solemnity of All Souls.' " 
 
 In another part of the work we have the account of his offering up 
 the holy sacrifice of the mass, for the repose of the soul of his sister. 
 
 2. The venerable Peter, Abbot of Cluni, wrote a book in defence 
 of the doctrine of prayer for the relief of the dead, against the Petro- 
 brusians, or disciples of Peter de Bruis, who denied that it was useful 
 to them. 
 
 3. St. Bernard, in his 66th Sermon on the Canticles, charges the 
 Petrobrusians with error in denying the utility of such prayer. 
 
 4. The learned commentator Theophylact, who flourished toward 
 the close of the eleventh century, has several passages which bear upon 
 the subject; I shall produce only one, from his Comment on Luke xii. 
 
 "I say this respecting the oblation and alms which are made for 
 the deceased, and which avail not a little even for those who have died 
 under serious offences. ' ' 
 
 This as most of the other testimonies which I produce, regards a 
 public and well known practice of the Church; not the opinion of an 
 individual. 
 
 5. St. John Damascen, was son of a noble Christian, who was sec- 
 retary to the Saracen Caliph towards the close of the seventh century: 
 Ali the founder of the Persian Mohammedanism, appointed John to 
 be governor of Dasmascus, and after the death of Mi, when the chief 
 
530 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 power passed to Moawyah, the first dynast of the Omniad race, John, 
 thousfh a Christian, stood hiizh in his esteem. Having resigned his ofifices 
 and honors, John withdrew to the monastery of the great Laura, of St. 
 Sabas, near Jerusalem, and there gave himself up to the study and con- 
 templation of the Christian doctrine ; about the year 780 he died full 
 of years and good works ; being the first who reduced Christian theology 
 to a systematic course, in his great work, The Exposition of the Orthodox 
 Faith. In his book Concerning Those Who Erred from the Faith, he 
 adduced the testimony of St. Denis, St. Athanasius, SS. Gregory of 
 Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and others, to prove that at all times, 
 orthodox Christians prayed for the repose of the deceased. 
 
 6. St. Isidore, of Seville, in his Book of Divine Offices, chapter 
 xvii, has the following passage : 
 
 "Unless the Catholic Church believed that sins were forgiven to 
 the faithful departed, she would not offer alms for their spirits, nor offer 
 sacrifice for them to God. ' ' 
 
 Thus he alludes to the two well known practices of alms and sac- 
 rifice, as well as prayer being offered for the benefit of departed souls. 
 
 7. St. Gregory the Great, Pope, in his ivth book of Dialogues, 
 chapter Iv, [has] the following passage: 
 
 ' ' The offering of the salutary victim is usually of great aid to souls, 
 even after death, so that the souls of the departed appear even sometimes 
 to demand it." 
 
 The custom of burying the dead in or near the Churches, is pecu- 
 liar to Christianity. We shall see earlier testimony upon which to 
 account for its introduction; but so far as it goes we shall now use the 
 testimony of this great and enlightened Pope: — the passage is found 
 in his Dialogues, book iv, chapter 50. 
 
 "For those whom weighty sins do not oppress, it is useful for the 
 dead if their bodies be interred at the Church, because their relations 
 sometimes coming thither, recollect them, and then pour out prayers 
 for them to the Lord. ' ' 
 
 Surely it is one of the finest traits of religion, that it thus unites gen- 
 erations, linking in a bond of affection the living and the dead, and 
 presenting the great bulk of mankind before the heavenly tribunal, 
 as mutual suppliants for mercy for each other. Indeed it is a holy 
 and an endearing communion. 
 
 8. Theodoret relates in chapter 26, book iv, of his History, that 
 when the relics of St. John Chrysostom, were borne to Constantinople 
 in the year 434, by St. Proclus; the emperor Theodosius and his sister 
 Pulcheria accompanied them, and they both besought God for the pardon 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 531 
 
 and benefit of the souls of their deceased parents Arcadius and Eu- 
 doxia; this is related not as an extraordinary occurrence, but as one 
 in the usual and well known order of things. 
 
 9. St. Paulinus, of Nola, was born in Bourdeaux, in Gaul, in the 
 year 353; his father being praetorian prefect of that province, and at 
 one time first magistrate of the western empire; his talents were of the 
 first order, his masters of the most select description ; the famous Au- 
 sonius was his teacher of rhetoric and poetry, and his acquirements 
 were of the most extensive range: he was consul before the twenty-fifth 
 year of his age. About the year 390, he and his wife having determined 
 upon leading lives of retirement, he sold his vast possessions, the pro- 
 duce of which he bestowed in alms, and having resigned his seat in the 
 Senate, and his other offices, entered a monastery: he was soon after- 
 wards ordained priest, at the request of the people of Barcelona, in 
 393. His great devotion towards St. Felix, led him to a little sequest- 
 ered spot in Italy, near the tomb of this holy priest, his desire being to 
 serve in the most humble capacity, to decorate his soul with virtues, as 
 it was enriched with learning. In the year 409, he was called from his 
 retreat to fill the see of Nola : he died in the year 431. A virtuous lady 
 named Flora having buried her son Cynsgius in the Church of St. Felix, 
 asked Paulinus what benefit was derived therefrom, and at the request 
 of Paulinus, Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, as an explanation, wrote 
 his book De Cura Mortuorum, "Of the Care of the Deceased." Writing 
 to Pammachus after the death of his wife, he comforts him with the as- 
 surance that he had satisfied her body with the tears which he shed, 
 and her soul with alms which he bestowed on her account. In his 
 Epistle V to the Bishop Delphinus, concerning the death of his own 
 brother, he recommends his soul to his prayers, and amongst others, has 
 the following passage : 
 
 "Obtain by your prayers pardon for him, and that a drop flowing 
 from the least finger of your holiness might sprinkle his soul with re- 
 freshment. ' ' 
 
 Writing upon the same subject in his first letter to Amandus, he has 
 the following: 
 
 "Wherefore we earnestly entreat you as a brother to unite in our 
 labors of prayer: that the merciful God would vouchsafe to refresh 
 his soul with drops of compassion by your prayers. ' ' 
 
 10. St. Augustine has so much upon the subject that the difficulty 
 consists not in the discovery but in the selection. In his book Of the 
 Care of the Departed, the occasion of which I have just shown, we have 
 the following passage, chapter 1 : 
 
532 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 "We read in the book of the Macchabees, that sacrifice was offered 
 for the dead ; but, if this never had been read in the old Scriptures, the 
 authority of the universal Church, which upon this subject is glaringly 
 evident, is not small; where in the prayers of the priest which are 
 poured out at the high altar to the Lord our God, their commendation 
 of the departed has its proper place." 
 
 In this passage we have from St. Augustine evidence that the custom 
 was glaring, general and authoritative, and that in the liturgy there was 
 a proper place for such prayers. The next passage not only shows the 
 doctrine of the Church in this day to be that those prayers of the faith- 
 ful on earth were useful, but that the faithful also besought the saints 
 in heaven to pray for their deceased friends, and that this was an ad- 
 ditional benefit : it is found in chapter 4, of the same book. 
 
 "When, therefore, the mind recollects where the body of its be- 
 loved friend is interred, and there is brought to the memory the place 
 venerable by the name of the martyr, the affection of the person who 
 recollects and prays commends the beloved soul to the same martyr; 
 which custom, when adhered to by the faithful, is, beyond doubt, most 
 beneficial to the departed." 
 
 The following beautiful passage from the same chapter is not only a 
 clear testimony of the doctrine and custom of the Church at that period, 
 but moreover exhibits the charitable affection of the Church, and the 
 excellence of the communion of saints. 
 
 "We must not pass over the supplications for the souls of the de- 
 parted, which the Church regulates to be made in a general commem- 
 oration for all those who die in the Christian and Catholic society, 
 even though she does not mention all the names ; that their one pious, com- 
 mon mother, the Church, might for this end supply the deficiency for 
 those who left no parents, or children, or relations, or friends." 
 
 The same doctrine is found in an hundred other places of his 
 works, and in his book Of Heresies, he mentions that the heresy of 
 Aerius consisted in denying the utility and propriety of offering sac- 
 rifice for the dead. 
 
 11. St. John Chrysostom was born at Antioch, about the year 
 344; his father Secundus, was the master of the horse, or commander 
 in chief of the imperial troops at Syria, his mother was left at the age 
 of twenty a widow, with ample means, and a daughter and son, for 
 whom she provided the best teachers. John's master of eloquence was 
 the famous Libanius, who declared this pupil of his to be a treasure to 
 the empire: in the study of philosophy under Andragatius he made 
 astonishing progress : in early youth he paid great attention to the truths 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 533 
 
 of religion; at the age of twenty, he pleaded for some time at the bar; 
 the first dignities of the empire lay open before him; but upon mature 
 reflection he embraced a life of retirement; he was ordained deacon 
 by St. Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, in the year 381, and priest by 
 Flavian, the successor of this holy bishop in 386 : twelve years after- 
 wards, he was raised to the see of Constantinople: and after a variety 
 of trials and persecutions, he died a prisoner and exile in Cappadocia 
 on the 14th of September, 407. The extraordinary eloquence with which 
 he was gifted, caused him to receive the appellation of Chrysostom or 
 Golden mouth, and his erudition and virtue were conspicious. In his 
 41st Homily on the First Epistle of the Corinthians, we find the following 
 passages. 
 
 "1. The deceased is aided not by tears, but by prayers, by sup- 
 plications, and by alms deeds. 
 
 "2. Let us not be weary of giving to the departed by offering 
 up prayers for them." 
 
 Those passages from amongst several others clearly exhibit his 
 doctrine, which was that of the whole Church that was in his com- 
 munion. The next extract from the 69th of his homilies to the people 
 of Antioch shows not only that it was his doctrine and that of the Church, 
 but that moreover it was a doctrine delivered by the Apostles, or else 
 we must say that neither he nor his auditors knew what was the history 
 of their doctrine in the three centuries that intervened. 
 
 "Those things were not rashly enacted by the Apostles, that in 
 the tremendous mysteries there should be commemorations made of the 
 departed; for they knew that great profit arises to them therefrom. 
 A mighty benefit." 
 
 12. St. Jerome testifies the doctrine in many places; amongst 
 others, in his Epistle to Pammachus, on the death of his wife Paulina. 
 
 "Other husbands scatter violets, roses, lilies, and purple flowers 
 on the tombs of their consorts, our Pammachus moistens the holy re- 
 mains, the venerated bones, with the balsam of alms; he cherishes 
 the resting ashes with those ointments and odors, knowing that it is 
 written, as water extinguishes life, so do alms deeds sin." 
 
 13. St. Epiphanius was born about the year 310, at Eleuthero- 
 polis, a city of Judea: he was master of the Hebrew, Greek, Egyptian, 
 Syrian and Latin languages, and very intimate with St. Hilarion, and 
 other eminent anchorets and holy men. Having spent some time in 
 retirement in Egypt, he returned to Palestine and built a monastery in 
 the year 333, and devoted himself with great assiduity to prayer and 
 study. He was looked upon as the oracle of religious information in 
 
534 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 Palestine ; in the year 367 he was chosen Bishop of Salamis, or Con- 
 stantia, in the island of Cyprus, and was intimate with most of the great 
 men who decorated the Church during the latter period of his life ; he 
 died on his way from Constantinople to Salamis, in the year 403. 
 Amongst his works is one on heresies, in which he enumerates twenty 
 before Christ, and eighty in the first four centuries of Christianity: 
 the seventy-fifth of which is that of Aerius who denied the utility and 
 efficacy of prayer for the dead, and the utility and efficacy of which 
 Epiphanius mentions as doctrines of the Church of Christ. 
 
 14. St. Ambrose in his Book ii, epistle 8, to Faustinus, concerning 
 the death of his sister: 
 
 "Wherefore, I think, that she is not so much to be wept for, as 
 followed by prayers, nor is her soul to be made sorrowful by your tears, 
 but rather recommended to God by oblations." 
 
 In his orations on the death of Theodosius, of Valentinian, and of 
 his brother Satyrus, he prays for the repose of their souls, and promises 
 that he will offer the sacrifice for this object. 
 
 15. St. Gregory, Nazianzen, was born at Arianzum, an obscure 
 village in the territory of Nazianzum, a station or town of Cappadocia, 
 of which his father was made bishop about the year 330, when Gregory 
 was about five or six years of age : at a proper age, Gregory, after having 
 learned in the schools of Cappadocia, went to Cfesarea, in Palestine, 
 where existed a famous school of eloquence, thence to Alexandria, in 
 Egypt, and subsequently to Athens, to become perfect in his studies. 
 During this period, he became intimate with St. Basil, and in Athens 
 they had Julian, the apostate, as a fellow student, in the year 55. Greg- 
 ory at this time foretold his future misconduct, from his deportment. 
 Lea\ing Athens, he went to Constantinople, where he met his brother 
 Ceesarius, who had studied medicine, and was become chief physician 
 to the Emperor Constantius. Many efforts were used to induce Gregory 
 to plead at the bar, or to teach rhetoric ; but he had made up his mind 
 for religious retirement, and returned to Nazianzum, where in religious 
 solitude he continued to pray and study. In 361, he was ordained priest, 
 and was consecrated Bishop of Sasima, by St. Basil, then Bishop of 
 Cffisarea, in 372. He was never able to get possession of his see, owing 
 to the opposition of Schismatics, and his peaceable disposition. In 
 378, he was [prevailed on] to accept the see of Constantinople, long 
 harassed by heresy, schism and intrigue, [from which] after having 
 endured great opposition, and many insults, and having done incalcu- 
 lable good to religion, he retired for the sake of peace. In 381, after 
 his resignation, he withdrew to Nazianzum, and having procured the 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 535 
 
 consecration of Eulalias, for that see, he spent the remainder of his 
 days in prayer and meditation, dying at a private retreat, near Nazi- 
 anzum, in 389, or 391. Gregory is then an excellent witness of the 
 doctrine of his day. In his oration on the death of his brother Cassarius, 
 he prays for the departed faithful, as well as for the living. 
 
 "Let us recommend to mercy, both our own souls, and those of the 
 persons who being, as it were, more forward on their journey, have come 
 before us to the resting place." 
 
 And in conclusion, he prays for the rest of his brother Caesarius. 
 
 16. St. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, was born in or near that 
 city in the year 315. No one of the ancients studied more closely the 
 holy Scriptures, the previous Christian writers, and the pagan philoso- 
 pers. He was ordained priest, by Maximus, Archbishop of Jerusalem, 
 in 345, and was by him appointed eatechist, to teach the doctrine to the 
 catechumens, and preacher to expound it to the people — his Catechetical 
 Sermons for the year 347 or 348, are preserved and are a most prec- 
 ious treasure — he succeeded Maximus in the episcopacy in the end of 
 the year 350, and witnessed the disappointment of those who attempted 
 to rebuild the Jewish Temple, thus to disprove the divinity of the Chris- 
 tian religion. After persecution and banishment from his see, he re- 
 turned thereto in 361, and assisted at the second general council, 1st of 
 Constantinople, in 381, and died in the year 386. The following are 
 passages taken from his last Catechesis. 
 
 "1. We also pray for the deceased holy fathers, bishops, and in 
 general all who are dead, believing that this will be a great succor to 
 those souls for which prayer is offered, whilst the holy and tremendous 
 victim lies present. 
 
 "2. If a king being offended at certain persons, banish them, and 
 their friends offer a rich garland for them, will he not be moved to 
 remit their punishment? In like manner we offering up prayers to 
 God for the dead, though they be sinners, do not make a garland, but 
 we offer Christ sacrificed for our sins, striving to propitiate and make 
 our merciful God beneficent to them and to ourselves. ' ' 
 
 17. St. Basil compiled a liturgy still used in several Greek Church- 
 es, and which contains prayers for the commemoration of the dead, 
 to obtain their repose. 
 
 18. Ephrem of Edessa, one of the most illustrious and learned 
 teachers of the Syriac Church, was born in the district of Nisibis, in 
 Mygdonia, a division of Mesopotamia, before the year 290, his parents 
 were poor but very industrious country people — he attained the age 
 of eighteen years before he was baptized, and soon after his baptism 
 
536 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 he retired to a monastery, in which he had hard labor, much prayer, 
 and considerable study. About the year 340, he went to Edessa, and 
 was ordained deacon of that Church. He was not deeply versed in 
 philosophy of the schools, but was powerful in that given by nature: 
 he had an excellent turn for poetry, and composed many pieces cal- 
 culated to convey the truths of the Gospel, and the principles of 
 morality to the mind of the hearer: he wrote his native language, 
 Syriac, with facility and elegance, was quite familiar with the holy 
 Scriptures, and deeply learned in the doctrines of Christianity: he was 
 also gifted with splendid eloquence. He made great numbers of con- 
 verts; but never could be induced, because of humility, to receive the 
 order of priesthood. He died about the year 878. His testament, or 
 will commences, 
 
 "I, Ephrem die. Be it known unto you all, that I write this tes- 
 tament to intreat of you that you would assidously remember me in your 
 prayers after my decease: for I have spent my life in vanity and in 
 iniquity. ' ' 
 
 He particularly requests to have alms, oblations, (masses,) and 
 prayers made on the thirtieth day from his decease. 
 
 19. St. Athanasius, the great Patriarch of Alexandria, was born 
 about the year 296, and died on Thursday, May 2, in the year 373. 
 This great luminary of the Church certainly was well acquainted with 
 her doctrines. In his work, ad Antioch, ix, 34, he asks, whether de- 
 parted souls benefit by the prayers of the living : to which he gives the 
 answer that unquestionably they do, 
 
 20. Eusebius, Archbishop of Ccesarea, the historian ; one of the most 
 learned of the ancient prelates, died in 339, fifteen years after his ap- 
 pointment ; in his fourth book Of the Life of the Emperor Constantine, 
 he states that the Emperor desired to be buried in a splendid Church, 
 that his soul might have the benefit of a multitude of prayers. 
 
 21. St. Cyprian, Book i, Epistle 9, has the following passage: 
 "The Bishop, our predecessors, enacted that no one dying should 
 
 nominate any of the brotherhood of the clergy to be the executor or 
 guardian of his effects, and that if any person would do so, there should 
 be no offering made for him, nor sacrifice offered for his repose. 
 
 He farther on applies the principle of this statute to a special case. 
 
 "And therefore since Victor has dared to appoint Germinius Faust- 
 inus, a Priest, his executor, contrary to the law lately made by the Pre- 
 lates in their council, no oblation can be made by you for his rest, nor any 
 prayer on his behalf. ' ' 
 
 In this case we see that before the year 250, the refusal to offer 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 537 
 
 up prayers or mass for the repose of the departed, was considered to 
 be a severe punishment. 
 
 22. Tertullian, in his book Of the Soldier's Crown, places amongst 
 the traditions of the Apostles the suffrages and prayers for the dead: 
 and in his book On Monagamy, is the following passage regarding the 
 conduct of a Christian wife towards her deceased husband. 
 
 "Let her pray for him, and demand earnestly refreshment for 
 his soul, and fellowship in the first or early resurrection: and let her 
 have sacrifice offered on the anniversaries of his death, for if she do 
 not this she has repudiated him as far as lies in her power. ' ' 
 
 In other places the same doctrine is to be found. 
 
 23. The ancient work attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite, On 
 the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, is by many and judicious writers attributed 
 to this convert of St. Paul the Apostle, whilst a greater number of others 
 equally if not more erudite, state that there is not sufficient proof of 
 the assertion. But both parties are fully agreed that the work is most 
 ancient and orthodox, and if not written in the first century, that it 
 at all events contains the doctrine of that age. Chapter vii, part 3, 
 has the following passage : 
 
 ' ' The venerable Prelate then drawing near repeats the holy prayer 
 over the dead person: in that prayer he beseeches the divine clemency 
 to remit to the deceased all sins committed by human infirmity, and, 
 that it might place him in light and in the region of those who live." 
 
 Those are the very expressions which the Church this day uses at 
 interments, and which she preserves as those which the Apostles first 
 used on similar occasions. 
 
 24. St. Clement was of Jewish extraction and converted to Chris- 
 tianity in the year 62, if not previously, as we find him in that year a 
 companion and fellow sufferer of St. Paul at Philippi : he accompanied 
 the Apostle to Kome, was consecrated Bishop of St. Peter, whom he 
 survived, as he did also his two immediate successors, Linus and Cletus, 
 when in the year 89 or 90, he succeeded to the Papacy, which he filled 
 in the year 100. Many writings are attributed to him, with little foun- 
 dation. But the liturgy is admitted by all good critics to be his ; or if 
 not, to be so ancient, and so authentic as to be a copy or imitation of 
 what he used and appointed ; and in this liturgy we find the description 
 of a long prayer for the repose of the deceased. 
 
 I have thus adduced evidence to prove that it was the custom of 
 the Catholic Church at all times to pray for the repose of the souls of 
 
538 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 the faithful departed. In my next I shall adduce other evidence respect- 
 ing the topics connected with the doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, 
 
 B. c. 
 
 LETTER XLI. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Sept. 24, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — In following up the evidence for the existence of 
 a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the 
 suffrages of the faithful, it might not be amiss to remind you that all 
 which is necessary for me to prove, in order to refute White is, that the 
 belief of this doctrine existed before the abandonment of the ancient 
 discipline of canonical penances: and that period might be properly 
 fixed about the close of the tenth century. I believe that I have more 
 than done this; yet as I am upon the subject, permit me to go farther 
 into its examination. I have laid before you the testimony of eccles- 
 iastical writers. I shall now give you the testimony of public documents 
 and monuments. The former will consist in the declarations of public 
 bodies, the latter will be a collection of facts, customs, and memorials. 
 I shall not here adduce the declarations of the Councils of Trent, 
 of Florence, and of Lateran, nor shall I enumerate more than -a few of 
 the earlier synods held in different places, from which it will be seen 
 that ours, was not a doctrine confined to a single nation or a few spots, 
 but was that of the universal Church. 
 
 In the year 868, a National Council was held at Worms on the Rhine, 
 then a suffragan see of Mayence, in which a question was raised as to 
 the propriety of praying and offering mass for the repose of the souls 
 of those persons who had been hanged upon the gallows, after convic- 
 tion in a criminal court, and it was determined that they were equally 
 entitled to the mercies of Christ as other sinners, and therefore not to 
 be deprived of the ordinary aid of religion, and [that] they were to 
 be prayed for after death. 
 
 In the year 813, the second provincial council of Chalons on the 
 Saone, was held at the request of the Emperor Charlemagne : the thirty- 
 ninth canon requires that in every mass that is celebrated, there should 
 be prayers offered for the repose of the souls of the departed faithful. 
 We shall see that special masses for their repose had been usual from 
 the very origin of Christianity, but though the liturgies had desired this 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 539 
 
 commemoration of the dead in the holy sacrifice, still in several places 
 neglect and omission had to be corrected by provincial councils. 
 
 Spelman gives us the following form of a prayer for the dead, found 
 
 in the twenty-seventh canon of the Synod of Cloveshoo, in Kent, in 747 : 
 
 "0 Lord, we beseech thee, grant that the soul of such a person 
 
 may be secured in a state of repose, and admitted with the rest of thy 
 
 saints into the regions of light and bliss." 
 
 I could produce several others more full than this, but Kapin, who 
 would, if he could, have made a different statement, adduces this to show 
 the notoriety of the fact, that prayer for the dead was then common in 
 the English Church, a testimony which White appears to have over- 
 looked. 
 
 The first Council of Braga, in Portugal, then a part of Spain, was 
 held in the year 563, on the first of May, under the reign of King Theo- 
 domirus : the Archbishop Lucretius presided ; a number of canons were 
 made against the Priscillianists, others for discipline. 
 
 The sixteenth canon prohibits the prayers of the Church to be of- 
 fered for the repose of the souls of those guilty of suicide, forbids com- 
 memoration to be made of them in the mass, and commands that no 
 funeral service shall be performed for them nor for criminals who shall 
 have been executed pursuant to the law. The twenty-first canon reg- 
 ulates that the alms and offerings made by the faithful on behalf of the 
 dead, shall be equally divided twice in the year amongst the clergy 
 W'ho are to pray for their repose. 
 
 Regulations regarding prayers for the dead are to be found in the 
 canons of the second Council of Orleans, which assembled on the 23rd 
 of June, 533, in which were twenty-six Bishops of the province of Lyons 
 and Aquitain ; its canons were but the renewal of more ancient laws. 
 
 The Council which is generally called the Fourth of Carthage, 
 in Africa, was held in the consulship of Eutychianus and Honorius in 
 the year 398, and gave the most full code of discipline which we find 
 about that period. Amongst other regulations, its seventy-ninth canon 
 enacts, that persons subjected to public penance, who having done, 
 as far as they were able, the several works imposed, but who die at sea 
 without having received the communion or having been formally re- 
 conciled, shall nevertheless have their share in the prayers and oblations 
 for the faithful deceased, and commands that they shall be prayed for 
 and commemorated after their decease. 
 
 Upon this document I shall only remark, that St. Augustin, Bishop 
 of Hippo, was a member of this council, and that White's position, 
 that it was upon "the cessation of penitential discipline, tradition 
 
540 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 brought purgatory to light," is altogether destroyed by this single ease, 
 for it exhibits both as fully co-existing, long before the cessation or de- 
 cline of the discipline. I can scarcely believe that Bishop Kemp and 
 his associates are so little acquainted with canon law, as not to have 
 known this enactment, and am therefore at a loss to know how they 
 could have so little respect for their own characters, as scholars, as to 
 have recommended White's book. 
 
 A council had been held in the same city in the previous year, dur- 
 ing the consulship of Cffisarius and Atticus, 397, the twenty-ninth canon 
 of which directs that mass shall not be celebrated by any but persons 
 who are fasting, except on the Thursday before Easter, and to remedy 
 a contrary abuse which had been creeping in, of priests celebrating the 
 mass after having broken fast, to aid the souls of persons who had died 
 that day, at a late hour; it directs that if prayers are to be offered in 
 such a case for Bishops or any other of the faithful departed, in the 
 afternoon, prayers only shall be offered, but not the sacrifice, on that day, 
 nor by a person who has broken his fast. 
 
 In the Arabic copy of the acts of the Council of Nice, held in the 
 year 325, the sixty-fifth canon directs that upon the demise of a Bishop, 
 notice should be given of his death to all the Churches and INIonasteries 
 which were within his jurisdiction, that prayers might be offered for 
 the repose of his soul. 
 
 St. Epiphanius, the learned Archbishop of Salamis, who lived from 
 310 to 403, in his famous work On Heresies, gives the seventy-fifth place 
 to Aerius, the Constantinopolian monk, who, displeased and disap- 
 pointed at the elevation of his friend Eustathius to the government of 
 that see, through opposition denied the superiority of the order of Bishop 
 to that of Priest, and appears also to have been the first who denied the 
 efficacy of prayers for the dead: this heresiarch was a cotemporary of 
 Epiphanius, and his doctrine was by all Christians declared to be a 
 novelty, which contradicted that which had been received from the 
 Apostles. St. Augustine gives it the fifty-third place in his catalogue 
 of heresies. It soon became extinct, and so continued for some centuries, 
 until the Waldenses revived it. 
 
 I come now to another series of documents ; the liturgies of the early 
 Church, in all of which we find prayers for the departed faithful, that 
 they may be delivered from suffering and brought to the enjoyment of 
 eternal glory. Surely Bishop Kemp will not venture to assert that the 
 liturgies of St. James, of St. Basil, of St. Chrysostom, or of St. Ambrose, 
 were not in existence before "the cessation of penitential discipline." I 
 shall make a general remark, applicable to all the liturgies, before I corns 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 541 
 
 to their special enumeration. In the first ages of the Church, it was not 
 usual to have written copies of the liturgy, but the clergy learned from 
 each other, and repeated from memory; the faithful also who were ad- 
 mitted cautiously to holy mysteries, were charged to be extremely careful 
 not to speak of them before strangers, who were admitted only to the 
 mass of the catechumens, and the sermon. The Church of England, 
 after separating from the Catholic Church, by way of following the an- 
 cient practice, dismisses the congregation after morning prayer and ser- 
 mon, and retains only those who are to receive during the communion 
 service. Both in the early Greek and Latin Churches, the betraying of 
 the mystery, or of the sacred books, was looked upon as equivalent to 
 apostacy. Thus the liturgies were not written until towards the close of 
 the fourth century, and the first complaint which we hear of any at- 
 tempt to change them, is against Nestorius in the beginning of the fifth 
 age. Previously to their separation, it is believed that the Apostles, who 
 had during many years celebrated together, had agreed upon an outline 
 or general form, from which there was to be no departure; and when, 
 after several ages, the office was examined in the several places in which 
 they had been, the general coincidence is perfect proof of a common 
 origin and a faithful observance of the original institution. 
 
 The liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem is that which is generally 
 known by the appellation of the liturgy of St. James, who was first 
 Bishop of that see. St. Cyril, one of his successors, explaining its order 
 to the neophytes in his Catechetical Discourses, in the year 349, says : 
 
 ''"We then pray for the holy Fathers, and Bishops, and lastly, for 
 all those who have quitted this world in our communion, believing that 
 their souls receive very great relief from the prayers which are offered 
 for them in this holy and tremendous sacrifice which lies upon the 
 altar." 
 
 The Liturgy of St. James, which, from the earliest period, has been 
 used in the Church of Jerusalem, contains the following : 
 
 The Memento for the Dead: The deacon says: "Remember, O 
 Lord, our God," and the priest bowing down says: "Remember, O 
 Lord, our God, the souls of all those whom we have commemorated, and 
 of such as we have not mentioned ; remember those who have departed, 
 in the true faith, from the time of the just Abel down to this day: 
 make them rest in the land of the living, in thy kingdom, in the de- 
 lights of paradise, in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, our holy 
 fathers ; where there is no sorrow, grief, nor lamentation, where the 
 light of thy countenance beams on all sides and diffuses its brilliancy in 
 every manner." 
 
542 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 The fathers of the Council of Triillo, in Constantinople, in 692, 
 quote this liturgy of St. James to refute the errors of the Armenians: 
 in the ninth century, Charles the Bald, King of France, desired to see 
 the mass celebrated according to this liturgy of that venerable Apostle. 
 The Agios Theos was first sung in Constantinople in 446, and this, 
 together with an addition of Peter FuUo, the chief of the Theopaschites 
 in 463, was joined to this formulary, [and] the circumstance of those 
 additions has caused some hypercritics, who wished to destroy the evi- 
 dence of doctrine contained in the document, to endeavor to show that 
 no part of it could have come from St. James; the contrary, however, 
 is now too fully proved. The Patriarchs of Constantinople have gen- 
 erally succeeded in procuring the substitution of the liturgies of St. 
 Basil and St. Chrysostom, even in many parts of Syria, for that of St. 
 James. 
 
 The liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is so called rather from having 
 been revised than compiled by him, and it has always been the principal 
 one in use at Constantinople and the Churches which adhered to that 
 See in its schism, as well as amongst the Catholic Greeks in Russia and 
 Italy, [and] in the Turkish empire. It has a commemoration of the liv- 
 ing and of the dead, whether the latter be saints in heaven or suffering 
 in purgatory. They are blended together for the purpose, as Casibalas 
 says, of exhibiting the perfect communion of all portions of the Church. 
 Le Brun, the erudite and the indefatigable collector of liturgies, makes 
 the same remark. Having so done, the office then separates each por- 
 tion, praying for the living and for the suffering dead, and celebrating 
 the memory and seeking the prayers of the saints in heaven. 
 
 The commemoration of the living and the dead. "We offer, more- 
 over, this reasonable worship for those who are departed from us in the 
 faith, our forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preach- 
 ers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, chaste persons, and all others per- 
 fected in faith," with a loud voice: "especially for the most holy, im- 
 maculate, blessed above all, and most glorious Lady, the ]\Iother of God, 
 and ever Virgin Mary." 
 
 The choir sing the praises of the blessed Virgin: the deacon in- 
 censes the altar, takes the dyptics or registers, and makes a commemora- 
 tion of the living and the dead. 
 
 The priest says in a low voice: "Saint John the Baptist, the pro- 
 phet and precursor of our Redeemer, the holy and glorious Apostles, 
 Saint X. whose memory we celebrate and all other saints, for the sake 
 of whose prayers, grant us, Lord, thy protection, and remember those 
 who died in the hope of a resurrection to eternal life. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 543 
 
 The priest prays for some living persons, in particular, and says: 
 "for the health, and protection and remission of sins of N. the servant 
 of God." 
 
 For the dead he says: "For the rest and deliverance of the soul 
 of thy servant N. that it may rest in a place of light, where there is no 
 sorrow nor mourning, but where it may rejoice, Lord God, in the 
 light of thy countenance." 
 
 The priest turns to the door, and blessing, with a loud voice, says: 
 "may the mercy of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, be with 
 you all : the choir : and with thy spirit. ' ' 
 
 The deacon: "Celebrating the memory of all the Saints, let us 
 again pray to the Lord, on account of the precious gifts now offered, that 
 our merciful God, who hath received them on his heavenly and intel- 
 lectual altar, may send down upon us his divine grace, the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost;" the choir: "Lord have mercy on us," the priest says in 
 a low voice, "that the heavenly gifts may draw down on us all spiritual 
 graces, and turn not to our condemnation. ' ' 
 
 The Litnrgy of St. Basil is a very ancient document, and in ex- 
 tensive use, particularly in the Egyptian and some Eastern Churches. 
 The father, whose name it bears, died in 379, but he only regulated in 
 a more definite form what had come down to him from the Apostles. 
 The anaphora or canon of offering or oblation of this, is preserved by 
 the Coptic Churches, together with the ancient prayers of the office used 
 by St. Mark the Evangelist, who was the first Bishop of Alexandria; 
 and indeed St. Basil's Anaphora does not differ much in form, and by 
 no means in doctrine, from the ancient Alexandrian or Coptic, which is 
 called that of St. Mark. I shall here give two extracts. 
 
 The first commendation of the dead: "Remember, also, Lord, 
 all those of the priestly order, and those of the laity, who have slept and 
 are already at rest ; vouchsafe, Lord, to grant rest to their souls, in the 
 bosom of holy Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ; lead them into verdant pas- 
 tures, upon the waters of refreshment, and to a paradise of delights, re- 
 mote from grief of heart, sorrow and mourning, to the glorious light of 
 thy Saints." 
 
 The deacon says the Dyptics '^ and recites the names of the dead. 
 After the dyptics the priest says: "Grant, Lord, that those, whose 
 souls thou hast received, may rest in thy heavenly kingdom ; but for us, 
 who sojourn upon earth, preserve us in thy faith, and give us always 
 thy peace." People: "As it was, and so forth." Priest: "Direct us 
 
 ^^ Eegisters containing the names of the living and the dead ; the names were 
 written on tables called dyptics, because they folded in two. 
 
544 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 to thy kingdom, that in this as well as in all other things, thy holy, 
 glorious and blessed name may be hallowed, glorified, praised and 
 sanctified, together with thy dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and the 
 Holy Ghost." 
 
 In a subsequent commemoration of the living and the dead, is the 
 following passage: 
 
 "Preserve the living by the angel of peace, and grant, Lord, that 
 the souls of the departed may rest in the bosom of our holy fathers 
 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in a paradise of pleasure," and so forth. 
 
 The Liturgy of St. Clement though probably not written by him, 
 was, if not received from him, conformable to his doctrine, and is a 
 very old document. In this, after commemorating the Martyrs, prayers 
 are offered up for those who have died in the faith. 
 
 The Amhrosian Liturgy was probably in use in the Church of Milan, 
 long before the time of St. Ambrose who became Bishop in the middle 
 of the fourth century, but having been probably revised by him it 
 bears his name ; in it is a long prayer for the repose of the faithful de- 
 parted. 
 
 The Roman Missal which has been preserved with the greatest care, 
 and whose canon is of high antiquity has the following: 
 
 "Be mindful also, Lord, of thy servants, men and women, N. and 
 N. who are gone before us with the sign of faith and rest in the sleep of 
 peace." He joins his hands, and prays a little while for those de- 
 parted, whom he intends to pray for ; then stretching out his hands he 
 proceeds: "to these, Lord, and to all who sleep in Christ, grant we 
 beseech thee, a place of refresliment, light and peace." He joins his 
 hands and bows his head. ' ' Through the same Christ, our Lord. Amen. 
 
 The Mosarabic Liturgy, is that which was used in Spain during a 
 long period: its name is an abbreviation of Moorish and Arabic, which 
 is explained by its history. 
 
 F. Le Brun has shown, that during the first four centuries the 
 Roman order was followed in Spain ; in the fifth the Goths took posses- 
 sion of that country. But the Goths, before they fell into Arianism, 
 received from the East, and especially from Constantinople, the Chris- 
 tian faith, and consequently the GreeU Liturgy. Martin, Archbishop 
 of Braga ; John, Bishop of Gironna ; S. Leander, Archbishop of Seville ; 
 all of whom contributed to the conversion of the Goths about the close 
 of the sixth century, were educated in the East. They were, therefore, 
 induced to preserve the Gothic Liturgy, which came from that part, and 
 which was conformable to the Gallican, followed in Narbonic Gaul, 
 where the Goths ruled as well as in Spain. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 545 
 
 Hence it follows, that S. Leander and S. Isidore of Seville, his 
 brother, in drawing up the liturgy of Spain, did not alter the sub- 
 stance, which existed before them ; they merely added some prayers, col- 
 lects, and prefaces relating to the Gospels and to the different days of 
 the year. But the sense of the prayers, the essential rites, the oblation, 
 consecration, adoration of the Eucharist, the communion, and so forth, 
 are the same. The consequences resulting from them are not different. 
 The Gothic Liturgy was retained in Spain by the Christians, who main- 
 tained their independence, after the invasion of the Moors or Arabs, un- 
 til the year 1080, and it is from the intermixture of the Christians with 
 the Moors, that the former were called Mozarabes. The Popes were 
 obliged to exert themselves for more than thirty years, in succession, 
 to get the Roman Liturgy re-established in Spain. 
 
 The following is an extract from this old Spanish office: 
 
 "We offer thee, Sovereign Father, this immaculate victim for 
 thy holy Church, as the expiation for a prevaricating generation, for 
 the purification of our souls, for the health of the infirm, for the in- 
 dulgence and repose of the faithful departed, so that changing their 
 abodes of sorrowful detention, thej^ may enjoy the happy society of the 
 jnst." 
 
 The Syrian Catholics retain the general features of the liturgy of 
 St. James, but in place of that passage of it which we have before 
 given, their office contains the following: 
 
 "We again make commemoration for all the departed who have 
 died in the true faith, whether they have been members of the Church 
 of this country, or from what other region soever they might have come 
 before thee, our God, who art the Lord and master of all spirits and of 
 all flesh. We pray, implore and supplicate the Christ our God, who 
 hath received their souls, to make them by his mercy worthy of the 
 pardon of their sins, and to bring them together with ourselves to his 
 kingdom, and therefore we thrice say Kyrie eleisou." The priest 
 bows down, prays for the dead, and then elevating his voice. "0 God, 
 the Lord of all spirits, and of all flesh, remember those whom we com- 
 memorate, and who have departed from this world in the true faith: 
 give repose to their souls — making them worthy of that happiness which 
 is tasted in the bosom of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, where the 
 light of thy countenance shineth, and whence are banished grief, pains 
 and lamentation. Enter not into judgment with thy servants, for no 
 man can be justified in thy sight; since there is no one of those who 
 dwelt upon the earth free from all sin and stain, unless it be Jesus 
 
546 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 Christ our Lord, thy only Son, through whom we hope for them and 
 for ourselves mercj', and the remission of sins, through his merits. ' ' 
 
 When in the year 451 Eutyches was condemned in the Council of 
 Chalcedon, he made many adherents in Syria and Egypt ; vast numbers 
 then separated themselves from the Catholic Church; and they who re- 
 mained faithful were by the seceders called Melchites ; from Melchi, the 
 Hebrew and Syriac expression for a king or emperor, because they ad- 
 hered to the imperial decree which commanded submission to the deter- 
 mination of the council. Previously to this they all used the same 
 liturgy which they had received from what was to them even then re- 
 mote antiquity. Since then the opposition between them is as great as 
 that between the Catholics and any of the Protestant divisions of the 
 west. Yet the heretical Syrians retain this same liturgy which is used 
 by the Catholics, and testify that their fathers had it down from the 
 apostolic days. So also do the Egyptians who are generally Eutychians, 
 retain the liturgy of St. James, testifying that it came from Mark, 
 James and Basil. In like manner the heretical Greeks subject to the 
 Patriarch of Constantinople retain that of St. John Chrysostom and 
 that of St. Basil, testifying to their great antiquity. 
 
 Thus we have full evidence of the high antiquity of those several 
 public documents; and no evidence can better testify the religious be- 
 lief of a people than their liturgy: I shall at present add but little 
 more, though I might extend my remarks to considerable length. I shall 
 give a few passages from the Armenian Liturgy: 
 
 "Remember, Lord, and be merciful and propitious to the de- 
 parted souls, and in particular to those for whom w^e offer this sacri- 
 fice." 
 
 Another Prayer. "We ask that mention might be made in this 
 sacrifice of all the faithful in general, men and women, young and old, 
 who have died with the faith in Christ Jesus." The Choir answers: 
 "Remember then, Lord, and have compassion upon them." The 
 Priest: "Grant them repose, light, and a place amidst thy saints in 
 thy heavenly kingdom, and make them worthy of thy mercy. Remem- 
 ber, Lord, and have compassion on the soul of thy servant N. ac- 
 cording to thy great mercy. Remember also, O Lord, those who are 
 recommended to our prayers whether they be living or dead, grant to 
 them true goods in return, goods which shall not be fleeting." 
 
 Thus we see the firm and uniform belief of the persons of all na- 
 tions and of the earliest ages who used those liturgies to be, 1st. That 
 there is a Purgatory; and 2d. That the souls therein detained, are helped 
 by the prayers and suffrages of the faithful. 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 547 
 
 I leave to any person of ordinary observation to draw the infer- 
 ence, whence this doctrine came. — We see Aerins who attempts to deny 
 the efficacy of such prayers immediately ranked amongst the heretics. 
 We do not find him quote a single document or authority of the preced- 
 ing three centuries to give even a plausible appearance of truth to the 
 assertion that his was the doctrine of the Apostles ; and upon what shall 
 we found this early, this universal, this continued and uninterrupted 
 custom? Shall we not take up the maxim of St. Augustin? What is 
 taught every where by all persons, at all times, and not instituted by 
 any council, must have been derived from the Apostles and through 
 them from Christ. I shall not now insist upon the application of this 
 principle. But I have destroyed that position of White's which Bishop 
 Kemp and his associates undertook to defend, "That Tradition brought 
 Purgatory to light about the time of the cessation of penitential dis- 
 cipline." I shall continue the examination of this subject. 
 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XLII. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Oct. 1, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — I proceed to show from documents of others than 
 Catholics, that the doctrine of the earliest ages of the Church was, 1. 
 That there is a Purgatory: 2. That the souls therein detained may be 
 aided by the prayers and suffrages of the faithful. Before I proceed 
 it will be proper for me to lay down a few principles upon the ap- 
 plication of which to the facts which I shall adduce, the conclusions 
 will be properly drawn. First: when any number of persons separate 
 from the Church, because of a difference in doctrine, and form a new 
 society of their own, opposed to that from which they came out, neither 
 division is disposed to adopt a new doctrine, or custom, for the purpose 
 of gratifying the other: but each will be ready to proclaim aloud any 
 innovation made by its opponent, and to reproach it with this new 
 deviation from the ancient doctrine or practice delivered by Christ and 
 his Apostles. Hence the silence of such parties where their opposition 
 continues, and the opportunity of observation exists, together wnth the 
 power of proclaiming the change, is strong presumptive evidence that 
 no such change occurred: this will extend to observances apparently 
 trifling and of no moment, and much more so to those which are im- 
 portant and essential; thus the Greek separatists amongst other things 
 
548 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 objected to the Latin Priests and Bishops even the circvimstanees that 
 they deviated from the Apostolic custom of wearing their beards. 
 
 Second : When the separatists who profess to cast off the errors of 
 those from whom they departed, preserve any of the liturgy of the orig- 
 inal body, and continue its use, and hold it in high esteem, they profess 
 thereby that this portion of the liturgy is free from the alleged errors 
 of the body from which the separation was made; and in like manner 
 when they continue the observance of an ancient custom, it is a declara- 
 tion that this custom is not founded upon error. Thus when the Metho- 
 dists retain in Great Britain a portion of the articles and liturgy of the 
 Established Church, and reject another portion, it is on their part, a 
 testimony that the portion which they retain is in their opinion free from 
 error. 
 
 Third: When at the period of separation, each division is zealous 
 in the condemnation of the other, and both are agreed that a common 
 doctrine or doctrinal custom has come to them from the proper source, 
 which is Christ and his Apostles; they must be correct in their con- 
 clusion, or not sufficiently informed upon the subject: because the per- 
 son who could show that the division to which he w^as zealously opposed 
 held an erroneous doctrine as truth, would immediately proclaim the 
 fact for the injury of those to injure whose system his zeal was burn- 
 ing. Hence the full agreement of both argues either the truth of the 
 doctrine, or the ignorance of the believers. 
 
 Fourth: All the Churches of the East and West, Greeks, Latins, 
 Armenians, Copts, Abyssinians, and so forth, could not have been so 
 completely ignorant of the history of their Churches, of the testimony 
 of their founders, of the doctrine of the Apostles, and of the meaning 
 of the Gospel as to have in their liturgies, on their most solemn oc- 
 casions, used prayers for the dead as an apostolic usage founded upon 
 the doctrine of Christ; if such usage w^as not apostolic and founded 
 upon that doctrine : because though we might suppose ignorance or cor- 
 ruption to have predominated in one or two of those divisions ; yet com- 
 mon sense will forbid us to suppose it could have been spread so gen- 
 erally through them all as to involve them all in so gross and so general 
 a delusion. 
 
 Fifth: The force of these principles will appear much more pow- 
 erful and efficacious, when we multiply the obstacles to a collusion in 
 error, by multiplying the divisions of Christians who having separated 
 from the original Church w^ere not only opposed to her, but also to 
 each other : and in such a ease the union of their testimony in favor of 
 the truth and apostolic origin or sanction of any one of her doctrines 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 549 
 
 or doctrinal customs, must be the very strongest species of evidence in 
 favor of her fidelity in preserving unchanged that which had been en- 
 trusted to her care. 
 
 Sixth: Allow me to add to these, the total inability of those per- 
 sons who charge the Church with having introduced the doctrine at an 
 intermediate period, to name the person by whom, the period when, or 
 the place in which the introduction was made. 
 
 I shall now adduce some facts, which I leave to you as applicable 
 to the principles just enumerated. I shall commence with the Church 
 of England. 
 
 When Henry VIII separated that Church from the Catholic world, 
 neither he nor his parliament nor his clergy, made any change in the doc- 
 trine or practice on this head. In the first edition of the Common 
 Prayer, which was put forth under the reign of King Edward VI, after- 
 some change of doctrine, still the following was retained in the Burial 
 service : 
 
 Then the Priest casting earth upon the corpse, shall say, "I com- 
 mend this soul to God the Father Almighty, and thy body to the ground, 
 and so forth." 
 
 But as this commending of the soul was not suited to the new doc- 
 trine which was gradually introduced, that prayers for the dead were 
 of no avail, so it was after a time disused, and the form now in use sub- 
 stituted. 
 
 Then while earth shall be cast upon the body by some standing by, 
 the Priest shall say: "Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God, 
 of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother here 
 departed, we therefore commit his body to the ground. Earth to Earth, 
 and so forth." 
 
 Here we perceive the change of liturgy with the change of doc- 
 trine, but in order to accustom the people gradually to the change, the 
 whole was not made at once, and therefore in the first book of Edward 
 VI, we also find the following two prayers which were subsequently 
 omitted, and were not in the amended Common Prayer: 
 
 Let us pray: "We commend into thy hands of mercy, (most mer- 
 ciful Father) the soul of this our brother departed, N. And his body 
 we commit to the earth, beseeching thine infinite goodness to give us 
 grace to live in thy fear and love, and to die in thy favor; that when 
 the judgment shall come which thou hast committed to thy well beloved 
 Son, both this our brother, and we, may be found acceptable in thy sight, 
 and receiving that blessing which thy well beloved Son shall then pro- 
 nounce to all that love and fear thee, saying, Come ye blessed children 
 
550 CONTROVEKSY Vol. 
 
 of my Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you before the begin- 
 ning of the -world. Grant this merciful Father, for the honor of Jesus 
 Christ our only Saviour, Mediator and Advocate. A^nen.'' 
 
 This prayer shall also be added: "Almighty God, we give thee 
 hearty thanks for this thy servant, whom thou hast delivered from the 
 miseries of this wretched world, from the body of death and all tempta- 
 tion : and as we trust, hast brought his soul, which he committed into thy 
 hands, into sure consolation and rest: grant, we beseech thee, that at 
 the day of judgment his soul, and all the souls of the elect departed out 
 of this life, may with us, and we with them, fully receive the promises, 
 and be made perfect altogether, through the glorious resurrection of thy 
 Son Jesus Christ our Lord." 
 
 And after the lesson from 1 Corinthians chapter xv, and the Lord's 
 Prayer, the same book contained the following which the Common 
 Prayer omitted: 
 
 Priest: "Enter not, Lord, into judgment with thy servant." 
 
 Answer: "For in thy sight no living creature shall be justified." 
 
 Priest: "From the gates of hell." 
 
 Answer: "Deliver their souls, O Lord." 
 
 Priest : "I believe to see the goodness of the Lord. ' ' 
 
 Answer : "In the land of the living. ' ' 
 
 Priest: "0 Lord, graciously hear my prayer." 
 
 Answer: "And let my cry come unto thee." 
 
 Let us pray : "0 Lord, with whom do live the spirits of them that 
 be dead, and in whom the souls of them that be elected, after they be 
 delivered from the burthen of the flesh, be in joy and felicity; grant 
 unto this servant, that the sins which he committed in this world be not 
 imputed unto him, but that he escaping the gates of hell, and pains of 
 eternal darkness, may ever dwell in the region of light with Abraham, 
 Isaac and Jacob, in the place where is no weeping, sorrow nor heaviness, 
 and when that dreadful day of the general resurrection shall come, 
 make him to rise also with the just and righteous, and receive this body 
 again to glory, then made pure and incorruptible ; set him on the right 
 hand of thy Son Jesus Chi-ist, among thy holy and elect, that then he 
 may hear with them these most sweet and comfortable words. Come ye 
 blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom which had been prepared for 
 you from the beginning of the world. Grant this, we beseech thee, 
 merciful Father, through Jesus Christ our Mediator and Redeemer. 
 Amen.^' 
 
 The same first book of Edward VI contained also a celebration of 
 the holy eucharist, or holy communion, when there is a burial of the 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 551 
 
 dead ; that the people might be gradually weaned from the Mass for the 
 repose of the soul of the deceased. But though under Elizabeth the 
 liturgy was changed, yet the clergy during her reign still took the Obla- 
 tions and Doles or alms on behalf of the deceased, and L 'Estrange tells 
 us, that they used to receive the money in the reign of Charles I. I 
 cannot say whether they do at present, but mortuary money is still by 
 law a due to the Protestant Clergy of England. 
 
 In the second year of Elizabeth, the anniversary services for the 
 repose of the souls of the benefactors of Eton and Winchester Colleges 
 were converted into services of thanksgiving to God for their endow- 
 ment. 
 
 The only additional change I believe, made by the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church of America in the case, is the substitution of one Psalm 
 for two. 
 
 Thus we perceive that a change of liturgy and a change of doc- 
 trine, as I have above expressed, go hand in hand. Thus when Henry 
 VIII denied the Pope's supremacy, Bishop Burnet informs us regard- 
 ing the Mass-Booh, that the alterations were so small that there was no 
 need of reprinting it ; a few erasures of those collects in which the Pope 
 was prayed for, the office of St. Thomas of Canterbury, (Becket) and 
 of a few other saints with whom Henry was displeased, sufficed. 
 
 I now proceed to unchanged liturgies, and consequently to unal- 
 tered doctrines. 
 
 The Greeks who are separated from the universal communion have 
 made their decisive separation at the time of Photius, in 867, although 
 several attempts at reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church 
 have been occasionally made since that time. They generally acknowl- 
 edge the Patriarch of Constantinople to be the head of their Church; 
 though the Dukes and Czars of Muscovy, and Emperors of Russia, have 
 succeeded latterly, in making the Russian portion of that body a separate 
 Church, dependent upon themselves, still they use the same liturgy and 
 follow generally the same practices, as their belief is the same. 
 
 The two principal liturgies used by the Greeks, who are subject to 
 the Patriarch of Constantinople, are those of St. Basil and St. John 
 Chrysostom. There can be no doubt but St. Basil was the real author 
 or the digester of the former; as to the second, it was ascribed to St. 
 Chrysostom, only three hundred years after his death. It appears, that 
 it is the ancient liturgy of the Church of Constantinople, which was 
 called the Liturgy of the Apostles till the sixth century. The latter is 
 used throughout the year, and contains the whole order of the Mass; 
 the other, the prayers of which are longer, is used only on some par- 
 
552 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 ticular days. There is a third, which is called the Mass of the Presancti- 
 fied, because there is no consecration, as with us, on Good Friday; the 
 priest does not consecrate, but communicates Avith the sacrament conse- 
 crated on Holy Thursday. The prayers of that Mass appear less an- 
 cient than those of the foregoing. 
 
 F. Le Brun has given the prayers and the order of the ceremonies 
 of St. John Chrysostoni's Liturgy. It is used in all the Greek Churches 
 of the Ottoman Empire, which are subject to the Patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople, and in those of Poland and Russia. As to the Greeks, who 
 have Churches in Italy, they have made some alterations in that liturgy. 
 The Patriarchs of Constantinople have even succeeded in getting it 
 adopted in the patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, by 
 the Christian Melchites, who in the fifth century, rejected the Euty- 
 chain heresy. Although in all those countries the Greek language is not 
 understood, yet the Greek Liturgy is universally followed; but on ac- 
 doing it explicitly. The Greeks have no distinct idea of what state of 
 obliged to celebrate Mass in the Arabic language. 
 
 I have in my last letter shown that prayer for the dead is found in 
 both those offices. I am aware that attempts have been made to per- 
 suade persons that the Greeks did not believe in the existence of Purga- 
 tory; and although I have before explained the difference between 
 them and the Latins on this subject, I shall take this occasion of again 
 doing it explicitly. The Greeks have no distinct idea of what state of 
 suffering the soul undergoes, and some amongst them believe, that no 
 soul goes to heaven before the period of the general resurrection: but 
 they do believe that such souls as owe any thing to divine justice must 
 have it expiated by suffering before the day of judgment, and they be- 
 lieve that prayers and suffrages will tend to this expiation, and there- 
 fore they do offer them for the relief of the deceased. In this they fully 
 accord with the decision of the Council of Trent. "1. That there is a 
 Purgatory." "2. That the souls therein detained are helped by the 
 suffrages of the faithful. ' ' This is all which we are required to believe 
 for faith : and this they firmly believe, and therefore preserve unchanged 
 that service which they assert, as we agree, has come down to thorn from 
 the Apostles. But some of the Latins are of the opinion that Purgatory 
 is a special and definite place, and that the purgation is by fire. The 
 Greeks say that this opinion is not well founded, and in saying this there 
 is a difference of opinion, but no difference of faith between the Greek 
 and Latin. Thus whilst the Greeks reproached the Latins with shaving 
 their beards, refusing to ordain married men, consecrating in unleav- 
 ened bread, fasting on Saturdays, eating milkmeats in the first week 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 553 
 
 of Lent, adding the particle Filioque to the creed, and so forth, they 
 never charged them with error in praying for the dead, but they con- 
 tinue the prayer and the masses for the benefit of the deceased of their 
 communion, and assert that in so doing, they only follow the maxims of 
 the Gospel, and the injunctions of the Apostles. 
 
 The Eutychians were separated from the Church at the Council 
 of Chalcedon, in the year 451, and a vast portion of Syria and Egypt 
 embraced the errors of Eutyches. The ancient Egyptians had the 
 liturgy in their own language, chiefly compiled from the offices of St. 
 Mark, St. James and St. Cyril of Alexandria; this language is now 
 known as the Coptic. The Syrians had that of St. James. The Euty- 
 chians in Syria and Egypt still use those same liturgies, unchanged in 
 all that regards prayer for the dead ; which they and the Catholics agree 
 was found in the books, and used by their predecessors before the Coun- 
 cil of Chalcedon, and which their fathers received as having come from 
 the Apostles. Thus, although separated from the Church nearly four- 
 teen centuries, they testify its belief upon this point as the day of their 
 unfortunate secession. 
 
 The Armenians were drawn into the Eutychian heresy in the year 
 525, by James Baradoeus, or Zanzales, [but] a great portion of them 
 have returned to the Catholic communion : their liturgy was given to 
 them by St. Gregory the Illuminator, in the 4th century, and both Cath- 
 olics and Jacobites retain in it the prayers for the dead. 
 
 The Malabar Christians, or as they are sometimes called, "of St. 
 Thomas," were discovered by the Portuguese in the beginning of the 
 sixteenth centui-y, and are a branch of the Nestorians. The following 
 are extracts from their liturgy, which must correspond with that of the 
 Chaldean Nestorians, subject to the Patriarch of Babylon, whom the 
 Christians of St. Thomas looked upon as their head. 
 
 Prayers for the Dead: "Let us remember the faithful, our fathers 
 and brethren, who departed from this world in the orthodox faith; let 
 us, I say, beseech the Lord to absolve and forgive them their sins and 
 transgressions, and make them worthy to rejoice, for ever, with the just 
 and upright, who obeyed the will of God." 
 
 The Blessing of Masses for the dead: "Hear, my Lord, the 
 voice of my prayer, let our supplications come in before thee and receive 
 our sacrifice and oblations, and be merciful to the sins of our brethren 
 departed. ' ' 
 
 Nestorius was condemned in the Council of Ephesus in 431, and a 
 large portion of the East, particularly Mesopotamia, and Persia em- 
 braced his errors. 
 
554 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 The Syi'ian Liturgy of St. James, is that which is in general use 
 amongst them, and they have always retained the prayers for the dead, 
 and continue to use them. : 
 
 Let us then look to this body of Christians separated during four- 
 teen centuries from the Catholic Church, hating the Eutychians and 
 hated by them, separated from the Greek Church, which they anathema- 
 tize, and from the Latin Church, whose language they do not under- 
 stand, from whose ceremonial they differ, and which they still proclaim 
 as their unjust condemner: what but the strong evidence of well estab- 
 lished truth can teach them an union of testimony. They produce their 
 ancient records ; they show a custom in which they were united before 
 their differences originated ; when their fathers held the doctrine deliv- 
 ered to them by the Apostles. Latin, Greek, Egyptian, Armenian, Sy- 
 rian, Chaldean, Persian, Muscovite and Indian, Nestorian, Eutychian, 
 Greek Catholic, schismatic and heretic, proclaim that the original litur- 
 gies which have been received from the Apostles, contain those prayers 
 and suffrages which they desired should be offered for the benefit of 
 the suffering dead : and with such a host of evidence as this before him, 
 the Rev. Joseph Blanco "White tells us that ''Purgatory was brought to 
 light by Tradition upon the cessation of canonical penance," and Bishop 
 Kemp of Maryland, with a collection of every description of clergymen 
 in his rear, proclaims to the Protestants of the United States, that they 
 may rely upon the testimony of Blanco White ! ! ! 
 
 My friends, I have dwelt long upon this topic, but I must pursue 
 it still farther, because I desire at least, upon one subject of doctrine, 
 to afford our Right Reverend and reverend opponents a fair opportunity 
 of defending White, if they can, and I have intentionally selected as a 
 point for their assault, that which they generally proclaim to be the 
 most foolish and absurd in our system, as they are pleased to call it. 
 I shall therefore have to keep them to Purgatory for some time yet. 
 Yours, and so forth, b. c. 
 
 LETTER XLIIL 
 
 Charleston, S. C, Oct. 8, 1827. 
 To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America. 
 
 My Friends, — It is conceded by the most learned of our opponents, 
 that the custom of praying for the dead is certainly as old as the second 
 century of the Church, and the belief in the existence of purgatory is 
 acknowledged by all persons to have been pretty general in the fourth 
 century. I shall now proceed to show that our doctrine is that of the 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 555 
 
 New Testament. An ancient Christian writer stated, that to quote 
 texts of Scripture for the purpose of proving any doctrine against 
 heretics was, to say the least, useless, if not mischievous : for, added he, 
 if they cannot by some ingenuity make the text by which they are 
 condemned lose its force, they will deny its right to a place in the book, 
 and, if necessary, will even deny the book which contains it to be can- 
 onical. When I state, then, that I will prove the doctrine of purgatory 
 to be contained in the New Testament, I am very far from asserting 
 that our adversaries will admit my proofs to be good: it would be un- 
 reasonable to expect this from persons who seriously assure us that the 
 words "this is my body," mean "this is not my body," and that "the 
 gates of hell shall never prevail against it," mean, "the gates of hell 
 shall prevail against it," or who calmly assert that "whosesoever sins 
 you shall remit are remitted to them, ' ' mean ' ' whosesoever sins you shall 
 remit, are not remitted to them." Thus I do not intend to create in you 
 the hope that such persons will acknowledge the doctrine of purgatory 
 to be contained in the New Testament: yet I assert that it is found in 
 this divine book. 
 
 But why, it will be asked, will not their opinion, as to the meaning 
 of a text, be of equal authority with mine ? I admit the opinion of any 
 one of them to be entitled to as much weight as is mine : but the ques- 
 tion is not to be decided by either their opinion or by mine. The 
 words of the sacred text have a precise and a determined meaning, in- 
 tended by the Holy Ghost, and neither they nor I can make that mean- 
 ing different from what it really is : and it is now the same that it was 
 from the beginning, for the sense of the Holy Ghost continues unaltered 
 and unalterable. This true meaning is the true doctrine or word of God, 
 and it is what he designed to teach to man, and is frequently very dif- 
 ferent from that similitude of meaning which opponents can force upon 
 words. St. Irenffius, Bishop of Lyons, informs us how this true mean- 
 ing is to be ascertained. This great man was born about the year 120, 
 and was educated in the Christian doctrine by St. Polycarp, Bishop of 
 Smyrna, a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and was the senior of 
 Iren^eus by about 40 years. Irenaeus also learned from Papias and 
 other companions of the Apostles, and was himself styled by Tertullian 
 "the most diligent searcher of all doctrines." In his Works, Book iv, 
 chapter 63, we read : 
 
 "This recognition is the true doctrine of the Apostles, and the an- 
 cient state of the Church in the whole world, and the character of the 
 body of Christ, according to the succession of the Bishops, to whom they 
 delivered that Church which is in every place; which has come down 
 
556 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 unto us, preserved without fiction, by the most full examination of the 
 Scriptures, neither receiving addition nor diminution, and a reading 
 without corruption, and a lawful and diligent exposition according to 
 the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy, and the 
 chief gift of charity, which is more precious than the recognition, more 
 glorious than prophecy, super-eminent above all gifts." 
 
 The true knowledge of the meaning of the sacred text is, according 
 to this, to be found by the full explanation of the writing according to 
 that ancient doctrine of the Apostles, recognised by the testimony of 
 the general body of the successors of the Apostles in every place. One 
 or two, a few might err; or they might give arbitrary and novel ex- 
 planations, but the true meaning is recognised by the testimony of the 
 whole body to whose care the text and its meaning were entrusted by 
 the Apostles. 
 
 Theodoret, in his Dialogue 1, gives us the same principle : 
 
 "Those men were the successors of the Apostles, and some amongst 
 them were accustomed to the enjoyment of their sacred and admirable 
 presence, many of them have been adorned with the crowns of martyr- 
 dom. Does it then appear lawful for you to brandish your blasphemous 
 and evil tongue against them." 
 
 I shall then, in explaining the passages of Scripture which I shall 
 adduce, not give my own opinion, but the testimony of such men as 
 those, to show the meaning ; and hence it will not be the opinion of B. C. 
 opposed to the opinion of any modern separatist, as to the true mean- 
 ing of the text, but it will be the testimony of those ancient and vener- 
 able witnesses, from and through whom we have received the Scriptures 
 themselves, as to the meaning of that sacred book of whose integrity and 
 contents they are made the witnesses to us : and thus we do not interpret 
 this venerable document by our own private judgment, but by the unani- 
 mous consent of the Fathers, and we do not give our own private opin- 
 ions, but the ancient, public testimony of the doctrine of Christ and his 
 Apostles. 
 
 The first text is found in the Gospel of St. Matthew, chapter xii, 
 31,32: 
 
 "Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be for- 
 given men ; but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And 
 whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be for- 
 given him : but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not 
 be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come." 
 
 The early doctors and pastors of the Church, explaining this ex- 
 pression of our Saviour, repeatedly declare that its distinct meaning is, 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 557 
 
 that the sin which he so emphatically condemns, is one whose guilt and 
 punishment will remain to eternity, and not be forgiven, either during 
 man's mortal term, or after his death, in that new state of existence 
 upon which he will enter, and in which many other sins of less heinous 
 character are forgiven by the mercy of God, and by means of the prayers 
 and suffrages of the Church and of her children. Amongst them are St. 
 Augustine in his xxist book Of the City of God, chapter 24, and in his 
 book vi against Julian, chapter 5; St. Gregory in his book iv of Dia- 
 logues, chapter 39 ; Venerable Bede on chapter iii of Mark. And when 
 in the twelfth century the Petrobrusians denied the doctrine of purga- 
 tory and the use of praying for the dead, St. Bernard, in his Homily 
 Ixvi, on the Canticles, quoted this text as having been always an evi- 
 dence of the doctrine, as did also Peter, the venerable abbot of Cluny, 
 in his Epistle against them. 
 
 Another testimony of the New Testament is found in Matthew, chap- 
 ter V, 25, 26, and Luke, chapter xii, 58, 59. 
 
 "And when thou goest with thy adversary to the prince, whilst 
 thou art in the way endeavor to be delivered from him : lest perhaps he 
 draw thee to the .judge, and the judge deliver thee to the exactor, and 
 the exactor cast thee into prison. I say to thee, thou shalt not go out 
 thence until thou pray the very last mite." 
 
 In the first of those places it is related that our Saviour used the 
 expression in reference to the persons whom he charged to be reconciled 
 with their enemies before they laid their gifts on the altar : in the second, 
 he gives it as a sequel, to the admonition concerning the judgment which 
 he must undergo before the tribunal of God. Several of the earliest 
 fathers testify to us that it was understood regarding purgatory, from 
 which the soul accused by the law of God, of venial sins or of incom- 
 plete satisfaction, would not come out before the divine justice had been 
 satisfied. Amongst those are Tertullian, in his book Of the Soul, chap- 
 ter xvii ; St. Cyprian, Book iv, Ep. 2 ; Origen, Homily 35, On Luke ; Euse- 
 bius, of Emessa, Homily 3, On Epiphany ; St. Ambrose in his Comment 
 on this paragraph in Luke xii ; St. Jerom in chapter v, on Matthew. 
 
 In the fifth chapter of Matthew we also read the following passage : 
 
 "21. You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt 
 not kill, and whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment. 
 22. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall 
 be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, 
 Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, thou 
 fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." 
 
 Amongst other commentators, St. Augustine, Book i, chapter 19, 
 
558 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 "On the Sermon on the Mountain," explains this passage as denoting 
 three grades of punishment for sin after death, of which only the last 
 was eternal, the other two temporary, or purgatory. 
 
 In the sixteenth chapter of the Gospel according to St. Luke, v. 9, 
 we read : 
 
 "And I say unto you: Make unto you friends of the mammon of 
 iniquity ; that when you shall fail, they may receive you into everlasting 
 dwellings." 
 
 The ancient writers, in this passage, understood that by the ex- 
 pression of the Saviour, "when you shall fail," he meant, "when you 
 shall die," and by the words "friends" he meant the "saints," who 
 themselves dwelt in the sacred abodes. Hence St. Ambrose, in his com- 
 ment upon this passage, and St. Augustine, in his book xxi. Of the City 
 of God, chapter 27, states the doctrine herein taught to be, that alms 
 given to those who are holy, will be extremely profitable to the donor, 
 as they being saints in heaven, will, after his death, aid him by their 
 prayers: and from this very passage, St. Augustine takes occasion to 
 state, that of those who die, some are very holy, and are immediately 
 after death received into heaven, and can there by their prayers aid 
 others; whilst some are so wicked, that after their death, they neither 
 can aid or be aided; but are eternally lost: and finally that some are 
 in that middle state, who, at the time of death, are not found deserving 
 eternal punishment, nor sufficiently prepared for immediate admittance 
 into heaven; and they are received into everlasting dwellings through 
 the prayers of their friends. 
 
 In the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, verse 24, St. Peter 
 says of our blessed Saviour : 
 
 "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as 
 it was impossible that he should be holden by it." 
 
 I would not have quoted this passage were it not for the purpose of 
 making a remark upon the difi^erence of reading, and of the versions. 
 I have quoted according to the Vulgate. The Greek copies have given 
 occasion to a very curious exhibiton of this verse, "having loosed from 
 the sorrows of death." It is clear the Saviour was not loosed there- 
 from, because he died upon the cross : and in the state subsequent to the 
 pangs of death we know of no sorrow save that of hell, whether this 
 expression means the place of eternal torments, or only a place of tem- 
 porary pain. The body which lies in the grave feels no pain, has no 
 sorrow. The ancient fathers, particularly Epiphanius and Augustine, 
 who gave it, "loosed from the sorrows of hell," state that the pains of 
 purgatory are meant, and not only that Christ was himself free from 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 559 
 
 their pain, as it was imposible he should be detained by it, but that on 
 this occasion having gone as St. Peter stated in his Epistle, to preach to 
 the spirits in prison, he released several who were enduring those pains. 
 The Syriac copy corresponds with the Vulgate, and St. Polycarp and 
 other very ancient authors use the same expressions, with us : the Greek 
 is of very little, if any authority as an original, for it has not been 
 preserved with sufficient care, or by sufficient witnesses : but this is not 
 the place to enter upon such a question. 
 
 In the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, chapter iii, we 
 read the following passage commencing at the close of verse 9, and end- 
 ing at the close of verse 15. 
 
 "You are God's building. According to the grace of God, that is 
 given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation : and another 
 buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth there- 
 upon. For other foundation no man can lay but that which is laid: 
 which is Christ Jesus. Now, if any man build upon this foundation, 
 gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: every man's work 
 shall be manifest, for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it 
 shall be revealed in fire : and the fire shall try every man's work, of what 
 sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, 
 he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss : 
 but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." 
 
 The context, as well as the great body of ancient commentators, 
 shows us the general sense of the passage to refer to the preachers and 
 teachers of Corinth, where St. Paul laid the doctrine of Christ as the 
 foundation for their labors: some of them, in pure sincerity of heart, 
 raised a valuable superstructure by their exertions upon this foundation, 
 and in the day of their appearing for judgment before the Lord, not 
 only would their labors stand the scrutinizing fire of his judgment; 
 but they should be rewarded. Some others, who continued indeed, faith- 
 ful to the doctrine of truth, not leaving the foundation, raised upon 
 it a superstructure in which there was much of vanity, the pride of 
 human learning, vain philosophy, and other imperfections of our weak 
 nature which could not endure the searching fire of God's judgment. 
 They should, therefore, suffer loss of their labor, and would, as persons 
 in a house which the fire was consuming, endeavor to escape; in this 
 they should succeed, because they had not grievous offences to condemn 
 them ; they would be saved, but like persons escaping from a fire, having 
 suffered loss and endured pain and affliction, which their more virtuous 
 fellow ministers had escaped. That this endurance of theirs would be 
 in the other world, after the judgment which succeeded their death, in 
 
560 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 the day of the Lord, when their works would be tried, that it would 
 also be temporary, and succeeded by salvation, which is our doctrine of 
 purgatory, is then the meaning of the Holy Clhost in this passage of St. 
 Paul: such was the belief of the Church in her earliest days, as is tes- 
 tified by St. Cyprian in an allusion which he makes to the text in Book 
 iv, Epistle 2 to Antonianus; by St. Ambrose in his commentary upou 
 this text, and in his Sermon 20, on Psalm cxviii ; St. Jerom on Chapter 
 iv, of the prophet Amos; St. Augustine in his Explication of Psalm 
 xxxvii, and in a remark upon the text itself, and several others. 
 
 In the same epistle, chapter xv, 29, we read: 
 
 "Otherwise, what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if 
 the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them?" 
 
 Respecting this text, there is considerable difference concerning what 
 is meant by the Apostle in these words ' ' baptized for the dead. ' ' There 
 was, about a century after his death, a custom of some Montanists, Mar- 
 cionites, and Cerinthians, which was occasioned by the common usage of 
 the Church, which they witnessed but turned to bad account. The ortho- 
 dox friends of the deceased, prayed and made suffrages and alms on his 
 account; frequently they placed those alms upon the grave, that the 
 poor who there found relief might pray for the repose of his soul. The 
 heretics above mentioned, not only did all this, but if the deceased died 
 without baptism, they procured another to be baptized for him, and in 
 his name, that he might obtain the benefit of the sacrament. But this 
 error did not exist in the time of St. Paul, and therefore the allusion is 
 not made thereto: besides, the Apostle writes in approbation of what 
 he alludes to, and he would not approve of this error. The great body 
 of commentators leads us to behold in the baptism w^hich is here men- 
 tioned, one of those which St. Paul alludes to in the sixth chapter of his 
 Epistle to the Hehrews, where he says : 
 
 "Wherefore leaving the word of the beginning of Chi-ist, let us go 
 on to things more perfect, not laying again the foundation of penance 
 from dead works, and of faith towards God, of the doctrine of baptisms, 
 and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of 
 eternal j udgment. ' ' 
 
 In this place he speaks of baptisms in the plural number, whereas 
 in his Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter iv, 5, he tells us "One Lord, one 
 faith, one baptism." In this latter place he speaks of the sacrament 
 which began then to be called baptism by excellence, and to which alone 
 the name was soon applied, in such manner as that it is seldom given 
 to any thing else. There were, however, several baptisms or purifica- 
 tions amongst the Jews; and there was the baptism of John the pre- 
 
two CALUMNIES OF J. BLANCO WHITE 561 
 
 cursor of Christ, which was generally known as the baptism of penance, 
 as being accompanied with those penitential exercises that were joined 
 to repentance for sins in the Jewish nation : it is so called by St. Paul 
 at Antioch, {Acts xiii, 24,) and at Ephesus (xix, 4.) Our blessed 
 Saviour speaks of another sort of baptism, one of suffering, in Mark x, 
 38, 39: 
 
 ' ' Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of, or be baptized with 
 the baptism wherewith I am baptized ? But they said to him : we can. 
 And Jesus saith to them: you shall indeed drink of the chalice that 
 I drink of: and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized, you shall 
 be baptized. " 
 
 And in Luke xii, 50: 
 
 "And I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized: and how 
 am I straitened until it be accomplished?" 
 
 Thus we find three descriptions of baptism: that of washing; 
 that of penance, to which the name was applicable whether it was accom- 
 panied with the purification or ablution with which the Jews generally 
 accompanied and always concluded their penitential exercises [or not] ; 
 and that of suffering, which the Saviour came to undergo, and in which, 
 several of his martyrs followed. Upon this view, "Baptism for the 
 dead" means doing works of penance and prayer, to entreat mercy and 
 pardon for the departed faithful. And the argument of St. Paul, is 
 a proof of the belief in the resurrection exhibited by those who pray 
 and do penance for the relief of the dead, which custom of penitential 
 prayer for the dead, was common in the days of the Apostles, and as I 
 shall hereafter show, in the days of our Saviour, and in the true Church 
 before the coming of Christ. In this point of view, we have full evi- 
 dence of the doctrine being contained in those passages which I have 
 quoted, as it is in several others in the New Testament which I have 
 omitted. I shall therefore in my next pass on to show that the evidence of 
 this doctrine is contained in the Old Testament, and that it was one of the 
 articles of true religion before the coming of the Saviour. Hence so far 
 from having been brought to light by tradition at the time of the dis- 
 use of canonical penances, which was about seven, or eight, or ten cen- 
 turies after the birth of our Saviour ; I shall show that it was believed by 
 the faithful, seven or eight or ten centuries before that period, and 
 thence to the present day, as I have shown it to have been recognized, 
 and alluded to by our blessed Lord and his Apostles; but it was no 
 more necessary for the founder of the Christian law to have given a 
 new revelation upon the subject, than to have given it upon the spir- 
 
562 CONTROVERSY Vol. 
 
 ituality and immortality of the human soul, which like the doctrine of 
 purgatory, were kno"\\Ti and believed during previous centuries. 
 
 I remain, yours, and so forth, 
 
 B. C. 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 This book is due on the date indicated below, or at the 
 expiration of a definite period after the date of borrowing, as 
 provided by the library rules or by special arrangement with 
 
 the Librarian ir 
 
 i Charge. 
 
 
 
 DATE BORROWED 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 DATE BORROWED 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C2e(ll49) lOOM 
 
 
 
 
*S035519029 
 
 ^nniLEDONOl 
 PHOTOCOPY