PaAvrxfet >-'¦ & P2- A LETTER TO N. WISEMAN, D.D. (CALLING HIMSELF BISHOP OF MELIPOTAMUS,) CONTAINING REMARKS ON HIS LETTER TO MR. NEWMAN. BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A. OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD. OXFORD, JOHN HENRY PARKER ; J. G. F. AND J. lUVINGTON, LONDON. 1841. EAXTEn, PRINTER, OXFORSJ, A LETTER, Sic. Sir, Having ascertained from Mr. Newman that it is not his intention to make any reply to your Letter, (a resolution which, considering his recent labours, cannot excite surprise,) I take the liberty of offering to your notice certain remarks which the perusal of your Letter has irresistibly suggested, and I sincerely hope, that the " plain- " ness of speech" which, in a discussion of such importance, it is necessary to employ, will not be, regarded by yourself or by others as indicating any want of respect for your abilities and attainments, or any deficiency in charity and good feeling. You will excuse me therefore, if I seem to ques tion your right to the title of " bishop" which you assume, and which your adherents are willing to recognise. You, at least, cannot deny, that episco pal consecrations, performed ostensibly for Churches without clergy or people, but really for the purpose A 2 4 of introducing or perpetuating schism, are illegi timate, and confer no canonical mission or juris diction". You are aware, that such ordinations are, according to the Canons, virtually null and void ; and that they do not constitute those who receive them real bishops — successors of the Apostles. If therefore, as is reported, you have received the form of episcopal consecration at Rome, this does not prove you to be a bishop, or excuse you for exercising episcopal and sacerdotal functions with out the license, and in opposition to the authority, of your legitimate Diocesan, the Bishop of Wor cester ; an offence which subjects you to deposition and excommunication by the Canons received by the whole Catholic Church. You have availed yourself with characteristic sagacity of the existing controversy, to invite pub lic attention to those views of Romish doctrines and practices, which the leaders of your party are anxious to impress on us. I rejoice for the sake of Truth that you have stepped forward so promptly in vindication of those views. It will afford an opportunity for testing their accuracy. Circum stanced as Romanism is in this country, it is perfectly natural that its advocates should endea vour to disembarrass themselves, as far as possible, of various doctrines and practices which have given serious offence. The interests of your com munion are so obviously promoted by such a policy, ' Dublin Review, vol. v. p. 288, &c. that language and sentiments are tolerated under your circumstances, which in a purely Romish country would be visited with severe reprobation — perhaps, might put you in the prisons of the In quisition. The end for which you labour sanctifies, in the eyes of your superiors, means which they would otherwise view with jealousy and displea sure. Romanists in England have long been deeply sensible of the obstacles which are presented to their system of proselytism by the existence of general prejudices (as they regard them) against the superstitions of their Church. They have felt with you, that "it is exceedingly difficult to think " differently from what every body about us has " always been thinking and saying. It is almost " impossible to stay the mind, when hurried on by " the press of those behind and on either side of us." (p. 19.) And as the general impression has been and continues to be, that superstitious and ido latrous doctrines or practices are more or less authoritatively sanctioned by the Church of Rome, you avail yourself of the opportunity afforded by Mr. Newman's statement to that effect, to clear your communion as far as you can from imputa tions so injurious to its interests, and so distressing to your own feelings as an active agent in the system of proselytism. It will be my endeavour in the following pages to shew, that public opinion is not so grossly mistaken in these matters as you would fain have us imagine, and that, while it would be undoubtedly most unjust to attribute superstitious and idolatrous notions or practices to those individuals of your communion who disclaim them for themselves, the stain adheres most deeply to the community at large, and that the Roman is, emphatically, a cor rupt Church. You have, as you imagine, detected at the com mencement of Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf an untenable position, and you direct against this assumed position a vast deal of argument more or less plausible ; but you have so obviously mistaken and misrepresented his views, that I can only account for the mistakes you have committed, by the haste with which you have rushed into this controversy. Mr. Newman states his persuasion, that the Thirty-Nine Articles " do contain a condemnation of the authoritative teaching of the Church of Rome'^ on the subjects of Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration of Images and Relics, the Invocation of Saints, and the Mass. He asserts indeed, and rightly asserts, (speaking generally,) that whereas those Articles " were written before the Decrees of Trent, they were not directed against those Decrees^.'" But still, he maintains that the Church of Rome does, even now, in some sense authoritatively teach the errors and super stitions against which the Articles are directed, " Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 6. and which were held by Romanists when those Articles were compiled. His next words are, " The Church of Rome taught authoritatively " before those Decrees (of Trent) as well as since. " Those expressed her authoritative teaching, and " they will continue to express it, while she so " teaches. The simple question is, whether taken " by themselves, in their mere letter, they express it ; " whether, in fact, other senses, short of the sense " conveyed in the present authoritative teaching of the " Roman Church, will not fulfil their letter, and may " not even now, in point of fact, be held in that " Church." (p. 6.) The meaning of this passage is obvious. It asserts as plainly as words can do, that the wording of the Decrees of Trent in some points may not convey doctrines which our Articles condemn ; while the interpretation generally given by the Romanists — their practical comment — the com raent furnished by Authority exterior to the Council of Trent, is objectionable. Mr. N. in the next page explains that he is speaking of the " popular " system" of Romanism, and soon afterwards he mentions, " the comment which the Church of " Rome has put on them (the Decrees of Trent) " in preaching and practice." (p. 9.) Having perused all these passages, you thus ad dress Mr. N. " Your intention seems to be, as far as I can " gather it from these and other passages in the 8 " Letter, to establish a distinction between the " doctrines defined or decreed in the General " Council of Trent, and the authoritative teaching " of the Roman Church." Certainly : so far you have caught his meaning. He undoubtedly does draw a distinction between the Decrees of Trent, and the authorized teaching of the Church of Rome on these points. That is, he is of opinion, that the words of the Decrees of Trent "fall short of the " sense conveyed in the present authoritative teaching " of the Roman Church." (p. 6.) The Decrees are encumbered by a practical comment which goes far beyond them. You now triumph in the persuasion that you have placed your opponent in an absurd position, and you ironically remark, " The existence of any such authoritative teach- " ing at variance with the doctrines of the Triden- " tine Synod, is to me a novel idea, and I think it " will prove so to all Cathohcs." (p. 5.) Permit me for a moment to arrest j'^ou in this hasty jump to a conclusion. You have correctly stated, that Mr. Newman maintains a distinction between the Decrees of Trent on these subjects, and the present authoritative teaching of the Church of Rome ; but surely distinction does not necessarily imply variance or opposition. You have studied so long in the Roman schools, that this cannot have escaped your observation. Why then do you so readily assume that Mr. N. would set the present 9 authoritative teaching of the Roman Church " at " variance" with the Decrees of Trent? You have commenced by mistaking the plain meaning of your Author, and in this mistake you steadily persist to the end of your Pamphlet. Excuse me. Sir, if, on further consideration, it appears to me that this mistake is not quite unintentional. One might hesitate indeed before one presumed to think, that so practised a controversialist as yourself had permitted any thing to escape from his pen inadvertently. Romish controversialists have be fore now found it convenient to close their own eyes, and to endeavour to close those of the public, against distinctions in which the turning points of con troversy are involved. Nothing would be less in accordance with the system which has been adopted by the English Romanists in their con troversies with us, than the recognition of such a distinction as that which you have assailed. The language of the Council of Trent has been your invariable refuge, whenever we have pressed you hard with the errors and superstitions prevalent in your Church. To this alone you would gladly direct our attention, as presenting the only exposition of doctrine authorized by all the Churches in com munion with Rome. Whatever else may be held or practised amongst you, is, you would assure us, only a matter of private opinion or practice — quite unauthorized. And your Church is therefore to be held responsible for nothing but the guarded and 10 comparatively moderate statements of the Council of Trent. You would persuade us, that because idol atry and superstition are not pronounced necessary to salvation by your Church — because you are not obliged to practise them under pain of Anathema — because they do not enter into the very language of the decrees de fide — your Church is quite free from the offence of allowing and authorizing them. You seem to argue, that because you may be Romanists without superseding the worship of God by that of the Virgin Mary, the Saints, Images, and Relics, you are therefore actually free, generally speaking, from the guilt of so doing. Your argument goes to prove, that a man who deliberately takes the life of another, is not a murderer, provided that his act is purely voluntary, and is not done in obedience to the law of God or of the Church. This is a very convenient system of argument indeed. It enables you to avoid any discussion on the weak points of your Church, and to raise an outcry against the prejudice and bigotry of those who would venture to impute superstitions or errors to the Church of Rome generally. It will be my endeavour to shew, that there is some authoritative teaching in the Church of Rome besides that of the Council of Trent, and you will yourself afford testimony to the correctness of this position. But I return to your pamphlet. You ask Mr. N. what his reply would be, if you should assert that an interpretation at variance with that which he believes 11 "to be the only one reconcileable with catholic truth" is generally prevalent in the Church of England, and should thence argue, that the Church of Eng land is " not to be judged by the Articles, but by " such authoritative teaching, and that therefore its " doctrines, and consequently itself, are not catholic." (p. 5.) The reply is obvious and easy. You have no reason to assume that Mr. N. believes his inter pretation to be " the only one reconcileable with " catholic truth." He merely advances what appears to him a catholic interpretation. I am of opinion that the language of the Articles, and the circumstances under which they were written, point to an inter pretation somewhat different from that advanced by Mr. N. and yet I have not the least doubt that he would readily admit the orthodoxy of that inter pretation, though different from his own. Your premises therefore break down ; and your conclu sion finishes in smoke. Supposing however, that, for the sake of argument, he were to admit, that the Articles are unsoundly interpreted by many persons, still that would not render the Church uncatholic, while such interpretations are openly opposed by many other persons of learning and authority, and while they are not recommended and urged by the authorities of the Church. When you can shew, that the idolatrous and superstitious doctrines and practices authorized in your Church are openly opposed and condemned by any influen tial portion of its members, we shall be rejoiced to 12 relieve your Communion from imputations which must, until then, adhere to it. " It is a serious thing," you continue, " to charge " us with setting up the Blessed Virgin in place " of the Holy Trinity, and Purgatory instead of " Heaven and Hell. We naturally ask, what shall " be considered sufficient evidence of there being an " authoritative teaching, that supersedes the solemn " and synodal Decrees of our Church, and makes us *' responsible in solidum for its lessons?" (p. 6.) To this question you have yourself in part furnished the reply in the next page, where you say, " To " the teaching of the Roman schools, the Catechism " of the Council of Trent, and the sentiments of the " best writers, I have no objections to make. But " that you should give as evidence of authoritative " teaching popular notions and practices is certainly " surprising." You therefore admit that there is some authoritative teaching in the Church of Rome, besides that of the Decrees of Trent, and of course you cannot hesitate to add to the sources of such authoritative teaching, the decrees of Roman Pon tiffs, and the actions of canonized Saints, which are held up at this day for the imitation and edification of the whole Roman Church. I am perfectly satis fied with the concessions you have made, and I believe there will be little difficulty in establishing on these grounds the substantial correctness of the positions which Mr. N. has advanced. Let us consider those positions for a moment. 13 Of " the present authoritative teaching of the " Church of Rome," he says. " Instead of setting " before the soul the Holy Trinity, and Heaven " and Hell, it does seem to me, as a popular system, " to preach the blessed Virgin, and the Saints, and " Purgatory." — And again, " In the Roman schools " we find St. Mary and the Saints the prominent " objects of regard and dispensers of mercy, Pur- " gatory or Indulgences the means of obtaining it." (p. 7.) Without doubt, " it is a serious thing" to make this charge, and " it is a serious thing" for you to hear it made. You do not relish such plain speak ing. I must however entreat you to bear with me, while I proceed to establish its substantial accuracy — while I demonstrate, that the Blessed Virgin, the Saints, Indulgences, or Purgatory, are commonly and authoritatively set before the souls of your people instead of the Trinity, Heaven and Hell, and viewed as prominent objects of regard, dis pensers of mercy, or means of obtaining it. After this I shall proceed to consider the remainder of your Letter. 1. The Blessed Virgin is authoritatively set before your souls instead of the Trinity. It is not meant that the Roman Church disbelieves the Trinity, or never worships the Trinity, but that the Virgin receives honours which are due only to, the Trinity — honours which interfere with the sole prerogatives of the Deity. The first proof of this 14 shall be derived from an authoritative document which all members of your Communion are bound to reverence. I mean, the Encyclical Letter of Pope Gregory XVI. addressed in 1832 to all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops, in which the following passage occurs. " We hasten unto you, Venerable brethren, and " as a sign of our good will towards you, we " address this letter to you, on this most joyful " day, when we solemnize the festival of the tri- " umphant Assumption of the Holy Virgin into " Heaven, that she whom we have acknowledged -" as our patroness and deliverer amongst the greatest " calamities, may propitiously assist us while we " write, and by her celestial inspiration may guide us " to such counsels as may be most salutary to the " Christian Church'^." I need scarcely remark, that the passages printed in Italics distinctly invest the Virgin with the attributes of Deity. The holy Psalmist declares, that God is his " fortress and deliverer," (Ps. cxhv. 2.)— his " help and deliverer," (Ps. xl. 17.) The Pope regards the Virgin Mary as his " patron and " deliverer." The Prophet Isaiah teaches us, that " counsel" is one of the seven gifts of the Holy ' Ut quam patronam ac sospitam inter maximas quasque calamitates persensimus, ipsa et scribentibus ad vos nobis adstet propitia, mentemque nostram coelesti afflatu suo in ea inducat consilia, quae Christiano gregi futura sint quam maximfe salutaria. 15 Spirit, (Is. xl. 2.) The Roman Church herself prays in the sacrament of Confirmation, " Emitte " in eos (confirmandos) septiformem Spiritum tuum " Paraclitum de ccelis, Spiritum sapientiee et " intellectus, Spiritum consilii et fortitudinis," &c. (Pontifical. Rom. De Confirm.) I turn to the first treatise on the Trinity by one of your Professors of Theology that comes to my hand, and I there find that the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is proved amongst other things by the fact, that the power of giving grace, of giving spiritual gifts, is ascribed to them in holy Scripture. (See Tournely de Trinitate, p. 384, 499.) And yet, notwithstand ing all this, the Pope ascribes confidently to the Virgin Mary the very powers which Scripture and tradition give to the Holy Ghost. And now, Sir, perilous and idolatrous as such sentiments are, have they ever once been publicly objected to by a single member of your Com munion? Has any one of you ever dared to protest against this ascription of the attributes of Deity to a creature ? Will you yourself venture to utter a word in opposition to it ? I am afraid this would be rather too much to expect from any " Vicar " Apostolic." And why is it that the whole body of your Communion have remained silent, and refrained from uttering a word in censure of language so plainly savouring of heresy and idolatry ? Why is it, that even those amongst you who may disapprove of such statements, have 16 remained mute and confounded ? Because they emanate from Authority — an Authority to which you are obliged to submit. You have asked for some proof that the Virgin Mary is authoritatively put forward in your Church instead of the Trinity; and I believe you have received a sufficient answer. I pass over another passage of the same revolting character at the conclusion of the Encyclical Letter, and proceed to other proofs which will further establish the character of the authoritative teaching in your Church. You will not deny the authority of the Litany of the blessed Virgin, printed at the end of the Roman Catechism compiled by Cardinal Bellarmine, and to the repetition of which, Indulgences were attached by Sixtus V, Benedict XIII, and Pius VII. At the conclusion of this is the following prayer. " We fly to thy protection, Holy Mother of God, " despise not our prayers in our necessities, but *' deliver us at all timesyrom all evils, glorious and " blessed Virgin'^." The holy Psalmist placed his trust in God. " The Lord will be a refuge for the oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble." (Ps. ix. 9.) He consoled the afflicted of Israel by the hope that THE Lord " will regard the prayer of the •' Sub tuum preesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genetrix, nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris; sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper, Virgo gloriosa et benedicta. 17 destitute, and not despise their prayer." (Ps. cii. 17.) Our Lord himself taught us to pray to our Heavenly Father to " deliver us from all evil." And yet, in spite of all this, the Popes grant indulgences for the repetition of prayers which express the very same sort of confidence in the Virgin as the Scriptures teach us to feel towards God. I will here mention another prayer to the Virgin, to the repetition of which Pius VI. in 1786 granted Indulgences. It is as follows: " Condescend to " permit me to praise thee, sacred Virgin. Grant " me strength against thine enemies. Blessed be "God in his Saints ^" The " Stabat Mater," which has Indulgences annexed to its repetition by Innocent XI, is full of similar petitions ^ But I will not dwell further on this branch of the subject. You wish for some proofs from your " best writers," or any of them, that the Virgin Mary is presented instead of the Trinity, and that she is regarded as the dispenser of mercy. You will readily admit the eminent learning and piety of Cardinal Bona. Hear then the following prayer extracted from his writings. " Oh most sweet Virgin Mary, Mother ol God " and our Lord Jesus Christ, refuge of sinners, " and mother of Mercy, I commit myself this day " and evermore to thy peculiar proieciion with most ' Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 244. ' lb. p. 245. 18 " humble devotion. Place me near unto thee, and " protect me from all my enemies visible and invisible. " Say unto my soul, I am thy salvation. Direct " me thy servant in all my ways and actions. Con- " sole me in all my griefs and afflictions. Defend " and preserve me from all evils and dangers. " Turn thy face unto me when the end of my "life shall come; and may thy consolation, in " that tremendous hour, rejoice my spirit. Thou " canst do all that thou wilt in heaven and earth, " nor can any resist thy will, for thou obtainest " from the Almighty whatever thou seekest. Hear " therefore and receive my prayers, and despise " me not when I confide in thy mercy. Behold " / fall down before thee, most gracious Virgin, " I fall down and worship in thee thy Son, and " I implore thy suffrages to obtain that my sins " may be blotted out, to reconcile the heart of thy " Son to my heart, that He may possess me, and " make me a man according unto his hearts." If this prayer does not ascribe to the blessed Virgin the Divine attribute of " dispensing mercy," I know not what words can do so. She is addressed exactly in the terms which we should use in pray- E " In hora ilia tremenda consolatio tua laetificet spiritum meum. Omnia potes quaecumque vis in coelo et in terra, nee est qui possit resistere voluntati tuae. . . . Ecce procido coram te, benignissima Virgo, procido et adoro in te Filium tuum," &c. Jo. Bonae Presbyt, Cardinalis, Horologium Asceticum, §. 2. Opuscula Spiritualia, t. i. p. 13. 19 ing to the second or third Persons of the Holy Trinity. We see in it the same feeling of con fidence in the protection of the Being addressed — the same degree of worship which is offered to Jesus Christ. " I fall down and worship in thee " thy Son." The Virgin Mary is worshipped with the honour due to God ! You will not, I venture to say, express any disapprobation of this prayer, any more than of the sentiments of Gregory XVI. or of the authorized and indulgenced prayers which I have cited above. You will be satisfied to say, that such things are not enforced upon your con sciences by the Decrees of the Council of Trent. Then if they are not, your guilt is so much the greater in practising them. By your own con fession, such idolatrous invocations are not com pulsory on you. They are therefore voluntary; and you are wholly without excuse or justification. It is in vain to allege that they are not universally approved or received. What proofs can you afford of this assertion ? When have you yourself pro tested against them ? Who amongst you lifts up his voice against them ? You content yourselves with general disclaimers of superstition and idolatry, but you will never venture to lay your finger on any specific case amongst the thousands which are authorized amongst you. But I have not concluded this branch of the subject yet, I have to adduce a third branch of evidence, the authority of which you, at least, will scarcely deny. b2 20 I allude to the " Lives of St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. " Francis de Girolamo, &c. whose canonization took " place on Trinity Sunday, May 26, 1839." Of this publication you are the reputed Editor^', and if you are unwilling to avow your connection with it, you cannot hesitate to admit the authority attached to the actions and sentiments of Saints recently canon ized, after the strictest and minutest investigation of their lives and conduct by the highest tribunals in the Roman Church — actions and sentiments which had been brought under the special notice of those tribunals, and which are now pubhshed (probably by yourself) for the general edification and imitation of Roman Catholics. Let us then see what is thus authorized by your Church. I extract the following from the Life of St. Alphonsus Liguori. " His loving patroness, our blessed Lady, re- " warded his zeal in the cause of charity and " devotion by appearing to him in the sight of an " immense crowd of people collected in the Church " of Foggia to listen to a discourse upon his fa- " vorite subject, the intercession and patronage of " Mary. From her countenance a ray of light, i" At the end of the Catholic Directory and Annual Register for the year 1841, I find in the Catalogue of Books of " F. A. Little, Catholic Bookseller and Stationer," the following : — Works by the Rev. Dr. Wiseman. The Lives of St. Alphonsus Liguori, &c. 21 " like that of the sun, was reflected upon the face " of her devout servant, which was seen by all the " people, who cried out ' a miracle I a miracle f " and recommended themselves with great fervour and " many tears to the Mother of God ; and many " women of abandoned life were seized with such " intense sorrow, that they mounted upon a plat- " form in the church, and began to discipline " themselves and cry aloud for mercy ; and then " leaving the church, retired to the house of " penitents in that city. Alphonsus, in his judi- " cial attestation, deposed, that during the Sermon, " he, together with the assembled audience, saw the " countenance of the blessed Virgin resembUng " that of a girl of fourteen or fifteen years of age, " who turned from side to side, as was witnessed " by every one present'." " Whilst he was preaching on the patronage of " the blessed Virgin, and exciting his hearers to " recur with confidence to her in all their wants, he " suddenly exclaimed, ' O, you are too cold in " praying to our blessed Lady I I will pray to her for " 2/OM.' He knelt down in the attitude of prayer, " with his eyes raised to heaven, and was seen by " all present lifted more than a foot from the " ground, and turned towards a statue of the blessed " Virgin near the pulpit. The countenance of our I Lives of St. Alphonsus Liguori, &c. p. 12. Dolman, Lon don, 1839. cc 22 " Lady (the statue!) darted forth beams of light, " which shone upon the face of the ecstatic Alphon sus. This spectacle lasted about five or six " minutes, during which the people cried out, " ' Mercy, mercy! a miracle, a miracle I' and every " one burst into a flood of tears. But the saint " rising up, exclaimed in a loud voice, ' Be glad, '^'' for the blessed Virgin has granted your prayer^."' Now, Sir, with every disposition to avoid uncha ritable or general imputations of idolatry, and to allow the sincerity of those amongst you who dis claim it, I cannot refrain from expressing to you the horror and amazement which such a scene inspires. Here is a Saint of your Church — a Saint canonized only two years ago, and after the most rigid investigation of all his actions by the highest authorities amongst you. — This Saint excites his hearers to " recur with confidence to the Virgin in " all their wants," as if she were a Deity. He follows this up by kneeling down and "praying" to the Virgin. — Observe, not seeking her intercession, but praying to her. A miracle is wrought to sanc tion this impiety ; and that nothing may be wanting to complete the abomination of the scene, this miracle is wrought, while the Saint is in an attitude of adoration before the image of the Virgin, and while that image itself becomes, as it were, animated, and testifies the presence of the Virgin within it ! This is the teaching which you place before the members ^ lb. p. 27. 23 of your Church. This is the teaching which your Saints inculcate — your Cardinals and your Pope approve and authorize — and which you yourself print and publish for the edification of the faithful ! But I pass on to another example of the same teaching. " He established confraternities amongst his " flock, as a means of inducing them to frequent " the Sacraments, and to hear the word of God, " and maintained the spirit of their foundation by " frequently preaching to them; and one evening, " whilst he was preaching during a retreat to the " confraternity of gentlemen at Arienzo upon the " patronage of the Blessed Virgin, he was on a " sudden wrapt in ecstasy, and his countenance " shone with such splendour, that the whole Church " was lighted up with unusual brightness; and he " exclaimed, ' See, the blessed Virgin is come to " dispense graces amongst us ; let us pray to her, and " we shall obtain whatever we ask^.' " When Moses descended from the mount with these words of God, " I am the Lord thy God. " Thou shalt have none other Gods but me," the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come nigh him. Liguori is invested with an equally miraculous splendour, while he declares that the Virgin is a Goddess — while he asserts that she " dispenses graces," or is invested with the attri butes of the Deity, and while he admonishes the ' lb. p. 35. 24 people to address her as an all-powerful Being ! Which would you have us believe ? Or is this fable intended to turn the Scripture itself into ridicule and contempt, and to afford Infidels the means of opposing Revelation to Revelation, and arguing the absurdity of the whole from its contra dictions ? I turn to the life of another of your recently canonized Saints, St. Francis di Girolamo, where, after some mention of his love of Christ, the following passage occurs. " In like manner he was tenderly devoted to our " blessed Lady. For twenty-two years he preached " a Sermon in her praise and honour every lueek. " To youth especially, it was his custom to recom- " mend this devotion as the surest preservative of " innocence, and the best remedy against sin; saying " that one could hardly be saved who felt no " devotion towards the Mother of God. Mary was " his counsellor in doubt, his comfort in toil, his " strength in all his enterprises, his refuge in danger " and distress. He experienced an inexpressible " delight whenever he recited the Rosary of our " blessed Mother." Lives of Liguori, &c. p. 101. I leave this passage to speak for itself. It requires no comment. If ever idolatrous reverence was felt for a created Jaeing, it certainly was in this case ; and yet this is an example which the autho rities of your Church hold up for general admira tion ! With such facts before the public, you have the confidence to ask for evidence that the Virgin 25 and the Saints are set up instead of the Holy Trinity. Can you ask for better evidence than that which has been given ? I have not quoted antiquated documents — I have not cited a thousand idolatrous passages from your books of popular devotion and other unauthorized sources — I have not referred to " local abuses" or " popular superstitions," but to the highest and most un deniable authorities in your Church. They convict you of all that has been alleged against you, and you may writhe beneath that conviction, but you cannot escape from it, except by shewing what it is impossible to shew, that the errors and idolatries which I have pointed out, have been resisted and protested against in your community. 2. The Saints are authoritatively placed before you instead of the Trinity. That is, they share the honours of the Deity — they receive honours which are only due to God. In proof of this I again appeal to the Encychcal Letter of Gregory XVI, where, near the con clusion, he thus addresses all the Bishops of the Roman Obedience. " We will also earnestly beseech with humble " prayers from the Prince of the Apostles, Peter, " and from his co-Apostle Paul, that you may stand " as a wall, that no other foundation be laid but " that which has been laid. Relying on this " delightful hope, we trust that the author and 26 " finisher of our faith, Jesus Christ, will at length " console us in all our tribulations. (Id et ab " apostolorum principe Petro, et ab ejus co-apostolo " Paulo humiU prece efflagitemus, ut stetis omnes " pro muro, ne fundaraentum aliud ponatur praeter " id quod positum est. Hac jucund^ spe freti, "^ confidimus auctorem consummatoremque fidei " Jesum Christum consolaturum tandem esse nos " omnes in tribulationibus, &c.") , To avoid mistakes it may be necessary to observe, that the " foundation" here alluded to is not the Saviour, but the established doctrine and discipline of the Roman Church, the dangers of which deeply excite the Pontiff's grief and alarm. In this passage then St. Peter and St. Paul are distinctly invested with the attributes of Divine Providence. They are supposed to give grace and power to the Bishops — to confirm them in the faith. JVb prayer whatever is addressed to any Person of the blessed Trinity. No supplications are offered to our Lord, but it is hoped that in consequence of the prayers addressed to the Virgin Mary and the Apostles Peter and Paul, he will console his Church. St. Mary, Peter, and Paul, guard and protect the Church — our Lord consoles it ! Such is the system taught by authority. Do you wish for further evidence? It shall be immediately supplied. Pius VIL by his decree of the 28th April, 1807, 27 granted 300 days of indulgence to all who should devoutly use the following invocations"'. " Jesus, Joseph and Mary, I offer to you my heart " and my soul. " Jesus, Joseph and Mary, assist me in my last " agony. " Jesus, Joseph and Mary, may my soul expire in " peace with you." Pius VI. by a Brief dated 2d October, 1795, granted an Indulgence of 100 days to the faithful who repeat the following prayer to their guardian Angel. " Angel of God, who art my guardian, enlighten " me who am committed to thee with heavenly " piety, guard, direct, and govern me. Amen." Bouvier, p. 248. Pius VII. by his Rescript of September 21st, 1802, granted a year's Indulgence, applicable to the dead, to every Catholic priest, who should recite the following prayer. " O, holy Joseph, guardian and father of Virgins, " to whose faithful care Christ Jesus, who was " Innocence itself, and Mary, Virgin of Virgins " was comraitted, I beseech and pray thee by both " these dear pledges Jesus and Mary, to preserve me "from all uncleanness, and make me ever most " chastely to serve Jesus and Mary, with an un- " defiled mind, a pure heart, and a chaste body. " Amen. (Te per hoc utrumque charissimum "¦ Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 226. 28 " pignus Jesum et Mariam obsecro et obtestor, " ut me ab omni immunditia praeservatum, mente " incontaminat^, puro corde, et casto corpore Jesu " et Mariae semper facias castissime famulari. " Amen.)" Bouvier, p. 265. In this prayer Joseph is addressed as a Deity — a Being who has the power of bestowing divine grace, and of enabling Christians to serve God. The Son of God is made a sort of Mediator between Joseph and his worshippers ; and, in fine, the service of Christians is supposed to be divided between Jesus and Mary 1 And yet this is a prayer sanc tioned by the highest authority in your Church, and unscrupulously published in your most approved practical Treatises on Indulgences. I shall only extract, in addition, the following prayer from one of your best and most approved Authors, Cardinal Bona. " Holy Angels, seals of the Divine likeness, full " of wisdom, perfect in beauty, be present with me " and defend me from the assaults of evil spirits, " from the frauds and snares of the enemy. Inflame " me with that fire which the Lord sent on earth, " and which he desired to burn vehemently. Ye " seven Spirits which stand before the Lord ever " prepared to do his bidding, succour a wanderer " in this vale of tears. Cleanse me from all " filthiness, and infuse into my mind the splendour " of the saints, that all earthly matter being con- " sumed, 1 may burn wholly with divine love, and 29 " become one spirit with God for ever. Thou St. " Michael, most glorious Prince of the celestial " army, helper of the people of God, receiver of " the elect souls, who hast fought with the Dragon " and conquered, come to my assistance in this " doubtful battle, which I, unarmed and feeble as " I am, must wage with a most powerful foe . . . You, " ye other saints of God, to whose patronage I have " intrusted myself, and whose feast is this day " celebrated, assist me a miserable sinner sitting in " darkness and the shadow of death. Dissolve the " bonds of my captivity, &c," Bona, Oper. Spiri tual, t. i. p. 13, 14, 15. I beheve it would be needless to adduce any more proofs that Saints and Angels receive in your Church honours which are only due to God. 3. I am now to shew, that your Church regards Purgatory or Indulgences as " means of obtaining " mercy," and that they are preached " instead of " Heaven and Hell." Do not suppose that I mean to assert, that Heaven and ell Hare not believed or preached amongst you. I only contend, that In dulgences (which are connected with Purgatory) are made to take the place, which Scripture and Catholic tradition assign only to considerations connected with the eternal state ; that they are presented to the consciences and the hopes of your people, to influence them to the performance of duties which ought only to be urged on the motives of the love and fear of God. This is 30 what we complain of. We see good works urged amongst you on motives which obscure and in terfere with the grand and simple motives which Revelation places before us. When we would excite our brethren to the performance of good works, we can but say to them, " Yield yourselves " unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, " and your members as instruments of righteousness " unto God." (Rom. vi. 13.) We can but quote to them our Saviour's words, " If ye love rae, keep " my commandments .... He that hath my com- " mandments and keepeth them, he it is that " loveth me ; and he that loveth me shall be loved " of my Father, and I will love him, and will " manifest myself unto him." (John xiv. 15 — 21.) And again, " Lay up for yourselves treasures in " heaven, where neither the rust and moth doth " corrupt, and where thieves do not break through " nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will " your heart be also." (Matt. vi. 20, 21.) These are the only motives which Scripture and Tradition place before us. Our works are to be done simply in reliance on God's assistance, and with a view to shew forth our love and obedience to Him, without which we should forfeit eternal life. Not so with you. Every good work has in your eyes a very different sort of value. It is a satisfaction for sins, it is a means of obtaining so many days or years of Indulgence from the tortures of Purgatory. Are your people to be excited to visit the sick, 31 to give alms to the poor, to hear mass, to repent of their sins and confess to a priest, to receive the holy Eucharist, to pray for the extirpation of heresies, the propagation of the Catholic faith, and for the Church generally ? You promise them a plenary Indulgence on certain feast-days in the year". Do you wish to excite the people to repeat devotional offices during their life, and to recom mend their souls to God at the hour of death ? You promise them Indulgences. (lb. p. 185.) Is it your desire that they should instruct their children, relations, or servants, in the Christian doctrine ? You offer them 200 days of Indulgence for doing so. (p. 185.) They meditate on our Saviour's passion to gain 100 days of Indulgence. (p. 186.) They examine their consciences, and repent of their sins, resolve to amend them, and recite the Lord's prayer, to gain the same amount of Indulgence, (p. 186.) They accompany the holy Sacrament when it is brought to the sick ; endea vour to bring back into the right way those who have wandered from it ; and practise other good works in honour of our Lord. And for what reason? To gain an Indulgence of 100 days in Purgatory, (p. 191.) Is it considered desirable to promote the spirit of prayer ? One indulgence is promised to all those who instruct the people to meditate or to offer prayer, and another to all who offer prayer every day for half or a quarter of an ° Bouvier, Trait^ des Indulgences, p. 183, 184. 32 hour. (p. 213.) In short, there is not a good work or a devotional practice amongst you, which is not presented as a means of obtaining Indulgences. Your whole system depends on the popular belief in Indulgences, and the popular wish to obtain them. Your confraternities, your charitable and religious works of all kinds, are vitally dependent on them. The promise of future glory, the desire to shew love and gratitude to Him who redeemed us with His own blood, are insufficient to excite your people to the discharge of Christian duties. They require the stimulant of Indulgences to rouse them into activity. And what are those In dulgences ? Which of the Fathers ever wrote a treatise on Indulgences, or even mentioned them ? Were they known to Augustine, to Chrysostom, to Gregory, or to any of the Fathers for a thousand years after Christ ? You are well aware that there is a profound silence in Christian Antiquity on this subject; that the only Indulgences known for a thousand years were remission of canonical punish ments imposed in this life. And this novelty it is, which now constitutes the moving power of your religion, and which usurps amongst your people that influence which Revelation assigns to Heaven and Hell — to the love and the fear of God. Having now completed the first part of my task, and shewn that the public is not so grossly mistaken as you would persuade us, in the view which it takes of the superstitions prevalent amongst you. I return to the consideration of your Letter. You assure us, that throughout the whole course of 5'our residence in the Roman schools you " never " heard a word that could lead you to suppose that " our blessed Lady and the Saints are, or ought to be, " the ' prominent objects of regard,' or could be " ' dispensers of mercy,' nor that ' Purgatory or " Indulgences are the means of obtaining it,'" &c. ; and you have, as you say, " always there heard and '•' taught exactly the contrary." (p. 9.) In a certain sense, perhaps, the Professors in the Roman Uni versity may not maintain those doctrines ; but I would ask, whether you have ever heard any con tradiction offered by them to the scandalous and blasphemous positions which have been above cited from authorized sources ? Until you have shewn this, they and you yourself must be held responsible for those positions. You argue, from the shortness of the Treatises on Invocation of Saints and Purgatory in your theolo gical course, that there could have been no intention to supersede the worship of the Trinity by the one, and the preaching of Heaven and Hell by the other. This seems to me a very bad argument, for surely we are not to judge of the practical importance of a doctrine by the extent which its discussion oc cupies. A Treatise on the Trinity involves many 34 difficult questions, and therefore occupies more space than one on the Invocation of Saints. Yet it does not follow that the Trinity itself is practically more worshipped and honoured than the Saints. What has been just observed applies equally to the argument from your Catechisms. The Trinity, Incarnation, and Creed, may be, as you say, the principal articles of instruction, (p. 13.) They may occupy most space, and yet the worship of the Virgin, and the Saints, and Purgatory, may prac tically be " the main subjects" put before the popular mind. You are indignant at Mr. N.'s assertion, that, with reference to Purgatory, " the main idea really " encouraged by Rome is, that temporal punishment " is a substitute for Hell in the case of the unholy," and you characterize this doctrine ascribed to you as " wicked and fiendish." (p. 14.) What, Sir, are you not well aware, that, according to your Church, " the unholy," those who are guilty of mortal sin, are, by the sacrament of Penance, relieved from the punishment of Hell, and made subject only to tem poral penalties ? It is your doctrine that Hell is the penalty annexed to mortal sins which have not been remitted by the sacrament of Penance, and that temporal punishment in this life or the next, follows sins which have been thus remitted. I shall not occupy your time in attempting to prove what is the well-known doctrine of your Church — a doctrine which was evidently in Mr. N.'s mind, when he 35 employed the expressions which have excited your wrath. Mr. N. has quoted from the Catechism of Trent the following passage, which, he says, " expresses " the existing Romish doctrine." " There is a purgatorial fire, in which the souls " of the pious are tormented for a certain time and " expiated, in order that an entrance may lie open " to them into their eternal home, into which nothing " defiled enters." Your reply is, that " it is unnatural and a fallacy" to " put the Catechism at variance with the Council " which ordered it to be drawn up" — that we must suppose persons who had been members of the Council " deliberately contradicting their own acts," &c. Now, Sir, the fallacy, permit me to say, is all your own. Mr. N. never adduced the Catechism of Trent as "at variance" with the Council, or as " contradicting" the Council. He merely adduces it as expressing " the existing Romish doctrine," which he most correctly distinguishes from the Decrees of Trent, without meaning that there is any opposition between the two. He asserts nothing more than what you yourself admit — that it (the Catechism) " employs the usual language in which " a doctrine is spoken of in the Church" of Rome. (p. 15.) That it is invested with authority in your Church you cannot deny, though it may not be binding on you in the same sense as the Decrees of Trent. c 2 36 You quote the Theology of Perrone to shew, that Romanists are at liberty to speculate on the nature of Purgatory notwithstanding the Decrees of Trent. He remarks, " that questions relating to the place, " duration, and quality of the punishment there " inflicted, do not pertain to the catholic faith, or are " not defined by the Church." I have not Perrone's work in my possession ; but I would ask, whether he does not add to the above statement, that the doc trine of a purging material fire is the general and most probable opinion of theologians ? Perhaps in the next edition of your Letter you would furnish us with the entire passage. This however is clear, that " the language of every (Roman) Catholic " theologia,n" goes rather further than you would wish us to think. I turn to Bellarmine first. His words are, " It is certain, secondly, that one pu- " nishment of Purgatory is the want of the Divine " vision. . . It is certain, thirdly, that besides this " punishment, there is also some other, which theo- " logians call punishment of sense (poenam sensus). " It is certain, fourthly, that there is in Purgatory, " as also in Hell, a punishment of fire, whether that " fire be understood literally or metaphorically, and " whether it signifies punishment of sense, or of " loss, as some prefer to say. (Certum est, quarto, " in Purgatorio, sicut etiam in Inferno, esse poenam " ignis, sive iste ignis accipiatur proprie, sive meta- " phoric^, et sive significat poenam sensus, sive " damni ut quidam volunt)." Bellarminus De Pur- 37 gatorio, lib. ii. c. 10. I am afraid. Sir, that the liberty here allowed will not afford any great consolation to those who are fearful of the torments of Purgatory. Whatever they be, they are, it seems, the same sort of punishments as those of Hell ! And this too is a matter of certainty! The next chapter of Bellarmine's Treatise is thus headed, " Cap. x. Ignem purgatorii ipse corporeum;" and commences thus: " It is the general judgment " of theologians, that the fire {of Par gatoty) is truly " and properly such, and of the same species with our " elementary fire, (communis theologorum sententia " est, verum et proprium esse ignem, et ejusdem " speciei cum nostro elementari.) Which judgment " is not indeed de fide, because it has no where " been defined by the Church ; yea, in the Council " of Florence the Greeks openly professed that they " did not admit fire in Purgatory, and yet in the " definition made in the last session, the existence " of Purgatory is defined, without any mention " of fire. Yet it is the most probable doctrine. " (Tamen est sententia probabilissima.") In chapter xiv. De gravitate poenarum, we find, that " the Fathers constantly teach that the " pains of Purgatory are most fierce (atrocissimas,)" and that " no pains of this life can be compared to " them, (et cum iUis nullas poenas hujus vitas com- " parandas ;)" and that " in a certain sense all " (writers and others) admit, that the pains of Pur- " gatory are greater than those of this life." 38 Such, Sir, is the doctrine of the Father of your modern theologians, " the prince of controver- " sialists," as he is styled by your friend Mr. Phillipps ; and this doctrine still continues to be that of your theologians, as Delahogue declares, when speaking of questions on the subject of Purgatory, he says, " whether they (souls in " Purgatory) be shut up in some dark prison, or " be tortured by some fire, as theologians commonly " hold, (vel igne aliquo torqueantur, ut communiter " sentiunt theologi)"' — " cannot be certainly af- " firmed." Delahogue, De Poenitentia, p. 304. I need not proceed further with citations from your theologians. Those will suffice to shew, that although the doctrine of a material and torturing fire in Purgatory is not an article of faith in your Church, it is by far the most probable and popular opinion, and I very much doubt whether you could point out any instances of writers or preachers in your Communion maintaining in public the contrary doctrine. You would yourself, I doubt not, have been regarded as a heretic, or as a person " suspected of heresy," had you ventured to maintain in Italy, that the punishment of Purga tory is not " material fire," but the " want of the " Divine Vision." The general belief and doctrine is quite opposed to such notions, and this is what is obviously meant, when it is asserted, that the doctrine of the Catechism of Trent with regard to Purgatory " expresses the existing Romish doctrine." 39 I am wearied, and I fear my readers will be wearied, with a refutation of all your errors and false-reasonings, but I must continue the ungracious task. You send us to the statement of the Catechism of the Council of Trent with reference to Images, and ask, whether such statement is " an authorita- " tive teachrngv/hich supersedes theDecree of Trent," or " sanctions on the subject of images more than " it warrants." The Catechism, as quoted by you, says, " As the enemy of mankind, by his wiles and " deceits, seeks to pervert every the most holy " institution, should the faithful happen at all to " offend in this particular, the pastor, in accordance " with the Decree of the Council of Trent, will use " every exertion in his power to correct such an *' abuse, and when occasion offers, will explain the " Decree itself to the people, Sfc." (p. 16, 17.) Certainly, Sir, the authority of the Decree of Trent is here recognized. No one ever for a moment doubted that it was fully received in your Churches. But let me observe, that no definition whatever is given of what really are abuses. The people may, according to the doctrine of Alexander de Hales, Thomas Aquinas, Cajetan, Bonaventura, Marsilius, Almayn, Carthusianus, Capreolus, Vasquez, and a host of your most approved writers, pay the worship of Latria or Divine honours to the images of Christ. (Bellarm. De Imag. ii. 20.) They may, with St. Thomas Aquinas, (Summa, 3. 25. 4.) and 40 the Schoolmen, worship the true Cross or its image with the adoration of Latria. They may beheve in the miraculous powers ot the images and relics of the Saints ; — may make pilgrimages to them — may carry them in procession during plague and other public calamities; and may put their trust in them. But the Catechism of Trent does not say a word against such idolatries and superstitions. It merely refers to the Decrees of Trent, which are equally silent ; and the explanation of those Decrees which the Priest is to give, may be in exact accordance with the errors which I have mentioned. So far for any safeguard supposed to be furnished by this Catechism ! You refer us to what the Catechism says of the " worship of Saints." (p. 1 7.) Undoubt edly it recognizes what all your well-informed theo logians theoretically hold — that Divine worship or Latria is not due to the Saints. No man in his senses would gravely maintain such an absurdity. And yet notwithstanding this, the Virgin and the Saints do practically (and by authority too) receive honours due only to God. You call (p. 17.) for " the testimony of all or " any of your best writers," in favour of " preach- " ing the blessed Virgin, the Saints, and Purga- " tory," instead of " the Holy Trinity, Heaven, " and Hell." This challenge has been answered, and if it be necessary, I can easily add a thousand other proofs. Be it observed too, that it has been answered not merely from the " statements of 41 " travellers," or " the assertions of the great body " of writers against you," or " popular notions of " Roman Catholics;" (p. 19.) but from authorita tive documents, from your own approved theolo gians and writers. Yes, Sir, we do hold that the " tacit sanction," (p. 20.) which the members of your Churches give to the idolatries and superstitions alluded to, is the deepest stain upon them. You are surrounded by notions and practices which every enlightened Christian must most deeply disapprove. You see them sanctioned by the highest authorities in your Church, greedily received by the people, and endan gering their salvation. And yet you give them your " tacit sanction." Which of you dares to uplift his voice, and warn the people against the delusions in which they are involved ? No ! This would be too great a triumph to those whom you call " heretics," and therefore you gently and in general terms warn them against superstitions. You never enter into particulars, or denounce this or that doctrine or practice as contrary to sound religion. We praise your caution ; but is this Christian honesty ? Is this the duty of Bishops ? Is this even the best mode of relieving your Church from the imputations which are now thrown upon it ? You enquire whether " any extent of corruption " or sanctioning error by the members of a Church, " if at variance with its acknowledged formularies> 42 " deprives the Church of the benefit of these, and " warrants its being treated as having admitted a " new faith?" (p. 20.) I must profess, that to the question thus broadly put, none but an affirmative answer can be returned. I suppose you would not yourself deny, that a Church which openly rejected the doctrines of the Trinity, or the Divinity of Christ, even though it admitted the Nicene Creed, would be heretical. But we do not contemplate any such paradoxical case, in maintaining that the doc trines and practices taught and received by autho rity in your Church, go far beyond the wording of the Decrees of Trent. We do not pretend that the doc trines generally received amongst you supersede those Decrees. All that is meant is, that they are your doctrines, and that you have no right to fall back on the wording of the Decrees of Trent, as if you were responsible only for them. We cannot permit you to escape so easily. It is in vain therefore that you atterapt to involve in self-contradictions, (p. 20.) those who admit that the Western Church before the Reformation had not ceased to be a true Church, and yet maintain that the existing Roman Church sanctions and authorizes idolatrous and erroneous doctrines. There is no inconsistency in their views. They allow that the Western Church before the Reform ation was deeply culpable ; that most serious cor ruptions had become prevalent ; yet still they do not deny her claim to be a part of Christ's Church, 43 though a corrupt one ; because there had been no definition of errors, and no imposition of idolatries ,hy any authority to which every member of the Church was bound to submit his own judgment. In like manner, though they see much that is erroneous, and objectionable, and presumptuous in the Decrees of the Council of Trent ; and though they see idol atries and grievous errors sanctioned by the autho rities of your Church, and generally received ; still they are not prepared to say, that the Churches in communion with Rome have ceased to be Christian, because it seems to them that individuals may and do continue in your communion without practising or holding what is contrary to the Articles of the Christian faith. But notwithstanding this, they consider your Churches as corrupt, and as most deeply culpable in sanctioning corruption ; and they hold you responsible for the errors and idol atries against which you do not protest. You will not be able to point out any inconsistency in this. But you come to the question oifact, and demand what evidence there is that popular notions " go " beyond a sound faith respecting our blessed Lady?" (p. 21.) I think you have had evidence enough. Would you wish me to quote the popular formu laries of devotion ? They are at hand, if there be any further call for evidence. You describe to us the religious exercises of an Italian peasant, (p. 22, 23,) and forget to state, that Indulgences are attached to the performance of them all. In the authorized 44 form of Christian instruction used at Rome, and compiled by Cardinal Bellarmine, the only religious exercises recommended are the daily repetition of the "Pater" and "Ave, "and the Rosary of the Virgin. The latter is thus mentioned. " M. What exer- " cise have you for keeping up devotion (Ch' esercizio " avete per mantenere la divozione) ? D.J say the " Rosary of our Lady, and I continually meditate " on the fifteen mysteries of the said Rosary, " in which is contained the Life of our Lord Jesus " Christ." If, as you say, (p. 24.) your people do not think it sinful to " neglect their devotions to " the blessed Virgin," of which I should be glad to have some evidence beyond your mere assertion, it does not prove that they do not offer idolatrous prayers and worship to her. We do not pronounce that all who pay honours to images " have renounced their faith, and " abjured their God." (p. 25.) We have every reason, however, to fear, as well from doctrines maintained by many of your theologians and never censured, as frora appearances (which you yourself allow to be against you, p. 24.) that very many amongst you do give directly idolatrous worship to images, and put their trust in them. We see no attempts made to arrest the grossest super stitions. They are acknowledged to be abuses, and there the matter rests. You complain, that the " devotional feelings" of Roman Catholics with reference to images 45 " are taken as tests of their convictions and faith." (p. 25.) I must confess that there seems to me nothing unreasonable in this test. If the " devo tional feelings" of an Italian towards the Virgin are greater than towards his God, I cannot but think that (whatever his faith may be in theory) the Virgin is practically his God. It is idolatry to love, or confide in, or worship any creature above God, or instead of God, or equally with God. A faith which brings forth no fruit of " devotional feelings," which permits those feelings to fix on other objects than God, is a dead faith. You, who have talked so slightingly of travellers' accounts of religion in Romish countries, (p. 19,) should not have attempted to furnish us with anecdotes of your own. You hold up the conver sation of a boy at Paestum, as a proof, that the peasants of Italy have no exaggerated notions of the Virgin. The final question was well put, and well answered; "Could she have redeemed you?" " Not unless her Son commanded her." (p. 26.) This seems to you conclusive as to the soundness of the boy's faith. To me it does not. The boy may have believed that the Virgin could redeem him by command of the Son of God — that she was in fact his saviour, his patroness, his only hope — that his duty was to place his trust and confidence in her — and that devotion to her was sufficient for his salva tion. All this he may have believed, notwithstanding his recognition of the superior Deity of Jesus Christ. 46 As you have favoured us with one anecdote, I shall add another, in illustration of the opinions of the middhng classes of Irish Romanists. — A gentleman of strict veracity, with whom I am intimately acquainted, and from whose lips I received the following account, was one day conversing with a remarkably intelligent and re spectable Roman Catholic farmer, a fifty pound freeholder in the county of Tipperary. The con versation turned on the Virgin Mary, when ray friend enquired, " What reason Roman Catholics " had for worshipping the blessed Virgin ?" The reply was, " Because she is the Mother of God." " Well, but that does not prove that she is God, *^' or that she ought to be worshipped !" Answer. " She is the Mother of God, and therefore must be " worshipped as well as God. If we worship the " Son, we must worship the Mother also." " Well, " but you do not mean to say that the Virgin was " the Mother of God as regards his Divine nature ? " She was surely a huraan being before she becarae " the Mother of our Lord, and could she then have " become God ?" This seemed to stagger the man for a moment, but he soon replied : " Oh, she is " the Mother of God, and therefore we must " worship her. This is our belief.'' My friend found it impossible to dislodge him from this position, or. to convince him that the Virgin Mary was in any respect inferior to our Lord himself. 47 As to the Roman Ritual for the Visitation of the Sick, to which you refer us, (p. 27,) it raay have received comparatively little of modern addition, and may therefore retain in sorae degree the pure doctrines of Catholic antiquity. Is this any proof that the Virgin and Saints are not idolatrously worshipped on other occasions ? Your impression of the sentiments of the lower orders of Roman Catholics during your experience " in the hospitals " of the eternal city" is certainly favourable. Perhaps others raight have been able to give a somewhat different account. To your personal appeal to Mr. Newman, (p. 30,) I have nothing to say in particular. I suppose you would scarcely ask him to refrain from expressing opinions in opposition to your errors, which have been formed on a full exaraination of the subject. You have no right to impute to him any haste or want of consideration in what he has written. I have no doubt that he is satisfied of the truth of what he has said against you, and that he will be always prepared to maintain it. In reply to Mr. N.'s remark, that " the only " thing which can stop this tendency [to practical •' idolatry] in the decrees of Rorae [about Iraages " and Relics] as things are, is its raaking some " formal declaration the other way ;" you ask, " What extent of formal declaration would satisfy " you ?" "In what manner would you have " the Church of Rome draw up and promulgate 48 " a declaration that should be raore satisfactory " than all those various declarations [at present " existing] put together?" (p. 31.) I am glad, Sir, to have one point of agreement with you before I close this Letter. The difficulty you have suggested is most perplexing. It would indeed be difficult to devise any general disclaimer of superstitions which could not be evaded by the ingenuity of your theologians, and which would leave no loop-holes for idolatry and superstition. But, Sir, we will be content with a much simpler and easier mode of clearing your Church frora the imputations which now so justly rest on her. Let her prelates, her clergy, and her theologians, no longer remain satisfied with assuring us that we misunderstand their religion. Let them no longer confine themselves to the attempt to hoodwink us, by appealing to the Decrees of Trent, and denying that any worship of the Virgin and Saints and any notions of Purgatory which are not there expressed are binding on thera ; as if that very circurastance did not increase the guilt of those who receive and those who sanction such abuses. Let thera refrain frora canonizing and pubMshing lives of Saints crammed with the most scandalous idolatries and blasphemies. Let thera protest against authorized and sanctioned abuses — prayers to Saints investing thera with the attributes of Deity — worship of images pushed to idolatrous excess — Indulgences viewed as ends of Christian exertion — devotion to 49 creatures instead of the Creator — repeated sacrifices of Christ. Let them proclaim the grand and simple sanctions of Christianity, and exhort men to look far above human inventions and the intercession of creatures, to Him, who as God and Man is alone able to mediate with Almighty efficacy between the Creator and sinful man. Let us see this, and we shall then indeed rejoice to relieve your Church from those accusations, which we are now, in deep sorrow, compelled by Christian truth to lay to its charge. Let us see this, and there will be few if any obstacles to the restoration of that peace, which we desire, if possible, still raore earnestly than yourselves. I have the honour to remain, Sir, Your obedient Servant, WILLIAM PALMER. Oxford, April 12, 1841. BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 08561 8750 I'M