Full text of "A defence of the Christian religion, & c. : in a series of letters addressed to Charles Abel Moysey, D.D., Archdeacon of Bath"

3
2

7
8

> W '^^' WW WWW-

i^i^^Ks^^.

■r<^*j^^

K^^^^

,^fe^#Vp^

1^3

jm^

v->*^

iVTT^

IB V^^

THE LIBRARY

THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA

LOS ANGELES

'fiffe^

Doctrme of the Holy Catholic Church.

We praise Thee, O God ! we acknowledge Thee to he our

Lord ! Thee, the Holy Church throughout the whole

icorld doth confess, the FATHER OF

INFINITE MAJESTY.

Published by Ambrose Cuddon, 62, Paternoster-row.

#.?••

' "-V

Si -^fre^

DEFENCK ^;>2'^^on w^\-^,^.

CHRISTIAN RELIGION, &c.

OF THE

IN A SERIES OF LETTERS

ADDRESSED

TO CHARLES ABEL MOYSEY, D. D.

BY THE RIGHT REV. P. A. RAINES, D. D.

NEW EDITION,

Revised and Corrected by the Author, and embellished with Engravings,
drawn on the Wood by W. M. Craig, Esq.

HontJon:

Printed and Published
By AMBROSE CUDDON, 62, Pater-Noster Row.

And Sold by all Booksellers in the United Kingdora.
1825.

, ■ I-

CONTENTS.

/r, ««*

LETTER THE FIRST.

SECTION 1.— ;jag-c9.

The Archdeacon's attack — Explanation and defence of the Catholic doctrine, on the
worship of God and veneration of the Saints — Latreia and Douleia — Doctrine of
the Catechism — The nsages of the Catholic Relif;ion compared with those of civil
life — The idolatry of the Pagans contrasted with the worship of Christians — Ca-
tholic and Protestant excommunications.

SECTION 2— ]ja^el9.

Refntation of calumnies respecting breach of faith — Decisions of foreign Universi-
ties — Of the British Parliament — The oaths of Catholics — The blue books —
What evils did the Catholic religion entail in England ? — Penal laws — liberty —
toleration, and conclusion.

SECTION 3.— pog-cSS.
To the Bath Public, and to the Reader in general.

LETTER THE SECOND.

SECTION 1.— pag-e36.
Remarks on the former Letter.

SECTION 2.— ]>«g-e4l.

Statement. — Dr. Moysey not required by his religion to make this attack — Doc-
trine of the thirty-nine articles and book of Homilies — Change of doctrine in the
Church of England— Doctrine of the Catholic Church and of the Church of Eng-
land at the present day, on the subject of Images, not materially different-
Customs abroad often misunderstood by English Travellers,

SECTION 3.— pag-e 54.

First AND Second Commandments, Differently explained by Dr. Moysey and
his two friends — Their explanations refuted — Catholic explanation — Import o
external acts uncertain — Definition of the words adoration, tcorship, Latreia,
Douleia, idolatry, Sfc. — Necessity of attending to the meaning of these words
— Catholic Church does not violate the commandments.

SECTION 4.— page 67.
History of Christian Images. — How far used in the first three centuries — In-
troduoed along with architecture. — Common in the fourth century ; general in tho
sixth. — History of the Iconoclast Council at Constantinople. — The second coun-
cil of Nice misrepresented by Vindex. — Its decree.

48041-8

VI. CONTENTS.

SECTION 5,— page 92.

Refutation of dlfTcrent charges from St. Thomas Aquinas, and other Theologians. —
Council of Trent totally misreiiresented by Vindex — Its decree — Bossuet's Ex-
position de la foi.

SECTION 6.~page 102,

Objections from Catholic observances answered — Ceremony and office of Good
Friday — Kissing of Crosses, &c, — Devotions to the blessed Virgin Mary, &c. —
St. Scholastica — The gunpowder treason — Want of candour iu Vindex.

SECTION 7.— page 116.

Invocation of Angels and Saints. — How far admitted by the Church of Eng-
land — Explanation and defence of the Catholic doctrine — Objections of Vindex
answered — Justification of the Catholic doctrine by eminent Protestants — Injus-
tice and illiberality of modern attaclis injurious to the Established Church, and
to Christianity in general — Account of Christianity according to Dr. Moysey and
his friends.

SECTION 8.— page 133.

Abuses existing in the Catholic Religion, not idolatry — Superstition and credulity,
common to Catholics and Protestants, though difl'erent in form — Advice to tra-
vellers.

SECTION 9.— page 138.

Breach of Faith — Accusation by Dr. Moysey and Vindex stated and refuted — Coun-
cil of Constance and John Huss — Dispensations of Catholics and Protestants
compared — Council of Lateran — Sir John Cox Hippesley, &c.

SECTION 10.— page 159.

Remarks on the Charge of Misrepresentation, pointed at by Vindex — Examination
of his Reasons for Opposing Catholic Emancipation — Explanation of the name of
Roman Catholic — Concluding Reraarlis.

Appendix to the Second Letter.

Page 169.

An Exposition of the Controverted Doctrines of the Catholic Church, by Bossuet,
with preliminary Observations and notes — Oc the Invocation of the Saints— On
Images~-On Relics.

LETTER THE THIRD.

Page 179.

A Remonstrance, addressed to the Archdeacon of Bath, on the renewal of his
former attacks upon the Catholics, in his lale Charge to the Clergy of the Dean-
ery of Bedminster, July 29th, 1824.

Contents of Wood Eiujravlnc/s, see p^f/c 210.

CfRCULM-MG KBR^V :

OF THE

LETTER THE FIRST.

§1

The Archdeacon s attack — Explanation and defence of the
Catholic doctrine, on the worship of God and veneration
of the Saints — Latreia and Douleia — Doctrnne of the
Catechism — The iisar/es of the Catholic Religion compared
with those of civil life — The idolatry of the Pagans con-
trasted with the worship of Christians — Catholic and
Protestant excommunications.

Very Reverend Sir,

IT is some time ago since I heard, that in a charge to your
Clergy, you had made an attack upon the CathoUcs. This I
could readily believe, but I did not expect you would think
proper to publish ; nor was it till four days ago that your
printed charge accidentally fell into my hands. Great was my
surprise at reading this extraordinary production. In the eight
short pages which you devote to the subject of Catholicity, you
represent the religion of the Catholic world as a system of
gross idolatry, similar to and as incapable of being defended as
paganism itself. You assert it to be a tenet of the Catholic
religion, to which many Catholics, particularly clergy, adhere,
that faith may not be kept with persons of other religious per-
suasions. You insinuate that no dependance can be placed
upon the most solemn assurances of Catholic laymen, because
they are domineered over by their priests, and that these priests
are the " sworn and devoted servants of a foreign jurisdic-
tion," who cannot refuse to act upon the above infamous prin-

10 A Defence of the [Let. 1.

ciples, if the good of their church, which, you say, "is a con-
sideration paramount with them," require them to do it. In
short, you inform your clergy and readers, with great affecta-
tion of orthodox piety, and great assumption of superior light,
that the preservation of the souls of your flocks, the safety of
your persons, your liberties and even of the government itself,
require, that you declare a holy war against your Catholic
brethren : and, you remind your clergy, that their ordination
vow, as well as the above important considerations, impera-
tively oblige them to join you in this new crusade. In the
wonder of the moment I could not help saying to myself, " what
have the Catholics been doing to Dr. Moysey ?" The whole
country is at peace ; not even an election is preparing ; the
Catholic Bill is thrown out of parliament and we are doomed
to wear our chains a season longer. The Established Church,
happy in her triumph, celebrates our defeat with prayers, with
dinners, and with toasts, whilst we, "weeping, are turned
away." Why, then, has Dr. Moysey cruelly chosen the pre-
sent moment for making this severe and unprovoked attack ?
But why make these vain enquiries l The attack is made.
He hints to us that it is dictated by the Spirit of God, and the
Spirit, we all know, breathe th " where and when it pleases
Him."

Now, Sir, if some young man, not famed either for the ex-
tent of his learning, or the depth of his genius, but who, from
the nature of his situation, is compelled, in spite of nature, to
preach : if such a young man, anxious to interest his hearers
in the best way he could, should, without malice prepense, in
some great exigency of the moment, select for the subject of
his oratory, that never failing topic of interest to the old la-
dies and nursery-maids of England, the abu.se of the Catholic
religion ;* though, perhaps, his philippic was uttered beneath
the venerable vaults of some magnificent temple, erected by
the zeal, the piety and the wisdom of his Catholic forefathers ;
and though it was, perhaps, from the same source that all the
little share of significancy he posesses was originally derived ;
I could listen to such a man without any other feelings than
those of pity, or, at most, of contempt. As much wisdom
would not be expected from such a person, no one would at-
tach much consequence to what he might say, and therefore,
no great harm would result from his attacks. But when a man
of your consequence appears armed against the Catholic reli-

* " Hkc plaouit semcl, ha>c decies repetita placebit."

Sec. 1.] Christian Relif/ion. 11

gion ; when, not satisfied with incessantly cautioning your own
flock, from tlie pulpit, against the alarming dangers of popery,
you address a charge, containing a violent and unprovoked at-
tack against your Catholic brethren, to a respectable and
learned body of men, the clergy of the Establishment under
your jurisdiction ; and, when, not satisfied with addressing
such a charge to your reverend brethren, you give this charge
to the press for the instruction of the country at large ; under
such circumstances to suffer you to pass unnoticed would be
imprudent. How many persons, when they hear you accus-
ing the Catholics among whom they live, of sinning against
God by habitual idolatry, and against their neighbours by a
licensed breach of faith, will not turn back to the' title-page of
the pamphlet, and, seeing that it is written by Charles Abel
MoYSEY, D. D. Archdeacon of Bath, will not say " surely
then all this must be true i Surely a D. D. and an Archdea-
con would not slander and calumniate any one, particularly so
numerous and respectable a body of men as the Catholics of
this and all other countries. Still less can it be thought that
Dr. Moysey, of all men, that dignitary who is so desirous that
his reverend brethren should, ' display in themselves the beau-
ty of holiness ;' that ecclesiastical superior whom it is so difficult
a task even for his own clergy to satisfy ; that zealous pastor
who gives for the edification of his flock and the public at large,
so many productions of his genius and his piety ; surely, surely,
he is too learned not to know the truth of what he says ; too
elevated in station to expose his character to the imputation of
falsehood ; and too pious, even if he could slander with im-
punity, to do so." Such, Sir, must be the reasoning of many
well-meaning persons who will read your charge, and the con-
sequence will naturally be, that the next time they meet me,
or any of their Catholic acquaintance, they Avill think of the
odious and disgusting picture you have drawn of our religion
and its members, and applying it to ourselves, shun us with
suspicion, or fly from us with fear. It is, therefore, neces-
sary to stand forward in our own defence, and, however pain-
ful the task may be, repel the accusations you have made
against us, leaving your prudence, your zeal, and your piety
to provide for themselves as they can.

In the few remarks which I shall make upon your Charge,
I shall confine myself to refuting the false accusations you have
made against the Catholic religion. It is not my object to at-
tack the Established Church, or its ministers, for many of
whom I entertain a high regard, but to defend the religion T

12 A Defence of the [Lei. 1.

profess against the unprovoked attacks of Dr. Moysey. Should
he ever compel me to go farther, I shall regret the circum-
stance ; but confident of the goodness of my cause, and satis-
fied that I have nothhig to fear, either from the talents or the
learnhig of my opponent, I shall not expect to add any new
laurels to his brows, or aflbrd any new triumph to the cause he
espouses.

You open your attack in the followuig words. " I need
not detain you any longer, my reverend brethren, than in no-
ticing and giving humble and hearty thanks to the Giver of
all good, for the deliverance which the Protestant religion has
lately received, in the rejection of the proposal for admitting
those of the Roman Catholic persuasion to power in this
land. Far be it from me, far be it from any minister of the
most mild and tolerant church in Christendom, to wish that
unnecessary restraint should be imposed on our brethren. But
the preservation of the souls of those over whom the Holy
Ghost has made us overseers, requures, imperatively enjoins
us to drive away, as our ordination vow has^ bound us to do,
all erroneous and strange doctrines : and, if idolatry be not
such, where shall we find the doctrine which is strange to pure
religion?" You add in a note, "The nice distinction of
Douleia from Latreia, on which those of the Romish Church
defend their adoration of the Virgin Mary and the saints, is
too subtle for the simplicity of the word of God. God's own
second commandment forbids us altogether to worship or how
down in prayer to any other than himself; and forbids also, not
less explicitly, any representation of himself and the worship of
any such." You go on " The wiser among the heathens never
imagined that the image which they worshipped could help
them, but used it to awaken their devotion to him whom it
represented. Yet such was the origin of all idolatry. Can
the Church of Rome make any better plea for itself ?"

You really then would have it believed that Catholics are
idolaters, as stupid and as guilty as the Pagans themselves.
That is you would have it believed that an immense majority
of the Christian world is at this moment, and has for ages past
been living in a state of damnation. This is rather a harsh de-
cision to come from " a minister of the most mild and tolerant
church in Christendom !" And what reason do you assign for
this sweeping anathema, more severe and more damnatory by
far than all the anathemas put together that were ever pro-
nounced by the Catholic Church? It is briefly this: "The
nice distinction of Douleia from Latreia, on which those of

Sec. 1.] Clirisl'uui Reliyion. 13^

the Romish Church defend their adoration of the Virgin Mary
and the saints, is too subtle for the simplicit\ of the word of
God !" May I ask why you employ the word adoration to ex-
press the respect which Catholics pay to the saints I What
authority have you for asserting that Catholics adore the saints
at all in the proper and ordinary meaning- of the word ?* Your
mention of the words Doideia and Latreia is a proof that you
know that we do not profess to adore, that is to pay divine
honour to the Saints. But the " distinction between Doideia
from Latreia is too nice and subtle for the simplicity of the
word of God." I am surprised to hear you make this asser-
tion ; first, because I cannot discover any thing nice or subtle
in the distinction, and secondly, because the distinction, what-
ever its character, is just as necessary for the defence of the
Protestant as it is for that of the Catholic doctrine. Latreia
signifies an act of adoration, properly so called, by which we
acknowledge our absolute dependence on God, as our Creator
and Sovereign Lord. Doideia is any act by which we shew
respect to a creature, without acknowledging it for a God.
Thus, offering sacrifice, or bowing down, with an acknowledge-
ment implied or expressed that the Being to whom we exhibit
these acts is our Creator and Sovereign Lord, is Latreia, and,
if exhibited to any but the one true and living God, is an act
of idolatry. But if I bow my head to a man Avhom I respect
for his virtue, or take off" my hat when I enter a church, out
of respect to the sanctity of the place, but without any inten-
tion of adoring either the man or the church, these acts are
Doideia, and may be exhibited to creatures without the guilt
of idolatry, or any other guilt. Now, Sir, it does appear to
me that nothing can be more easy or simple than this distinc-
tion, or more clearly and completely justify the doctrine and
practice of the Catholic Church. We reserve Latreia for
God alone ; we pay Doideia, and merely Doideia, to any of
his creatures. In other words we adore God alone ; but with
regard to his creatures, Avhether they be the Virgin Mother of
Christ, or any of the saints ; or they be places or things con-
secrated to the service of God ; or they be pictures, statues,
or other representations of holy things, we acknowledge it
would be idolatry to consider them as gods, and honour them
as such ; and therefore, whether we bow to them, or kneel be-
fore them, or whatever other external act we employ to signify
our respect for these things, it is always with a perfect know-

* Adoration.— 1st. The external homage paid to the Divinity. — Hooker. 2.
Homage paid to persons in high rank or esteem. — Shakspearc. Johnsun's Dicliunary.

14 A Defence of Ihe [Let. 1.

ledge that they are not gods, and with a full determmatiou ol"
mind not to acknowledge or honour them as such. Now I ap-
peal to common sense, whether a man can be guilty of the
crime of idolatry without intending it ; nay, with a determina-
tion of mind on no account to commit it .'

But if the respect which we call Douleia is idolatry, then
the Protestants themselves are guilty of this crime. They are
guilty of it when they bow to the name of Jesus : they are
guilty of it when they kneel before the sacramental species :
they are guilty of it when, in the daily pastime of taking oaths,
they reverently kiss the book of the gospel : they were notori-
ously guilty of it on the day of the coronation, when the whole
Protestant hierarchy bowed their right reverend heads and even
bent their knees before an earthly monarch ; a ceremony which
it is thought Dr. Moysey himself would have had no objection
to perform: nay, they are still more guilty of it, when, in the
absence of the king, all the bishops and peers of the land bow
down, or as Dr. Moysey would express it, adore the empty
throne.

But you say " God's own commandment forbids us to
how down in prayer to any but himself." According to the
Protestant translation of the Bible, God's own commandment
forbids us to how down to any but himself, but it says nothing
of liowing down in j)rayer. The Catholic translation of this
passage forbids us to adore any but one God, which is cer-
tainly the true meaning of the original text, and which, had
the Protestant translators preserved, you would not have
needed to add the Avords '' in prayer' to " God's own com-
mandment." Your addition of these Avords is a proof that
you acknowledge merely to bow down, without some addition,
does not necessarily constitute an idolatrous act. But if an
addition to " God's own commandment" was necessary to ex-
plain its meaning, why not adopt the words which the most
ancient and approved versions of the scripture suggested to
you, and say " bow down in adoration" rather than " in
prayer r'* May I say what I cannot help thinking was your
reason I You had undertaken to prove that your Catholic
bi ethren were idolators, and you knew that adding the words
" in adoration' would not make them such ; but you hoped
that by slipping in the words " in jirayer,"" some of your
readers not noticing this addition to " God's own command-

* Septuagint — Ov ir^oax-vvYiijua aoi /x>! Xarpivt^na- «lto«7.
Vulgate — Non adorabis ca iieqiie colt-.';.

Sec. 1.] Cliristiaii Relicjion. 1.)

ment," or taking it upon your authority as a legitimate ex-
planation, might suppose that Catholics are idolaters, because
they pray for the mtercession of the saints, and bow to their
pictures or statues. But does even hawing down in prayer
necessarily imply an act of idolatry '. Should I be guilty of
idolatry if I bowed dowTi to the king and prayed for emanci-
pation from the persecution inflicted on me by the " most mild
and tolerant church in clu-istendom ;" or from the calumnies and
insults of some of its ministers I or is Dr. Moysey guilty of
idolatry when he bows and prays to any man, though not of
regal dignity, that will sign his name to an anti-catholic pe-
tition i It appears to me that neither you nor I can defend
the practices of our respective churches, nor our own without
the distinction of " Douleia from Latreia," which, therefore,
I trust is not either too nice or too subtle for the simplicity of
the word of God.

When I speak, however, of the necessity of distinguishing
Douleia frojn Latreia for elucidating our doctrines, I speak
of the meaning of these words, not of the words themselves.
God forbid that any one should imagine that we cannot ex-
plain our doctrines, without teaching the people Greek. I
have been in the habit for many years of teaching persons of
every age, condition and capacity, what is the Catholic doc-
trine on these subjects, and I have never found any difficulty
in making myself perfectly understood, without ever once
mentioning such formidable words as Latreia and Douleia.
Indeed, it strikes me that the common catechism, which in
England we teach to all Catholic children, contains a full ex-
planation and justification of our practices. As you do not
appear to have seen this, or any other authorized work on our
religion, I shall present you with the following extract, as
well as with a copy of the whole work when I send you this
letter.

Question. AYhat are we commanded by the first command-
ment I

Answer. To believe, hope in, love, and serve, one true and
living God, and no more.

Q. What is forbidden by this commandment i

A. To worship false gods or idols, or give any thing else
the honour which belongs to God.

Q. What else is forbidden by this commandment ?

A. All false religion ; all dealings with the devil, and en-
quiring after things to come, or other secret things, by fortune-
tellers, or superstitious practices.

IG A Defence of the [Let. 1.

Q. What else ?

A. All charms, spells, and heathenish observations of omens,
dreams, and such like fooleries.

Q. Does this commandment forbid the making- of images I

A. It forbids the making- of them so as to adore and serve
them ; that is, it forbids making- them our g-ods.

Q. Does this commandment forbid all honour and venera-
tion to the saints and angels ?

A. No : we are to honour them as God's special friends and
servants, but not with the honour which belongs to God.

Q. Is it allowable to honour relics, crucifixes, and holy
pictures ?

A. Yes ; with an inferior and relative honour, as they re-
late to Christ and his saints, and are memorials of them.

Q. May we then pray to relics or images ?

A. No; by no means; for they have no life nor sense to
hear or help us."

The same in substance are the decrees of the general Coun-
cil of Trent, of the catechism addressed by that Council to
the pastors of the Church in every part of tbe world, and of
every other approved explanation of the Catholic doctrine.*

Thus it appears that the Catholic Church teaches, as a pri-
mary article of her fiiith, that there is but one God, and that
he alone is to be honoured as such. She teaches that to ac-
knowledge as God, and honour as such, any creature, how-
ever exalted in dignity, would be the heinous crime of idolatry.
Therefore, should any person maintain that it is lawful to pay
such honour to the Virgin Mary, or any of the saints, much
more to their images and pictures, he would err against the
faith of the Church, and cease to be a Catholic. With regard
to the kind of honour which is paid to the saints, the Catholic
Church teaches us that it must be the same in quality as we
would pay to living persons of great virtue, or superior sta-
tion ; and that the veneration paid to statues or pictures of the
saints must be the same as is paid to the pictures or statues
of departed relations or friends. If, therefore, Protestants may
innocently honour the memory of a virtuous king, a successful
warrior, or a wise statesman ; if they may erect statues to their
memory, or celebrate the anniversary of their triumphs by
public rejoicings, ringing of bells, walking in procession, &c.

* See the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, Session 25, Catechismus
ad Parachos in primum Decalogi prasceptura, Bossuet's Exposition de la foi Gatb.
chap. 4. Roman Catholic principles in relation to God and the King. Section 3.
Nos. 12, 13, 14, &c. &c.

Sec. 1.] Christian Religion. 17

why may not Catholics honour the virtues, the triumpiis, and
the wisdom of the eminent servants of God in a sunilar man-
ner ? If a Protestant may bow his head at the sound of the
name of Jesus, why may not a Catholic bow his head, in like
"manner, at a representation on canvas or in marble of the same
Divine Being I The former is a representation to the ear,
the latter to the eye : and should a Protestant or a Catholic,
in either case, intend to perform an act of adoration, it would
not be the empty sound, or inanimate form, they woidd con-
sider themselves as adoring, but Jesus Christ, of whom that
sound or form reminded them.

But you say " the wiser among the heathens- never imagined
that the image which they worshipped could help them, but
used it to awaken their devotion to him whom it i-epresented.
Yet such was the origin of all idolatry. Can the Church of
Rome make any better plea for itself I "

I presume it cannot be necessary to inform Dr. Moysey,
that the term idolatry, which, according to its derivation,
means the worship of images, has also another meaning in our
language, viz. the worship of false gods, whether through the
medium of an image or otherwise. Now the difference be-
tween the ancient pagans and the christians in communion
with the Church of Rome, is simply this : The former com-
mitted idolatry both by paying divine homage to images, and
by paying it to false gods. The latter do neither one nor the
othei. No Catholic ever thinks of paying divine homage to
any image whatever ; and he believes it in the highest degree
criminal to adore any but the one only true and living God.
Jf therefore, any among the heathens, wiser than the rest,
neither worshipped images nor any false gods, which it is to be
hoped may have been the case, they were not idolaters. Does
Dr. Moysey require us to believe that all the heathens as well
as all Catholics are damned for idolatry '. This is a mild doc-
trine to which the Catholic Church will never subscribe.

You say that certain passages of scripture, Avhich you quote,
forbid the " intercession of the saints and other mediators be-
sides the Lord Jesus." Here again you add to the sacred
text, and would have your own additions pass for the word of
God. The passages you refer to teach us indeed that Christ
is our only Mediator of redemption, but they say nothino- of
the intercession of saints. If intercessors of every kind are
forbidden by scripture, then does the Archdeacon himself vio-
late the scripture, when, in the conclusion of his charo-e, he
so piously intercedes for his Reverend Brethren.

18 A Defence of the [Let. 1.

You seem horrified at the Catholic practiee of anathema-
tizing- hereticks, which you call " cursing those of your faith."
After your own wide- spreading- anathemas against the Chris-
tian and heathen world, I should have thought, you would not
have ventured to name the comparatively trifling anathemas of
the Catholic Church. But can you. Sir, really be so ignorant
of Catholic tenets and practices, as not to know that our ana-
themas against hereticks, however expressed, are never in-
tended to fall upon any person, whatever his faith, but such
as is culpabli) and obstinately in error? And, Sir, did it
never happen to you, in the course of your extensive theolo-
gical researches, to cast your eyes on the canons which stand
at the end of your own folio Common Prayer Book J If so,
I am persuaded that your mild and tolerating disposition must
have been greatly shocked ; for I am much mistaken if either
the bull in C«na Domini (which I think you have not read),
or all the bulls that ever roared from the Vatican, were half
so noisy or unsparing as your own canons, which not only
thunder out anathemas against the whole Cjitholic Avorld, but
are aimed with cruel and unnatural severity at all the dis-
senting children of your OAvn church ; that is, at the great
mass of the population of Great Britain itself!

est injusta noverca.

Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 19

§2

Refutation of calumnies respecting breach of faith — Decisions
of foreign Universities — Of the British Parliament — The
oaths of Catholics — The blue books — What evils did the
Catholic religion entail in England^ — Penal laws — liberty
— toleration, and conclusion.

Your charg-es of breach of faith, &c. are expressed in the
following- words : " And even that odious sentence, that faith
is not to be kept with heretics, though I fully admit that it is
disclaimed and abhorred by most of the laity and many of the
priesthood, in that communion, yet will they not repeal it by
authority, but even yet it stands as a decree of authority in
the words of Innocent III." You add, " and so long as in-
fallibility in doctrine be asserted as an attribute of the Pope,
I do not see how they can repeal it, nor how they can refuse
to act upon it, if the good of their church, Avhich is a consider-
ation paramount with them, shall ever be declared by such in-
fallible authority to require it." These, Sir, are indeed most
serious charges : and I readily agree with you, not only that
it would be just to exclude persons holding such doctrines from
power in the state, but that it would be proper to expel them
from the country, as beings unworthy of the blessings of civil
society, and to expose them as monsters to the general execra-
tion of mankind. But if these charges are not true, is it the
part of a Christian to make them against his " christian bre-
thren V Does it become a minister of a relio-ion which teaches
" peace and good- will to men" to become the propagator of
slanders tending to destroy the peace of society, aud separate
man from his fellow-man I Is it consistent with the chai-acter
of a dignitary of the " most mild and tolerant church in
Christendom," falsely to accuse a large portion of his fellow
subjects of holding principles which would justify the severest
persecution I Now, I assert, most positively, that the odious
charges made against the Catholic religion, in the above pas-
sage, are notoriously contrary to truth. It is untrue that
it is, or ever was, the doctrine of the Catholic church, that
" faith might not be kept with heretics." It is untrue that the
Catholic church ever refused to repeal (he decree which esta-
blishes this doctrine, for no such decree ever existed. It is
untrue that this doctrine "stands as a decree of authority in
the words of Innocent the third," and if it did, you ought, as

20 A Defence of the [Let. I.

a divine, to know, that it could not, consistently with the doc-
trines of the Catholic church, lawfully be received or obeyed.
It is untrue, that infallibility in the Pope is an article of Ca-
tholic doctrine; and it is worse than untrue that "either the
good of the church, or the commands of the Pope, or any
other consideration whatever, could, by the doctrines of the
Catholic church, justify any Catholic in the slightest deviation
from moral, religious, or civil duty.* Having thus pleaded
not guilty to your indictment, I might justly call on you for
your evidence, and if you could not substantiate your charges,
claim my acquittal, and denounce you, as a man in such cases
usually is denounced. But, as you would, perhaps, not con-
descend to prove your accusations ; and, as many well mean-
ing persons may be in the habit of considering your assertions
as so many certain, if not infallible truths, I shall submit, for
their instruction, the following proofs in our favour.

In the year 1788, when the English Catholics were treating
with Mr. Pitt respecting a repeal of the penal laws, this minis-
ter, aware of the charges usually brought against the Catholics
in this country, and wishing to have it in his poAver success-
fully to repel them, requested to be furnished with authentic
evidence of the doctrine maintained on certain points, by the
Catholic clergy and universities abroad. Three questions
were accordingly framed and sent, at the same time, to the
universities of Paris, Louvain, Alcala, Douay, Salamanca,
and Valladolid, for their opinions. The third of these ques-
tions and the answer to it from each of the universities was as
follows :

Third Query.

" Is there any principle in the tenets of the Cath€|lic faith,,
by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with here-
tics, or other persons differing from them m religious opinions,
in any transactions either of a public or private nature .'"

University of Louvain.

" Proceeding to the third question, the said faculty of divi-
nity (in perfect wonder that such a question should be pro-
posed to her) most positively and unequivocally answers, that
there is not, and that there never has been, among CathoUcs,

* See tlie principles of Catholics with relation to God and the king, the Catholic
path of allegiance, or any authorized Catholic course of divinity in existence.

Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 21

or iu the doctriues of the Church of Rome, any law or princi-
ple, which makes it lawful for Catholics to break their faith
with heretics, or others of a different persuasion from them-
selves, in matters of religion, either in public or in private
concerns.

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 promises is the same, and is neither shaken nor dimi-
nished, if those with whom the eugas^ement is made hold erro-
neous opinions in matters of religion.

The said faculty strongly protests against the imputation,
that the Catholic church has, at any time, held a contrary doc-
trine. This, she asserts^ is a calumny invented and endea-
voured to be forced upon Catholics by the worst of men : who,
knowing their charges against Catholics were destitute of truth,
determined to make falsehood supply its place, and thereby
render the Catholics odious to princes and nations."

Given at Louvain, in an assembly extrordinary, this
W>th of November, 1788.

Here follow the seal and signatures.

University of Douay.

" 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 who differ from
them in religious opinion. On the contrary, it is the unani-
mous doctrine of Catholics, that the respect due to the name
of God, so called to witness, requires that the oath be inviola-
bly kept, to whomsoever it is pledged, whether Catholic,
Heretic, or Infidel," &c.

Signed and sealed in due form, January 12, 1789.

University of Paris,

" 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 Avhich those who have defended the
Catholic faith against Protestants, have complained more
heavily, than the malice and calumny of their adversaries, in
imputing this tenet to them," &c.

University of Alcala.

" So persuaded is the university, that a doctrine which
would exempt Catholics from the obligation of keeping faith

22 A Defence of the [Let. 1.

with heretics, or any other persons who may dissent from them
in matters of religion, instead of being- an article of the Catho-
lic faith, is entirely repugnant to its tenets, that she could not
have believed it possible there should exist any person who
would dare to impute to Catholics any thing so iniquitous, had
she not learnt from the things that are written in the sacred
Scriptures for our instruction, that the same pharisees who
had heard our Lord openly deliver this injunction, " Render
to Caesar the things that are Caesars," afterwards laid this
crime to his charge, " We have found this man perverting
our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar." But
the devil who had put this into their hearts and moved their
tongues to the uttering of such falsehoods, as could induce the
Jewish multitude, who considered Christ as a prophet, to cry
in a loud voice, " Crucify him. Crucify him," has never since
desisted from perverting others in like manner.

These are the unanimous decisions of this University, after a
mature deliheration, in a full assembly of the Doctors, the
17th day of March, in the year of our Lord, 1789.

Signed and sealed iu due form.

University of Valladolid.

" Among the articles of the Catholic faith, there is none
which teaches that Catholics may lawfully break their faith
with heretics, or any persons whatever who dissent from them
in matters of religion. The obligation of keeping faith is
grounded on the natural law which binds all men equally, with-
out regard to their religious opinions ; and with respect to Ca-
tholics, it has still greater force, being confirmed by the pre-
cepts of the Catholic religion."

This is the decision of the University of Valladolid, signed
by all and each of the jyrofessors, on the 17th day of Feb.
in the year of our Lord, 1789.

Signed and sealed in due form.

University of Salamanca.

** So far are we from admitting as an article of our religious
creed, any tenet which authorizes breach of faith to persons of
a different persuasion, that we know that we are frequently
admonished by St. Paul, as much as it is possible, to have
peace and charity with all men. The natural rights of men

Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 2§

were not intended to be abridged by tlie law and doctrine of
Christ, but to be confirmed and illustrated. Now nothing- is
more clearly engraven on the minds of men, by the law of
nature, than this principle, that, all men, however discordant
their religious tenets, are to every intent and purpose, in a
state of equality with respect to negotiations, alliances, and
compacts, &c.

Signed in the name of the ivhole University, hy the Rector
and the six deputed Members. 1789.

The above documents were laid before both houses of par-
liament, and were instrumental in procuring for the Catholics
the relief obtained in 1791. They have been referred to in
almost every succeeding discussion on the Catholic claims, and
the most violent of our opponents have expressed themselves
satisfied with them. " I have heard allusions made this night,"
said Lord Liverpool, in the debate of 1810, " to doctrines
which I do hope no man now believes the Catholics to enter-
tain ; nor is there any ground for an opinion that the question
is opposed under any such pretence."

In the discussion of the present year, when the most deter-
mined efforts were made in both houses to oppose our claims, I
do not recollect that even any of our Right Reverend opponents
thought proper to bring forward this antiquated charge, which,
had it been founded on truth, would have been decisive of the
question. Dr. Moysey will, perhaps, have the honor of being-
the last man in the kingdom to surrender the dear and cherished
slander.

The odious doctrine in question, had before been solemnly
abjured by the Catholics of this country, in the oath of alle-
giance prepared for them by the act of 1788. " I do swear that
I do reject and detest that unchristian and impious principle,
that no faith is to be kept with heretics :" and the same solemn
abjuration continues to this day to be made by all the Catholics
of the empire, whenever required, with the express consent of
all the bishops, and the approbation of the Pope.

The above mentioned decisions of the foreign universities
have been published to the world in the parliamentary debates
of the period, and subsequently in a great variety of forms.
Amongst the rest they were published about a year ago in one
of the Bath papers. The oath is in the hands of almost every
magistrate, and, I should suppose, of almost every clergyman
in the kingdom. It is, therefore, hard to conceive how they

24 A Defence of the [Let. I .

can have escaped the deep researches of Dr. Moysey. But,
if he had not felt satisfied with such authorities, ought he not
to have made some farther search into the truth, before he ac-
cused his Catholic brethren of holding- one of the most odious
and mischievous tenets that can be held t Might he not, for
instance, have asked some of the many Catholic children at
their charity schools in this city, if such were the doctrines
taught them, and seen the astonishment they would have ex-
pressed at his credulity ? His neglect to take such precautions,
certainly entitles him to the full extent of the compliments
paid by the foreign universities to the holders and retailers of
such unwarrantable unputatious.

" His saltern accumulem donis et fungar inani

Munere "

But, I must not forget the important discovery which you
have made in " a book, now become extremely scarce, with
the perusal of which you have been favored by a friend. It is
commonly known to the Roman Catholics," you say, " by the
name of the blue book, and this blue book," you add, " con-
tains an account of endeavours that were mSde by the Roman
Catholics of England, in a body, in the year 1789, to conci-
liate and concede some of the most dangerous tenets of their
persuasion." Here again I am really sorry to disturb the
pleasure which this important discovery of the blue book seems
to give you. In the first place then, I must inform you that
there is not any particular book called by Roman Catholics
the bine book: but a series of pamphlets which happened to be
stitched up in blue covers, Avere by some persons called the
blue books. The reason of these blue books having become
extremely scarce, is no other than that which will make Dr.
Moysey's charge, or this pamphlet, extremely scarce thirty
years hence, namely, because no body will, in all probability,
think it worth his wliile to reprint them. These blue books do
not contain an account of endeavours of the Roman Catholics
of England to concede any part of their religious tenets ; for
no such endeavours were ever made ; but they give some
account of a public disavowal that was made by the Catholics
of England, clergy as well as laity, of certain odious and in-
famous doctrines, such as, that faith was not to be kept with
heretics, which the archdeacons and archfabricators of those
and former times, had falsely and calumniously laid to their
charge. They also treat of a dispute which took place amongst
the Catholics themselves, not about the doctrines which were
to be disavowed, but about the wording of an oath in which

Sec. 2.] Christian Rdiyion. 25

this disavowal was proposed to be made. With great inge-
nuity, you attempt to deduce that the words of Catholic lay-
men are not to be trusted, because they are tyrannized over by
their priests; " with such an instance," you say, "of the abso-
lute supremacy of their priests, of what value are the assur-
ances of laymen!" I Avill not retort your reasoning upon the
laymen of your own communion, but, I must assure you,
that if I, or any other Catholic priest, or even bishop, were to
attempt such an exercise of authority over our flocks or infe-
riors, as it is said, truly or untruly, that the Archdeacon of
Bath does exercise over his, I do not think we should be quite
so successful in our attempt. Of this I am quite sure, that if
any Catholic archdeacon should venture to deliver such a spe-
cimen of theology, canon law, and logic, to an assembly of
Catholic clergymen, as your clergy have requested you to
publish, he would, ere this, have been denounced to his bishop
or the Pope, and a public retraction, if not dismissal to college
to go through another course of these studies, would be the
inevitable consequence.

The following- animated appeal must not pass unnoticed.
" Who," you exclaim, " does not know the evils that arose
from the prevalence of that persuasion (the Catholic religion)
in old time I They are what no man can deny." This, Sir, is
a bold and powerful figure of rhetoric. A man who was less
an orator, and had rather less assurance than Dr. Moysey,
would have asked his hearers if they were aware that the
Catholic religion had been attended with great evils to the
country in former times ; and, if he had found them ignorant,
would have pointed out the evils to which he alluded. But it
is much more eloquent and expressive, as well as much easier,
to ask, as Dr. Moysey asks, " Who does not know?" and then
to answer, that every body does know. I will venture, how-
ever, even at the risk of being thought very ignorant, to ask
what those evils were which the Catholic religion formerly
brought on this kingdom I Not having had the advantage of
studying theology in an English university, where this subject
appears to be so particularly attended to, nor having ever had
the happiness of attending Dr. Moysey's pastoral instructions,
which I have been told gives the fullest information on the
errors, dangers, and evils of Catholicity, I may, I hope, be
excused for making this question. In fact, I have always
been taught to believe that the Catholic religion, which was
the only Christianity in these kingdoms for about a thousand
years before Henry the Eighth began his reform, had really

26 A Defence of the [Let. 1.

been a blessing to the country. It grieves me to think that
none of my unfortunate ancestors were blessed with a true
religion before the end of the fifteenth century. It is still
more afflicting to think that the religion of my country, pre-
viously to that happy era, was not only vmattended with
benefit, but was productive of evils to the land. ,But what
were the evils which the Catholic religion entailed on these
kingdoms I Were they of a temporal or spiritual nature I Did
it render our warriors less brave or less successful at the battles
of Cressy, Poictiers, or Agincourt ? Did it prevent the barons
of England from wresting our liberties from the hands of a
tyrant, and transmitting them, as a precious inheritance, to an
ungrateful posterity? Were the people of England less re-
spected abroad or less happy at home because they were Ca-
tholics I Was the country divided, as at present, into an end-
less variety of jarring sects, condemning and often hating each
other on account of religion, which ought to bind hearts to-
gether in unity and brotherly love J Did the established religion
of those days comprise only about one-fourth of the whole po-
pulation of the empire, whilst the clergy of that establishment
were paid for instructing and assisting all I Were the riches
which the Catholic clergy anciently possessed, and which their
successors, not finding any idolatry in them, have wisely re-
tained, less usefully employed in relieving the country from
the burden of poor-rates, than they are at present in providing
for the wives and families of modern churchmen? Or were the
spiritual wants of the people less zealously and effectually sup-
plied by the Catholic clergy, because, owing to their ignorance
of the true meaning of St. Paul, they could not carry about
with them a " sister, a wife,^' as a helpmate?* Was the priest
of the old religion less ready to rise from his solitary bed, to
carry the consolations of religion to the dying, or less fearless
in exposing his life for the same purpose to the infection of
contagious disorders? Was less zeal displayed in the erection
and ornamenting of churches to accommodate the wants of the
people, or were the doors of these sacred edifices less fre-
quently open to receive the fervent adorer, the penitent sinner,
or the broken-hearted child of affliction ? Or did, perhaps, a
greater number of old ladies catch their deaths of cold by en-
countering the chills and damps of a comfortless old church,
the air of which is never breathed but one day in the week ?

* uOiX^riv yvvocvMita,, — I Cor. c. 9.
Catholic translation, " Have we not power to lead about a woman, a sister?''
Protestant translation, " Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife ?"

Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 27

Were the bishops less celebrated for then- theological decisions
iti parliament,* or the whole body of the clergy less respected
or beloved I In line, were the morals of the people in general
at a lower ebb, than they have been since the charge of pro-
moting them has been committed to other hands I

" But some say," you add, " that the religion of the Romish
Church is changed. What proof can be shewn that such is
the case I For the proof lies on them." Indeed, Sir, we are
not at all anxious to prove that our religion is changed. Im-
mutability in the doctrines of faith and morality, we consider
as the inseperable character of truth, and therefore we should
feel little obliged to any man, who should prove to us that,
like other modern religions, ours had also changed. But we
have no objection that the moral conduct of our people should
always continue to change for the better, and we do not think
that the Catholics, either of this or other countries, have be-
nefited less by the improving state of learning and civilization
than their reformed brethren.

You conclude your philippic with a stretch of good nature,
which must, I am sure, have delighted and edified both your
hearers and your readers. You say, " I trust, however, that
nothing which I have noAV said will be considered as hostile, in
the slightest degree, to the liberties or persons of the indivi-
duals of that communion. Individual excellence in moral
conduct may be found, without doubt, in very many instances,
and in all persuasions; and it were an unjustifiable and an
unchristian thing unnecessarily to abridge the liberty of action,
and still more of conscience, in any of our brethren. But
power, not liberty, is the thing which they seek to acquire : for
liberty they have in the exemption from all pains and penalties,
which once were, I think unduly, inflicted on account of their
religious tenets," Many, very many thanks, mild and tolerant
Sir, for your great kindness. Though we are idolators then
and faith-breakers, and men upon whose words no confidence
can be placed, you would kindly •' leave our persons at liberty,
nor would you unnecessarily abridge our liberty of action.
That is to say, you would no longer compel us, under fine and
imprisonment, to leave the religion of our ancestors and go to
Walcot Church : you would no longer draw, hang, and quarter
us, as traitors, for saying our prayers in our own way ; you
would no longer punish a Catholic parent for educating his own
child, nor disinherit the child for having been so educated. You

* See some late Episcopal decisions on matrimonial contracts and the impeccabi-
lily of Che king.

28 A Defence of the [Let. i.

would allow the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Shrew.sbury, or
any other Catholic peer to ride a horse, value more than five
pounds, and to go more than five miles from home.* You
thhik that even formerly these and many other severe pains
and penalties were unduly inflicted upon us, on account of
our religious tenets. This is again very kind, very mild and
very tolerant. But alas! is it to be supposed, that we shall
meet with the same indulgence from others, who may not have
advanced so far in the march of liberality as Dr. Moysey ?
May not some enthusiast of these days, emulating the zeal of
the early fathers of the reformation, reason diiferently on the
premises you have laid down, and act very differently on the
conclusions he shall draw I May not some modern Knox deem
it a godly work " to exterminate all idolators from the land,"
(whom Dr. Moysey has proved to be such)? Or may not
another Lord George Gordon, on similar pretexts, again burn
our houses and our churches about our ears? Much then as we
value your kind indulgence to our imputed errors, we should
be much more gratified, if you could make one stretch of libe-
rality fartlier, and not accuse us of errors whicli we do not hold,
nor of crimes of which we are not guilty.

There is one thing in your reasoning on this subject, which
particularly surprises me. You say we enjoy perfect liberty,
and ought to be quite satisfied, though we are debarred from
almost all public offices ol" trust, honour, or emolument, which
things you denominate power. There must be " some nice
distinction" in your own mind on which you ground your con-
clusions, too subtle for ordinary intellects, which the more sur-
prises me, as you expressed a difficulty in understanding the
distinction between Douleia and Latreia, that is between mov-
ing my hat to my neighbour and offering sacrifice to God. To
me it seems quite clear that if I cannot sit in Parliament
because I am a Catholic, nor even vote for a substitute at an
election, my liberties are not quite unabridged, and that these
restraints and prohibitions are really penalties to me. Would
not Dr. Moysey think his liberties and rights abridged, should
an act of parliament pass forbidding any man to be archdeacon
or a bishop, who would not swear that it was idolatry to wear
a clerical hat or a surplice, or that it is superstitious to believe
that the Church of England is " the most mild and tolerant
church in Christendom." If Dr. Moysey felt in his conscience
that he could not take such oaths, would he not think it a

* See the statement of the penal laws against Papists and popish recusants.
Paassiui.

Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 29

severe penalty to be shut out on that account from the honour-
able objects of his ambition.*

To conclude, in the charge before me you have made a vio-
lent and unprovoked attack on the religion and characters of
your Catholic fellow subjects. In doing this, ignorance, or
something worse, has betrayed you into many false statements
respecting our religion, and into some unwarrantable accusa-
tions against ourselves. Nor is this the first time you have
distinguished yourself by the violence of your conduct against
us. You have long been observed to press forward amongst
the foremost of those, who in their love for liberty and zeal
for pure religion, collect together chairmen, if not chairwomen,
to petition against the liberties of their fellow subjects, and
their christian brethren. What your real motives for such a
conduct may be, heaven knows. I will not put upon it the
construction which many of your own persuasion do put, and
which appearances might perhaps justify ; but neither can I
bring myself to believe that it is altogether that pure zeal for
religion, that anxiety for the souls of your flock, that extreme
** love of the beauty of holiness," in short that deep and sin-
cere conviction of the " great and vital importance" of your
exertions, that stimulate your ardent hostility. But whatever
may be your real motives, I am surprized that one fact, with
which you profess yourself acquainted, does not operate dif-
ferently on your mind. You say, " while Protestant dissent
is regarded as dangerous, as it too certainly is, to that which
we esteem the best form of Christianity, let us not forget that
the faith of the Romish Church is pregnant with far greater
dangers. That church is not like the others, an irregular
though a large force : threatening every where, but acting with
united energy on no one point : it has the principle of strength,
which is concentration in itself, and that to a very high degree :
and were its hands once untied in this kingdom, to get power
within its grasp, we might expect to be convinced of it, though
too late, ^o our cost."

As far as regards the numbers, the power, and concentration
of the Catholic body in the united kingdom, I trust you are
not mistaken. We are indeed a great and powerful body in
the state, comprising, at least, one fourth, perhaps one third
of the population, and daily increasing in numbers and in

* A Catholic cannot even be an excise otlicer unless he will swear that " he
does believe that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saints,
and the sacrifice of the mass, as they are now used in the church of Rome are sa-
perstitious and idolatrous .'" Declaration against Popery.

•30 A Defence of the [Let. 1.

streng^tii. But, it is not from the Catholics that the Established
Church has cause of apprehension. Whilst there is a consti-
tution to support, the Catholics, who founded it, will be among-st
the first and mast zealous to support it, and as such will be the
truest friends to the Established Church, which is founded
on the constitution. The real dangers which threaten you are
of a far different description. The enormous accumulation of
our national debt ; the gradual diminution of our internal and
external resources ; the increasing distress and consequent
disaffection of the lower classes to the government ; the conti-
nued increase of what you, by some ingenious distinction, de-
nominate sectaries, an appalling fact which you admit ; and
the determined and settled hostility of every class of the latter
to the Established Church ; these. Sir, are the dangers you
have to fear. Heaven grant you may not see the day, when,
struggling amidst the ruins of a falling state, and opposed by
a force much stronger than your own, you may be too glad of
the aid which the Catholic body might then afibrd you. You
would be anxious, no doubt, in those moments " to untie our
hands," and if duty to our country required it, I have no
doubt we should have principle enough to give you our best
assistance. But the hands that have been long shackled may
be cramped, and the hearts that should move them may not
feel that enthusiasm of gratitude which might be wanted to
give success in such a contest, and which they would have felt
had liberty been granted under other circumstances. He is a
good slave who will do his best, when set free, only to encoun-
ter danger for a hard master, but he is a miraculous slave who
will feel and fight in those moments as if his master had been
kind. Should a trial like this ever take place, and will any
one say it is improbable, the Church of England may have few
rewards to bestow, and as little inclination to bestow them on
the preachers of charges, the printers of pamphlets, and the
collectors of signatures, against the religion, the characters,
and the liberties of Catholics.

I shall only add, that, if I have said any thing in the fore-
going pages that may sound harsh or severe I am sorry for it.
But it is not for you to complain. Remember that you have
been the aggressor; and that i^ you deem it necessary for " the
preservation of the souls of those whom the Holy Ghest has
committed to your care," to prefer false and cruel accusations
against your Catholic brethren, it is equally necessary, that J,
to whose care a portion of the latter is committed by as high
an authority, should stand forward in their defence, and hurl

Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 81

back the charges at him who makes tliem. I have no feelings
of enmity against you, and, had you confined yourself to the
quiet duties of your station, I should have been the last person
to interrupt or molest you. But, M'hen you descend from the
peaceful office of the christian pastor, to become the propa-
gator of mis-statements, and the sower of suspicions, jealou-
sies, and aversions, among those who would be friends, I think
it right to express publicly my disapprobation of your conduct,
and to use my best endeavours to counteract its effects.

I remain.

Sir, &c.

Bath, August 9, 1821. P. BAINES.

" When I unite myself to the general society, the grand
community of Christians, the most ancient, the most numerous
body, that to ichich ovr ancestors helonged, which is spread
over the ivhole glohe ; which, whatever its enemies may say, has
ever remained one and the same ; ichich has sprnng from no
others, hut from ichich all others have gone out, am I to be
considered as guilty of an impardonable crime ? To be a Ca-
tholic, my beloved Friends, is not to be superstitious : it is
simply to be a Christian, a member of the society of the faith-
ful, united under the same head, p)rofessing the same fcnth,
and following the same worship throughout the world: that
society, which, wherever you roam, gives you to meet friends,
and brothers, proffers to you every ichere the same creed,
the same ride of life, the same charitable helps in all your
wants and troubles."

Letter of M. Charles Louis De Haller, Member of the
Supreme Council of Berne, to his Family, to apprize them of
his Conversion to the Catholic Church, 1821,

32 A Defence of t/ie . [Sec. 3.

§3.

Remarlcs on First Letter.

TO TMIE BATH FUIBILIC^

AND

'STo tjc l^eaKcr in General.

" Men loved darkness rathei- than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth tlie light, neither cometii to the light,
lest his deeds should be reproved." — John iii. 19, 20.

It will be recollected by many, that in iiine last Dr. Moy-
sey, Archdeacon of Bath, preached, printed, and published a
Charge, in which, without any provocation given or cause as-
signed, he asserted that Catholics are idolaters, and that their
religion allows them to break faith with heretics. He, at the
same time, very consistently returned " humble and hearty
thanks to the Giver of all good," that the government had not
yet " untied the hands" of such a wicked and dangerous body
of men. As a pastor of the Catholics of Bath, I conceived
myself called upon to protest against the injustice done to my
flock and myself; and this I did shortly after in a Letter to
the Archdeacon, It required no great skill to repel an attack
so rash and unguarded, and I believe it was generally felt,
that the assailant had met with the fate he merited. The Arch-
deacon was put upon his defence, and a reply was loudly called
for by his friends. Some months however passed, and nothing
was heard from Dr. Moysey, when, after various advertise-
ments, an anonymous pamphlet of sixteen pages, entitled
" Catholicism sifted,'' and containing much more abuse against
the Catholic religion, made its appearance. It disappointed
all parties, particularly those whose cause it espoused, who
continued to cry out more loudly than ever for a defence of
the Archdeacon's Charge. After another delay of some months,
a second publication was announced, entitled, " A Letter to
the Rev. P. Baines, in reply to one lately addressed hy him

Sec. 1.] Christian Religion. 33

to the Rev. Dr. Mot/sey, Archdeacon of Bath.'' The writer
stated, that " it was not his inteution to have obtruded his
sentiments upon the public, but as no adequate reply had yet
been made to the Rev. P. Baines's Letter to the Archdeacon
of Bath, he hoped he might be excused, though late, to answer
the statements made in that letter, which mujht otherivise be
deemed unanswerable." This work also was anonymous ; and
one reason which the writer assigned for its being so was, be-
cause it subjected him to less reserve : in other words, because
it allowed him greater liberty of misrepresentation and abuse.
" As I have thought proper," says he, " to send you a letter
without a name, so I have taken the liberty to deliver my sen-
timents without reserve." ' This letter was signed Vindex.

Vindex not only renewed the Archdeacon's charge of idol-
atri/ against the Catholics of the present day, bnt extended it
to the Christian Church in general, during the last thirteen cen-
turies, and moreover endeavoured to prove, that the doctrine
of the Established Church required him to do so. He also
repeated, in still stronger terms, the accusation of breach of
faith, asserting, and endeavouring to prove, that consistently
with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, " it is lawful to vio-
late the most solemn engagements when made with heretics."

To me it appeared evident, from the variety of style ob-
servable in different parts of this pamphlet, that it was written
by more hands than one ; and such appears to be the common
opinion. The materials of which it was composed being either
inaccessible to the generality of readers, or in languages which
they could not understand, were calculated to impress the unin-
formed with an idea of deep research, and lead them to conclude
that there must be demonstration, though not evident to their
minds. There is a pride in man which will often induce liim
to acknowledge the force of an argument, rather than confess
that he does not understand it. In this manner was the pam-
phlet calculated, and I rather suppose, intended to operate.
It was probably also thought, that the multitude of unsup-
ported assertions which it contained, as well as the crowds of
quotations from books difficult of access, would render it im-
possible to reply to it in any reasonable compass, and would
probably deter any one from making the attempt. Had the
task, however, been more difficult, it would have been under-
taken ; for I deem it a duty which I owe to my flock, and to
religion in general, not to suffer a publication, calculated to
injure both, to pass unnoticed. I regret that I have not been
able to compress my work into a smaller form, but when it is

34 A Defence of the [Xef. 1.

recollected, that more assertions may be advanced by a daring
writer in one page, tlian can be answered by another in twenty,
no one wall wonder that I have been obliged to run into con-
siderable length.

I could indeed have given an answer that would have ex-
culpated the Catholic religion in a much smaller sj)ace ; but I
was anxious to convince the public, particularly the well in-
formed, to what unworthy arts the enemies of Catholics can
descend, and to what gross misrepresentations the adherents of
the ancient religion have been sacrificed, by certain men who
have become rich and great at their expence. I have inter-
woven into the present work, a review of the whole of Vin-
dex's letter, and I now submit my answer to the judgment of
the public. I shrink from no inquiry. I only request, should
this work be answered, that I may have the satisfaction of
knowing my antagonist. It is unfair that I should be exposed
to the arrows of enemies who lurk in darkness, and who can
receive no injury themselves, whatever unfair or unhandsome
means they employ against me. And surely an Archdeacon
of the Established Church, with such a host of learned and
zealous clergymen at his back, cannot find it necessary to em-
ploy any artifice against a single Catholic priest, who has nei-
ther power, wealth, nor title to support him.

I hope also, that the question will not be shifted, but that
the accusation of K/o/a#r_j/ and breach of faith will either be
fairly defended or candidly surrendered. Not that I shall de-
cline the contests on other points. If a respectable antagonist,
with a name, thinks it will answer the purpose of the Esta-
blished Church, to bring any other doctrine of our religion
into discussion, I shall not shrink from a contest in which / can
fear nothing. I have no inducement to espouse the Catholic
religion, but a conviction of its truth ? and every inducement
to abandon it, if its falsehood can be proved. But I will not
engage myself to stand any longer merely on the defensive. I
will, if I deem it necessary, carry the war into the enemy's
country ; and I shall fully expect in this case, to find as much
occupation for my assailants, as they have given to me.

I shall only add at present, that if, upon perusing this work,
it shall appear evident, that the Catholic religion has been
grievously misrepresented by a clergyman of high respecta-
bility, and by two anonymous writers, the public Avill be con-
vinced that not every thing which they hear, even from the pul-
pit, much less from the press, must be considered as gospel ; and
that when thev next meet with similar grievous accusations

Sec.'S.] Christian Religion. 35

ag-ainst the Catholics (and I am told there are other pulpits in
this city which love to make tliem), they will do us the justice
not to condemn us unheard, but either refuse their assent to
the charg-es, or make further inquiry from our books or our-
selves. This is a proceeding which common prudence dictates
to avoid the sin of rash judg-ment. I can only say, that I shall
always be ready to afford any assistance, to the candid in-
quirer, that is in my power. To the reader I recommend the
following works:* — The First, or Douay Catechism; The
Poor Man's Catechism ; The Catechism of the Council of
Trent : In controversy — The Grounds of the Old Religion ;
Gother's Sincere Christian's Guide in the Choice of Relig-ion ;
Fletcher's Catholic's Manual and Sermons ; Milner's Letters to
a Prebendary, and End of a Religious Controversy ; Lingard's
Tracts. In morality — The Imitation of Christ, by Thomas a
Kempis ; The Spiritual Combat ; The Introduction to a De-
vout Life, by St. Francis de Sales.

These books will give a much more correct knowledge of
the Catholic Religion than Archdeacons' Charges and anony-
mous Pamphlets.

• Sold by the publisher hereof.

BOSWELL — " What do yon think of the Idolatry of the Mass ?"

Johnson — " Sir, there is no idolatry. They believe God to be there, and adore
him."

BnswELL — " The Invocation of Saints ?"

Johnson — " They do not worship the Sainls ; they invoke them ; they only ask
their prayers."

BosiceU's Life of Johnson, vol. i. page 561. 2d edit,

" Is it possible that any man can be found bold enough to say of three-fourths of
the inhabitants of civilized Europe, that they are not to be believed upon their oath.
The existence of any such inaxim supposes gross ignorance and barbarism in the
people among whom it prevails. Every enlightened mind, every man who wishes
well to bis country, must treat it with scorn and indignation."

Speecli of Mr. Fox on the Catholic Petition, 1805.

36 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

LETTER THE SECOND.

§1-
Remarks on former Letter.

Very Reverend Sir,

IT was with great reluctance that I addressed
to you my former letter and it is with still greater that I
address this. The laborious duties of my profession leave me
little time for writing pamphlets, and if I had ever so much
leisure, religious controversy is not the subject on which I should
wish to employ it. To the public in general, no subject is more
uninteresting ; to a person in my situation none is more un-
propitious. Those persons who are indifter-ent about religion
(and the number of such is not small) look upon the disputes of
theologians as something very much beneath their notice ; the en-
/i^A^e/ierf part of the religious community think all contention
about the difference of creeds the effect of bigotry or narrow-
ness of mind and the great majority of those who in this coun-
try interest themselves about the differences of religious belief,
are strongly prejudiced against the system which it is my lot
to defend. In such a contest, therefore, I anticipate little
personal advantage and much personal loss. I expect to be
denominated a trifler by some, a bigot by others, and perhaps
by many a lover of dispute, while few will properly appreciate
either my labours or my motives. Of all this I was fully aware
before I addressed to you my first letter, and I was fully pre-
pared for any reflections which persons of different intellects or
different prejudices might think proper to cast upon me.

Oiie thing, however, has fallen to my lot which I did not
anticipate. I have been charged with having made upon Dr.
Moysey a personal attack, and of treating my adversary with
too great severity. Now, I distinctly stated in my former
letter, and the fact has not been denied, that it was Dr. Moy-
sey, not I, who made the attack, and that I acted merely on
the defensive, repelling some of the most violent, most mis-
chievous, and most odious charges that ever were preferred.
This attack of Dr. Moysey was directed against Catholics in
general, but might be expected to operate particularly against

Sec. 1.] Chris/ian Religion. 37

the Catholics of" Bath, who)a it stigmatized as idolaters, as
persons who are tyrannized over by their priests, and who thought
themselves at liberty, consistently with the tenets of their re-
ligion, to violate every engagement which they might enter
into with persons of other religious persuasions, that is, with
the generality of those with whom they have dealings. Nor
was this all. Throughout the whole of his dissertation, the
Archdeacon studiously endeavoured to throw a particular
odium on the Catholic Priesthood, as if he feared that some of
his readers might not conceive for ns that special abhorrence,
to which, as teachers of the above doctrines, we were by infe-
rence entitled.*^ As far as I was personally concerned, I could
have treated the imputations with the same dignified contempt
I am often obliged to feel for the circulators of religious tracts
and the anoaymous retailers of anti-Catholic slander. But I
could not suffer any man, however high or however low, to injure
with impunity a respectable, and, to my knowledge, virtuous
body of men, who were committed to my care and who had a
right to look to me for protection. I, therefore, undertook
their defence. In doing this, I endeavoured, as much as pos-
sible, to confine the substance of my reply to the person of my
agrressor, and to restrain myself, whenever I could do it, to
the argumentum ad hominem. I did not wish to give offence
to Protestants in general, among whom I am happy to have
many valued friends, both clergymen and laymen. I did not
consider it fair to repel the attack of an individual by turning
my arms against the whole body to which he happened to be-
long. I did not consider his fault as that of his religion. I
attributed it to his particular turn of mind, or to the particular
situation in which he was placed, Avhich under any system of
religious belief, would probably have led him to a similar con-
duct. In short, I did not consider Dr. Moysey as the autho-
rized champion of the Established Church. I rather considered
him a venturesome and thoughtless combatant, who, mistaking
prejudice for truth or promotion for skill, stepped forward from
his ranks to offer single combat, if not contrary to the orders,
at least without the sanction of his commanding officers. In-
deed, I cannot think that the head of his Church, our gracious
and beloved sovereign, would wish any of his clergy to annoy
and insult his Catholic subjects, at a time when he is endea-
vouring, with a condescension equally gracious, conciliatory,
and wise, to soothe their feelings and alleviate their sufferings.

* Dr. Moyseji's Charge passim.

38 A Defence of the [Let. 1-

I admit, therefore, that my letter was personal. It was in
answer to a personal attack. But I again repeat that it was
not an attack. I confined myself to the refutation or denial
of the false accusations advanced against my flock and myself.
Dr. Moysey had accused us of idolatry and breach of faith.
I stated, as a divine, the doctrines of our church, referring for
proof of the accuracy of my statement, to the catechisms we
teach, to the acknowledged decrees of our general councils, to
the recent decisions of our foreign universities, to the public
and repeated acquittal of the great council of the nation, and
to the solemn oaths approved by the Pope and taken by the
whole Catholic body in this kingdom. There is nothing either
in the substance or style of mj letter of which I can repent.
My statements were true, my language was not ungentleman-
like, and it could not, I conceive, be too severe. I am aware
that my letter was not written in the style in which the con-
troversial works of Catholics have, of late years, usually been
composed. It required some time for the Catholic body to
shake olf that timidity which a long period of savage persecu-
tion had made natural to them. The slave, inured to long
subjection and fear, retains vestiges of his servility even after
he is set free. From the reign of Elizabeth, till the early part
of his late Majesty's reign, the Catholics of tliis country were
a proscribed and degraded race, whose property, liberty, and
lives, constantly lay at the mercy of every enemy who might
chuse to enforce against them the rigour of the penal laws.
When a man is thankful that he is allowed to breathe, he will
think little of slander or abuse. Hence, in those times, if Ca-
tholicks dared to make any reply to the attacks which the fa-
voured race thought proper to make upon them, it was usually
with that diffidence and fear which a dependant uses towards a
tyrannical master who has in his hands the power of life and
death. Had tliis state of things continued till the present day,
I should probably have thought as little of being called an
idolater, or a perjurer, as Dr. Moysey thinks of calling me
such. But thanks to the mercy of a kind Providence, and the
humanity of a virtuous king, those days of grief and terror
have passed away, and though we still wear some badges of
our foriner slavery, though " our hands," as Dr. Moysey ex-
presses it, are not yet " untied,"^ Ave are at least allowed to
breathe the common atmosphere, we may speak with freedom,
and write if we can.f We moreover behold in the resistless

* Charge, page 18.

t I omit the word chains, as Vindex objects to it, and will einploj Dr. Moysey 's

Sec. 1.] Christian Religion. 39

change of public opinion in our favour, and in the spreading
antipathy of all parties to religious persecution, as well as in
the daily increase of our own strength and importance, con-
trasted with the daily defection from the ranks of our enemies,
how impossible it is that we can again be enslaved, and how
certain it is, in spite of every pang felt and every effort made
bv the patrons of intolerance, that we must, ere long, be per-
fectly free. Such are my feelings and convictions, and when
I write I must write accordingly. I can no more divest my-
self of the feelings of pity or contempt for the man who slanders
my religion, than I can of my conviction of its truth.

I say of pity or contempt : for many of those who slander
the Catholic religion in these days, ought to be pitied, not
despised. The unlettered field preacher, who mistakes the
cravings of hunger for the calls of heaven ; and the aged of
both sexes, whose minds were fashioned under a former sys-
tem, and are become too rigid to enlarge with the times, may
justly excite our commiseration, when they rave against the
errors of popery, or caution the rising generation against the
children of Anti-christ. But when a gentleman of academical
education, Avhen a theologian in the highest degree of the pro-
fession, when a dignitary of the Established Church of Eng-
land, puts on the rusty armour of antiquated bigotry, and
offers himself the leader to vulgar intolerance, a Catholic cler-
gyman may surely be excused if he feel indignant, and ex-
press in forcible language his dissatisfaction and regret. Against
Dr. Moysey personally, I again repeat it, I have no enmity.
There are many reasons which would make me respect him,
and wish to be on amicable terms with him. I venerate his
activity in the discharge of his pastoral duties ; I respect the
zeal he shows in defending the religion he professes. Religious
indifference is inconsistent with a conviction of religious truth,
and incompatible with charity, the leading virtue of the chris-
tian profession. I only regret, that for defending his own re-
ligion, or for any other motive, he should violate the sacred
virtue of truth, and grossly misrepresent the religion of his
neighbours. The man who will let himself down to injurious
misrepresentation, can have no right to complain of uncere-
monious treatment. This is my view of the subject ; this is
my excuse, if excuse be necessary, for any strong language I
may have used in my former letter, or may use in this.

On the present occasion I conceive I have additional cause

idea of handcuffs instead ; unless I should, hereafter, show cause why I prefer the
more classical figure of chains.

40 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

cause to complain. Had Dr. Moysey thoiig-ht himself able to
substantiate his charges and answer my letter, why did he not
do it openly, and in his own name i Or, if he thought the
work beneath his personal notice, why did he not request some
of the clergymen Avho heard his charge, who approved it and
requested him to publish it, to answer in his name, and under
his avowed sanction i Why does he employ the underhand
services of anonymous writers, who, having no reputation to
lose, can descend with impunity to the lowest personal abuse,
as well as to the most pitiful misrepresentations ? Or why, if
he does not actually hire the pens of these nameless auxiliaries,
does he not protest against their officious aid ( He must surely
be aware that the public opinion cannot help ascribing to him
the defence written in his favour, which he does not disavow,
and that he must be considered responsible for the injustices
committed by those who wage his warfare unheeded and un-
restrained. Such is my view of the case, and therefore I make
no apology for addressing to Dr. Moysey himself the answer
to his defenders ; and I wish it to be distinctly understood,
that I do not consider myself as entering into contest with the
anonymous writers above mentioned, who as such, and proba-
bly on other accounts, are beneath my notice, but with the
Archdeacon himself, whose rank and character entitle him to
the attention I shall pay to him.

Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 41

§2
Statement.

Dr. Moysey not required by his religion to make this attack.
— Doctrine of the thirty-nine articles and book of Ho-
milies. — Change of doctrine in the Church of England. —
Doctrine of the Catholic Church and of the Church of
England at the present day, on the subject of images, not
materially different. — Customs abroad often misunder-
stood by English Travellers.

One of these anonymous writers attempts to justify the
harshness of Dr. Moysey's charges, by ailed gmg-, that " the
language of the church to which he belongs (in the thirty-nine
Articles and the Book of Homilies, is not a whit more polite."*
But I have always understood, that the established clergy do not
conceive themselves bound to believe, much less to defend, all the
doctrine of the thirty-nine Articles ; nor had I till now the least
suspicion, that the ]3ook of Homilies constituted a part of their
creed. It is true that James the First, in his declaration pre-
fixed to the thirty-nine Articles, protested " that he would not
endure any varying or departing from them in the slightest
degree ; and that no man, hereafter, should either print or
preach to draw the article aside any way, but should submit to
it in the plain and full meaning thereof, and should not put his
own sense or comment to be the meaning of the article, but
should take it in the literal and grammatical sense." But even
if this royal bull, which appears to me to overthrow at once
that happy freedom of ophiion purchased at the Reformation,
by the separation of England from the great body of Chris-
tians, was ever submitted to at all, it only proves what was the
.doctrine of the Established Church in the days of King James,
not what it is now. In those days of primative fervour, when
the Church of England had lately passed the Red Sea, and
the breasts of her children still glowed with gratitude for their
deliverance from the slavery of Egypt, many things might be
believed and submitted to, which in cooler days were found al-
together incredible and inadmissible. Hence, an Archdeacon
of our own times, whose opuiion I believe ranks quite as liigh

* Letter to the Rev, P. Baines, bj Vindex, page 11.

42 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

as that of the Archdeacon of Bath, boldly controverts the royal
decision, and wonders how any one can suppose that they, who
subscribe to the thirty-nine Articles, can be expected to be-
lieve them. " They who contend," says Paley, " that nothing-
less can justify subscription to the thirty-nine Articles, than
the actual belief of every separate proposition contained in
them, must suppose that the legislature expected the consent
of ten thousand men, and that in perpetual succession, not to
one controverted proposition, but to many hundreds. It is
difficult to conceive how this could be expected, by any one
who observed the incurable diversity of human opinion, upon
all subjects short of demonstration." He decides, therefore,
that the intent of the legislature in requiring subscription to
the thirty-nine Articles, was only to exclude from offices in
the church. Papists, Anabaptists, Puritans, and other persons
dangerous to the establishment, and consequently, that any
man not comprehended in these descriptions, and believing
that he can lawfully subscribe the Article in this sense, may
do it.*

But supposing that the faith of Dr. Moysey did not require
the charitable relief which his very reverend brothers so kindly
offers him, and that he really believes the whole of the thirty-
nine Articles, or at least the damnatory and anti-catholic ones,
still there could surely be no necessity for his believing or
maintaining 7nore than these Articles teach. Now the article
referred to by Vindex merely characterizes " the Romish doc-
trine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshippmg and adora-
tion as Avell of images and reliques, and also invocation of
saints, as a fund thing vainly invented, and grounded upon
no ivarranty of scripture, hut rather repugnant to the ivord
of God ,•" io which condemnation of our doctrine, there is a cer-
tain diffidence and reserve. But Dr. Moysey and his friends
spurn the timid phraseology of the Articles, and adopt in pre-
ference that of the Homilies. Our doctrines with them are
plain idolatry, similar to that of the Pagans, who worshipped
Apollo, and to that of the Israelites, who worshipped tlie
golden calf.f

But though Dr. Moysey and his friend Vindex may deem
it laudable in a clergyman of the Established Church to adopt
the doctrine and the language of the Book of Homilies, I am
very sure that such is not the opinion of the established clergy
in general. I am very sure that the generality of them are

* Moral and T'oliticai Philosopl)y- cliap. 22.

t Charge, page 13. Letter to the Re\ . P. Baines, page 32.

Sec. 2.] Christian lieliyion. 43

much too liberal, as well as too delicate minded, to admit tLe
doctrines, or utter the language, of that flimsy, violent, and
scurrilous work. I doubt whether even Dr. Moysey or his
friends would not think the following description of the Ca-
tholic Church rather too highly coloured, and hesitate before
they complied with the royal injunction, in reading it to their
congregations. Reader, peruse the passage in silence, and
judge for thyself. " Now, concerning excessive decking of
images and idols, with painting, gilding, adorning with pre-
cious vestures, pearl, and stone, what is it else, but for the
further provocation and enticement to spiritual fornication ; to
deck spiritual harlots most costly and wantonlv ; which the
idolatrous church understandeth well enough. For she being,
indeed, not only an harlot (as the scripture calleth her), but
also a foul, filthy, old, withered harlot (for she is indeed of an-
cient years), and understanding her lack of natural and true
beauty, and great loathsomeness which of herself she hath,
doth, after the custom of such harlots, paint herself, and deck
and tire herself with gold, pearl, stone, and all kind of precious
jewels, that she, shining with the outward beauty and glory of
them, may please the foolish fantasy of fond lovers, and so
entice them to commit spiritual fornication with her ; Avho, if
they saw her (I will not say naked) but in simple apparel,
would abhor her as the foulest and filthiest harlot that ever was
seen ; according as appeareth by the description of the garnish-
ing of the great strumpet of all strumpets, the mother of
whoredom, set forth by St. John in his Revelation, who by
her glory provoked the princes of the earth to commit whore-
dom with her ; whereas, on the contrary part, the true church
of God, as a chaste matron, espoused, as the scripture teacheth,
to one husband, our Saviour Jesus Christ, whom alone she is
content to please and serve, anc looketh not to delight the
eyes or fantasies of any other strange lovers or vv^ooers, is con-
tent with her natural ornaments, not doubting, by such sincere
simplicity, best to please Him, who can well skill of the dif-
ference between a painted visage and true natural beauty."*

Yet this is the book of which Vindex says " the charge of
criminality for the use of such language, if it will lie, should
rather be brought against the church herself than the individual
members of it.'f Be it so. Still from my heart do I pity

• Third part of the Homily on the peril of Idolatry.

+ I really must apologize to the reader for quoting such a passage. It is not,
however, the worst of the kind, and I felt convinced that no one could possibly,
without an actual qootatiou, form a correct idea of the character of the book which

44 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

the man, who can utter the language of the Book of Homilies
without a blush, or submit to it as a book of authority without
a pang.

I say submit to it as a book of authority. For, on the sub-
ject of images, as well as on many others, the doctrine of the
Book of Homilies is as extravagant as its language is violent,
and utterly at variance with that of the Established Church at
the present day. That book condemns not only the worship of
images, but even the making or having them either in churches
or elsewhere, as things entirely repugnant to scripture, as
leading unavoidably to idolatry, and as deserving of death.

" Where they say that images, so they be not worshipped,
as things indifferent may be tolerated in temples and churches,
we infer and say for the adversative, that all images of God,
our Saviour Christ, and his Saints, publicly set up in churches
and temples, places peculiarly appointed to the true worship-
ing of God, be not things indifferent, nor tolerable, but against
God's law and commandment, taking their own interpretation
and exposition of it.

" First, for that all images, so set up publicly, have been
worshipped of the unlearned and simple sort, shortly after they
have been publicly so set up, and in conclusion, of the wise
and learned also."

" Secondly, for that they are worshipped in sundry places,
now in our time also."

" And thirdly, for that it is impossible that images of God,
Christ, or his Saints, can be suffered (especially in temples and
churches) any while or space, without worshipping of them ;
and that idolatry, which is most abominable before God, can-
not possibly be escaped and avoided, without the abolishing and
destruction of images and pictures in temples and churches, for
that idolatry is to images, specially in temples and churches,
an inseparable accident (as they term it), so that images in
churches and idolatry go always both together, and that, there-
fore, the one cannot be avoided except the other, specially in
all public places, be destroyed. Wherefore to make images,
and publicly to set them up in temples and churches, places
appointed peculiarly to the service of God, is to make images
to the use of religion, and not only against this precept,
' Thou shalt make no manner of image,' but against this
also, ' Thou shalt not how down to them, nor worship them.'

Vindex mentions with so much hnour, and which was certainly at one time a book
of authority in the Established Church, and still stands approved in the thirty -nine
articles.

Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 45

For theybeing set up, have beeu, be, and ever will be wor-
shipped."*

" Nevertheless, they that love such evil things, they that
trust in them, they that make them, they that favour them,
and they that honour them, are all worthy of death,"f and so
forth.

And here I may be allowed to remark, that I have often
wondered how Protestant controvertists can still continue to
use the language of the early Reformers, which so severely
condemns themselves. It would really appear as if, whilst
they copy one after another the accusations of former times,
they forgot to notice, that in the meanwhile their own Church
had actually come round again to the very doctrines they are
condemning. This appears to me to be the case with Dr.
Moysey and his friends. They surpass the thirty-nine Articles,
and rival the Book of Homilies in the violence of their accu-
sations against Catholics on the subject of pictures and images.
Again and again they repeat, that we Avorship images, and
that we are idolaters. But to what particular observances do
they allude when they make these charges i I have turned in
my mind the whole of our docrine and practice on the subject
in question, and I really cannot discover in what they mate-
rially disagree with those of the Established Church at this
day.

I grant that when the Book of Homilies was written, from
which and similar productions, it is probable that Dr. Moysey
and his friends unthinkingly copied their charges, there was a
mighty difference between us. A holy horror of pious repre-
sentations seems to have seized upon the nation in the early
periods of the reformation. The ministers of Edward the Sixth
gave the intelligible hint ;% the pious Book of Homilies
sounded the trumpet, and an army of inspired men fell to dis-
mantling and disfiguring the churches through every part of
the kingdom. Images and pictures were broken or burnt,
altars were demolished, the rich basso-relievo of the sculp-
tured altar screen was defaced or covered over with rude pan-

* Third part of the Homily against the peril of Idolatry.

t First part of the Homily against the peril of Idolatry.

X The Protestant historian, Dr. Heylin, admits that the real motive for taking-
down the altars and images in the English churches was " avarice, not zeal, there
being no images so poor and mean the spoil thereof would not afford some gold and
silver (if not jewels also), besides censers, candlestics, &:c." [Hist, of the Reform-
ation, pages 56, 94, 3d edit. 1674.] Have our modern opponents any similar mo-
tive in view? Or are they, after a lapse of nearly three centuries, still the dupes of
those unprincipled politicians ?

4()

"A Defence of llie

[Sec. 2.

nels of oak. The angel or seraph which supported the spring-
ing arch, or broke the slender column, Avas sure to lose a head
or a nose, to show that the enlightened authors of its scars, if
they suffered it to remain in the church at all, had no intention
to respect it. The cross, which for ages had risen pre-eminent,
whether on the gable end of the neat parish church, or on the
loftiest summit of the gorgeous cathedral, was hurled down to
the ground and trampled under foot. Scarce a monster in
stone, which spouted the rain water from the church roof, re-
mained unsuspected of its claim to idolatry, and full often was
it rendered less useful, as well as less ornamental, for fear it
should rob God of his glory, and share with him the honours
of his temple.

But this was only a temporary frenzy, too violent to last
long, and too ridiculous to make any serious impression on the

Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 47

minds of rational men. Scarcely had tlic churches imdergone
the work of spoliation, when the authors of the mischief won-
dered they could have been such barbarians. They would
have retraced their steps and repaired the havoc they had
made, but the people had been inspired with a panic which
could not easily be allayed, and they Avho had opened the
flood-gates of enthusiasm, found themselves carried away by
the inundation. It required time to dissever in the minds of
the multitue the ideas of images, idolatry, and popery, which
had been united together, by a magical association, into one
great object of terror.

The Avork, however, Avas gradually effected, as occasion of-
fered and the returning influence of common sense allowed.
It was determined, at the expence of the nation, to erect one
Protestant cathedral. The fine old gothic church of St. Paul's
was blown up with gunpowder, and the new fabric, resting on
Grecian columns, raised its majestic head above all height in
the midst of the metropolis of England. On this proud emi-
nence the Protestant architect dared, in the midst of a won-
dering and trembling people, to erect the discarded standard
of Christianity, the saving cross, which for a considerable time
had found a refuge only amonst the Catholics. Nor was this
all. Crowds of colossal apostles and saints were invited to
resume their ancient station, to crown the rich facade, and en-
circle the walls of the majestic temple. That the interior
might correspond with the exterior, the splendid dome exhi-
bited, throughout the whole of its vast expanse, the pictured
history of the saint to whom the church was dedicated. Thus
was a public and satisfactory apology offered to religion for
the outrages of past times, and a full retraction made of those
wild and fanatic principles which had given so great scandal,
and caused such irreparable havoc in the churches of England.

But in returning from one extreme, men generally run into
another. The cathedral of St. Paul's still continues to be or-
namented yy'ith grai'en ima(/es, and with such as would scarcely
be permitted in a Catholic church. Pagan gods and god-
desses, of exquisite sculpture and colossal stature, are seen in
company with Protestant heroes and sages, representing the
virtues for which the latter were celebrated, and holdmg them
up to the admiration of posterity. I know very well there is
no danger of idolatry in this. An Englishman is much more
likely to deface an image, whatever its merits or whatever its
subject, than to adore it. But I do think, with all due de-
ference to the contrary opinion of the Book of Homilies, that

48 A Defence of tlie [Let. 2.

if the second cojiimanclment forbids the placing- of any images
in churches, it is rather those of the Pagan deities than of
Christ and his Saints.

The example of St. Paul's was gradually followed by other
churches, and is now become almost general. Though the de-
cree of Edvv^ard the Sixth, ordering all altars to be removed
out of churges, as implying the popish doctrine of sacrifice,
and being therefore superstitious,"^' has never been repealed,
every church now must have its altar and altar-piece. Apos-
tles, evangelists, prophets, and all the inhabitants of heaven,
are seen, as occasion may dictate ; sometimes as separate
figures, sometimes as forming a part of a scriptural group.
Even the different persons of the sacred Trinity, which Vindex
and the Book of Homilies hold in such special horror, are con-
stantly found in the Churches of the Establishment. Thus, in
the city of Bath, God the Father is seen seated on his throne
in the summit of the western front of the Abbey-Church, re-
maming from Catholic times. From the appearance of the
niche, I think it probable that the other two Persons have
formerly accompanied him. But at all events, in the modern
altar-piece, placed in the same church by Protestant hands, is
seen the picture of God the Son, accompanied by the Virgin
Mother and St. Joseph ; and in Dr. Moysey's church is seen
that of the Holy Ghost, in the form of a solitary dove, glow-
ing in bright colours over the communion table. In other
places is found the representation of the Avhole Trinity, in one
emblematical triangle. So perfect appears to be the agree-
ment between the Established and the Catholic Church on this
subject, that we are constantly in the habit of copying from
each other. Thus the altar-piece in the Abbey-Church is a
copy of the painting which happened to be the altar-piece in
the first Catholic Church I ever saw abroad ; while the two
statues of St. Peter and St. Paul, lately erected in the Catholic
Chapel in this City, were actually suggested by duplicates of
the same figures, erected by Protestants in the Abbey- Church.
If there be any difference between us, it is that we are rather
more sparing of such ornaments than our Church of England
brethren, and that we should not easily admit the figures of
gods and goddesses into our churches. It very frequently
happens in this country, that a small crucifix, which together
with two or more candlesticks is a regular article of furniture
for the altar, is the only piece of sculpture in a Catholic chapel.

* Heylin's Hist«rj of the Reformation.

Sec. 2.] Christian Relujion. 49

Indeed, I rather think that the two figures of the apostles
lately erected in the Catholic chapel of this city, are nearly, if
not quite, the only statues to bo found in any Catholic place
of worship in England; and I am quite convinced that there
are not so many Catholic statues in the whole kingdom, as have
been erected by Protestants m the Abbey-Church of Bath
alone. With regard to pictures, it seldom happens that we
have more than a single one over the altar, and even this is
often wanting.

With respect to the honour paid to the representations of
holy persons and things, the difference between us is scarcely
greater. That the Established Church considers such objects
deserving of a certain respect, is evident from the situations in
which she places them, which is, generally, the most honour-
able and most conspicuous, as well as the most sacred in the
church. Even the act of hoivinc/, which Vindex considers
equivalent to worship, is paid by Protestants to the altar, on
certain occasions, nay, even to the king's throne ; and, as there
may be a painting attached to the former, and as there are
certain figures of lions, unicorns, &c. attached to the latter,
these sculptured or painted likenesses must partake, at least,
per accidens as St. Thomas would express it, of the honour
paid to the objects of which they form a part.*

Now, I am not aware that more than this is required of
Catholics by the general rules of the Church, or practised by
them in this country. The Catholic Church positively forbids
that any statue or picture be considered or honoured as a god,
or with any portion of the honour belonging exclusively to the
Deity ; f but she permits, rather than enjoins, such other external
marks of respect, not interfering with the worship due to God, as
the usages of different places or times may authorize or have
authorized. In England I do not remember any mark of respect
which is paid by Catholics to images or pictures, except that
of bowing to the crucifix placed upon the altar when we pass
before it. But that this act is not intended for the material
object itself, is manifest, from these circumstances : — 1st. That
if the crucifix be removed from the altar, we bow" to the altar
just the same as if the cross were upon it ; and, in this case,
we should not bow to the crucifix though it were standing

♦ In the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical of the Established Church,
published in 1640, it is declared to be a pious, profitable, and primitive custom
to bow to the communion table both at coming in and going out of the church. — •
See Sparrow's Collection, Can. VII,

t Council of Trent, .Session 25.

50 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

near the altar. But, should the altar itself be removed out of
its place, for the purpose of making repairs, or for any other
reason, we should no longer bow to it. In like manner, the
king' and the bishops, during the ceremony of the coronation,
bowed to the altar in Westminster Abbey ; but had any of them
gone into the church when the ceremony was over, they would
not, I conceive, have bowed to the altar. During a state trial,
also, the lords, on entering the house, bow to the king's throne,
but not at other times ; nor would they do it then if the throne
was removed from the position which is allotted for it. It is,
therefore, manifest, that the ceremony of bowing to the altar,
as used by Catholics and Protestants, is precisely of the same
nature. Neither the former nor the latter consider these ma-
terial objects themselves as deserving of the respect they pay
them ; but, we are directed to exhibit towards them these
external acts, under circumstances where they more particularly
remind us of the object in whom our respect terminates. When
the altar stands in the place where sacrifice is offered upon it
to God, we honour it as the throne of God, gr rather we honour
God in the presence of his altar ; and in like manner, when the
king's throne is so placed and circumstanced, as to represent,
more strikingly, the royal person, it then receives the accus-
tomed mark of respect, which terminates in the king, or rather,
as before, the king himself receives the mark of respect paid
to him absent, in the presence of his throne.

Vindex, however, mentions an act of respect, or, as the
ancient languages express it, adoration, wliich is paid to the
cross in the the service of Good Friday. This act I shall after-
wards explain. At present I shall merely observe, that, as
none of the people are required to be present at this ceremony,
it cannot be considered as commanded by the Church.

I ask then, whether for the reasons I have mentioned, it is
charitable or just to cast upon us the odious charge of idolatry,
and hold us up as objects of horror or pity to those with whom
we live I Is the vast majority of the christian world to be
stigmatized by an Archdeacon of Bath, or an anonymous
pamphleteer, as so many idolaters, because they bow to the
altar of God I Can a dignitary of the Established Church
find no better subject to entertain his clergy in the chair of
truth, and in the presence of the God of charity, than charges
so destitute of truth and so repugnant to brotherly love i And
can they who undertake the defence of such conduct, offer no
better apology for it, than that the same outrages have been
committed by others for nearly three centuries ?

Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 51

But, perhaps these gentlemen rest their charge of idolatry,
not upon what is done by Catholics in England, but by what
they have seen or heard of in Catholic counti-ies abroad.
But why should the Catholics of England, who commit no
idolatry, be persecuted for the crime which is said to be com-
mitted by the inhabitants of Italy, Mexico, or China ? — Would
an English Protestant think it fair to be traduced as a Deist
or an Infidel, because many Protestants abroad, and some few
at home, have fallen into Deism and Infidelity I Hard indeed
would be our fate, if we were to be made accountable for all
the extravagant notions or criminal practices which may happen
to be committed by any individuals amongst the countless
millions, which, in every part of the known world, adhere to
the great Church with which we are joined in communion.
Before we can be at all fairly implicated in the misconduct of
other Catholics, it ought to be shewn that this misconduct is
the genuine and necessary consequence of our common tenets.
Now this has not been done.

I am aware that an English Protestant going abroad will
meet with many observances which he will misunderstand.
He is prepared by his early education to expect it, and he is
not prepared to guard against the wrong judgments into which
his ignorance of the usages of ancient times, and the import of
ancient ceremonies is too liable to lead him. He has read in
classical books of the religious ceremonies' of the ancient
Pagans, and he has seen a clergyman in a white surplice
reading some quiet English prayers in one square box, and
preaching a very quiet moral sermon in another. The latter
he takes as the standard of true christian worship, and what-
ever has a distant resemblance to the former, he considers as
belonging to Paganism. He seldom reflects that the worship
of the true God under the Jewish dispensation, bore a much
nearer resemblance to Pagan worship than any thing he will
meet with in a Catholic church. But he has been assured
from his infancy, that Catholics are only another description of
Pagans. He sees no reason to doubt of the fact ; so that
Avhen he goes into a Catholic country, he has nothing to do
but to collect together all such observances as he does not
understand, and class them, according to the best of his judg-
ment, under the different heads with which he has been
furnished, and which a learned prelate of the Established
Church lately reduced to three, namely, idolatry, hlaspheimjy
and superstition.*

* Shute, Bishop of Durham.

52 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

There are many things done by Catholics, that are not
approved by the Catholic Church ; and there are many things
which she does approve, but Avhich, from the manner of per-
forming them becomes objectionable. There are many obser-
vances which she only tolerates, because she cannot correct
them ; and there are many which she condemns and censures
whenever she knows of their existence. The same thing-
happens in all religions of any considerable extent, and^lhe
same must necessarily happen in all great societies, whether
religious or civil, which are composed of the children of Adam.
There is no man more hurt than an English Catholic at many
observances which he meets with abroad. No one laments
more than he, that in churches where architecture, painting and
sculpture combine their magic powers to produce one beautiful
and impressive whole, some wretched piece of sculpture,
painted and dressed in rich attire, should sometimes be suffered
to occupy even a small side chapel and to excite the admiration
and the piety even of a few old women.* But though he
laments such an instance of bad taste iji the, admirers of these
objects, he knows very well that they had their origin in times
when taste was not so refined as it is at present, and that more
scandal may sometimes be given to the common people by at-
tacking their ancient customs, than good could be derived from
attempting to improve their taste for the fine arts. With
regard to the substance of the thing, he knows that it is not
changed by the merits of the statue or picture. He knows
that the minds of the lower classes are often more impressed by
the rudest piece of sculpture or the merest daub, if highly
coloured and strongly marked, than they would by a crucifix
from the chisel of Michael Angelo or a dead Christ from the
pencil of Annibal Caracci ; and though he himself should cer-
tainly prefer having the latter objects before him when he
says his prayers, he is a^are that those who prefer the
former, may pray before them with equal hmocence and equal
advantage.

An Englishman, whatever his religion, is a less ceremonious
being than most of his European brethren, and he has a much
cooler way of expressing his feelings, whether in religion or
common lite. Hence, an English Catholic often finds the
ceremonies of his foreign brethren too overcharged for his dis-
position and prefers greatly the more quiet forms of his own

* This custom appears to be equally disapproved of by the Council of Trent :
'' omnis licivia vitetnr : ita ut procaci venustate imagines non pingantur nee ornen-
'nr." Sess. 25.

Sec. 2.] Christian lieliyion. 53

country. He is seldom found walking in public processions,
and still less frequently is he found burning his little taper in
honour of some favourite saint, or hanging- up in token of
gratitude his votive offering. He knows that these things con-
stitute no essential part of his religion, and therefore he omits
them. But he is too liberal and too charitable to condemn
others whose partialities are different from his own. He
leaves to his neighbours the same liberty of choosing their
devotional practises v.hich he exercises himself. He does not
consider himself authorized to make his own ideas the standard
of other men's judgment, nor his own conduct the rule of his
neighbour's actions. If he meet with observances which he
does not understand, he enquires their meaning and im-
port, before he pronounces upon their merit ; and, knowing
that charity is the first principle of the christian religion, he
never condemns any man of a crime till he has heard his
defence.

If there be any thing criminal in such a conduct, the
English Catholic must plead guilty. It certainly is very
different from that of Dr. Moysey and his friends, whose
ardent zeal for the honour of God and the purity of his wor-
ship, enables them to discover idolatry where we cannot. But
does not zeal itself sometimes lead men into error as well as
charity I I think this will appear to be the case in the present
instance.

54 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

§3.

FIRST AND SECOND COMMANDMENTS.

Differently explained hy Dr. Moysey and his two friends. —
Their explanations refuted. — Catholic explanation. — Im-
port of external acts uncertain. — Definition of the ivords
adoration, worship, Latreia, Douleia, idolatry, &c. — Neces-
sity of attending to the meaniny of these ivords. —
Catholic Church does 7iot violate the commandments.

Dr. M05 sey himself and his two anonymous advocates agree
in accusing the Catholics of idolatry in violating the second
commandment. But it is curious enough that each of these
three divines alleges a different reason for his decision. It
would seem that they had first settled that we must be idola-
ters, and they set themselves to consider why so. — Dr.
Moysey says we are idolaters, because the second command-
ment forbids us " to bow down in prayer," to any but God.
Vindex says we are idolaters because the second commandment
forbids us to " how down at cdl" to any but God ; and the
author of " Catholicism Sifted' says we are idolaters, because
the scripture forbids the " making of images /or any religious
use" whether we bow down to them or not. Dr. Moysey's
reason I have already answered, I trust satisfactorily, as his
two friends have given him up. The reason assigned by
** Catholicism sifted" I leave to the Established Church to
refute, as it is quite manifest that the pictures and statues
which she has in her churches are as much for a religious use as
ours. To Vindex I shall forthwith proceed. He states his
doctrine as follows.

" The law forbids any kind of similitude, whether of things
in heaven, or in earth, or under the earth, the bowing down to
them, or worshipping them. Now let me ask, Can a law be
framed in more direct or explicit terms ? Does it allow men
to bow down to God in one way and to sensible representations
in another J or does it positively restrict the act ofhowing down
to God? One would suppose that language so decisive could
not be wrested out of its obvious meaning. — Where a legal
injunction is positive, to divest it of its positive character and
to clothe it only with comparative force and obligation may be

Sec. 3.] Christian Religion. 55

according to the rules of logic, but it must be logic which is
studied in a Roman Catholic school."*

From these quotations it appears, that in the opinion of
Vindex the second commandment positively restricts to God
alone the external act of bowing down, and forbids its being
applied to sensible objects in any way whatever. Now to this
explanation I object for the following reasons :

1st, Because it will involve in the guilt of idolatry many of
the most holy persons mentioned in scripture. " Abraham
bowed himself down toward the ground, "f at the presence of
the angels. Joshua did the same, when the angel declared
himself, saying, " As a captain of the host of the Lord I am
come, Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and
said unto him. What saith my Lord unto his servant r';|;
" David fell on his face and bowed himself three times to
Jonathan. "II The nobles of David did the same both to God
and the king, " And all the congregation blessed the Lord God
of their fathers, and bowed down their heads and worshipped
the Lord and the king,"§ &c.

2ndly, Because it will involve in the same dreadful guilt the
king, the bishops, and the people of the Church of England.
For, on certain state occasions, the lords spiritual and temporal,
in parliament assembled, are required and actually do bow to
the king's throne when the king is not in in it. On the day of
the coronation the king himself as well as the bishops bowed
repeatedly to the altar, and by the canons of the Church of
England all persons are commanded to bow at the name of
Jesus, and recommended to bow to the communion table. ^

To this last example Vindex replies that " Protestants are
commanded to bow at the name but not to the name of Jesus.
When the sound reminds us of our glorified Saviour we offer
to him the worship enjoined, but we offer no worship to the
sound itself." Neither do Catholics, if by worship Vindex
means divine honour, for we know that a sound is not God.
But it does appear to me, that when St. Paul said, that, " at
the name of Jesus evei'y knee should bow," and assigned for
reason that it was a " name above every name," he really
meant to signify that the honour was due to the name itself;
not of course on its own account but on account of the Being

* Letter to the Rev. P. Baiiies, page 30 aud 32.

t Sept. vfoffy.vvnaiv eiri rr^v ynv. Gen. xviii. 2.

t Joshua V. 15, II 1 Samuel xx. 41.

§ Chroaicles xxix. 20. moanvvnv nvfioi kou tu ^oi.a'iXh

^ See the note page 25.

56 A Defence of the [Let. 2

it represented. But if Vindex still thinks otherwise I have no
objection. But then I must beg to ask him how he will get
over the other instances abovementioned ? Do the bishops and
peers of England bow at the throne, and not to the throne;
or did they, on the day of the coronation, bow at the king and
not to the king; and did both they and the king himself bow
at the altar and not to the altar t If Vindex has not some
other ingenious distinction to get the king and bishops out of
this difficulty, I fear he must consent to add them to his cata-
logue of idolaters ; and if he should succeed in shewing that
this bowing was not to the objects but at them, the Catholic
Church will beg leave to avail herself of his discovery for
escaping from his condemnation ; as it is quite manifest that
her bowing down is precisely similar, both in the external
act and the internal motive, to that of the Established
Church.

3rdly, If the act of bowing down be reserved to God alone,
why is not every man who bows to his neighbour in the street
guilty of a breach of this commandment? - Will it be said,
that in these cases the intention is not to worship but only to
pay a mark of respect? But this excuse Vindex positively
refuses to admit, " For against the intention of man," says he,
" as a rule of action, I oppose the will of God. The
ignorance of the agent, if it be not wilful, may abate the
guilt of the action, but his intention cannot alter the nature of
things." How severe are the doctrines of our new commen-
tator, and how unlucky are the effects of his biblical criticism !
In attempting to establish that most desirable hypothesis, that
all the christians in the world were idolaters for a thousand
years, he has proved that they are all idolaters still, not even
excepting his own little church of Apostolical purity ; nay,
with the exception perhaps of a few of our worthy countrymen,
the Quakers, who never bow, that there are nothing but idol-
aters in the whole world !

4thly, If God had reserved to himself alone the act of
iDOwing down, it must have been not merely for the purpose of
preventing others from enjoying it, but more particularly that
he might himself be honored with it. So that we must
conclude, that this act would have held a distinguished rank
amongst the sacred rights which he gave to his ancient people,
and that it would have continued to hold the same under the
Christian dispensation. In this case we should have had the
worship of bowing down, with all its forms and ceremonies,
detailed in the book of Leviticus, amongst the different kinds

Sec. 3.] Christian Religion. 57

of sacrifice ? and though it would have been discontinued of
course in the Catholic Church, after the first centuries of
Christianity, it would have been restored in all its perfection
when Henry the Eighth brought back the Church of Christ to
its primitive purity. Yet I am not aware that the worship of
hoiving down formed any part either of the Jewish ritual, or
of that of the early Christians, or even of modern Protestants.
It is true, as I before observed, that " due and lowly reverence
is required by the Church of England to be made, when the
Lord Jesus shall be mentioned," but as the mention of this
sacred name is merely accidental, and as bowing is commanded
at no other time, the principal act of divine worship, if bowing
were considered such, would have been left to chance and
might have been frequently altogether omitted.

5thly. If the commandment had restricted the prohibition to
the act of bowing down it would not have prohibited many
other modes of paying divine worship which were common
amongst the ancient Pagans. Thus it would not have prohi-
bited the form of worship, perhaps the most common of all
others, which consisted in kissing the idol, or kissing the hand
and moving it towards the idol, " As it were," says Selden,
" to throw the kiss to the object worshipped." It is from this
act that the Latin word adorate and the English word to adore
is derived, and perhaps also the Greek TrpotrEWPsiy

Lastly, if by the second commandment the Almighty had
wished to reserve to himself any one special act, it would have
been that of sacrifice, which has ever been considered as be-
longing exclusively to the Godhead, but which was constantly
given by the Pagans to their deities ; not the act of bowing
dotvn, which has always been and is still considered as the most
ordinary mark of civility or respect which men pay to each
other.

But, exclaims Vindex, " that the ivill of God may be best
gathered from the Word of God, is perhaps a point which you
will authorize me to assume."* Most certainly ; but what
then i " We have it then upon record," continues Vindex,
" in the Word of God, that the law before us did not respect
the worshipping an idol as the true God, but the worshipping
the true God under some symbol of his presence." Alas!
what chance has a Catholic divine against these modern theo-
logians ? To us the sacred Scriptures speak but one doctrine,
and this one doctrine is common to us all. With us the mean-

* Letter, Seepage 31.
H

A Defence of the

[Let. 2.

" They forgat God their saviour, Psalm, cvi. 21."

ing of Scripture is as unchangeable as its phrases, nor will it
in our greatest distress, bend its stubborn form to lend us a
helping hand. But to the favoured children of the Refor-
mation it is all accommodating. Without altering its language
it varies its meaning according to the exigencies of each
individual, and offers itself to prove or disprove whatever he
may wish. I had considered it as at least probable, that the
golden calf erected in the wilderness and worshipped by the
Israelites, was rather an imitation of an Egyptian idol repre-
senting Osiris, or some other false deity, not that it was a
symbol of the true God. Such indeed is the decided opinion
of the learned Selden* and, I believe, of most other Protes-
tant as well as Catholic divines, and the same appears to be

Tom. ii. p. 304-5.

Sec. 3.] Christian Religion. 39

clearly confirmed by other passages of Scripture, which tell us
that the Israelites on this occasion " forgat God their Saviour,
which had done great things for them in Egypt,"* that they
" forsook the God that made" them and " that they sacrificed
to devils, not to God."t But no, says Vindex, the golden
calf was intended as a visible representation of Jehovah hun-
self, and the only reason why he objected to the worship paid
him under this form was, that he did not choose to be
worshipped under any visible form whatever, this being
r-elative worship. But, supposing it were certain, that the
Jews on this occasion intended to worship the true God, I ask,
with all deference to the learning of Vindex, is it quite cer-
tain that because the Almighty objected to be worshipped
in the form of a calf, he would therefore have equally objected
to be worshipped under some more respectful form ; for
instance, under that which he was pleased to assume for our
salvation I Were I to represent Vindex himself under the
form of a calf, and he should express himself not pleased with
the compliment, should I have a right to conclude that he
would have equal objection to be represented under some other
form ; for instance, under that of a logician, metaphysician or
biblical critic I If it is not too great presumption, I would just
observe to Vindex, that though the ivill of God may very
safely be gathered from the Word of God, it is only from the
Word of God explained according to the meaning of God.
For when the word of God is explained in any other meaning,
it ceases to be the AVord of God and becomes the word of
man, which is a very uncertain riUe for explaining the icill of
God. Therefore till he can afford us some better authority
for his explanation of the Word of God, than his own anony-
mous opinion, we must necessarily prefer the explanation of
other commentators, whose names we know and whose opinions
we have reason to revere.

From these different arguments, I conclude that the second
commandment does not " restrict the act of bowing down to
God" and that it does allow us to bow down to him in one
way and to sensible representations in another." I will add
that it does not reserve to God any particular external act
whatever, except sacrifice, and that it does allow anij external
act whatever, except sacrifice,:{: to be paid to creatures. The

* Psalm cvi. 21. t Deut xxxii. 15, 17.

X Sacrifice is not merely an external act but also an internal one, consisting of an
external offering made to some being, for the professed purpose of acknowledging
the same as a God. It can therefore never be oftered to any Being but the true
God without the guilt of idolatry.

60 A Defence of the [Let. 2

reason is, that all external acts are mere arbitrary signs, which
have different meanings according to the circumstances under
which they are employed, the intention of the person who em-
ploys them, and the nature of the object to which they are
exhibited. Bowing, kneeling, prostrating, the burning of
lights, incense, &c. are all subject to the same uncertainty of
import, and are lawful or unlawful according to circumstances.
An inferior bows to his superior : it is a mark of submission
and subjection and is a laudable act. A Catholic, or a
member of the Church of England, bows to the altar, or at
the name of Jesus ; it is an act of respect as far as it regards
the altar or the name; it is an act of Latreia, or divine wor-
ship, as far as it regards the Deity ; a man bows to an idol,
or at the name of Jupiter ; it is an act of idolatry. A child
kneels to his parent to ask his blessing ; it is an act of filial
piety : he does the same to beg his forgiveness ; it is an act of
supplication ; he does the same to the true God ; it is an a&t
of Latreia, or divine worship : he does the same to an idol or
false god; it is an act of idolatry. A wife prostrates herself
before a prince to beg the life of her husband ; she kisses his
feet and implores his mercy ; it is an act of humiliation and
supplication proceeding from conjugal affection : she prostrates
herself before God; it is an act of Latreia; before an idol or
a false God ; it is an act of idolatry. A man kisses his
friend : in England it is a mark of the greatest intimacy and
strongest affection ; in France it betokens a less degree of
familiarity or friendship ; in some other countries, it is an act of
the commonest civility. From a child to a parent it is a token
of filial affection ; from a parent to a cliild of parental tender-
ness; from a wife to a husband of conjugal attachment; to the
picture of a husband, the same ; from a subject to a sovereign,
it may be an act of homage ; from any one to an idol it is an
act of idolatry. I may light candles before a picture or statue,
that it may be better seen : Dr. Moysey would not scruple
to do it. I may bear a torch to light the steps of a friend ; it
is an act of civility ; to guide the bewildered traveller; it is an
act of charity. I may bear it at a marriage, it is a sign of joy;
at a funeral, it is a token of grief; before an emperor, it is a
mark of respect or loyalty ; before his statue, it anciently
meant the same. But if I light a taper or carry a torch
before an idol, I am guilty of an act of idolatry. If I bum
incense to fumigate a roi^m, it is an act of convenience or
luxury. If I burn it before the altar, the crucifix, the book of
the gospels, the ministers of religion, it is a token of respect

Sec. 3.] Christian Religion. Gl

for these different objects, on account of their consecration to
God or connexion with his service. If I burn it to God him-
self it is an act of Lafreia ; if I burn it before an idol or in
honour of a false god, it is an act of idolatry. As therefore it
is clear that all these external acts may be and are lawfully ex-
hibited to creatures, as well as to God, it is equally clear that
God did not " reserve any of them to himself" by the second
commandment.

What then is the true meaning of the commandment ? Ac-
cording- to the Catholic explanation it is this. In the first
commandment, by the words " I am the Lord thy God ; Thou
shalt have no other gods before me ; " &c. the Almighty signi-
fied to us, that He is to be honored as our Creator and So-
vereign Lord, and He alone. That consequently we must wor-
ship Him internally by believmg in him, and in the truths he
teaches us ; by placing our entire confidence in him, and not
looking for or expecting any good but such as is derived imme-
diately or ultimately from liim ; by loving him with our whole
hearts, preferring him before all things else and studying above
all things to comply with his commands. That we must wor-
ship Him also externally by complying faithfully with all the
external duties prescribed for our observance, whether imme-
diately by himself, or through the medium of liis Apostles and
their lawful successors, whom he commissioned to teach us to
" observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them ; "
with whom he promised " to remam always even unto the end
of the world; "^ and to whom he said, " he that heareth you
heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me ; " f that
amongst the various duties prescribed by religion, that of pub-
lic prayer must be diligently and regularly performed ; and,
above all, that we must frequently offer or join in offering to
him that holy and mystical sacrifice, " that pure offering,"
which the prophet Malachi foretold should take place of the
ancient Jewish sacrifices, and should be offered to God in every
place, " from the rising of the sun even unto the going down
of the same.":[; In fine, the first commandment requires that,
both with our souls and with our bodies, we do Sovereign ho-
mage, and shew perfect obedience to God, as our Creator,
Preserver, Redeemer ; as the original source of all our good,
the ultimate foundation of all our present and future hopes ;
the great and predominating object of our respect, our vene-
ration and our love. Whoever complies with these internal

* Matthew, xxviii. 20. t Luke x. 16. X Malachi, i. 11.

62 A Defence of the [Lei. 2.

and external duties, worships God "in spirit and truth" and
complies with the injunction of the first commandment.

The second commandment which says, " Thou shalt not
make unto thee any graven image, nor the 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 ; thou shalt not bow
down thyself to them nor serve them," does not forbid the ma-
king of images and pictures in general, otherwise, the Al-
mighty himself would have been the first to violate his own
command, when he ordered the brazen serpent to be made in
the wilderness and the two cherubims to be placed in the Jewish
sanctuary ; Solomon v/ould have violated it when he made,
without express authority, several other figures of cherubims*
in the temple, and also when he made, equally without autho-
rity, twelve figures of oxen to support the " molten sea."
This circumstance is the more remarkable, the figure of the
ox being the same as that which the Jews made in the wilderness
and which God condemned as an idol. But the golden calf
made by Aaron in the wilderness, was made as an idol or false
god, to have divine honours paid to it ; whereas Solomon's bra-
zen oxen were made for a different purpose and therefore were
not condemned. The Established Church of England would
also violate it by the statues and paintings, with which her tem-
ples are adorned. But the commandment does forbid the ma-
king of any image whatever as a god, and the Almighty is
particular in enumerating things " that are in heaven above,
in the earth beneath, and in the waters under the earth," be-
cause the Jews, to whom he delivered the commandment,
were just returned from Egypt, a country where almost every
creature, from the sun, the stars, and other heavenly bodies
down to the beasts of the earth and the reptiles of the sea,
were, through the medium of various representations, honoured
as gods, with a superstitious or idolatrous worship.f The
other part of this commandment, " Thou shalt not bow down
thyself to them nor serve them ;" or as the Catholic transla-
tion renders it, " Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them,"
is easily understood. It does not, as I have already proved,
forbid merely the act of bowing down to idols, or false gods,
but it forbids any act whatever, whether of the body or only
of the mind, employed to honour such objects. — Therefore,
was a man to kneel before an idol or false god, or prostrate
himself before it, or kiss his hand or move his hat to it, or

* 1 Kings vii. 23, 29. + See Selden.

Sec. 3.] Christian Reliyioii. G3

burn a taper or offer incense before it, or even in his mind respect
it, place confidence in it, or entertain an affection for it, he woiihl
be guilty of aviohition of the commandment, and of superstition or
idolatry, just as much as if he hoived himself down before it.* In
other words, any man who believed that an image was a god, or
that it was any thing more than a mere creature, or who placed
any confidence in it as a god, or by any internal or external act hon-
oured it as such, would be equally guilty of idolatry, whether the
image represented Jupiter or Jesus Christ, Minerva or the
blessed Virgin Mary, Apollo or St. Peter, the golden calf or
an angel. And the reason is, that in all these cases he would
equally acknowledge as a god what is only a creature ; or he
would honour the creature for some excellencies which can be-
long only to God, and therefore would rob God of the hon-
our which belongs to him. But whatever external act a per-
son may employ towards an image, whether of Christ, of a
parent, a sovereign, or of a saint, so long as he does not be-
lieve that image to be a god, nor to have any virtue in it which
entitles it to honour, nor places any confidence in it, nor in
fine intends to pay it any acknowledgement which belongs to
God alone, he does not violate the commandment, nor is he
guilty of idolatry.

From these observations it will be easy to collect what is the
true meaning of the words worship, adoration, idolatry,
and the like.

I have proved that all external acts employed in the worship
of God, are equivocal acts, common to God and to creatures.
Words are the images of things, and therefore all words in the
ancient languages, which signified the above acts, are as equi-
vocal as the acts themselves. Hence neither in Hebrew, in
Greek, nor in Latin, is there one single word signifying such
acts which may not be applied to creatures as well as to God.
Vindex acknowledges that the Hebrew text of the second com-
mandment sometimes signifies to adore as well as to how
down ; he also admits that the Greek word j)roskunein, which

* Therefore, notwithstanding all the Hebrew, Greek and Latin which Vindex
has lavished upon the words bow down, I still think that the word adore is preferable,
as being more comprehensive in its meaning, and as taking in the whole prohibition
of the commandment ; whereas the words bow down, only forbid one of the numer-
ous acts by which idolatry may be committed. But the original translators of the
Protestant bible had their reasons for preferring the words bow down to the word
adore, as well as they had for preferring the word hnaf;e to that oi idol, wherever
the latter was condemned by the sacred text. They have corrected most if not all
the latter mistakes in their latest editions ; perhaps on some future day they may
alter the former.

64 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

in his own version of St. Matthew, chap. 4, signifies divine
worship ;* in several other passages which he quotes " can
mean nothing more than the act of bowing the head or body,
as a mark of respect shewn to man."t In modern languages
the meaning of such words is rather more defined, inasmuch
as there are some which generally signify the honour belong-
ing to the Deity. I say generally, because I do not know
any single word which is not sometunes employed in a diffe-
rent sense. Thus Johnson informs us, that the word adore
sometimes signifies merely an act of human respect ; an al-
derman is said to be loorshipfid, and in the marriage ceremony
of the Established Church the husband xvorships his wife,
" With my body I thee ivorship" To prevent the mistakes
into which 'the ambiguity of such works is liable to lead men
in religious discussions, the Catholic Church, at an early pe-
riod, selected two words, to which she gave a fixed and deter-
mined theological meaning, one, Latreia, signifying any act
employed with the intention of acknowledging and honouring
a being as God; the other Doideia, signifying any act by
which a creature is honoured, merely as a creature and not as
a god.

Idolatry therefore is giving Latreia to any creature, or in
other words it is exhibiting toivards a creature any act with
an intention of acknowledging it as a god.

Adoration, worship, &c. are, as before observed, ambigu-
ous words, which mean some times Latreia, or the honour due
only to God; sometimes Douleia, or mere respect due to crea-
tures. Hence it is manifest, how necessary it is at all times,
but particularly when engaged with works written in the an-
cient languages, first to ascertain the real sense in which these
words are, on any particular occasion, employed, before an
argument is founded upon them. If we read in scripture
that the nobles of David " worshipped God and the king," J
we must first be sure that the word worship means the same
when applied to the king that it does when applied to God, or
rather we must be sure that the same act does not vary its na-
ture according to the object about which it is employed, or the
intention of those who employ it, before we venture to pro-
nounce that those nobles were idolaters. In like manner if we
read in ancient councils or rituals, that the cross of Christ or
the images of the saints are to be worshipped or adored, we

* " Thou shall worship the Lord thy God." t Letter to the Rev. P. Baines, page 28.

X 1 Chronicles xxix. 20.

Sec. 3.] Christian Religion. 65

must first enquire whether, by worship or adoration, is meant
divine honour, or only mere respect, before we pronounce that
their doctruie is idolatrous. The same caution is necessary in
deciding upon the moral character of any external acts em-
ployed as marks of respect. If I read in scripture that Mo-
ses bowed down before the Lord, who appeared to him on
Mount Sinia,* that Abraham bowed down before the an2;els,t
and that Joshua fell down before the ark,]; I am not immediately
to conclude, that the same act in each of these different cases
signifies the same thing-, and that therefore, Abraham and Josh-
ua were idolaters, because they exhibited to creatures the same
external act of worship which Moses paid to the Deity. In
like manner, if I read in ecclesiastical history, or observe in
foreign countries, that a certain class of Christians are accus-
tomed to bow down or kneel before altars, crosses, the books
of the gospel, statues, or pictures ; to kiss them, to bum
lights or incense before them, or in fine to exhibit towards
them any other external marks of respect which are employed
indifferently to God and his creatures ; I am not immediately
to conclude that these Christians are idolaters. I must enquire
whether these acts are intended as acts of divine worship or only
of mere respect. In making this enquiry it will be useful to
ascertain the belief of these persons, respecting the nature of
the objects to which these acts are exhibited. If I find that
they really believe that altars, crosses, books, images and pic-
tures are gods, or that they contain in them any excellence be-
longing only to the Deity, or any inherent virtue which can
entitle them to the honours due to God, and I find them bow-
ing, kneeling, &c. before these objects, I may be justified in
concluding that they are committing idolatry or superstition ;
but if I find that they do not believe these objects to be gods,
nor to be in any way entitled to divine honours, I am bound in
reason and in charity to conclude, that it is not their intention
to pay them such honours, but that any equivocal acts which
they employ, being lawfuully applicable to creatures, are ap-
plied in such manner by them. If I doubt of their religious
belief, charity will compel me to put the best construction on
their conduct, and not pronounce them idolaters till I am cer-
tain of their guilt.

Had the adversaries of the Catholic Religion attended to
these just precautions, we should not have heard an authorized

* Exodus xxxiv. 8. t Geiiesis xviii. 2. + Joshua vii. 6.

66 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

work of '• the most mild and tolerant Church in Chris-
tendom"* asserting " that laity and clergy, learned and
unlearned, all ages, sects and degrees of men, women and
children of all Christendom, have been at once drowned in
abominable idolatry, of all other vices most detested of God
and most damnable to man, and that for the space of eight
hundred years and more:"t nor should we have found a digni-
tary of the Established Church of England in the nineteenth
century, renewing this awful anathema, and countenancing an
anonymous writer, who even extends the frightful malediction
by dating it two centuries earlier and continuing it, for the
great majority of Christendom, to nearly three centuries
later ]%

From the above observations, I consider it clear that the
Catholic Church does not violate the second commandment
merely by hoiving to the crucifix, altar, or other sensible object,
nor Uj any other external act exhibited to creatures, provided
she is careful at all times to observe the distinction above-men-
tioned of honouring God alone as God, and creatures only as
creatures; in other words, if she reserves Latreia to God
alone, and gives to creatures only Douleia. Now this I before
maintained, and still maintain to be the case. Dr. Moysey's
friend Vindex, denies it. He asserts " that the distinction
between Latreia and Douleia, instead of justifying the doc-
trine and practice of our Church, is at variance with its doc-
trine and practice :"|| in other words, he asserts that the
Catholic Church does not, either in doctrine or practice, reserve
Latreia to God alone, but allows it to be given to images.
This position he attempts to establish by a reference to the
history of the Church, to the decrees of our general Councils,
to the doctrines of our divines, and to our ritual observances
and prayers. I shall examine his proofs with as much consi-
deration for the patience of my reader, as such a subject will
admit.

• A curioas appellation of the Church of England by Dr. Moysey. Charge, page 13.
t Book of Homilies, Peril of Idolatry, part 3.
N.B. A new edition of this liberal and enlightened Work, from the Clarendon
Press, Oxford, was published iu 1816, by the Society for Promoting Christian

Knowledge!

t Letter to the Rev. P. Baines, pages 14, lo, &c.
II LeUer to the Rct. P. Baines, page 13.

Sec. 4.] Christian Relif/ian. 67

§4.

HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN IMAGES.

How far used in the first three centuries. — Introduced along
tvith architecture. — Common in the fourth century ;
general in the sixth. — History of the Iconoclast council at
Constantinople. — The second council of Nice misre-
presented by Vindex. — Its decree.

But before I proceed further, I must beg ray reader to re-
member the definitions I have given of the words Latreia
and Douleia, and as these are words which must sound harsh
and barbarous to any but theological ears, I will always substi-
tute in the place of Latreia, or add to it, divine v)orship,
which shall be used in the same sense. Should I have occasion
to speak of Douleia, I will either substitute in its place, or
accompany it by its equivalent words, mere respect, I must
also beg the reader particularly to keep in mind the uncertainty
and ambiguity of the words ivorship, adoration, and the like,
as I have already proved that, in the ancient languages, these
words were used indiscriminately to signify either divine wor-
ship, or mere respect. The reason of my making this request
is, because I mean to show that almost every argument adduced
by Vindex to prove that the Catholic Church allows divine
worship to creatures, is founded on a misrepresentation of these
ambiguous words, or a misrepresentation of certain equivocal
acts.

He begins as follows. " By a reference to ecclesiastical
history, (to the study of which I recommend you before you
favour the public with a second edition of your Letter) it ap-
pears evident that the sense of the whole Church during the
three first centuries is in direct opposition to image worship of
every sort and kind; whether you define it the worship of a
false god, or the worshipping the true God after a prohibited
manner. And if you want proofs of this assertion, you may
find them in the writings of Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexan-
drinus, Origen and TertuUian, against those of Celsus, Por-
phyry and Julian." Now though I do not think Vindex can
have read these fathers, otherwise he would hardly have

(>8 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

resisted the temptation of giving us at least some one reference,
I must beg the reader to observe the strange perplexity of this
passage. The Church of the three first centuries was averse
to " ima(/e worship of every sort and kind" From these
words he no doubt intended his readers to suppose that the
early Church was averse to the practice of paying that mere
respect to images, which afterwards prevailed^! and which he
constantly denominates image worship. But when he defines
this image worship to mean " the worship of false gods, or
the worship of the true God after a prohibited manner" one
would imagine that he did not allude to the practices of the
Catholic Church, which certainly always was and is to this
day, as averse as he can be, either " to the worship of false
gods, or to the worship of the true God after a prohibited
manner."* But if Vindex means that during the three first
centuries the Church did not allow a mere respect to be paid
to pictures and images, I think it more than probable that he is
mistaken. I think it more than probable that as it is in human
nature to cherish the painted or sculptured likenesses of those
we love and esteem, and as, according to Mr. Gibbon himself
" in every age such copies, so congenial to the human feelings,
have been cherished by the zeal of private friendship or public
esteem, "t the early Christians would be as eager to possess
pictures and images of Christ and his apostles, as Protestants
are at the present day. There is scarcely a house in England
where such representations are not to be found even eighteen
centuries after the death of Jesus Christ. But had he lived
only a few years ago, and the breasts of his followers were
still fired with the fervour of the early Christians, such like-
nesses would, I apprehend, be in still greater request. We
often see ladies in these days wearing about their necks rich
crosses, as emblems, I presume, of themselves being the fol-
lowers of Christ. We also frequently see them wearing,
in a similar manner, the miniature of some departed or absent
husband, child or parent. We sometimes also see them in
moments of tender or mournful recollection, pressing the dear
image to their lips, and perhaps bedewing it with their tears.
At all events they respect it, they value it, and would feel

• Query. Is it always idolatry to worship the true God after a prohibited man-
ner ? If so, either it will follow that the dissenters from the Established Church are
idolaters, or that they do not worship God after a prohibited manner, and therefore
ought not to be stigmatized by Dr Moysey as the abettors of " error, innovation,"
&c." See his Charge, page 12, &c.

t Decline and Fall of the Roman empire ; chap. 49 .

Sec. 4.]

Christian Reliyio...

hurt at any iudignity being: offered to it. I think it highly
probable that feelings of affection, equally strong and better
founded, would prompt the early converts to Christianity, to
shew a similar regard to the representation of the great and
benign author of their redemption. I think it more than pro-
bable that in moments of grateful remembrance or tender
piety, the fervent Christian would embrace, with equal affec-
tion, the representation of the " good Shepherd" or the dying
Redeemer : and would Vindex say that this will be idolatry t
Greater respect than this was never sanctioned by the Catho-
lic Church, nor can I think that less was shewn in the first
centuries of Christianity. Indeed it is certain from TertuUian,
that in his time, namely in the second century, the figure of the
good Shepherd was engraved on the chalices used in the

70 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

divine service;* and the same figure is still found on the tombs
of the primitive Christians in the ancient cemetries at Rome.f
It is certain also, that the cross, the lamb, and other emblems
of Christ, were frequently worn by the ancient Christians in
the times of persecution.

That during- the first three centuries it was not customary to
introduce paintings or statues, particularly of any great mag-
nitude into churches, I can readily believe for the following
reasons: 1st. Because there Avere no churches into which they
could be introduced. " In Tertullian's time," says the Book
of Homilies, " Christians had none other temples but common
houses, whither they, for the most part, secretly resorted.
Unto the time of Constantiue, the space of above three hundred
years after our Saviour Christ, when the Christian religion was
most pure and indeed golden. Christians had but low and poor
conventicles and simple oratories, yea caves under the ground
called cryptoe, where they, for fear of persecution assembled
together."! Now it is manifest that, in places like these,
paintings and statues would have been generally misplaced.
Moreover, in those times of severe persecution, to have had
such ornaments in places of worship would only have been to
expose themselves to insult and profanation, and those with
whom they were found, to detection and danger. The Chris-
tians of those times were in fact in nearly the same condition
as the Catholics in England, from the reign of Elizabeth till
the early part of his late majesty's propitious reign. We also,
during that long period of proscription and tears, when to be a
Catholic was a crime, and to officiate as a Catholic priest was
high treason and death, were obliged to worship God in
private houses, in garrets, and in caves ; and though our doc-
trines were the same then as they had been before and have
been since, it rarely happened that the spies of government or
private informers, could discover any vestige of a picture or an
image amongst us. But when Constantine the Great gave
liberty to the Christian world, and when George the Third of
grateful memory, slackened the bonds of his Catholic subjects,,
and the Catholics of both periods were allowed to erect
churches of great dimensions and architectural character, the
ornaments of painting and sculpture claimed their right of
admission to cover the naked panel or fill the vacant niche ; and
it struck the christians of both times, that if the halls of

* Turtilliauus lib : de pudicitia. c. 10.

t Bartoli, Le Antiche lucerne, n. 28, 29, &c.

i Peril of Idolatry, part 3.

Sec. 4.] Chrisiian Relifjion. 71

public justice were appropriately adorned with the emblematical
figures of Equity, Truth, &c. or with the pictures and statues
of eminent legislators or upright judges, and the palaces of
kings Avith the representations and achievements of princes,
heroes and statesmen, the temples of God might, with equal
propriety and greater utility, be adorned with the painted or
sculptured representations of the wonderful and benevolent
works of Jesus Christ, and with the heroic actions of his mar-
tyrs and saints.

It is natural however to suppose, that even after the
Christians could introduce such ornaments with safety, there
would be some who would object to it, either as thinking it
unlawful, or as preferring the poverty and simplicity to which
they had been accustomed; and as the Church had not yet
decided any thing on the subject, every one was free to enter-
tain his own private opinion upon it. It is probable also, that
the fear of scandalizing the Jews who, in those days condemned
all visible representations,* or of misleading the Pagans, Avho
being accustomed to see only the statues of deities in their
temples, might conclude that the statues in Christian churches
were of a similar character, woidd cause many to doubt of the
expediency of introducing such ornaments. Thus in England
there are many Catholics, at the present day, who object to the
placing of statues in our churches in this country; not because
they doubt of the lawfulness of the practice, but because they
fear to give scandal to their Protestant brethren, many of
whom have been taught to believe, by their nurses and their
clergy, that the images of Catholics are considered by them as
objects of adoration. Indeed I am surprised that consider-
ations such as these, did not retard for a longer period the
introduction of paintings and statues into churches, and that we
should find so many mstances of them even in the first century,
when they could be introduced.

Vindex proceeds, " It was then (the fourth century) that the
walls of churches began to be painted, and statues of Christ
and his apostles to be erected, with the view of making the
heathens proselytes to the Christian faith. Notwithstanding
the motive, the practice was condemned, as we learn from

* That the Jews explained the letter of the different commandments too
strictly, is manifest from the frequent reproaches made them on this subject by
our Saviour, and their having been scandalized at him for healing a sick man
on the sabbath day. It appears that some of them actually condemned
Solomon of violating the commandment by the twelve oxen which he made to
support (he molten sea, and the lions with which he adorned his throne.
Josephus, book 8.

72 A Defence of the [Let. 2

Epiphamus."*' But by whom was it condemned? By the
majority of Christian bishops i Or by many of them J Or by
any other person than Epiphanius himself J That some should
condemn, was to be expected; that many condemned is
•not probable, otherwise we should have heard of it; if
the majority condemned, why was not the practice put down
altogether, or at least why was not more opposition made ?
That much opposition could not have been made, is evident
from Vindex's own account. " The pictures and statues,"
says he, " which were originally (in the fourth century) set up
to be looked at, in process of time became objects of respect,
and this ag-ain was succeeded by downright worship. And to
such an extent was this carried in the sixth century that it
afforded room for accusation among the Jews, and reproach
amongst the Gentiles; the former being as much scandalized
that the Christian should act in opposition to scripture, as the
latter were indignant that his practice should run counter to
his former precepts."!' I will just observe, by the bye, that
the Catholics of those days like their brethren of these, seem
to have had great difficulty to please their neighbours. The
former, Vindex tells us, placed pictures in their churches for
the express purpose of conciliating the Pagans " and making
them proselytes to the Christian faith," and then after they had
so placed them, these same Pagans, unreasonable mortals !
were indignant at their kind accommodating conduct. We
also have generally refrained from introducing statues into
our churches, to please our Protestant brethren, and convince
them that such things form no essential part of our religion,
and yet some of them accuse us with idolatry with as much
violence as if we had introduced into our service all the sacred
rites of Jupiter, Bacchus and Cytherea. But I must also
beg leave to ask Vindex, whether the use of images was the
only thing by which the Christians had the misfortune to scan-
dalize the Jews and rouse the indignation of the Pagans I Did
not St. Paul himself find that the preaching of " Christ cru-
cified was unto the Jews a stumbling-block and unto the
Greeks foolishness ?";{: And did not these same Jews, in
the sixth century, consider the divinity of Christ, the neglect
of circumcision, the keeping of the first day of the week holy
instead of the seventh, and many other pomts of Christian
doctrine, as contrary to scripture, as the Pagans thought it

* Letter to the Rev. P. Baines, page 14.
t Letter to the Rev. P. Baines, page 15. X 1 Corinth, i. 23.

Sec. 4.] Christian ReJiifion. 73

outrageous that a crucified man should rob Jupiter and his
friends of their ancient honours '. The disapprobation therefore
of the Jews and Pagans, is no proof that the doctrine or prac-
tice of the Christian church Avas unlawful or idolatrous.'

" The pictures and statues," says Vindex, " which were
originally set up to be looked at, in process of time became
objects of respect, and this again was succeeded by doximriyht
worship.'' This, reader, is a most instructive passage, and I
beg to call to it thy particular attention. The progress of
idolatry is as rapid as the victory of Caesar. " He came, he
saw, he conquered;" they looked, they respected, they wor-
shipped downright. But what does A index mean by down-
right ivorshipf Worship, we have already proved, is an
ambiguous term, applicable to a man's wife, to an alderman, to
a mayor, to the Almighty. Is doivnright worship something
different I From his explanation of the commandment it would
appear, that Vindex considers the external act of howing down
as downright worship. If this be all he means, he is not
much wrong. The custom of bowing down to created objects,
was certainly in use not only in the sixth century but long
before it. It is probable that it was used from the very com-
mencement of Christianity, and that the Church of England,
which we are told borrowed all its doctrines from the three first
centuries, borrowed this custom, also from those primitive
times. But if Vindex means to say that Latreia or divine
worship was in the sixth century paid by the Catholic Church
to images, I consider his assertion wholly incredible and in
direct 'contradiction to the history of the times. Between
looking at a picture, and respecting it on account of the
sacred objects it pourtrays there is a close connection. Indeed
one is the natural and immediate consequence of the other.
But between respecting a picture, as the representation of a
holy person and worshipping it as a God, there is an immense
distance ; and it does appear to me, that a much longer time
than Vindex has allotted to it, would be required for bringing
about so strange and so fatal a revolution in the opinions and
conduct of the Christian world. That in the short space of
two centuries, and these two centuries bordering upon the
" pure and golden ages"* of Christianity, the Church of God
should have been turned from the true worship of the Deity,
to the idolatrous worship of inanimate forms and senseless
blocks of wood and stone; and that this wonderful revolution,

* Book of Homilies.
K

74 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

which argues the most profound ignorance or the most con-
summate malice, should moreover have taken place during a
period when the Church was illuminated by the most brilliai)t
constellation of great, learned and holy bishops and pastors that
Christianity ever produced, by the Saints Athanasius, Hilary,
Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Ambrose, Austin, Jerom, John
Chrysostom, &c. &c. names which must live and be venerated
while learning and religion subsist ; that this strange and de-
plorable defection should have happened in these days, of all
others, appears to me utterly incredible, and therefore on the
bare and unsupported assertion of Vindex, not to be
admitted.

And here let me remind Vindex of the inevitable fate, he is
preparing for the Church of England. Already has that
Church ventured to introduce pictures and statues into her
places of worship. Already do the orthodox people of
England /oo^ at these pictures and statues. Nay some of
them, I believe, already feel a greater respect for a represen-
tation of Jesus Christ, than they would for -ihat of Jupiter or
Nero. Only one step more is required and downright ivorship
succeeds, and the Church of Christ which was sunk in the
ocean of idolatry for a thousand years, and which started up
again three centuries ago in this happy island, is again plunged
into " damnable idolatry," and pure Christianity again disap-
pears, after a short and limited reign, from the face of the
earth ! — Will Vindex say that the Church of England in the
nineteenth century is more enlightened, than the Catholic
Church in the fourth and fifth, or that its bishops and clergy
are more learned and more zealous than the great and holy
prelates and pastors of those early times, and will therefore
be more active and more successful in arresting the natural
progress of idolatry ? Alas ! even this will not avail ; for the
Book of Homilies declares, " that neither preaching, neither
writing, neither the consent of the learned, nor authority of
the godly, nor the decrees of councils, neither the laws of
princes, nor extreme punishment of offenders on that behalf,
nor any other remedy or means can help against idolatry, if
images be suffered publicly."*

" Such," continues Vindex, " was the state of the case

until the eighth century, when the contests directly commenced

on a point which had indeed been previously canvassed." But

,by whom had it been canvassed I Between the fourth and the

» Peril of Idolatry, part 3.

Sec. 4.] Christian Religion. 75

eighth century, the period during which he would have us be-
lieve that the Church gradually fell into idolatry, no less than
six general councils were held, many of which treated of sub-
jects of far less importance than that of preserving the whole
world from damnable idolatry. Was it " canvassed" in any of
them / AVas it so much as mentioned ? Or, if accidental
mention was made of the use of images, in the last of these
councils, was it not to approve it I* Is it not even certain
that some of these councils were actually held in churches
adorned with pictures or statues, and that the bishops, who
assisted at them, paid these objects the accustomed marks of
respect.f The truth is that the custom of placing pictures and
statues in churches, and bf shewing them certain marks of
respect, introduced itself into the Christian religion, in the
early ages of Christianity, just in the same manner as it has
done into the Church of England in our own times, namely,
without any ecclesiastical ordinance whatever, and without any
other sanction than that of the common sense and the common
feelings of mankind. Had, therefore, Vindex wished to give
his readers a correct statement of the case, he ought to have
said, not that the question had been previously canvassed, but
that the whole Christian Church, morally speaking, was so
perfectly agreed upon it, that in none of the general councils
held in those times, had it once been made a subject of discus-
sion; in fine, that the contest literally and simply commenced
for the first time in the eighth century.

It is a subject of surprise to me that Vindex, who professes
himself so expert an historian, should not have favoured his
readers with some account of this very interesting contest.
To me it appears that he has been guilty of a serious omission,
which is likely to mislead the generality of his readers. " To
decide the question" says he " two councils were summoned.
The one assembled at Constantinople, condemned image and
picture worship as idolati'ous. The other wh^ch met at Nice,
asserted it to be lawful." Now from this statement, such of
his readers as are not versed in ecclesiastical history, (and how
few could he expect to be versed in it, when he classes liis an-
tagonist himself amongst the ignorant !) would naturally sup-
pose that the Christian world was pretty equally divided on the
subject in question, and that the council which condemned the
use of images was equal in authority to that which approved

* See Fleury hist, eccles. torn. 9. page 5-13.
t Fleury hist, eccles. torn. 9, page 421.

76 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

it. The fact, however, is simply this. Whilst the universal
Church was enjoying a profound peace, and the east and the
west were vying with each other in erecting to the living God,
temples worthy, as far as any thing earthly can be worthy, of
his greatness and his goodness ; whilst piety was adorning
these temples, under the guidance of the fine arts, with such
visible representations as appeared best calculated to instruct
the beholder in religious truths, and impress him with religious
sentmients ; whilst God alone was considered by the whole
Christian world as the supreme, eternal, increased, self-exist-
ent Being, the sole Creator, Preserver, and Redeemer of man-
kind, and all other beings merely as his creatures, existing by
his power, excellent only on account of his gifts, and deserving
of no respect, but such as belongs to creatures, the work of
his hands ; whilst every external usage of religion was intended
to be no more than an outward expression of these inward con-
victions, Leo the Third ascended the imperial throne. He was,
says the Book of Homilies, " a very wise, merciful, and valiant
prince." He was, says Gibbon, not less truly, "jgnorant of sacred
profane letters ; but his education, his reason, and perhaps
his intercourse with the JeAvs and Arabs, had inspired
the martial peasant with an hatred of images ; and it was
held to be the duty of a prince to impose on his subjects
the dictates of his own conscience."t When kings become
apostles we may expect a novel mode of preaching the
gospel. They seldom possess much of that " long suf-
fering and doctrine":!: which the scripture recommends
to Christian preachers, and being more accustomed to the
use of the material SAvord and shield than to St. Paul's spi-
ritual armour, they have generally employed the former instead
of the latter in the business of conversion. Our Saviour said
"he who believeth not shall be damned ;"|| thus visiting
spiritual disobedience with spiritual punishment, and he autho-
rized his followers to use no other. But our royal apostles
have constantly lost sight of this distinction, and instead of
saying " he who believeth not shall be damned,'' they have
generally, by a slight mistake, ended in saying, he who believeth

* Peril of Idolatry, part 2.
t Decliue and fall of the Romau Empire, cliap4y. I quote Gibbon as I do the
Book of Homilies, because be is a decided enemy to images, and therefore cannot
be suspected of favouring the cause. His account of this business is equally artful
and incorrect ; but Gibbon was aware that he could not serve the cause of inlidelitj
better, than by falling in with the ideas of the Book of Homilies, and making it
appear that the whole Christian Church had become idolatrous at so early a
period,

X 2 Timothy iv. 2. H Mark xvi. 16.

Sec. 4.] Chi'islian tieligion. 77

not shall be fumcjed." This was the case with the Emperor
Leo. He had been taught by his Jewish and Mahomedan in-
structors that to have images and paintings was idolatry, and
he was determined to remove them out of all the churches and
private houses in his dominions. This was rather an arduous
undertaking-, and he at first endeavoured to procure the co-op-
eration of the Church herself. Gennanus was patriarch of
Constantinoj)!e. Leo employed all his eloquence and all his
threats to bring- him over to his party ,• but the good bishop
told him that he had no authority to change the doctrines of
the Church, and that, rather than attempt it, he would
renounce his patriarchal dignity.* The emperor banished him
and substituted in his place a creature of his own.

Leo wrote different letters to the Pope to obtain his concur-
rence, and threatened, in case of refusal, to come to Rome,
break the statue of St. Peter, and send his holiness into exile
loaded with chains, as Constantine had done to his predecessor
Martin. The Pope replied, that if he came to Rome on such
an errand, he would not find him there; that if he chose to
break St. Peter's image, it was a business between God and
himself; that he had much better leave the Church in the
peace in which he found it, and not assume an authority which
did not belong to him. " As the bishop says he has no right
to interfere in the palaces of kings and distribute civil dignities,
so neither has the sovereign any right to interfere in the govern-
ment of the church, the election of its ministers, or the
administration of its sacraments. Let each of us confine our-

* TLe doctrine of this patriarch on the subject of images is fully expressed in
some of his letters which remain. In one addressed to John, Bishop of Synnas, he
savs, " The Christian faith, worship and adoration tend to God alone, according to
the commandment. Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God and serve him alone. It is
to him alone we address our doxologv and our worship. We do not adore the crea-
ture, God forbid, nor do we give to beings, who are his servants like ourselves, the
worship due only to God. When we prostrate ourselves before the emperors and
the princes of the earth, it is not to adore them as God. The prophet Nathan
prostrated himself on the ground before David, who was only a man, and was not
balmed for it. And when we allow images to be made, it is not to diminish the
perfection of the divine worship. For we make no image to represent the invisible
Divinity, whom even the angels cannot comprehend. But as the Son of God has
become man for our salvation, we make the image of his humanity to fortify our
faith. We make also the image of his mother, shewing, that being a creature of
the same nature as ourselves, she conceived and brought forth the all powerful God.
We admire also and deem happy the martyrs, the apostles, the prophets and all the
saints, who were the true servants of God and we paint their pictures in memory of
their courage and of the agreeable service they paid to God, not that we pretend
that they participate of the divine nature, or that we render to them the honour
and ivorship due to God ; but to shew the aflection we bear them." Fleury, torn.
9, pHgo217, Cone. torn. r,page 290.

78 A Defence of the [Lei. 2.

selves to our own department." He explains to him the use
of pictures and images in churches. " Our churches," says
he, " are ornamented with the painted histories of Christ and
his saints. Fathers and mothers, holding their newly baptized
infants in their arms, are seen pointing out to them these
instructive histories, or explaining them to the youth or the
newly converted, thus edifying them and raising their minds
and hearts to God. We do not consider these objects as gods,
God forbid, nor do we place any confidence in them," He
tells him, in fine, that the worship which Christians pay
io pictures and images is only a relative honour, " not
Lntreia."*

Finding treaty a tedious mode of proceeding, Leo obtained
the sanction of a few of his bishops and courtiers, and then is-
sued an imperial edict commanding all images and paintings to
be brought to the market-place and publicly burnt, and the
walls of the churches to be whitewashed. Those who opposed
his proceedings or refused to subscribe to its justice, he banished,
mutilated, or put to death.

One instance of his summary mode of conversion deserves
to be particularly mentioned. There was a celebrated man of
the name of Loecumenicus, chief librarian to a magnificent
library of thirty thousand volumes, founded by the emperors,
and situated near the imperial palace. He had twelve other
learned men under him, whose office it was to give gratuitously
public lectures on religion and the profane sciences. So high
was the esteem in which this body of men was held, that the
emperors themselves were not supposed to undertake any
affair of importance without their advice. Leo laboured hard,
by argument, by persuasion, and by threats, to convince these
men that the Church was in error, and that he was commis-
sioned by God to reform her. Finding them quite incredulous
and absolutely unwilling to lend him their assistance, he
locked them up in the library, then ordered a quantity of fag-
gots and dry wood to be placed round the building, and burnt
the librarians and the books together. f This " very wise,
merciful, and godly prince," died in 741, leaving his son Con-
stantine Copronymus to accomplish the pious work of reform
which he had so happily begun.

The hopeful son shewed himself worthy of such a father.

* Flenry, torn. 9. p. 236, &c. Anast. torn. 7, concil, p. 7.
t Flenry, torn, 9. page 230.

Sec. 4.] Chrislian Religion. 79'

Without greater knowledge, he possessed rather more zeal, and
acted with considerably greater vigour in demolishing images,
whitewashing the walls of churches, and in eflfectually " stop-
ping the mouths" of all who gainsayed his imperial doctrines. —
Though his edicts were much more unanswerable than his ar-
guments, he sometimes, like our royal apostle Henry the
Eiffhth, was anxious to shew his skill in controversy. I shall
relate one of his theological discussions, because it points out
clearly the real doctrines of the Catholic Church on one side,
and the objections of her adversaries on the other. There was
a venerable old man of the name of Stephen, celebrated all
over the east for his learning and his sanctity, the abbot of a
monastery in the neighbourhood of Constantinople. — Every
effort had been made by the creatures of the emperor, to bring
over to his party a man whose reputation was so high and
Avhose influence was so great. They all failed, and at last the
emperor determined to undertake the work himself. Stephen
was sent for to the palace, and supposing what was likely to
happen, he provided himself on his way with a piece of money
which bore the impression of the emperors. He appeared be-
fore the imperial controvertistloadenwith chains. — " Wretch,"
exclaimed the emperor, " tell me what precepts of the fathers
we have disregarded that we should be treated by you as here-
tics." Stephen replied, " You have taken from the churches
the images which the fathers have at all times received and
worshipped." " Impious wretch," exclaims the emperor,
" call them not images; they are idols. How can such
objects be compatible with holy things I What association can
there be between light and darkness ?" "Sire," replied the
abbot, " Christians were never required to adore the material
substance of the image. We worship him whose name the
image bears, carrying the mind from the visible form to the
invisible original. The views of these things raises our
thoughts to heaven and fixes our curiosity." " And is it right,"
says the emperor, " to make visible representations of what
the mind itself cannot comprehend?" " And where then is the
man," answered the abbot, " unless he has lost his senses, who
in worshipping Avhat he sees in the churches worships the crea-
ture, the stone, the gold, the silver, on pretence that it bears
the name of a holy object ? But your party," added he, " not
distinguishing the sacred from the profane, are not shocked to
call an image of Jesus Christ an idol like Apollo, and that of
the mother of God an idol like Diana ; to trample them under
jour feet and commit them to the flames." " Dolt," exclaims

80 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

the emperor, " do we trample Jesus Christ under our feet,
when we trample upon his image I God forbid." " Sire," re-
plied the old man, taking- from under his robe the piece of
money he had brought, "whose image and inscription is this I"
The emperor taken by surprise, answered, " They were those
of the emperors." (Namely, his own and his son's.) " Shall
I then be punished," continued Stephen, " if I throw it on the
ground and trample upon it ?" The by-standers exclaimed,
" Assuredly you will, for it bears the name and image of the
invincible emperors." The abbot replied with a deep sigh,
" What then shall be the punishment of him who tramples
under foot the name of Jesus Christ and of his mother in
their images? Shall he not be condemned to the eternal
flames?" He then threw the piece of money on the ground
and trod upon it. The attendants rushed upon him with great
fury, and had nearly precipitated him from the terrace on
which he stood, but the emperor prevented them, and sent him,
with his hands bound behind his back and a rope round his
neck, to the pretorian prison, to be tried by the laws for
having trodden under foot the image of the emperors. He
was afterwards put to death without a trial.

It was this emperor who summoned the council of Constan-
tinople, which Vindex tells us condemned " image and pic-
ture worship as idolatrous." That it did so the reader will not
be surprised, when he reflects that it was summoned by Con-
stantine Copronymus, the son of Leo, that the bishops who
composed it were all his subjects, who bad trembled for seve-
ral years under his own and his father's apostolic reign, and
that he himself presided in person at the council. It met in
the year 754, and consisted of 338 bishops ; but no one at-
tended from the patriarchal sees of Rome, Alexandria, Anti-
och, or Jerusalem, and the see of Constantinople was vacant.
A short abstract of the proceedings of the council will enable
the reader to estimate the value of its decrees, which Gibbon
says " betray many symptoms of reason and piety,"*

It begins by paying a handsome compliment to the presiding
emperor and his pious father, saying, " that as Jesus Christ
formerly sent his apostles for the destruction of idols, so has
he raised up, at present, his servants the emperors, imitators
of the apostles, to instruct us and overthrow the works of the
devil. "-f

It admits the authority of the six preceding general coun-

* Decline aud Fall, chap. 49.
t Fleury, toni. ix. pai^e 336, &o. Council, torn. vii. page 401, et seq.

Sec. 4.] Christian Religion. 81

cils, and finds, after serious examination of their doctrine,
that the " unlawful art of painting combats the principal dogma
of our religion, the incarnation of Jesus Christ ! "

To establish this curious decision, the council appears to
have laboured under considerable difficulty, and to have been
compelled, like Vindex, to have recourse to abstruse metaphy-
sical reasoning, which, to use Dr. Moysey's expression, ap-
pears to me rather " too subtle for the simplicity of the word
of God." " Painting," says the council, " establishes the
error of Nestorius, who divides Jesus Christ into two persons,
and even supports those of Arius, Dioscorus, Eutyches and
Severus, who confound the two natures ; for the painter hav-
ing made an image calls it Christ. Now the name Christ sig-
nifies the entire person comprismg both God and man. There-
fore either the painter confines, as he imagines, the immense
Divinity within the limits of a created body, or he confounds
together the two natures which are united without confusion.
He who worships the image is guilty of the same blasphemy
as he who makes it, and the same malediction will fall on
both.

" How," continues the council, " can these foolish men
pretend to paint the flesh of Jesus Christ, as if it were that of
a mere man. To do so is to suppose that the humanity of Je-
sus Christ subsits by itself ; it is to give him another persona-
lity, and consequently to add a fourth person to the Trinity."

The council denominates painting a " detestible art," and
pronounces it the original source of idolatry ; ** for having no
hope of a resurrection, they (the painters) invented this illu-
sion, to render as present what was not so. But as to the
saints who reign with God, it is doing them an injury to re-
present them in dead materials, by a Pagan art."

" The council acknowledges the blessed Virgin Mary as
the most exalted of creatures, and teaches that we ought to
have recourse to her intercession as very powerful with God,
and that all the saints, whether they lived under the law of
nature, the written law, or the law of grace, ought to be ho-
noured and invoked, according to the tradition of the church."*

Now, from the above narration, I consider it clear, first,
that the contest which Vindex says began in the eighth cen-
tury, did not arise from any considerable diversity of opinion
in the Christian world, the whole church, morally speaking,
being perfectly agreed in doctrine and in practice ; but that it

* Fleurj, Concil. torn. rii. page 524, 628.
L

8:2 A Defence of the {Let. 2.

sprung' altogether from the will of an emperor, whom igno-
rance had made a fanatic, and whom fanaticism impelled to
commence the reform of the church, and to support his own
opinions by acts of violence and persecution.

Secondly, that the council summoned was manifestly under
the powerful influence of fear, arising from the cruel and des-
potic proceedings of the presiding emperor against all who op-
posed his will.*

Thirdly, that the council being called together by no canoni-
cal authority, and being moreover composed of bishops not
assembled from Christendom in general, but only from such
provinces of the east as were subject to the immediate control
of the emperor, could not fairly be called a general council.

Fourthly, I conclude that whatever universality or impor-
tance, Vindex may wish to give to this council, he must, as a
member of the Church of England, condemn the whole of its
proceedings except its anathemas against Catholics. For to
say nothing of the childish and laughable reasons it assigns for
condemning the use of images and pictures, its decisions mili-
tate as strongly against every class of Protestants as against
Catholics. For, in the first place, it entirely agrees with the
Catholic Church, on what Dr. Moysey calls the " adoration,"
and what Catholics call " the invocation of the saints." In
the next place, it is not merely the worship of images which
the council condemns, but the very making of them, or having
them for any purpose, or in any place.

Were its decrees to be executed in England, as they were
in Constantinople and throughout the different provinces of the
Eastern Empire, there is scarcely a single church, a single
print shop, or a single private house in the kingdom, that
would escape spoliation, or a single inhabitant who would es-
cape condemnation. In this city we should see the officers of
public justice hastening to the Abbey Church, tearing down
the painting over the communion-table, and hurling from their
exalted station the six colossal statutes of David and the apos-
tles, to mingle their broken fragments with those of their
brethren from the Catholic Chapel. We should see the same
men rushing into Dr. Moysey's church and breaking to pieces
the sacreligious representation of the third person of the sacred

♦

Even Gibbon himself is " inciined to suspect that on this occasion the great
majority of the prelates sacrificed their secret conscience to the temptations of hope
and fear." Decline and Fall, &c. chap. 49. Many of them afterwards repented
Kiid rfcliirned to the unity of the Church.

Sec. 4.]

Chiisllan Relujion.

Paul the Abbot. See note, page 8i.

Trinity. We should see them demolishing, before it has yet
received the admiration due to it, the elegant east window in
the beautiful new church in James-street, on account of the
multiplied emblems of the Trinity which it contains. Bath-
wick, St. Michael's, the fashionable Octagon, and in short, 1
believe, every church and chapel of the Establishment in Bath,
would mourn at least the loss of one or more good paintings,
which form now their principal ornaments. Nor would any
distinction be made between the altar-pieces of the Established
Church and those of the Catholic Chapel. All would be car-
ried, in equal dishonour, together with heaps of paintings,
prints, scriptural engravings, &c. collected from all the shops
and private houses in the city, and consumed by one common
fire before the Town-hall. Nor is this all. The Archdeacon
and all the clergy of Bath, as well as many of the laity, who

84 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

lost their pictures, would be called upon to subscribe solemnly
to the justice of these proceedings, and perhaps to trample ou
their own representations of the Redeemer.* It would be in
vain, that Dr. Moysey and his two friends would press for-
ward to explain, that they were the real orthodox Christians
who preached charges and wrote pamphlets against the Catho-
lics ; in vain that they would entreat, at least, for the privi-
lege of having their pictures and images burnt at a separate
fire ; in vain, that each of these divines would urge his respec-
tive explanation of the second commandment. To the Arch-
deacon's decision, that the commandment forbids us only to
bow down in prayer ; to the opinion of the warlike author of
" Catholicism Sifted," that the commandment forbids us to
7nake images for any religious use ; to the decree of Vindex,
that the commandment forbids us to bow down at all, the same
answer would be given. You have employed, it would be
said, the detestible art of painting to make representations of
Christ, his mother, and the apostles. Nay, you, Mr. Arch-
deacon, have not been ashamed to put up, or to suffer in your
church the figure of a dove, to lead the people to erroneous
notions of the Deity, and to circumscribe, within the dimen-
sions of a small circular window, the immense Divinity. It is
of no use to pretend that you did not worship these things ; it
matters not what reason you had for making them. " He
who makes the image, and he who adores it, are guilty of the
same blasphemy and the same malediction will fall on both."-!-
Lastly, I conclude from the above narrative, that the image
breakers of the eighth century, were a set of ignorant or mis-
guided men, who, under the influence of a wild and violent
fanaticism, disturbed the peace of the Church, and were guilty
of follies and excesses at which, every liberal Protestant of the
present day must blush, and which can find no parallel in his-
tory, except in the barbarous ravages which the same spirit
produced in England during the reigns of Edward the Sixth,
Elizabetfi, and Cromwell, and under the guidance of such men
as the writers of the Book of Homilies and their modern admirers.

* This form of abjuration was frequently demanded under pain of death. An
image of Jesus Christ was placed on one side and a rack on the other. " Paul,"
said one of the imperial governors to a venerable old abbot, who was brought before
him as a Catholic idolator, " Paul, choose one of these two things ; either trample
on that image, or mount that rack." "God forbid," answered the old man, "that
I should trample on thy image, my Lord Jesus," and bowing down he paid it the
accustomed token of respect ; or, as Vindex would siy, he worshipped it. He
Was stripped naked, stretched on the rack, hang with his head downwards over a
fire and burnt to death." Fleury, torn. ix. page 443.

t See the foregoing Decree of the Council.

Sec. 4.] Christian Reliijion. 85

Hitherto, the faith of the Church, on the subject of images,
had not been established by any express definition, and could
only be collected from the general belief and practice of the
foithful. The use of sacred representations, >vhether in pri-
vate or in public, had been introduced among Christians under
the sanction of reason alone ; and the honours, that were paid
them, were, in like manner, either dictated by the common
feelings of our nature, or copied from the usages of civil life.
A mother kissed the picture of a departed child in a moment
of painful recollection, and in a moment of pious feeling, she
did the same to the picture or image of her dying Redeemer.
She suspected as little idolatry in one case as the other, and iii
the opinions of Catholics she committed as little. It was cus-
tomary, ill those times, to bow to the statues or pictures of the
emperors, just as it is customary in England to bow to the
king's throne. It was intended in the former case, as it is in
the latter, as a mark of respect for the sovereign himself. It
Avas customary, at the same period and for the same reason, to
carry the pictures or statues of the emperors in procession, and
to burn torches or tapers, incense or perfumes, before them.
These acts were perfectly understood. Neither the emperor
wished to receive nor the people intended to pay him divine
honours. Even the emperor Leo and the other iconoclast em-
perors, still allowed these honours to be paid to their own
images, whilst they maintained it was idolatry to pay them to
those of Christ and his saints. The Catholics however of those
days could not understand, why an hnage of the world's Re-
deemer, should not be deserving of as high honours as that of
an emperor, nor did they suppose that so long as they gave to
the former only what it was admitted could lawfully be given
to the latter, they could be guilty of idolatry ; or, rather, the
idea of idolatry never once entered their minds. In the city
the loyal Christian had burnt his taper or his incense before
the picture of the emperor, to shew that he loved his sover-
eign ; he proceeded to the church and did the same thing be-
fore the picture of Jesus Christ, to shew that he loved his
God. These same acts were applied to the pictures and
images of the saints, to the cross, the altar, the book of the
gospels, and other tilings immediately connected with the ser-
vice of God.

It is upon the use of these ceremonies, as applied to pious
representations, that the image breakers, in the eighth century
wholly founded their charge of idolatry against the Catholics.

86 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

The latter denied the justice of the charge on these simple
ambiguous acts which depended wholly for their meaning
grounds ; first, that the external ceremonies themselves were
upon the intention of the employer. Secondly, that knowing
that images were not gods, nor entitled to divine honours, the
Catholics did not intend to pay them any such. Thirdly, that
their intention in burning tapers or incense before the repre-
sentations of Christ and his saints, was the same as that of
their adversaries in applying the same acts to the statues of the
emperors, to the cross and to the books of the gospel.

That such was the belief and practice of the church in the
eighth century, when Leo began his reform, is manifest from
the preceding narrative, and will appear still more undeniably
so from the decisions and explanations of the second council
of Nice, which was held for the express purpose of stating
authoritatively what was the actual doctrine of the church on
the subject of images, and of composing the differences which
the ignorance and tyranny of the emperors had unhappily
occasioned.

The second council of Nice was held at the request of Te-
rasius, the newly elected patriarch of Constantinople, in the
year 780. It was composed of 877 bishops from the east and
the west, with legates from Rome who presided in the name of
the Pope, and delegates from the four great patriarchal sees of
Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. The
Pope had demanded from the reigning emperor and the
senate, a solemn oath that the council should be perfectly free
and uncontrolled in its deliberations;* and indeed, as its de-
crees are described by Vindex as being conformable to the
general belief at the time, there is no reason to suspect that its
decisions were not perfectly free.

We will now examine the accuracy of the account given of
this council by Vindex. " To decide the question" (respecting
images) says he, " two councils were assembled. The one as-
sembled at Constantinople condemned image and picture
worship as idolatrous. The other which met at Nice asserted
it to be lawful ? not allov/ing, however, any representations
higher than those of Christ and his saints."

What does Vindex mean by representations higher than
those of Christ ? Does he believe Christ to be God I If so,
what can be higher I Does he mean to say that the council

* Fleui y, torn. ix. page, 520.

Sec. 4.] Chrisliaa Rellyion. 87

forbad the representation of the other persons of the Trinity i
If so, he is mistaken, for they expressly approved of the
ancient custom of representing the Holy Ghost in the form of
a dove.* Does he mean to say that they forbad the repre-
sentation of the divine nature i The Catholic Church at the
present day equally does, and equally has forbidden it at
all times.

Vindex proceeds. " Their argument rested on this ground :
service they exclusively appropriated to God, but not ivor-
ship." What does Vindex mean by serviced The council
appropriated Latreia to God, by which word they did not
mean service in its common sense, as Vindex, if he has read
the council, well knows ; but that peculiar worship, which,
" according to our faith, belongs exclusively to the divine
nature, "-j- and which the councils expressly forbids to be given
to any creature. " Every act of ivorsJup,'' says Vindex, " was
foiuided on this principle, that the honour paid to the type is
referred to the prototype ; from which must be inferred that
the degree of worship to be paid to the representation was to
be correspondent to the dignity of the original. Whence it is
plain that worship in every instance, and not respect, (as you
call it, p. 14.) was to be paid to the image." Again, I ask
what does Vindex mean by worship ? Does he mean divine
ivorship I If so, I have already mentioned, and he himself
admits, that this was reserved by the council to God alone.
Does he mean such worship as lie might pay to the ivorshipful
the Mayor of Bath, or as he has perhaps paid to his wife, or
such as Abraham and Joshua paid to the angels, or the
nobles of David to the king ] in fine, does he, to use the words
of the council itself, mean a mere " honorari/ worship," that
does not imply any divinity in the objects to which it is applied I
Then do I conceive that such worship may very properly be
termed in English respect, and not very properly worship,
particularly when placed in opposition to respect. Vindex goes
on, " An express reserve was indeed made in favour of the La-
treia, or service to God; but a provision, equally explicit, was
made in favour of the honorary adoration of images, which was
intended to amount to direct worship; and this is evident
enough, both from the words of the Nicene council, and from
the testimony of succeedmg writers, however the doctrine may
be diluted by modern expositors of the Church of Rome."

Again, I must ask Vindex what he means by direct wor-

* Fkury, torn. ix. page 55, concil 371. t Sjd. vii. act 7.

88 A Defence of tlm [Let. 2.

ship? He has just admitted that the council reserved to God
alone the service called Latreia. Does he mean to say that
in the next breath, the council allowed also to the images of
saints what they had just reserved to God alone? This is
incredible. What then does he mean when he says that the
" honorary adoration," allowed by the council to images, was
intended to amount to direct worship i Is his mind still run-
ning upon his new explanation of the commandment, which
makes the act of howing clown and divine ivorshij) synonymous
terms I Or, does he wish, by the use of ambiguous words to
involve his real meaning in a cloud, and thus withdraw it from
minute investigation I He had undertaken to prove that the
Catholic Church did not reserve Latreia to God alone, but
gave it also to images. If the Nicene council teaches this
doctrine, why does he not say so at once I Why employ so
many ambiguous words when he has unequivocal ones at com-
mand I But that his explanation is right, he says, " is evident
enough, both from the words of the Nicene council and from
the testimony of succeeding writers." Why then not give the
words of the council I Why enter into an abstruse metaphy-
sical dissertation, which not one of his readers can possibly
understand, to elucidate a text which is " evident enough" of
itself? It is indeed true, that the words of the council are
clear enough, but the reader shall judge whether they are
clear enough in favour of what Vindex wished them to prove.

" Having" says the council, " employed upon the subject
all care and diligence, we decree, that venerable and holy
images, whether formed in painted colours, of mosaic work,
or of any other suitable materials, be set forth publicly in the
churches of God, whether on the sacred vessels and vestments,
or on the walls, and on tablets ; also in private houses and in
the public ways, in the same manner as it is done with the
figure of the holy and life-giving cross ; namely, the images of
our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our immaculate
lady the holy mother of God, of the glorious angels, and of all
the samts and pious men. For the more frequently the eye is
fixed upon these representations, the more powerfully is the
mind of the beholder raised to the remembrance and admira-
tion of the originals. Also, that the kiss and honorary ado-
ration he given to them; not the true worship) of Latreia,
which, according to our faith, belongs only to the divine
nature ,* hut that incense and lights he employed to honour

* " nM rocvTMii; cca'woi.a^ov koci tj/aijTwijv 7rfO!7xvvv)iriv ctvovi/.Etv, ov i^ev rr,v
xovTcc viortv lOfjLuv oc>,Y)Bivnv XotTfitxv, ri vnrn i^ovn t? hcc (pvan, &C.

Sec. 4] Christian Religion. 89

them, according to the religious custom of our ancestors, in
the same, manner as is done to the figure of the precious and
life-giving cross, the hook of the holy gospels, and other sa-
cred objects."*

Now, I appeal to the reader, whether it would have been
easy to draw up a decree in terms less liable to misconstruction..
In the first place, the council decrees that pictures of Christ
and his saints be set up in churches in the same manner as the
cross was set up by the Iconoclasts themselves. In this it
perfectly agrees with the practice of the Church of England.
In the next place, it ordains that an " honorary worship" be
paid to these pictures ; but it expressly says that this honorary
worship must not he Latreia or divine icorship, because " ac-
cording to the faith of the Church, this worship belongs to
God alone." Lastly, the council explains what it means by
" honorary worship," and says it is to be expressed by the kiss,
by incense, and by lights, which acts are to be exhibited to the
images of the saints in the same manner as they were ex-
hibited to the cross, the book of the gospels and other sacred
objects by the Iconoclasts themselves. Now does Vindex
mean to say that not only the Catholics of the eighth century,
but his friends the image breakers, paid divine worship to the
cross, to the book of the gospels, and a variety of other things
comprised under the terms " sacred objects V Does he mean
to say that the acts of kissing, of burning lights or incense,
necessarily amount to direct ivorship, with whatever intention
they are employed I But he knows that the act of kissing,
prescribed by the Nicene council, is still given, by the Estab-
lished Church of England, to the book of the gospels in the
administration of oaths. He knows, moreover, if he has read
the proceedings of the council, that lights and incense w£re,
at that time, burnt before the pictures of the emperors as a
mere mark of respect; and he knows, or might know, that
even to this day in the Catholic Church the same ceremonies
are applied to the altar, the cross, the book of the gospels, the
ministers of religion, the people, and even to a corpse at a fu-
neral. Will he say that direct worship is intended to be paid
to all these objects I He knows, in fine, if he has read the pro-
ceedings of the council, that it opened with a solemn declara-
tion, that the worship of Latreia was due " to the one true
God alone ;"f that it concluded with pronoimcing, ** an anath-

" SjB. vii. act 7.
" Apertis verbis testamur nos in nnam DeamTerum Latriani, hoc est caltam et
fidem Dostram referre et reponere." Actio secnnda.

90 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

ema upon all who should say that Christians worshipped
imag-es as gods ;"* and that during- its different discussions, it
over and over again repeated, that neither the saints nor their
images were to be worshipped as gods, but that the saints
themselves were to be honoured only as the servants and
friends of God, and that no mark of honour was to be paid to
their images, but such as custom authorized to be paid to the
images of living emperors, or to various material objects em-
ployed in the service of God. He knows, in fine, that the
grand principle on which the council defended the doctrine of
the Catholic Church against the objections of the Inconoclasts,
was that the former applied only the very same external cere-
monies, and with the very same internal motives to the images
of Christ and his saints, which the latter applied to the cross
of Christ, to the book of the gospels and to other sacred
objects.

It may be proper hej*e to mention a letter which was
addressed by the council to the emperor after it had concluded
its decrees, both because it confirms the accuracy of the above
statements, and particularly because it explains the ceremony
of the adoration or kissing of the cross on Good Friday,
which Vindex has brought forward a thousand years later as a
proof of the idolatry of the Catholic Church. They begin by
explaining the meaning of the Greek word "TT^oa-y.vmv, to adore
or worship, which they observe often means no more than to
salute, or kiss, and bring, as an instance of this, the ceremony
of Good Friday. " When we salute the cross," says the
council, " we sing, We adore thy cross, O Lord, and we
adore the lance that has pierced thy side ; which words mani-
festly imply no more than to salute, as we actually kiss the
cross at the time. But if the word adoration be often found
in scripture to signify the spiritual worship of Latreia, it is
because this word has different siarnifications. For there is an
adoration which implies a mixture of honour, love and fear,
as when we adore your majesty, (the emperor,) there is an
adoration of fear alone, as when Jacob adored Esau. It is
for this reason that the scripture, w ishing to instruct us, says,
' the Lord thy God shalt thou worship {ir^oa-y.wrio-eK;) and him
only shalt thou serve, (xccrfivaiK;.) It places the Avord worship
as an indefinite term, which may be applied to other beings
beside God, but it restrains to God alone the service of

* " Qui dicunt quod Christian! imagines ut Deos adorent, auatheraa." Actio
septima.

Sec. 4.] Christian Religion. 91

Latreia, and to him alone we give it."* Vindex enters into a
long- and learned dissertation to prove, that the council was
wrong in its explanation of this passage of scripture. I should
have been happy to have saved him the trouble, as it is quite
immaterial to the question, whether it were wrong or right,
and as I am rather inclined to agree with him. The doctrine
of the council is not at all founded on this text, and its doc-
trine is all we consider ourselves boiuid to receive, or interested
to defend. f But will Vindex really conclude, that the Church
did not reserve Latreia to God, when she employed this text
to prove that she did I Did she attempt to prove a doctrine
which she did not teach J Will he maintain that the Church
paid divine w orship to the emperors, when she here tells the
emperor himself that she does not J or that she pays divine
worship to the cross on Good Friday, when she has continued
to declare, for the last thousand years, that she has no such
intention .'|

* Flenry, torn. ix. page 559.

t Thus an Englishraan thinks himself bound to obey an Act of Parliament ;
bat he approves or disapproves of any illustrations which may be brouglit to shew
its propriet)'.

i N.B. it is curious enough, that the very same ceremony is used in paying
homage to the King of England at this day, that is used by Catholics to the cross on
Good Friday; namely, kneeling before and kissing. Selden, tells us, that this act
of civil homage was originally used by the Pagans in the worship of their gods, that
from them it passed to the Pagan emperors, who at first were half wishful to re-
ceive divine Imnnurs, from them to the Christian emperors and the kings of this
country, who disclaim all right to divine irorsliiji. AVhelher the ceremony of Good
Friday had a similar origin, T know not; but since its introduction into Christianity
it certainly has been no more intended for divine worship than the homage paid to
the king.

92 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

§ 5.

Refutation of different charges from St. Thomas Aquinas,
and other Theologians. — Council of Trent totally mis-
represented by Vindex. — -Its decree. — Bossuefs Exposition
de lafoi.

To confirm the explanation Vindex had given of the doc-
trine of the Nicene council, he gives us an account of a dis-
pute which took place amongst the schoolmen of the middle
ages, in the following terms: *' St. Thomas Aquinas set his
face against the reserve that was made in favour of the
Latreia to God. And so also did others besides the angelic
doctor : and the view they took of the subject was this : they
thought the same degree of worship was due to the image,
which was due to the original ; that the act should be precisely
the same in both instances. For to pay the image one sort of wor-
ship and the original another, was in their estimation, to worship
the image for the sake of itself, and not on account of the
original, wliich would be idolatry. Whereas, others, after the
Nicene council, persisted in thinking that idolatry would be
the consequence of not worshipping the image in an inferior
degree ; Avhich differences of opinion bring one to a sort of
dilennna : for let a man choose which side he will, he is sure to
pass for an idolater on the other side." Now, supposing the
whole of this statement, and the conclusions which Vindex
draws from it to be correct, I really do not see what he has
gained. Has he proved that his account of the doctrine of
the Nicene council was correct ? Not at all. The only thing
he has proved, is, that in the tliirteenth centur}^ namely,
five hundred years after the council of Nice, certain scholastic
divines, who like Vindex himself, were fond of metaphysics,
undertook to analyze the worship or respect paid to images,
and having bewildered themselves in the mazes of their own
subtleties, called each other idolaters. But Vindex will ex-
cuse me when I say, that I much question the truth of this
statement. I do not think that any of the divines of the
dark ages were so uncivil as to hurl at each other's heads the
deadly charge of idolatry. I am inclined to think, that this is
all the work of our Church of England theologian. I have
read St. Thomas and Bellarmine, the two authors whose names

Sec, 5.] Christian Religion, 93

he mentions, and there is nothing of the kind in them. The
other part of his account, though involved in that same unfor-
tunate obscurity, and subject to the same unfavourable miscon-
struction, which attends all his explanations of Catholic
doctrine or opinion, is, when properly understood, not
materially incorrect. But to me it appears to prove directly
the opposite of what he wished. " The view," says Vindex,
" they, (St. Thomas and his party) took of the subject was
this : they thought the same degree of worship was due to the
image which was due to the original ; that the act should be
precisely the same in both instances." Here Vindex is out of
his depth. St, Thomas maintained, that no worship or
respect teas due to the material image itself, because it was not
an intellectual being ,-* and that any respect paid to it was de-
signed whollg for the being it represented. Consequently, in
his opinion, there were no two instances in the case. Vindex
proceeds, " For to pay the image owe sort of worship and the
original another, was in their estimation to worship the image
for the sake of itself, and not on account of the original, which
would be idolatry." It appears then, from this passage, that
St. Thomas and his friends had at least a dread of idolatry,
and were anxious to avoid it. Indeed they might well ; for
St. Thomas teaches that " Idolatry is the greatest of all
crimes,"^ that can be committed. In the next place, it appears
that they considered that it would be idolatry to worship
the image on account of itself ; therefore it will follow, I think,
that they did not consider the image as a god, or place it on a
level with God, or intend to worship it as a god. " Others,"
says Vindex, " persisted in thinking that idolatry would be the
consequence of not worshipping the image in an inferior de-
gree.'' Thus it appears that both parties were equally anxious
to avoid idolatry, that both equally denied to created objects
the honour due only to God, and yet Vindex will not let either
of them escape condemnation.

What a pity his metaphysics are not as acute ip discovering
the innocence, as in contriving the guilt of his neigbour !

The dispute which Vindex has taken such pains to misrepre-
sent, was simply this. All parties were perfectly agreed upon
the doctrines of the church, which, as I have proved, went no
farther than to teach that the same external marks of respect

* Imagini Christi in quantnm est res qnaedam (puta ligDum sculptam rel pictam)
nulla reverentia exhibetur, quia reverentia nonnisi rationali creaturae debetur.
Snmma. 3a. quest. \\v, art. 3.

t 2a 2a Quest, xciv. art. 3.

94 A Defence of tha [Let. 2.

might be paid to the images of Christ and his saints, which
were paid to the book of the gospels, to the cross, to
the statues of the emperors, and the like; but that images
were not to be considered as gods, nor to be honoured as
such. Farther than this, neither the decrees of the council
of Nice, nor the faith of the Church has ever gone ; and so
far the divines of the middle ages were all perfectly
agreed. But for their own amusement, or for want of better
employment, they undertook to analyze the above simple doc-
trine, and a grand dispute ensued on the following very inte-
resting subject. When a man kisses the crucifix, the book of
the gospels, and the image of St. Peter, with the simple inten-
tion of paying honour to the originals, is the act in all these
cases to be called by the same name, or does the difference of
the object entitle the act to a different appellation? St.
Thomas was of the latter opinion : most other divines, I be-
lieve, were of the former. He reasoned thus. When we
kiss the image of Christ crucified, we do it in honour of Christ,
not of the material substance, which being without life and
intellect, is deserving of no respect whatever. Therefore, as
our intention in kissing the crucifix is simply to honour Jesus
Christ, who is God, it must be an act of Latreia ; and there-
fore we may say that the image of Christ is entitled to Latreia.
But when we kiss the statue of St. Peter, with the intention
of honouring St. Peter, this act is only Douleia, because St,
Peter himself being only a man is not entitled to Latreia.
Those who were opposed to St. Thomas thought that images
themselves, though lifeless and material substances, were still
entitled to a certain respect, as being the representations of
holy things, and therefore they maintained, that, whether we
kissed an image of Christ, or of a saint, the act must be
called merely Douleia. Now, could not Vindex, with all his
metaphysical acumen, if he had really exerted his powers,
have discovered that both these opinions might be very inno-
cent? Was his charity quite compelled to pronounce them
idolatrous ? I am surprised he did not perceive, that in this
case he condemns his own Church.

The bishops of the Established Church on the day of the
coronation, bowed to the altar. This act, according to St.
Thomas, could not be intended for the altar itself, because the
altar is an inanimate object, and therefore deserving of no
honour. The act was therefore intended for God, and conse-
quently was an act of Latreia. Yet the object to which this
act was immediately directed was the altar, and therefore ac-

reigu :

Sec. 5.] Christian Religion. 95

cording- to St. Thomas, it may be said, that the bisliops paid
an act of Latreia to the altar. But will it follow from this
reasoning-, that St. Thomas " set his face against the reserve
of Latreia to God alone T' or that the bishops were guilty of
idolatry, by paving to an ornamental table the honour due only
to God f

When the English bishops and peers bow to the king's
throne, this act, according to St. Thomas, cannot be intended
for the throne itself, because the throne is an inanimate olyect,
and therefore deserving- of uo respect. It is therefore intended
for the Sovereign, and may consequently be termed an act of
homage; and as the throne is the immediate object which re-
ceives this act, it may, in the phraseology of St. Thomas, be
said that an act of homage is paid to the king's throne. But
are we thence to conclude that St. Thomas " sets his face
against homage being reserved to the king alone," or that the
bishops and peers are guilty of high treason, for giving to
an old chair, the homage wliich belongs exclusivelv to the sove-

A wife possesses the miniature of her absent husband. **" la
a moment of affectionate i-ecollection she kisses the picture.
This mark of affection, according to St. Thomas, cannot be
intended for the picture, because the picture is an inanimate
object, and therefore deserving of no such honour. It is
therefore intended wholly for the husband himself, as much as
if it were bestowed upon his person, and is therefore equally
an act of conjugal affection. Yet this act was exhibited to
the picture, and therefore St. Thomas would say, that the lady
paid an act of conjugal affection to a picture. But will Vin-
dex therefore maintain, that St. Thomas " set his face against
the reserve of conjugal affection to the husband alone I" Or
that the lady was, on this occasion, guilty of an act of conjugal
infidelity T'f

* See pages 68 and 69.
t "Whoever wishes for a fuller expIauatioD of this scholastic dispute, ("with which
the Church never interfered, because it did not interfere with her,) will find it in
Cabassulius and Bellarmine. The latter author, whilst he shews that the meaning
of St. Thomas is conformable to the doctrine of the Church, disapproves of bis
lan<(uase in applying the term Latreia to images, " as being contrary to the lan-
guage of the (Church in the decrees of her councils ; as dangerous, and requiring
subtle distinctions to explain it ; as oflensive to the ears of Catholics ; and as af-
fording an occasion to Heretics to blaspheme with greater license." " Dicere po-
pulo imaginem Christi vel crucem adorandam esse Latrioe cultn, illo ipso, quo ado-
ratur Deus, non caret magno periculo ; nam qui defendant imagines adorari Lalria,
coguntnr uti sabtilissimis distinctionibus, quas vix ipsimet intelUgunt, nedum popu-
Jus imperitus. Iste modus loquendi offendit auras CathoHcorum et praebet occasio-
nem hjereticisliberius blasphemandi." De imag. cap 22.

96 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

If Vindex has really read St. Thomas, and really under-
stood him in the sense he has described, I would recommend
him in future, never more to meddle with the metaphysics of
the dark ages. If he has taken his quotations and explana-
tions of St. Thomas, as he has most others, at second hand, I
hope he will learn to mistrust the statements of former anti-
catholic polemics, many of whom have had archdeacons to de-
fend as well as himself, and were often driven to as great dis-
tresses by their " lofty and dictatorial" opponents.

-Per insidias iter est, forraasque ferarum

Utque viam teneas nulloqiie errnre traharis
Per taraeo adversi gradieris cornaa tauri."

Vindex's quotation from Naclantus, Bishop of Clugium,*
is copied literatim, together with the wanj translation from his
favourite Book of Homilies,}- As this is probably all he knows
of the author he quotes, he could not be expected to inform
his readers that this same Naclantus was one of the bishops
who assisted at the general council of Trent, and that, how-
ever unnecessary he might think it, for caution's sake (ad cau-
telum) to say that we adore before the image, rather than that
we adore the image, the council of Trent was of a contrary
opinion, and therefore uses the words to kneel before rather
than to adore, when speaking of images.;]: Naclantus was a
follower of the opinion of St. Thomas, and must be understood
in the same sense when he speaks of giving Latreia to an
image. If he had meant any thing else, he would have been
condemned as a Heretic by the council of Trent : as we shall
see presently.

The passage in the Roman Pontifical, || which asserts that
" Latreia is due to the processional cross," which is carried
side by side with the emperor's sword, must be understood in
the same sense. When Vindex saw it asserted that Latreia
was due to a little cross carried at the end of a long pole,
might he not have suspected that these words could not be un-
derstood in their ordinary sense ? Could he suppose that the
whole Christian world required his sagacity to inform them that
such an object was not a God, nor might be honoured as
such?

* Letter, page 16. t Page 119, Oxford edit. 1816.

\ ■' Ut per imagines quas osculamur et coram quibas caput aperimus et pracomli-
mns, Christnm adoremus," &c.Sessio 25.

II Letter, page 21.

Sec. 5.] Christian Religion. 97

Vindex concludes his dissertation on these scholastic dis-
putes with the following triumphant appeal. " Thus you see
Sir, that this distinction" (of 7nere respect and divine worship)
" which to you appears so easy and simple, has been the
means of producing- contradiction and controversy among men
of no mean abilities and authority even in your own Church."
But Vindex will recollect that when I spoke of the above
distinction being easy and simple, I spoke of it as stated by
the decisions of the Church, not as tortured and perplexed by
the writers of the dark ages, much less as bewildered and mis-
interpreted by himself. There is no subject however clear,
which may not be obscured by writers, who, like the god-
dess-born ^^j^neas, have the privilege of moving in a cloud,
whenever it suits their convenience to be unintelligible, or who,
like too many modern impugners of Catholic doctrines, have
the confidence to explain what they have not the faculty
to understand.

Vindex continues to inform us, that on the doctrine of the
Nicene council " the Church of Rome built a superstruction
of her own, permitting, both by connivance and authority, (ac-
cording to Bellarmine,) the representation of the Deity and the
Trinity, which was held in abhorrence by the Nicene council."
What means " permitting by authority }" I can understand
what " to permit by connivance" means. It means to sanc-
tion any thing by not opposing it " To permit by authority"
therefore must, I suppose, mean to sanction by some authori-
tative decision or command. It seems to me as if Vindex
wished to assert as much, or be understood to assert more, but
was afraid to speak out. At all events, he must mean to say
that Bellarmine asserts the Catholic Church to authorize or
command some representations which are deemed unlawful by
the Church of England. Now Bellarmine teaches that it is
only an opinion in the church that images of God and the
Trinity may be made, and that she only tolerates or admits
such representations, as not absolutely unlaxvfuL* He
expresses it, indeed, as his own opinion, that God may be re-
presented in the form in which he has appeared, particularly in
historical compositions ; as in representing the expulsion of
Adam and Eve from paradise. And is not this done by Pro-
testants as well as Catholics ? He thinks also, that God the

. " P'°°' "•"' ^Si*^ t*™ certum in Ecclesia, an sint faciendae imagines Dei sive
Trinitatis, quam Christi et Sanctorum : hoc enim confitentur omnes Catholici, et ad
fidem pertinet, illud est in opinioiie." Disput. Bellarmini. de Imaginibus,
cap 8.

" Hie enim tantam defendimus non esse in universum damnandui ejusmodi ima-
gines," fbidem. n

98 A Defence of the [Let. 2

Father may be represented under the form of an old man, in
the same manner as God the holy ghost is represented in the
form of a dove. And does not the Church of England think
the same I But he quotes the council of Trent to prove that
if pictures of this kind be used, it is the duty of bishops and
preachers to explain to the ignorant that such representations
are only figurative, and must not be supposed to be likenesses
of God. Does the Church of England take the same wise
precautions l Finally, Bellarmine teaches, that was any one
to make a picture of the Deity, as an exact resemblance of
him in form and nature, he would make an idol.* Does Dr.
Moysey " permit by connivance or authority," these modest
misstatements of our doctrine by his anonymous defender \

Vindex continues. " Thus matters stood up to the famous
council of Trent, to the canons and decrees of which, you so
triumphantly refer us. And what say these canons on the
point before us I why truly that which amounts to nothing. By
turning to Cone. Trident. Sess. 25. you will there perceive, that
they decreed that due loorship should be given to images ; but
they do not condescend to tell us in what that due worship con-
sisted. In fact, the council of Trent meant to leave the ques-
tion in the same glorious uncertainty in which they found it.
They wished not to cast a stumbling block in the way of any
party ; their desire was to conciliate, not to offend ; and
therefore, they purposely adopted phrases of an ambiguous
cast."

But if such be really the character of the decree of the
council of Trent, why does not Vindex give it to his readers ?
There is no argument so strong against an opponent as the
exposing of his evasions, his equivocations and studied ambigu-
ities. Why then did he not thus expose the council of Trent,
and give, to the contempt of the world, that decree which de-
crees nothing, and which uses ambiguous terms, without eX'
planation, for the purpose of deceiving? I will supply his
omission at all risks. The following are the words of the
council.

" The holy synod commands all bishops and others charged
with the instruction of the people, that, conformably to the
custom of the Catholic and Apostolic Church received from
the primitive ages of Christianity, to the concurrent doctrine
of the holy fathers and the decrees of the sacred councils, they

• '' Observendum est, tribns modis posse aliquid piugi. Uno modo ad expri-
mendam perfectam similitudinem formaB et naturse rei ipsias, et hoc iiiodo res cor-
poreae solum pinguntur, quae lineamentis et coloribus pradila! sunt. Et si qais hac
ratione Deum pingere tentaret, is verum idolum constitueret." Ibidem.

Sec. 5.] Christian Religion. 99

be particularly diligent in instructing the faithful on the inter-
cession and invocation of saints, the honouring of relics, and
the legitimate use of images ; teaching them that the saints
reigning with Christ, offer up to God their prayers for man-
kind; that it is good and useful suppliautly to invoke them,
and to have recourse to their prayers, aid and assistance for
the purpose of obtaining favours from God, through his son
Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only redeemer a.id saviour.
That the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and
other saints, may be had and retained particularly in churches,
and that due honour and veneration be given to them ; not
that it is to be believed that there exists in them any divinity
or excellence on account of which they are to be honoured, or
that any thing is to be asked of them, or any confidence placed
in them, as was anciently done by the gentiles who trusted in
idols, (Psalm 134, 125,) but because the honour which is ex-
hibited to them is referred to the originals which they repre-
sent ; so that by means of the images which we kiss, and
before which we uncover our heads and kneel, we adore
Christ, and venerate his saints whose likeness they bear."*

Now the reader will observe that the words due worship,
ascribed by Vindex to the council, and twice repeated in
italics, are not the words of the council. Its words are dne
honour and veneration, which it employed in preference to
others to prevent the possibility of mistake. In the next
place, the council expressly asserts, that images must not be
supposed to contain any divinity or excellence which entitle
them to honour ; that nothing is to be asked of them, nor any

* " Mandat sancta Synodas omnibus Epicopis et cffiteris dacendi mnnas curam-
qae sustinentibus, ut juxta Catholicas et Apostolicae Ecclesife nsam, a primaevis,
Christianas religionis temporibus receptum, sanctornmque Patmm consentionem
et sacrorum conciliornm decreta ; inprimisde sanctorum intercessione, invpcatione,
Reliquiarum honore, etlegitimo imagiuum usu, fideles diligentur instruant, docentes
eos, Sanctos uoa cum Christo regnantes, orationes snas pro hominibus Deo oflerre,
boDum atque utile esse supplicitnr eos invocare et ob beneficia impetranda a Deo
per filinm ejus Jesum Christum, Dominum nostrum, qui solus noster redemptor et
salvator est, ad eorum orationes, opem, auxiliumque confugere."

" Imagines porro, Christi, Deiparrac Virginis, et aliomm Sanctorum, in templis
praesertim habendaset retinendas, eisque debitum honorem et venerationem imperti-
endara ; non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas, vel virtus, propter quam
sint colendae, vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendnm ; vel quod fiducia in imaginibus
sit Agenda ; veluti olim fiebat a Gentlbus, quae in idolis spem suam collocabant,
(Psalm 134) sed quoniam honos, qui eis exhibetur refertur ad prototypa, qua? illae
repraesentant : ita nt per imagines, quas osculamur, et coram quibus caput aperimas
et procnbimus, Christum adoremus, et sanctos, quorum illas similitudinem gerunt,
venereniur, id quod conciliorum, praesertim, vero secundae Nicaenas Synodi decretis
contra imaginam oppugnatores est sanctitum." Coucil. Trident. Sess. 25.

100 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

confidence placed in them, as was done by the Pagans ; that
in short, the respect, which is shewn them, is intended wholly
for the beings they represent. And, does all this, " amount
to nothing?" is this merely decreeing that " due worship is to
to be given to images, but not condescending to say in what
due worship consists J" Is this, " leaving the question in a
state of glorious uncertainty, and purposely adopting phrases
of an ambiguous cast ?"

After describing the use of historical representations of the
mysteries of our redemption and the actions of holy persons,
as being calculated to instruct and confirm the people in the
truths of religion, to excite them to return thanks to God for
favours, and conform their lives to the imitation of his faithful
servants ; in short, " to teach them to adore and love God,
and cultivate true piety," the council proceeds. " If any
abuses may have crept into these holy and salutary obser-
vances, it is the earnest wish of the sacred council that such
abuses be entirely abolished ; so that no representation of any
false doctrines be set up, which may expose the ignorant to
the occasion of dangerous error. But if it 'sometimes happen
that historical narrations taken from the sacred scripture,
(when deemed useful for the instruction of the unlearned,) be
expressed in visible representations, the people must be taught
that the Deity is not represented, under the supposition that
he can be seen by corporeal eyes, or expressed by colours or
forms. Let all superstitions, (continues the council) in the
invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the use of
holy images be taken away ; all base gain abolished; all levity
avoided, and no images be gaudily painted or adorned," &c.
The decree concludes with charging the bishops to see that
every thing in their churches be regulated with that modera-
tion, decency, and propriety which becomes the house of
God ; that no unusual representations or new relics be admitted
into public or private places of worship, without the approba-
tion of the bishop ; that he himself, in matters of doubt or
difficulty shall not act without the advice of a council of
divines, the co-operation of his metropolitan, or in some cases,
the consent of the Pope.*

Such is the decree of the council of Trent on the subject of
images. Of its agreement or disagreement with the assertions
of Vindex, I shall say nothing. A young man in a Catholic
College, who had studied divinity three months, making such

* Concil. Trident. Sess. 25.

Sec. 5.] Christian Religion. 101

assertions to a company of Catholic schoolboys, would be
laughed at for his ignorance, or punished for his impudence.
From a grave divine of the Established Church to the enlight-
ened people of England, they may meet with a more favour-
able reception.

It is fair, however, to observe that there is one part of
Vindex's statement which is quite correct, and that is, where
he asserts that the doctrine of the council of Trent is in
" strict unison" with that of the council of Nice. But the
only conclusion I can allow him to draw from this circum-
stance is, that he has grossly misrepresented the doctrine of
both.

Vindex continues. "Since the sixteenth century, your
Church has not taken upon herself to decide the question, and
for reasons best known to herself." If Vindex means that
the Church has not called another general council to decide
the question, he is right ; and her reason is, because she con-
sidered that she had done it, as clearly as it could be done, in
the council of Trent, and because it would be very troublesome
and inconvenient to summon together the bishops of all Chris-
tendom, every time an anonymous writer chose to misrepresent
her doctrines, or to describe her decrees without having read
them.* But if he means to assert that, since the sixteenth
century, the Church has not constantly expressed her adhe-
rence to the decisions of her former general Councils, as occa-
sion seemed to require, he is mistaken. In my last letter to
Dr. Moysey, I referred him to " the Exposition of the Cath-
olic faith, by Bossuet," for a full explanation of our doctrine,
which I fear he has not taken the trouble to read. This work
was first published in 1671, has been approved by the Pope,
and sanctioned by the general applause of the Episcopacy,
and is admitted by all Catholics as a work of standard autho-
rity. As it has been the means of convincing many Pro-
testants that the Catholic doctrine is not what it is often asserted
to be, and as it may possibly produce the same happy effect, if
not on Dr. Moysey or his defenders, at least on some of my
readers, I shall give his statement on the invocation of saints,
the use of images, and of relics, at full length in an appendix
to this letter.

* " If Mr. Wesley be so credulous as to beliove'that the pope has horns, must
we convene a general council to declare that his forehead is smooth ?" 3Iiscellaneous
TracU by the Rer. Arthur O'Learj.

102 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

§6

Objections from Catholic observances answered. — Ceremony

and office of Good Friday. — Kissing of Crosses, S;c. —

Devotions to the blessed Virgin Mary, &;c. — St, Scholasti-

ca. — The gunpowder treason. — Want of candour in

Vindex.

After the above exposition of our doctrine, I shall not
detain the reader long- in explaining the different observances
Avhich Vindex adduces to prove that, however the Catholic
Church " has taken g-ood care to be silent about the doctrine"
(we have seen how silent she has been !) " yet she unequi-
vocally sanctions the practice of allowing the Latreia to be
due to images."

The first practice he brings forward is the ceremony of the
adoration, or, as it is generally called in English, the kissing
of the cross on Good Friday. As the council of Nice has
already told us that the word adoration in this case, means no
more than the act of respectfully and affectionately saluting
or kissing, I shall only notice the other objeetions which Vin-
dex brings against the respect we shew to the cross. He
quotes the following address : " O cross ! more splendid than
the stars, &c. save this present assembly, this day met together
in thy praises." As he does not tell us what are his objections
to this passage, I can only judge from observing that in the
Latin he has put the word save in capitals. I suppose there-
fore he means to insinuate that we call upon the crucifix to
save us. This certainly would be very wicked indeed, and not
very wise. Indeed, I wonder it never struck Vindex that there
must be many men in the immense Church of all nations, who
have just sense enough to see the folly of such a belief, and
conscience enough to reject its impiety. Did he really think
that it required all the light which burst upon England at the
reformation, and which inspires him with such complacence in
his superior discernment, to tell the poor, blind, infatuated
Roman Catholic, that a little bit of wood which the priest holds
in his hands is not able to save him I

His next quotation is the following. " Hail O cross ! our
only hope. In this time of the passion encrease righteousness
to the pious, and give pardon to the guilty." His objection

Sec. 6.] Christian Religion. 10^3

to this passage is, I presume, similar io the last. He wishes
it to be thought idoUitrous to address ourselves to a lifeless
block of wood as if it were the living God. But Vindex is a
man of letters, and must, I presume, have studied poetry and
rhetoric. Has he forgotten that there are such things as
tropes and figures, which authorize the poet or the orator to
give life to inaniiuate objects, to employ the sign for the thing
signified, and to bestow personality and intelligence on beings
destitute of both I Has he forgotten the names of metonymy
exclamation, prosopopcea, &c. ? Or has he discovered, in stu-
dying the book of Homilies, or some other enlightened pro-
duction of modern theology, that tropes and figures are idol-
atrous I Alas •! in this case I fear we must send all poets and
orators that ever lived, to keep company with the unfortunate
painters whom the Iconoclast council decided to be all the
wicked makers of idols. Nay, even the orthodox bard who
sang —

" Preserve ns Lord by tby dear word.
From Turk aud Pope defend us Lord,
Both which would thrust out of his throne
Our Lord Christ Jesus, thy dear son"*

Even this pious and orthodox lover of the muses, will fall a
victim to the resistless impulse of poetic fancy, and after edify-
ing by his inspired effusions, the pure and enlightened Church
of England for nearly three centuries, be condemned of meto-
nymy and prosopopoea, and doomed for all eternity to keep
company, {heu miserahile fatiim !) with that very Turk and
Pope, whom in life he so greatly dreaded, and so piously
abhorred. For in his 114th Psalm he sings thus :

''As rams afraid the tnonntains skipp'd
Their strength did them forsake :
And as the silly trembling lambs
Their tops did beat and shake.

What ailed thee, O sea ! that thou
So suddenly didst fly,
Ye roaring waves of Jordan's flood,
Why turned ye so swiftly ?t"

Is it not evident that our Church of England poet is as
guilty of tropes and figures as the Catholic bard I Nay he is

* A hymn or prayer from the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England,
Oxford edit. 1716.

t Common Prayer, psalm cxiv.

104 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

even guilty of ascribing to idols, the very animation which the
Catholic poet has ascribed to the cross.

" Confusion sure shall come to snch
As worship idols vain,
Also to those that glory much
Dumb pictures to maiutaiu.

For all the idols of the world,
Which they their Gods do call,
ShaUfeel the power of the Lord,
And down to him shall fall."*

Here, I say, the poet wickedly ascribes to dead idols the
faculty o^ feeling, which implies life. And here he has not
even the scripture to back him, though he pretends to be trans-
lating it ; whereas the Catholic poet has the authority of St.
Paul to extenuate his personification of the cross ; for the
apostle says ^^ God forbid that I should glory save in the cross
of our Lord Jesus Christ."f Now if St. Paul could assert
that the cross was the only thing in which he gloried, surely
the Catholic poet might have some excuse in saying that the
same cross was the only thing in which he hoped, and in ad-
dressing to it such praises or petitions as his only hope might
claim. But I will give the reader the whole iiymn from which
Vindex has copied his damning extract. If he is a lover of
real poetry he will not regret its insertion.

Behold the royal ensigns fly,l:
The cross's shining mystery ;
Where life itself gave up its breath,
And Christ by dying conquered death.

Th' audacious steel let out a flood
Of water, mixt with saving blood,
Whilst man's redemption with the tide,
Came rushing from the Saviour's side.

What David's faithful numbers told.
Surrounding nations thus unfold;
That God should rule from main to main,
And wood, not steel, assert his reign.

Hail, beauteous tree ! whose branches wore
The purple of his royal gore ;
Preferred to bear those arms, from whence
Spring all our blessing and defence.

* Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, psalm xcvii. 7,8. N. B.
There is nothing in David about •' maintaining dumb pictures." This was a hit
at the Papists.

t Galat. iv. 14.

\ Hymn sung at the service of Good Friday, Passion Sunday, &c. from the Ves-
per Book of the Catholic Chapel, Bath, page 28, 29. I regret that the English
translation is inferior in simplicity and spirit to the original.

Sec. 6] Christian Religion. 105

On Thee, as in the world's great scales,
The ransom of the world prevails ;
Our sin, tho' great, his pains outweigh,
And rescue hell's expected prey.

All hail ! O happy mournful tree.
Our hope with Christ is nailed on thee;
Grant to the just encrease of grace.
And mediate for the sinner peace.

Bless'd Trinity, to thee we sing,

From whom aljove all graces spring ;

Thy crowns on us abore bestow,

Who conquer by ths cross below. Amen.*

Let me here address a serious question to Dr, Moysey him-
self. Did you, sir, authorize or could you authorize the ex-
tracting of a passage from this hymn, to prove that the Catho-
lic Church " unequivocally sanctions the practice of allowing
the Latreia to be due to images ?" No sir, I will not be-
lieve it. You are a gentleman and a man of letters, aud you
could never have descended to an artifice so poor, so pitiful, so
ungentlemanlike, for the cruel purpose of imposing upon the
ignorance, and rousing against your fellow Christains the angry
and contemptuous feelings of your unlettered readers.

I shall only add respecting the ceremony of Good Friday,
that I wish the reader to peruse it at length in the common
Roman Missal, published in English and Latin, for the use of
the laity in this country ; and if he have a classical mind, and
a single spark of religious feeling on the most pathetic of all
subjects, the sufferings of the world's redeemer, he will I
think, agree with me in pronouncing it one of the most beauti-

* VEXILLA regis prodeunt ; Arbor decora, et fnlgida

Fulget crusis mysterium, Ornata regis purpura.

Qua vita mortem pertulit. Electa digno stipite

Et morte vitam protulit. Tarn sancta membra tangere.

Quae vnlnerata lanceae Beata, cujus brachiis,

Mucrone diro, crirainum, Pretium pependit saeculi,

Ut nos lavaret sordibus, Statera facta corporis,

Manavit unda et sanguine. Tulitque praedam tartari.

Impleta sunt, quae ooncinit O crux ave spes unica,

David fideli carmine. Hoc passionis tempore.

Dicendo nationibas : Piis adauge gratiam,

Regnavit a ligno Deus, Reisque dele crimina.

Te, fons salutis Trinitas,
Collaudet oranis spiritus :
Qnibns crncis victoriam
Largiris adde prscminm. Amen.

106 A Defence of the [Let. '2,

fill remains of ancient ceremonial, and one of the most im-
pressive ceremonies ever introduced into religion. Such I am
sure I have always felt it, and I am equally sure that I never
paid to the cross, or any other material object, the honour due
to God.

The next proof of the practical idolatry of the Catholic
Church, is a ceremony of blessing a new cross, prescribed by
the Roman pontifical ; in which the priest prays that this cross
may be a " healthful remedy to the human race, that by the
merits of this cross the offerers may be freed from all sin," &c.
'* These prayers," says Vindex, " used at the consecration of
a cross,;form a very legitimate test of what is intended by the ser-
vice of the 'Adoration of the Cross,' used in holy week, and area
very intelligible comment on the 'dehitmn honorem ac venerati-
onem' of the council of Trent." It appears then, that Vindex
wishes it to be understood that, in the first place, the Catholic
Church, by an act of Pagan-like consecration, invests the new
madecrosswith divine privileges, confers upon it the same merits
as Christ himself possessed, and then declares it fit for the cere-
mony of Good Friday. And is Vindex really in earnest when
he expresses surprise that a Catholic Clergyman, should feel
pity for the man, that can believe such absurdities of his re-
ligion, or assert them without believing them 'i I must then
inform Vindex, that the crosses employed in the ceremony of
Good Friday, have seldom had any consecration at all. I
never knew of one that had. In the next place, I must
inform him that, by the ceremony of blessing material objects,
the Catholic Church means no more, than begging of the
Almighty to bestow upon those who use them, health of body
or soul, remission of sin, or any other temporal or spiritual
blessing ; and the only virtue or merit which she ascribes to
such objects, after they are thus blessed, is merely such, as it
may please the Almighty to impart to them in consequence of
the prayers that have been addressed to him.

When Solomon dedicated, or as the Roman pontifical would
express it, blessed the new temple of Jerusalem, he stood be-
fore the altar of the Lord, and spread forth his hands towards
heaven, and prayed " that the eyes of the Lord might be
open towards that house day and night ; that when the people
should pray towards that place, God would hear them in hea-
ven ; that when they had sinned and should make supplication
in that house, the Lord would forgive the sin of his people." &c.*

* (4) Kings Tiii. 2-2, &c. &c.

Sec. G.]

Christian Ri-lif/ioji.

J 07

And Solomon prayed " that the eyes of the Lord miglit be opeu towards that honso
day and night," &c. 4. Kingis, viii. 22.

Now, if Solomon's prayer was heard, the temple of Jerusa-
lem derived from it a certain hJessimj, inasmuch, as a person
who prayed there would possess the efficacy of Solomon's
prayer added to his own. The Roman pontifical does no moro
in begging, that similar blessings may attend those persons who
use, with proper dispositions, any of the things to which the
prayers of the Church have been, in like manner, annexed.

Instead of having recourse to the blessing of the cross to
explain the ceremony of Good Friday, with which it has uo
manner of connection, Dr. Moysey's friend would have done
better to have had recourse to some Catholic divine for the ex-
planation of both. To advance idle surmises as matters of
fact, and put forth his own ill natured fancies as the religion of
bis neighbour, is, to use his own expression, " a proceeding aa

108 A Defence of the {Let. 2.

unworthy of a scholar, as it is beneath the character of a gen-
tleman."

" So much," cries Vindex, " for the kind of adoration paid
to the cross ,- now for that, paid to the Virgin Mary."

" Tu ES SPES UNICA PECCATORUM." " Thoil art
the only hope of sinners." This is, I admit, a very strong
passage. How does it proceed ? " Through thee we hope for
the pardon of (our) sins, and in thee, most blessed, is the ex-
pectation of our rewards. Holy Mary ! succour the miserable,"
&c. Vindex had indeed good reason to head his attack upon
the worship of the virgin with such a passage as this, and no
doubt he felt confident that it was all over with Hyperdouleia.
I fancy I see him overjoyed at the discovery of this precious
document in some old book of Church of England contro-
versy, and carrying the glad tidings to Dr. Moysey and his
other clerical co-operators. But alas ! how uncertain in the
art of war is the issue of the best concerted schemes !

It happens most unluckily for Vindex, that this passage is
not the composition of any modern Catholic idolater, but is
found amongst the works, and maintained by the best critics,
to be the genuine production of that ancient and celebrated
doctor of the Church, whom the creed of Vindex, even the
very book of Homilies itself calls " Saint Augustine, the
best learned of all ancient doctors,"* whose orthodoxy on this
subject it vindicates by the following quotation from his works,
" Know thou that none of the dead, nor any thing that is
made of God, is worshipped as God of the Catholic Christians,"
and whom it repeatedly quotes on this and almost every other
subject as strictly orthodox. Therefore, either Vindex must
give up the book of Homilies, or he must surrender the charge
from St. Augustine. As I cannot suppose he will do the
former, I trust he will set himself to work, and endeavour to
extricate the saint out of the difficulty into which he has
brought him. In this I shall be happy to assist him, and I
hope he will learn from this lesson how necessary it is to know
what he quotes before he advances it, and how just it is to con-
sider whether a passage will not bear a favourable construction
before he condemns it. We will give the passage more
at length, and I dare say we shall find that it will explain
itself.

" Mary becomes the mother of a man by believing the
angel, because Eve had ruined a man by listening to the ser-

• Second part of Peril of Idolatry, p. 161. Oxford edit. 1816.

Sec. 6.] Christian Relifjion. 109

pent. O, happy obedience ! O, signal grace ! Whilst she
yields her humble faith, she becomes the mother of the world's
Creator. Hence she merited the glory which she afterwards
received. Behold ! says she, from henceforth all generations
shall call me blessed. O, blessed Mary ! who can give thee
the thanks and praise which are so justly thine, who, by that
singular assent, has succoured a lost world ; Receive then our
thanks, however unequal to thy merits, and when thou hast
received our vows, obtain by thy prayers the pardon of our
faults. Accept what we offer, grant us what we ask, excuse
what we fear ; for thou art the only hope of sinners. Through
thee we hope for the pardon of our sins, and in thee, most
blessed one, is the expectation of our rewards. Holy Mary,
succour the miserable, help the pusillanimous, comfort the
afflicted, pray for the people, make supplication for the clergy,
intercede for the devout female sex. Ijet all experience thy
assistance," &c.*

It is manifest from this passage, that St. Augustine in the
fourth century had at least as great devotion to the " Blessed
Virgin" as any Catholic in the nineteenth ; but it is evident
enough, both from this and numberless other passages of his
voluminous works, that he considered this exalted personage
merely as a creature, and that his high veneration for her was
founded chiefly on the circumstance of her having been chosen
by God to be the mother of his Son. When he speaks of
her being, " the only hope of sinners," he either alludes to her
very powerful intercession, and speaks as an orator, by exag-
geration, or he applies these words to her, as the mother of
him on whom all our hopes are founded. Surely it would have
been no great violation of language had some French orator
said of the Duchess de Berri, after the death of the Duke,
" Thou art the only hope of Frenchmen," merely because she
was expected to be the mother of a future king. Nor should
I have condemned of idolatry some zealous Vindex of the
sixteenth century, who had said of Luther when he was big of
the reformation, " Thou art the only hope of Protestants."

He next quotes a hymn to the blessed Virgin Mary, in which
she is styled "gate of heaven." The poet gave her this name
because she was the mother of Christ. If the Church of
England be the way to heaven, I should not, for my part,
blame a Church of England poet, who should call Henry the

* Sermon 18. de Sanctis. MTioever wishes for farther proofs of the opinions of
.St. Augustine, and other early Christians on this subject, will find them in Berriiig-
ton and Kirk's Faith of Catholics, page 435, &c.

no A Defence of the [Let. 2.

Eig^hth, or Queen Elizabeth the *' ^a<e of heaven." In the
same passage he seems to have overlooked, that the holy vir-
gin is desired to ask for us all good things ; a proof that we do
not consider her equal to her Son.

This word ask might have served as a hint to Vindex, (if he
is determined not to learn our religion from better sources,)
that the extravagant expressions contained in two prayers
which he quotes in a note, were not to be literally understood.
One of these, taken from the end of a Paris Missal of 1624,
entreats the Holy Virgin to " command the Redeemer by the
right of a mother,"* and the other by one Father Crasset
says, " that the power of the mother and the son is the same,
and that the mother has been made omnipotent by her omnipo-
tent Son." I can only say, that I never saw such praises as
these in my life, and I dare say I never should have seen
them had it not been for the kindness of Vindex, though I
have actually been collecting for some time all the extravagant
forms of prayer made by Catholics, I could meet with, under
an idea that some time or other I might present them, as sub-
jects of curiosity, amusement, or caution, to my Catholic
friends. But is Vindex really so ill informed, or has he the power
of face seriously to bring forward, an extravagant expression
from the end of a Paris Missal and another from Father
Crasset, as arguments which are to overturn all the decisions
of our general councils, the doctrines of our divines, the
united belief of the whole Christian world, and in spite of all
opposition force upon us a goddess, whom we are not all dis-
posed to acknowledge ?

It is not worth my while to defend either the Paris Missal
or Father Crasset, otherwise I dare say it might be done ; as
no doubt there was some small share of common sense in both
cases. When the former speaks of the mother's commanding
her son, I dare say it only meant, strongly urging her power-
ful influeuce with him. If a criminal begging his life from
the mother of the king should say, " urge him, entreat him,
as a mother command him to pardon me," I should say the

• Thoagh an objectionable passage was Ibuiid in the body oh local work like the
Missal of Paris, it could not be admitted as declaratory of the doctrine of the uni-
versal Church ; but the prayer quoted by Vindex, if such prayer really exists, cau
be nothing more than a private devotion added at the end of the book, by private
authority. Is Robin Wisdom's prayer above quoted, which stands at the end of
the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England, in company with the Feni
Creator, Venile exultetnns, &c. of this descripiiou, or must we consider it decla-
ratory of the doctrine of the Established Church, respecting the Turk and th^
Pope?

Sec. G.] Chrislian Reiujion:. Ill

man was very earnest, but I should not conclude that he con-
sidered that the king's )nother had any authority over the
king-. Indeed, if the composer of the above prayer meant to
say that the Virgin Mother was equal in authority to her Son.
why not ask her to grant the fovour herself? Why oblige her
to give an order to her Son I By the omnipotence of the
Blessed Virgin, I dare say Father Crasset meant no more than
an English writer means when he speaks of the omnipotence
of Parliament, of public opinion, of a royal favorite, or the
like. If he meant any thing more he was a Heretic, and we
make him over to the civil power of Vindex ; or rather, if he
be an Englishman, we make him over to civil emancipation
from penal laws, to which as an apostate from the faith of his
ancestors, he will become entitled.

The next quotation is this, " Nos CUM prole pi a, Bene-
dicatyirgo Maria." " May the Virgin Mary with her pious
offspring bless us." I can only guess what are Vindex's ob-
jections to this passage. Is it that we ask the blessing of
Christ and his mother with the same breath ? I acknowledge
it is bad taste. But surely there is no idolatry or impiety in
it. If a child should say to his parent, " I beg your blessing,
and the blessing of God," we should not, I presume, see any
crime in this. Does Vindex perhaps object to the mother's
being put before her divine Son i* . But he must recollect that
priority of order, does not always imply priority of rank. The
scripture itself puts the mother and the Son in this order, when
it says, " There was a marriage in Cana, of Galilee, and the
mother of Jesus was there, and both Jesus was called and his
disciples to the marriage."* But the fact is, the passage above
quoted is a piece of bad Latin verse in rhyme, and I have no
doubt, that the reason of this order being chosen, was because
the rhyme required it ; and how often will not poets, as well as
others, give up reason for rhyme?

It is childish to follow Vindex through all his little extracts.
The remarks already made will explain them all. If Vindex
has read the books he quotes, he knows perfectly well, that in
whatever terms our petitions to the saints are worded, we ex-
pect from them no favours but such as they obtain for us from
God;t and if we speak of being benefitted by the merits
of the saints, it is only because those merits may naturally
render their prayers more efficacious with God. We intend
the word merits to be understood in its ordinary sense, not in

* John ii. t Se« the conncil of Trenl abovt qaoted.

112 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

that peculiar sense which theologians sometimes give to it when
speaking of the redeeming merits of Christ. Surely Vindex does
not suppose, when in the prayer which begs of God that we
may be delivered from the flames of hell, by the merits and
prayers of St. Nicholas, we mean to insult the Almighty by
telling him, that we consider St Nicholas as our redeemer, and
beg he will grant our petitions accordingly ? It means, I do
assure him, no more than this, " Grant, O Lord, that the
prayers of such or such a saint, and his meritorious conduct
in life, which has procured for himself the rewards of heaven,
may prevail upon thee to rescue us from future punishments."
It might be very consistent in a diciple of Luther, or of the
early Church of England, to say, that the only merits in ex-
istence are those of Christ, and that the good actions of men
are in no sense meritorious. But the modern Church of
England and the Catholic Church are, I believe, perfectly
agreed, respecting the merits of Christ and those of good
men. Both admit that our best actions can be of no value,
except through the merits of Christ : but both also agree, that
good works are an essential condition of salvation, and in this
sense may justly be termed meritorious. We do not conceive,
that any man has more merits than he ought to have, but we
do think, that the meritorious couduct of a good man may
render his prayers more efficacious with God than those of a
sinner.

Vindex has found that the following words, applied by St*
Paul to Christ, are applied in some of our offices to a saint.
" Thou crownedst him, O Lord, with glory and honour, and
didst set him over the works of thy hands." This application
he considers so manifestly idolatrous, that he does not even
employ one single Latin, Greek, or Hebrew quotation, to
prove it such. But he forgot, that before St. Paul applied
these words figuratively to Christ, the Psalmist had applied
them literally to mankind in general ;* and surely we may do
the same. I do assure him we mean it in the same sense.

I must not forget the prayer quoted by Vindex from the
English Missal, which says " O God, who to recommend to us
to innocence of life, was pleased to let the soul of thy blessed
Virgin Scholastica, ascended to heaven in the shape of a dove,
grant, by her merits and prayers, that we may lead innocent
Jives here, and ascend to universal joys hereafter." In this
quotation I have neither capitals nor italics to guide me. If

* Psalm viii. 5.

Sec. 6.] Christian Religion. 113

Vindex objects to the term merits, that word I have already
explained. But I have heard, that a ladi/ of the Church of
Eng-land has pronounced it dreadful, that mention should be
made in a prayer of such a legend as that of St. Scholastica
ascending to heaven in the form of a dove, and this I dare say
was the circumstance to which Vindex wished to invite atten-
tion. It maybe very dreadful; but the question here is, does
it prove the Catholic Church to be idolatrous ? And why is it
so very dreadful ? Is it because the story is untrue I I really
never examined, nor ever intend to do, whether it be true or
not. All I know is, that it is told by St. Gregory the Great,
the Pope who sent St. Augustine and some other disciples of
St. Scholastica's brother, for the conversion of England. But
as I do not admit the personal infallibility of popes in any
thing, particularly in telling stories, the account may be untrue.
They who believe it, may say the prayer. Surely there is no
harm in that. They who do not believe the story, will not be
excommunicated if they never say the prayer. But I would
ask Vindex, is it quite essential that every assertion or allusion
made in a prayer, should be demonstratively true ? Is it then
demonstratively true, as stated in the prayer used by the Es-
tablished Church on the fifth of November, " that King James
the First, the queen, the prince and all the royal branches, with
the nobility, clergy, and commons of England, then assembled
in Parliament, were, by popish treacherij, appointed as sheep
to the slaughter, in a most barbarous and savage manner, be-
yond the example of former ages ?" On the contrary, is it
not almost, if not quite, certain, that the whole was a piece of
Protestant treachery, set on foot for the express purpose of
ruining the Catholics ? " It was, most probably," says a Pro-
testant clergyman, " a machination of Cecil's, and was disco-
vered by the loyalty of a Catholic nobleman.*" Now it strikes
me, that of the two dubious facts, it is less objectionable to
mention in a prayer, the ascent of St. Scholastica into heaven
in the form of a dove, than the charge of " Popish treachery,
barbarity," &c. If the former be untrue, it can neither in-
jure nor offend any one ; for what does it matter to any one,
how St. Scholastica ascended into heaven? But if the latter
be false, the prayer of the Established Church is a cruel and
wicked libel upon the great body of Christians, and the whole
service of the fifth of November is an impious and sacrilegous

* Speech of the Rev. J. P. Jones, of North Bovey, delivered at a county meet-
ing at Exeter, 1821. See on the same subject Milner's Letter to a Prebendary
Letter vii.

•114 A Defence of the [Let. 2

mockery of religion, in making the Deity himself a party to a
crime as black and deadly as the gunpowder itself. " Thou
hypocrite," (I do not mean this term for the lady,) " first cast
out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see
clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."*

After these few remarks I think the reader will agree with
me, that the extracts brought forward by Vindex to prove the
practical idolatri/, of his Catholic brethren, are of much too
trifling and too dubious a character to substantiate so serious a
charge. This reflection will require additional force when he
remembers, that with the best dispositions in the world to bend
every thing to his purpose, Vindex has gleaned only the above
objections out of the whole of our rituals, pontificals, and pub-
lic offices, comprising several folio, quarto, or octavo volumes.
I am sure there is not a single doctrine that ever was main-
tained, however true or however false, however rational or
however absurd, that has not had as many and as weighty
arguments brought for and against it from the sacred scriptures
alone. It is impossible for any language, however clear, to
guard against the quibbles and sophisms of men who are de-
termined to find objections. But in a service composed at dif-
ferent periods during eighteen centuries, written in different
languages, by different authors, in prose, in verse, in simple
narrative and lofty oratory, a man must be an ass if he cannot
find as many objections as he chooses ; ajid I really wonder that
Vindex has not succeeded better.

I must also remark, that had the quotations from our books
of devotion been far more to the purpose, it would have been
proper to explain their meaning by our creeds and public pro-
fessions of faith, not to gather the meaning of our creeds and
professions from our books of devotion.

But without saying any thing more upon the plan which
Vindex has adopted, I must make an observation, or two, on his
manner of executing it. It would appear, from his references,
that he had actually read our missals, breviaries, &c. Now in
this case, for one passage which he found apparently against
our doctrines, he found a hundred clearly for them. Why then
did he not explain the former by the latter ? He found, for in-
stance, in the rubrics of the missal and breviary, a general rule
laid down that all our offices should be concluded with one or
more j)rmjers, that all these prayers should be addressed to the
Deity himself, even when the intercession of the saints was
solicited, to show that God is the object of our worship, and

* Matthew vii.

Sec. 6.] Christian Relif/ioii. 115

should all conclude with the words, " through our Lord Jesus
Christ," &c. to shew that every good we expect, even when
granted through the prayers of men on earth or saints in hea-
ven, must be originally derived from the merits of Christ,
Now I ask, how any man, knowing these particulars, could
reconcile it with candour, sincerity, or truth, to conceal them
from his readers, when he professed to give a fair statement of
our doctrines ? When Vindex gave quotations from our
hymns, why did he not explain them by the prayer that always
followed them i And why, when he quoted our prayers, did
he always, (except in one instance,) neglect to add the accus-
tomed termination, " through our Lord Jesus Christ," &c.
which, by the rubric, he knew was always required to be added,
whether inserted in the letter-press, or omitted for the sake of
brevity? Would a good cause require such aids as these?
Or would an honourable man employ them in support of a bad
one?"

'' Nontaliaaxilio nee defensoribusistis."

The conclusions which Viiidex draws from his extracts and
quotations, exhibit a curious specimen of his mode of reasoning,
and a striking proof of the confusion of his ideas on the sub-
ject he undertook to discuss. " What then," says he, "is the
inference which is deducible from the extracts just quoted ?
Is it that when you bow or kneel before the representations of
holy things, nothing more than mere respect is signified I If
this be so, it must be respect more highly sublimated than any
I ever heard of. According to the plain grammatical con-
struction of the passages above cited, I should say that you
adore the cross as well as the blessed Virgin Mary and the
apostles; and therefore your assertion, that the Latreia (or
adoration) is reserved for God alone is completely disproved.
If the act of offering up prayers, be not an act of adoration
or divine honour, properly so called, all I can say is, that I
know not what adoration means."* Here Vindex has at last
stumbled upon the truth. He has discovered that perhaps
he does not know what adoration means. He certainly either
did not know what it meant, or reasoned as if he did not.
But after the explanations I have given him, I hope that
neither he nor his friends will any more plead ignorance in jus-
tification of uncharitableness and misrepresentation. I hope
he will now also feel convinced, that if all the poetical, orato-
rical and figurativip passages, employed in our respective ser-

» tetter to the Rev. P, Baincs, p. 25.

116 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

vices, are to be subjected to the test of" a mere grammatical
construction, the Church of England will have as little chance
of escape as the Catholic.

§7

INVOCATION OF ANGELS AND SAINTS.

How far admittedhy the Church of England. — Explanation
and defence of the Catholic doctrine. — Objections of Vin-
dex answered. — Justification of the Catholic doctrine hy
eminent Protestants. — Injustice and illiherality of modern
attacks injurious to the Established Church, and to
Christianity in general.— Account of Christianity accor-
ding to Dr. Moysey and his friends.

Hitherto I have confined myself principally to the Catholic
doctrine respecting images and pictures, and to the respect we
pay to them, and to sacred objects in general. I shall now
follow Viudex to the objections he makes against the honours
which we give, and the petitions which we address to the saints
themselves. But I must first beg leave briefly to explain to
the reader what is our actual doctrine on these points, that he
may the better understand against what those objections are
directed.

This doctrine is clearly laid down by the council of Trent
in the following words : " That the saints reigning with Christ
offer up prayers for men, and that it is good and useful suppli-
antly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers,
help and assistance, for the purpose of obtaining benefits from
God, through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only
Redeemer and Saviour."* These words constitute the whole
of what we are required, as Catholics, to believe respecting
the invocation of saints. The following statement will enable
the reader to understand on what principles this doctrine is
founded.

That the angels are employed by the Almighty in executing
various works of kindness to man, is manifest from numberless

* See the original decree above quoted, Sess, 25.

Sec. 7.] Christian Religion. ..- 117

passages of Scripture. At one time we find them on earth
supplicating the Deity in favour of whole kingdoms ; at another
Ave find them in heaven offering up the prayers of the saints ;*
at another conducting an army in its various movements ;t at
another delivering the divine commands;;]: at another an-
nouncing the intended redemption of mankind ; at another res-
cuing the Redeemer of the world himself from danger, minis-
tering to him in his wants, and consoling him in his sorrows ;||
at another performing the same kind ofiices to private indivi-
duals, accompanying them on their journeys, and guarding
them in all their ways.§ Our Saviour seems to insinuate that
every individual has a guardian appointed him from the an-
gelic host, who looks to his charge with a jealous eye.^ We
find Abraham imploring upon the children of Joseph, the bles-
sing of the angel who had " redeemed him from all evil."**
We find the Almighty himself strictly commanding his people
to attend to the angel he appointed as their guide, to " obey
his voice and not to provoke him," promising to reward the
obedience shewn to his angel, as if shewn to himself, &c. In
short, we find the angels constantly employed by God, to use
the words of St. Paul, as so many ministering spirits sent forth
to minister for them, who shall be heirs of salvation."ff
Hence the Church of England does not scruple to keep the
festival of St. Michael and the angels, and even to copy the
Catholic collect, which prays " that as the holy angels always
do service (to God) in heaven, so by (his) appointment they may
succour and defend us on earth."J:|;

After the death of Christ, when the gates of heaven were
opened to mankind, and " the spirits of the just made perfect"
were admitted to a participation with the angels in the joys of
heaven, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they would be
eager to share with them in their friendly offices to men on
earth. Indeed, as their connection with the inhabitants of this
lower world was of a more intimate nature than that of the
angels could be, it is natural to suppose that they would feel a
proportionably more lively interest in the welfare of their

* Zacbarias i. 12. Rev. v. 8.

t Exod. xxlii, 20. t Exod. xx. &c.

II Lake i. Matt. ii. Luke xxii. § Tobias v. Psalm xci, (xc) 11.

H " Take heed that )'e despise not one of these little ones ; for £ say unto yon

that in heaven their angels do always see the face of my father who is in heaven,"

Matt, xviii. 10.

** Gen, xlviii. 16. tt Heb. i. 14.

U Common Prayer, Feast of St. Michael.

118 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

earthly friends. That this is not mere surmise, is manifest
from the scripture itself. From the parable of the rich man
and Lazarus, it is evident that the former even in his place of
torments, though not a man we may suppose of very bene-
volent feelings, felt an anxiety for his brethren on earth, and
even interceded with Abraham in their behalf. In the Reve-
lations of St. John, we find the saints mixing with the angels
m all the joys of heaven; and, on one occasion, demanding of
the Almighty to revenge their " blood on them that dwell on
the earth,"* a proof that they had some knowledge of what
passed upon it, and that they felt an interest about it ; and if
on this occasion we find them demanding punishment on the
Avicked, we cannot doubt that on others they would be equally
earnest in soliciting favours for the good. Indeed, the demand
of vengeance made upon their enemies was probably intended
more as a benefit to their friends, who were suffering persecu-
tion from the wicked, than as a mere punishment on their per-
secutors.

Had the sacred scriptures come down to a later period, when
the apostles themselves and other zealous founders of Christi-
anity were admitted into heaven, we should probably have
found in them more ample information on this subject. But
this information is abundantly supplied by the early writers of
Christianity, and by the concurrent belief and practice of the
universal Church. It is true tliat Protestants in general do
not profess to admit this kind of evidence in deciding matters
of belief: they profess to confine themselves wholly to those
writings which are generally called by the name of the scrip-
tures, and which Catholics, from whom they recieved them ad-
mit equally with themselves to be divinely inspired. But the
Catholic Church admits the historical and moral evidence of the
early Christian writers, to establish certain points of belief or
practice, which are either not metioned in scripture, or not laid
down in a manner sufficiently clear and explicit ; and it is curi-
ous enough that whilst Protestants disclaim the authority of
this species of proof, they actually agree with us in grounding
some doctrines and practices upon it, which are even in direct
contradiction to the scripture itself. Thus the scripture posi-
tively commands us to keep holy the sabbath-day, namely, the
Saturday; and neither Catholics nor Protestants have any real
authority for violating this scriptural command, except the belief
and practice of the ancient Church. It was a positive cora-

* Rev. vi.lO.

Sec. 7.] Christian Rdujion. 119

mand of the apostles, that Christians should refrain from "things
strangled and from blood :"* nor have we any scriptural aiitho-
ritv whatever for disobeying this command. In this instance, as
in the former, we set aside the command of scripture on the
authority of the ancient Church, or, as Catholics express it, of
tradition alone. f The same may be said of infant baptism
and some other points of belief, common to the Catholic Church
and the Established Church of England. In fact, we cannot
have a more certain rule. It is impossible that those who were
tauo-ht by the apostles should not have known their doctrines,
and therefore, if we find any practice or belief prevailing in the
Church, in the earliest times, and in every country, we con-
sider it certain that such practice or belief must have come from
the first teachers of Christianity.!

Of this description is the belief of the intercession of good
men in heaven for their surviving friends on earth. It has al-
ways been believed amongst Christians, that death does not en-
tirely sever those dear and tender ties that binds hearts toge-
ther in this state of existence. It has always been believed
that the virtuous parent, when he leaves behind him on earth
the dear objects of his tenderest affections, does not forget them
for ever : that when translated to a better and happier world,
he still looks down with feelings of affectionate solicitude on
those he formerly loved, and still continues to offer for them
the same fervent prayers in heaven which he constantly poured
forth on earth ; that the pastor, in like manner, retains liis af-
fection, and continues to offer up his prayers for his former
flock, the friend for his former associates, the patriot for his
former country, &c. in short, that the virtuous feelings of our
nature are rather strengthened than broken by death ; our anx-
iety for the true welfare of our friends, rather increased than
diminished by our discovering more clearly the true nature of

* Acts XV. 29.

t By tbe terras " oral traditions," which Vindex applies to the traditions of the
Catholic Church, he seems to be possesed with the vulgar notion, that tradition re-
gards only such things as have not been written. Whereas, by the term tradition,
Catholic divines mean all those points of beli<^ whick have been handed down to
us without having been written in the holy scriptures. But in the writings of the
ancient Fathers, historians, &c. they are written, and held in as high estimation by
the Church of England as by ourselves, when she has to defend herself against the
Dissenters, which she can never do without tradition, and seldom even with it.

i This rule is laid down by St. Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century.
"Quod semper quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditura est, id non nisi anctoritate
Apostolica traditum rectissime creditar." Commonitorium, &c. If Protestant
Divines would give themselves the trouble to read this work they would understand
better why Catholics cannot be prevailed upon to leave the ancient Church, and joia
their new systems.

120 A Defenca of the [Let. 2.

thing's, and our power of assisting them rather improved than
injured by our admission to the presence of him from whom
every good must flow. " All the holy men, (says Origen,) who
have quitted this life, retaining their charity towards those
whom they have left behind, we may be allowed to say that
they are anxious for their salvation, and that they assist them
by their prayers and meditation with God ; for it is written in
the book of Maccabees, ' this is Jeremiah, the prophet of God,
who always prays for the people.' "*

It has also been, in every age, believed that God allows to
men, who leave this world in his grace, a certain knowledge of
what passes here below, particularly amongst those for whom
they are solicitous. To what extent this knowledge may be
granted, or in what manner it is communicated, we neither
pretend nor seek to know. But it has been the belief of all
antiquity that when we address ourselves to the inhabitants of
heaven, they either hear our prayers, or are, somehow or other,
made acquainted with our desires.

Hence the ancient pastors of the Church not only allowed,
but strongly recommended to their disciples to keep up, on
their part, this communion of friendly and affectionate inter-
course with " the spirits of the just nade perfect,"!" to respect
and honour them as fellow creatures raised to the actual en-
joyment of those dignities to which we only aspire, and to
second, by our addresses to them, the exertion of that increased
influence which they now possess with the Giver of all good
gifts. " Let us be mindful of one another in our prayers
(says St. Cyprian) with one mind and with one heart, in this
world, and in the next ; let us always pray, with mutual charity,
relieving our sufferings and afflictions. And may the charity of
him who, by the divine favour, shall first depart hence, still
persevere before the Lord : may his prayer for our brethren
and sisters not cease.";];

It must be admitted that this belief is, in the highest degree,
pleasing and consoling, both to the living and the dying ; nor
is it easy to discover what harm there could be in entertaining
it, even if we had not any positive authority for it. The in-
bred feelings of our nature may be safely followed as the will
of God, when there is no injunction from him to the contrary.
Why then should the dying parent be refused the consolation
of thinking that he will still be allowed, when taken from those

* Origen : lib. iii in Cant. Cantic. torn, iii, p. 75. Faith of Catholics, p. 433.
He lived in the third century.

t Heb. xii. 23. t Ep. )x. p. 143. Faith of Catholics, p. 433.

Sec. 7.] Chi'islktn Relujion. 121

he mourns to leave behind, to watch over and befriend the ob-
jects of his parental love i Why should the child, vfhen af-
flicted for the recent loss of a virtuous parent ; the newly
converted Christian for that of the author of his spiritual birth ;
the friend for the death of his friend; be condemned or res-
trained, when reflecting on the past virtues and present happi-
ness of him they loved, they call upon his spirit to remember
them still, and, as he can, continue to befriend them? To
repress emotions like these, is to add unnecessarily to the abun-
dant miseries of life, to cast a chill upon the finest feelings of
our nature, and to impart to the amiable and endearing religion
of Christ, the coldness and cheerlessness which characterized
the religions, true or false, of the ages before his coming.

It is this doctrine which Dr. Moysey in his charge denomi-
nated the " adoration of saints," and stigmatized with the
harsh appellation of idolatry. Vindex more modest, seems
half willing to withdraw the charge of idolatry on this head,
and substitute in its place certain minor accusations. I shall
consider his objections as coolly and as seriously as I can ; but
he will excuse me if I do not treat them with all the ceremony
to which he may think them entitled. To me they appear
equally childish, mischievous and ill-natured.

" Praying to the saints to intercede for us with God, tends
to lower our ideas concerning God J We are taught to con-
sider his love and mercy to be infinite, &c." But why, let me
ask, should praying to the saints to intercede for us with God
tend to lower our ideas concorning God ? *' We are taught
to consider his love and mercy to be infinite, and that the
throne of grace is accessible without the interposition of
glorified beings." This we admit, and therefore we generally
address our prayers directly to God. But if Vindex will con-
clude from our occasionally begging the intercession of saints,
that we believe the throne of grace is not accessible without
the interposition of glorified beings, I hope he will allow me
to conclude, from the custom in the Church of England of
praying for each other, that she believes the throne of grace is
not accessible without the interposition of beings that are not
glorified. And why should not the intercession of sinners on
earth be as injurious to the mediatorship of Christ as the inter-
cession of saints in heaven ?

But how, in the name of all that is ingenious, does Vindex
make out that " the design of God to draw our entire
affections towards him, to inspire with unreserved confidence
in his goodness, and to purify our souls from idolatrous and

122 A Defence of the [Let. 2

superstitious dross, is completely counteracted by our supposing
others, besides himself, to be hearers of our prayers ?" This
objection is above all power of reply. I must therefore merely
say of it,

" Valeat quantum valere potest."

" But," says Vindex " you do not affect to deny that in the
overflowings of your respect, you bow down before the saints,
and offer up worship before them." I beg Vindex's pardon,
I never admitted any such thing. Oh the contrary, I objected
to the terms adoration and worship being at all employed to
designate the respect we pay to the saints, those words, in
modern languages, being generally employed to signify the
honour due only to the Deity.

" But," resumes Vindex, " what proofs can you bring that
the saints do actually know all that you attribute to them. ?"
Supposing that they should not know all that we attribute to
them, what is the harm ? If a saint should not hear me when
I beg his intercession, the worst that could happen would be
that my labour would be lost. Surely I should not be an
idolater or an impious man because I thought a person to have
quicker hearing than he really had. If a man is in distress at
sea, must he not call for assistance unless he is quite sure that
his cries will be heard by the nearest vessel, or on the shore I
And if he happen not to be heard, must he be accounted to
have attributed to men the omnipresence or omniscience of the
Deity ? Should we even suppose, that in another world the
knowledge of man is so encreased as to enable him to know
every thing that passes in this globe of the earth, would this
be supposing him to possess infinite knowledge ? I am sure
Milton's devil, when, in the midst of ten thousand thousand
worlds of greater magnitude, he was seeking our little habita-
tion, would have laughed at any one who should have told him
that, whoever knew the whole of what passed in that one little
ball, knew as much as the omniscient Deity. I think it very
probable that, in another state of existence, the blessed may be
enabled to take in even a much wider range of information
than this world can furnish ; but it is not necessary for justify-
ing the Catholie doctrine, to suppose that they take in half so
much. It is merely necessary to suppose that, by some means
or other, the saints become acquainted with such subjects as
regard themselves.

•• But," continues Vindex (and I beg the reader to observe
this master piece of ratiocination,) " If you think this know-

Sec. 7.] Chrislian Religion. 123

ledge constitutes their happiness, this knowledge must be per-
fect, that is, it must embrace a clear and full insight into the
whole scheme of Providence." Now, in the name of Aris-
totle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine, and all the metaphy-
sicians tliat ever lived, how did Vindex arrive at this strange
conclusion I Can no knowledge but such as is perfect confer
happiness ? Can any one doubt that Vindex himself derives
great happiness from the extent of his knowledge and the
acuteness of his metaphysical discriminations ? Yet the know-
ledge of Vindex is not perfect. " But unless the knowledge
of the saints is perfect, it"would not be perfect happiness; it
would be suspense." If, by perfect, Vindex means infinite,
we know as well as he, that it can belong only to the Deity.
But if by perfect knowledge he means such an extent of know-
ledge, as is proportioned to the limited capacities of the
creatures who possess it, such knowledge, though not infinite,
will, we apprehend, quite satisfy the saints, and secure them
from suspense. I shall not pursue Vindex any further in this
curious dissertation. His reasoning all falls to the ground
after he is informed that it never once entered into our heads
to suppose that the saints " saw clearly the issue of all things,
or that they knew exactly what God will do to the end of the
world." We cannot therefore admit the justice of another
curious conclusion which he draws from these fruitful premises.
" The prayers of mortals and the intercession of saints are
quite different. The one supposes ignorance which is confessed,
the other implies knowledge which remains to be proved." As
I think it will be long before this perfect knowledge of the
saints has been proved, I hope Vindex will, in the meantime,
allow us to believe, that the prayers of our fellow creatures,
whether living or dead, are of the same nature, and to take
our chance of having our prayers heard by the saints, and of
benefitting by their intercession, as far as they can employ it in
our favour.

It may be proper here to enquire whether there is any thing
in the constitution of the Established Church which requires
of its ministers to charge the Catholics with the crime of
idolatry. I have admitted that the Book of Homilies, which
the thirty-fifth article of the Church of England recommends
as containing "a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary
for these times," (two centuries and a half ago,) does positively
accuse us of this impiety. But I have also proved, from the
dissertations of Archdeacon Paley, that no member of the
Established Church is bound, at the present day, io believe or

124 A Defend' of the [Let. '2

maintain all the doctrines either of the homilies or the articles.
That such has been the opinion and practice of many of the
most eminent Protestants, on the subject in question, might be
shewn by numberless quotations from their works. I shall
select a few, which happen at this moment to lie within my
reach.

The learned Selden, to whose works I have had frequent
occasion to refer, and who is styled by Grotius (his contem-
porary and rival in literary fame) the " glory of England,"
says " Idolatry is in a man's thought, not in another's. If I
bow to the altar, why am I guilty of idolatry ? Because a
bystander thinks so ? I am sure I do not believe the altar to
be God, and the God I worship may be bowed to in all places,
and at all times. The Papists taking away the second com-
mandment is not haply so horrid a thing, nor so unreasonable
amongst Christians, as we make it: for the Jews could make
no figure of God but they must commit idolatry, because he
had taken no shape ; but since the assumption of our flesh we
know what shape to paint God in."* He admits that no well
informed Catholics pray to images, nor probably a7iy
Catholics in England, though he thinks "it is to be feared
the ignorant do" in other countries. Of this we shall speak
hereafter.

The next authority I shall adduce, is that of Grotius himself,
whose quotation I beg the reader particularly to notice, because
it entirely agrees with the view I have taken of the subject in
the preceding passages. " Images," says he, " are in the
churches over which the Pope presides. So are they also in
those of the Greeks, and in some of those of the Protestants.
In fact, the second commandment being a positive precept,
and given to the Jews on account of the circumstances of time
and place, no more binds the people of Christ than the law
which enjoins the observance of the Sabbath, (Saturday,) as
we have demonstrated in treating of the decalogue. Images
are helps of the memory ; and as, when the name of a king is

• Vol. Hi. page 20^3. Selden is mistaken when he speaks of the Catholics
taking away the second coraraandnient. In all our larger works of instruction we
copy the commandments, as the Church of England does, at full length, from the
scripture itself. We join together, into one commandment, what Protestants call
the first and second, in the same manner as they join together what we call the
ninth and tenth. The scripture makes no mention of what is the first, second, or
third commandment, and they have been variously divided at different times. The
division used at this day by the Catholic Church was in use in the time of St.
Augustine, that is, about twelve hundred years before the Protestant religion was
thought of, a proof that the Church did not adopt it " for the convenience of prop-
ping up its own system," as Vindex very learnedly and very modestly asserts,

Sec. 7.] Christian Religion. 125

mentioned, we are accustomed to show some token of respect,
though the kmg be absent, so, when the recollection of a mar-
tyr is brought to our minds by any external sign, we express in
like manner, that reverence and affection, which are due to the
virtues of such great men. We have also proved, in treating
of the decalogue, that there is no external reverence so reserved
to God alone, that the same has not been also given by the
people of God, to kings, magistrates and prophets. We have
proved also, that the import of such acts is different from that
of sacrifice, libation aud incense; though, even with respect to
bowing down and other external acts, it may be a matter of
prudence, particularly when the common people are concerned,
to make a difference in the external act according to the difference
of the honour intended. In all this, therefore, there is no
idolatry ; otherwise the most religious men among the Jews,
would have been idolaters. Moreover, the Pope does not
oblige any one to use images : and if any excess be committed
in honouring the saints or their images (nor can it be denied
that this may be, and has been the case) bishops and kings will
only do their duty in correcting such abuses. Nor will any
good Pope oppose them in this ; nay, the council of Trent
itself recommends it to be done, and prohibits also the sale of
any of the sacred functions or duties. Kings aud bishops
therefore ought to be entreated to do their duty, in which they
will be seconded by the canons of the Church, and the decrees
of the Popes, as any one may be convinced by consulting the
codex of Gratian."* How delightful it is to the feelings of a
Catholic, and how profound is the respect he feels for a Pro-
testant, who, like this learned adversary, will merely do him
" the justice of stating his doctrines fairly !" Why may not
Dr. Moysey and his friends " go and do in like manner ?"

The author of " An Essay towards a Proposal for Catholic
Communion, by a Minister of the Church of England," asks
the following question, " Whether those in communion with
the Roman Church, are not idolaters in the worshipping of
images f He answers, " I have strictly enquired into this
point and by all I can observe, both in their councils, profes-
sions of faith, catechisms, spiritual books, and other books of
devotion, I cannot see but they as firmly believe in one only

* Grotius de Antchr. Op. Theolog. torn. 3. p. 485. col. 2. When Grotius
speaks of sacrifice, libation, and incense, as acts reserved to God alone, he speaks of
incensii used as a sacrifice, and burnt on an altar, not as used with the thurible or
censer, in which way he knew it was employed to shew respect to the books of the
gospel, to the altar, the people, and even, as I before observed, to a corpse at a
funeral.

126 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

God as we do ia the Church of England; and with as
much constancy declare, that the honour of God ought not to
be given to another," &c, " From all which," continues he
" I must conclude, that all the charge of idolatry, is only a
consequence of ours, and such as they expressly disown, I may
say abhor, and therefore, according to our fourth rule, ought
not to be insisted on as an obstruction to communion ; espe-
cially since that Church imposes on none the use of images,
but leaves all its members at liberty of using them if they
think fit, or of wholly letting them alone ; which according to
our second rule, is motive enough for waving this question,
since whatever the idolatry be, they oblige none to be guilty of
it." He quotes, in support of his statement, the authority of
Bishop Montague, Dr. Pocklington and other eminent divines
of the Established Church. He might have added the im-
pressive admonition of the learned Thorndike,* " Let not
them (who charge the Papists to be idolaters) lead the people
by the nose, to believe that they can prove their supposition
when they cannot." j-

I might add to these authorities the opinions of, I believe, a
a large majority of the Established clergy of the present day,
who see the uncharitableness and are ashamed of the illiberal -
ity of employing vulgar abuse against their Catholic brethren.
In the City of Bath, I am told there are, at this season of the
year, generally some hundreds of respectable clergymen, many
of whom, we may suppose, are quite as well-informed, and as
zealous in the cause of religion as Dr. Moysey, and have more
leisure upon their hands for defending it. Had they approved
of his violent charge, or thought his assertion of our idolatry
necessary for the support of the Established Church, can we
suppose that not one of them all would have come forward to
justify his conduct I Would he have been driven to the poor
shift of employing in his defence the pens of anonymous
writers, who can insult with impunity and misrepresent without
fear I

It cannot therefore be pretended that the defence of the
Established Church required of Dr. Moysey and his friends to
charge their Catholic brethren with idolatry. Neither will it,

* '' Essay towards a Proposal," &c. p. 54, &c. third edition 1812, the first
edition was published ia 1704. I have been told, that the Rev. Author of this
work afterwards became a Catholic. It is an event which would happen ruore fre-
quently, if men would follow his examining our tenets for themselves, and (he
advice of Mr. Thorndike in not suffering themselves "to be led by the nose," by ig-
norant or interested men, who misrepresent our doctrines.

t Just iveiglds and mettsurcs, page 11,

Sec. 7.] Christian Religion. 127

I am sure, be said by any one who has read these pag'es, that
it is quite certain we are g'uilty of that crime. Now is it
consistent with the morality of the Established Church posi-
tively to charge a neighbour with a crime, and publicly to pro-
claim his guilt to the world as certain, when it is not so ? I
am sure this is not the morality of the gospel, nor is it that of
the Catholic Church, Were it known to me, as a minister of
religion, that any Catholic had publicly and falsely accused a
Protestant, or the Protestant body, of any odious doctrine
calculated to injure them, I should think myself bound to
oblige that man to make a public retractation and apology,
just as much as if he had injured Catholics, and if he refused
to do it, I would not give him the sacraments of the Church
even on his death-bed. The same, I am confident, would be
the conduct of any Catholic clergyman in the kingdom.

But there are other aggravating circumstances in the case of
Dr. Moysey and his friends. The former at least, numbers
some respectable Catholics amongst his acquaintance, who
have shewn him attention, and from whom, I am very sure, he
never received any just cause of complaint. It is therefore not
only unjust, but illiberal and unhandsome, to hold up to public
derision these very friends, who had a right to expect from Iiim
a different return. Will he pretend that he does not injure
them by misrepresentations of their religion ? He is much
mistaken. He injures them most seriously. It is no small
drawback upon the pleasure of society, when a person knows
that he has been represented as a fool or a criminal, and does
not know, but many of those, with whom he associates, really
think him guilty. So much is this felt by Catholics, that hun-
dreds, perhaps thousands, are at this moment living abroad,
principally because they cannot brook to live amongst men,
who hate, despise, or suspect them. I have reason to believe,
that some very respectable and wealthy Catholic families might,
at this moment, have added not a little to the society of this
city, had it not been for the sermons and charges of such men
as the Archdeacon and his friends.

I am aware, that the better informed part of the community,
particularly such as have lived amongst Catholics, do not
believe the violent accusations made against us, even when they
hear them from the pulpit. But Dr. Moysey should remember,
that the great majority of mankind, as well in the highest as in
the lowest classes, are not well-informed. He cannot be igno-
rant, that of the many who compose the fashionable society in
this city, very few indeed have had the means of examining

128 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

into the truth of the doctrines taught them by their clergy, and
that, generally speaking, they implicitly believe the accusations
they hear against the Catholics. I could bring him instances
from persons of the first rank in Bath, who have acknowledged
that they " hated the Catholics" on account of their supposed
tenets, who really thought them a poor misled priest-ridden
race, and who even withheld from poverty and distress the
hand of relief, because the object " worshipped the Virgin
Mary instead of God !" To the Catholic clergy in particular,
considerations like these, frequently render society unbearable.
A man who has any dignity of soul, will prefer absolute soli-
tude to the society of men who view him in the light in which
Dr. Moysey and his friends would represent a priest of the old
religion. These feelings are not a little sharpened when he
reflects, as a Catholic clergyman always can, that his life is
spent in labouring to promote good-will and peace equally
amongst men of all persuasions, and in iuculcating the obliga-
tion of kind feeling, respect and every charitable office, equally
towards those who make it their constant business to slander
him, and those who do him justice. The shallow excuse
which the Archdeacon and his defenders have brought forward
to hide the illiberality of their conduct, by deprecating all hos-
tility to our persons, whilst they condemn us as idolaters, would
be admissible, if their assertions respecting our religion were
true. But unable as they are to prove them so, their harsh
and unprovoked attacks, are equally irreconcileable with cha-
rity, decency, and justice.

The illiberality of such conduct appears still more from the
consideration that in condemning, as the book of Homilies and
its admirers do, the whole Catholic Church, " laity and clergy,
men, women and children, of damnable idolatry, of all vices
most detested of God, and most damnable to man," ever since
the eighth century, they not only strike, with one wide blasting
anathema, the immense majority of Christians at the present
day, but nearly all the Christians in the world, for the last
thirteen hundred years, including all the sects of Eastern Eu-
rope and Asia, comprising all their own ancestors from the
sixth to the sixteenth century, taking in all those good and
zealous men who converted us from Paganism, to the know-
ledge of the true God, all the virtuous and disinterested mis-
sionaries, who carried the name of Christ and the blessings of
civilization to many of the neighbouring nations of Europe,
and not unfrequently sealed their sincerity with their blood.
The malediction extends its bane to all our Saxon and English

Sec. 7.] Christian Religion. 12^

sovereigns, warriors, statesmen and patriots, to whom we are
indebted for the most perfect government in the world ; to all
those zealous and disinterested pastors, who, principally out of
their own incomes, erected, in honour of the living God, all
the cathedrals of England, built almost all the parish churches,
founded and endowed nearly all the great schools and colleges,
and established both the universities ; in fine, gave to the
Church of England, the whole of those princely revenues
which confer upon their possessors so much respectability,
comfort and power, nay, preserved for them the sacred scrip-
tures themselves, together with every ancient work of sacred
and profane learning, and furnished them with every thing that
is most valuable in their liturgy itself. To men like these, all
Englishmen owe gratitude, respect and admiration. To vio-
late the sacredness of their fame, to dig up their venerable re-
mains from their places of consecrated rest, to commit them as
spiritual traitors to the flames, or bury them as spiritual mur-
derers and spiritual suicides in the public highways, and all
this, perhaps, for no other person than to accomplish some
pitiful object which will not bear naming, to give point to a
clerical address, which would be dull without it, to defend the
rashness of an unprovoked aggressor, or to gratify the harsh,
and unamiable feelings which nature or prejudice has instilled,
is ill-becoming those who boast so loudly of mildness and tole-
ration, and who are for ever exclaiming against uncharitable-
ness in others.

If Dr. Moysey and his friends think they serve the cause of
the Established Church, or of Christianity itself, by their vio-
lence against the Catholics, they are much mistaken. Expe-
rience has proved that such violence will not prevent the
members of the Established Church from deserting her com-
munion and becoming dissenters, whilst it furnishes the latter
with an imanswerable justification of any similar attacks they
may make upon the Church of England herself. An argu-
ment that proves too much, proves nothing", and frequently
injures the cause that employs it. This remark is proved by
the simple fact that Protestants, seeing the incredibilty of the
accusations made against the Catholic religion, are often led
to examine into their accuracy, and finding them false, return to
the faith of their ancestors. It is the cause of nine-tenths of
the conversions that are made to Catholicity. It never hap-
pens that a controversy like the present, does not procure some
converts to the Catholic religion, whilst a single instance will
never be found of any Catholic forsaking his religion in conse-

130 A Defence of the [Let. 2

quence of the violent accusations made against it. On the con-
trary, such accusations serve to coufirm him the more strongly
in his faith, because knowing them to be utterly false, he is the
more firmly convinced that those who employ such arguments
must be in want of better,

Infidelity itself can desire no better arguments than those
which the violent accusers of Catholics offer them. For it is
impossible to reconcile such accusations with the truth of
scripture. That scripture predicted, that the religion of
Christ should be an universal religion. " In thy seed," said
the Almighty to Abraham, " shall all the natiotis of the
earth be blessed."* " Ail the ends of the world," says the
prophet David, " shall remember and turn unto the Lord
and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee."t
" It shall come to pass in the last days," said the prophet
Isaiah, " that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be estab-
lished on the top of mountains, and shall be exalted above the
hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.";]: " Fro7n the rising
of the sun," said the last of the Jewish prophets, " even to
the going down of the same, my name shall be great among
the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered to my
name, and a clean offering."!] Hence the commission which
Jesus Christ gave to his apostles at his ascension was to estab-
lish an universal religion: " Go teach all nations, and lo ! I
am with you."§ And hence the term Catholic, or universal,
is applied to the Church of Christ in the apostles' creed as its
perpetual characteristic. Now, neither the religion of the
Church of England, nor all its multifarious connections, can
have the smallest pretensions to such an universality ; nor, can
the Catholic Church, which alone possesses such clauus, be
allowed to come forward to save the truth of scripture, if it
have apostatized from Christ, by falling into damnable idol-
atry.

in the next place, the scripture clearly teaches that the true
Church of Christ shall continue for ever. For this purpose
he promises to her his continual protection, " Go, teach all
nations ; and lo ! I am with you, alway, even unto the end of
the ivorld."*^ He declares that the powers of hell shall never
prevail against her. " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it."** These promises are confirmed by different pre-

* Gen. xxii. 18. t Psalm xxii. 27. t Isaiah ii. 2,

II Maluchi i. II. $ Matt, xxviii. f Matt, xxviii. 20

** Matt, xvi. 19.

Sec. 7.] Christian Religion. 131

dictions of the prophets, who foretold that what Christ here
promised, should actually be fulfilled. "In the days of these
kings, " said the prophet Daniel, "shall the God of heaven set
up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, and it shall stand
for ever."* Now, if it be true, as Vindex and the book of
Homilies maintain, that the whole Christian Church, laity and
clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of
men, women, and children of whole Christendom, have been
at once drowned in abominable idolatry, of all vices most de-
tested of God, and most damnable to man, and that for the
space of eight hundred years and more,"*f- how will they recon-
cile this grand apostacy with the truth of scripture I Their
account of the Christian religion will be this.

The Christian religion was founded by Christ, and preached
by the apostles and their legitimate successors, acting under
his commission, through the different countries of the then
known world ; and so great were the numbers which every
where became Christians, that the term Catholic, or universal,
was applied to the Christian Church in the apostolic times,
and handed down iu the creed to all future ages, as its perpe-
tual characteristic. But after 300 years, idolatry began to
creep uito the Church : in the sixth age it had arrived
at such a pitch that " it scandalized the Jews, and roused
the indignation, of the very Pagans." In the eighth cen-
tury, the dark shades of idolatry had covered the whole
earth, and, for the space of eight hundred years, the
gates of hell prevailed against the Church, and Christ forsook
his promised charge. But in the sixteenth century it pleased
God to raise up Henry the Eighth, King of England, to whom
he gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which he had for-
merly given to Peter. This royal apostle was inspired, first,
with a desire of a second wife whilst his first was living, then
of breaking communion with the great idolatrous Catholic
Church, which would not allow him that privilege. He was
then commissioned by heaven to resuscitate the pure religion
of Christ, which, for near a thousand years, had been drowned
in the ocean of idolatry ; and by means of rigorous penal and
exclusive laws, by banishing or putting to death all the old
idolatrous clergy in the kingdom, and inducing a purer and
more enlightened race into their sees and livings, by obliging
all laymen, whether they would or not, to attend the churches

* Dan. ii, 44. See on this subject the Groinids of the Old Religion.
t Book' of Homilies, Peril of Idolatry, part iii. page 201. Oxford Edition, 181C.

132 A Defence of the {Let. 2.

of these new apostles, Henry the Eighth, with his infant son
and illegitimate daughter, his successors in the chair of Peter,
contrived to bring over to the religion of Christ, about one-
third of the population of an island called Great Britain.
But no sooner were these peaal laws relaxed, and men left at
some degree of liberty to follow their own judgment, than the
Christian religion again began rapidly to decline. Some
returned to their ancient idolatry ; many, regardless of the
authority given to the ministers of Christ by the king and par-
liament of England, turned their backs upon them, refused
their spiritual guidance, and in spite of the additional expense
in times of deep distress, set up hundreds of new sects, and
thousands of new conventicles, in short, continued by their de-
fections and oppositions so to weaken the religion of Christ,
that it is calculated by its most strenuous advocates, that were
half a dozen Catholic peers, the ancient nobility of the land,
and as many Catholic gentlemen admitted into the parliament
of Great Britain, the total ruin of pure Christianity would be
the inevitable consequence.

Such is the history of the Christian religion according to
Dr. Moysey and his friends. They may themselves think it
as credible as they please, and gloss it over in whatever forms
of expression they are able. A man who has to chuse between
infidelity, and a Christianity like this, must have a strong
faith indeed, if he embrace the latter. But had the charge of
idolatry, or damnable error, not been advanced against the
Catholic Church, the miraculous manner in which that Church
was orignally established, its wonderful propagation through all
the countries of the known world, its providential preservation
and unbroken succession of pastors through every age since
the apostolic times, conformably to the clear predictions of
Christ, and its continued and encreasing universality, in spite
of all the opposition of earth and hell down to the present day,
are circumstances which form a chain of argument, the strong-
est that can be opposed to the assaults of infidelity, and the
best calculated of all others to preserve Christianity.

It may, indeed, be difficult to justify the separation of
England from the Universal Church, without supposing that
the latter had ceased to be the Church of Christ. But it will
still be more difficult to prove, on such a supposition, that the
Church of England has any claims to that title, that its pastors
have any legitimate authority from Christ, or that a small na-
tional Church, which, like a house built on the sea-shore and
daily encroached upon by the waves, is constantly weakened

Sec. 8.] Christian Religion. 133

by the defection of its own members, and is, now confined to
the popuUition of, at most, one-third of a single kingdom, is
the universal Church of Christ built upon a rock, against
which no waves, no winds, no storms, no assaults of the infer-
nal powers should ever prevail. The Catholic Church has not
the least ambition to be acknowledged by the Church of
of England as a portion of the true Church, She will stand
or fall by herself alone. But the Catholics of England would
be glad to be exempted from misrepresentation and abuse, and
thev would much rather that the Established Church should
enjoy prosperity, than that total disbelief should continue its
ravages in the country. But to leave Dr. Moysey and his
Christianity, and return to the main subject.

§8

Abuses existing in the Catholic Religion, not idolatry. —
Superstition and credulity, common to Catholics and
Protestants, though different in form. — Advice to travel-
lers.

From what has been said I consider it demonstrated ; 1st.
that there neither is, nor ever has been any idolatry in the doc-
trines of the Catholic Church on the subject of saints and
images. 2dly, That in England, at the present day, no idol-
atry is committed by Catholics, on either of these heads. But
it is fair to enquire, whether in Catholic countries many serious
practical abuses do not prevail, particularly amongst the
lower classes.

That abuses do exist I consider certain, both from the na-
ture of man, the admission of the council of Trent, the fre-
quet complaints of Catholic writers, and the constant endea-
vours of Catholic bishops and pastors in foreign countries to
guard the people against them. But, whether such a crime as
idolatry is ever committed amongst Christians I very much
doubt. For, as I have before proved, and as Selden justly
argues, no man will worship an image as God unless he
believes it to be God ; and I cannot believe, that in the whole
of Christendom, there can exist any man or woman, so

134 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

ignorant in Christian times, as to believe that an image or a
saint is God.

The abuses therefore which do exist I consider to be merely
superstitious, not idolatrous ; though even of these, for the
reasons assigned in a former part of this dissertation, I believe
the number is much smaller than English travellers, who are
unacquainted equally with the import of ancient ceremonies,
and of the instructions which, in all well regulated dioceses,
are constantly given to the people, are apt to suppose. It may
sometimes happen, that too much attention is paid to little
observances, introduced by the private authority of individuals,
who have more zeal than knowledge, and more piety than good
taste. It may happen at other times, that too much impor-
tance is attached, and too much confidence placed in external
forms, by persons, (of whom there are great numbers in all re-
ligions,) who being unwilling to take the trouble of subduing
their passions and avoiding sin, which constitutes the essence
of religion, are glad to magnify to themselves the efficacy of
forms and ceremonies, the use of which costs them nothing.
Does Dr. Moysey doubt that motives of thi&,kind have caused
many desertions from the Established Church, to some of the
minor divisions of Protestantism, where greater stress is said
to be laid on inward workings of the spirit and on sanctification
bestowed free of trouble or exertion on the fortunate sin-
ner ?

But that the abuses I have admitted are not the necessary
consequence of Catholic tenets, I consider certain from these
facts ; first, that they do not exist amongst those who are well
instructed in its doctrines, but only amongst the ignorant.
Secondly, because there are certainly, not more superstitions
amongst the Catholics who use images, than amongst Protes-
tants who are without them, though the superstitions of each
may be different. The fact is, mankind is naturally inclined
to superstition, and nothing but knowledge, which cannot be
sufficiently imparted to them all, can preserve them from
falling into it, whatever their religion may be; but it depends
upon various circumstances, what particular form their super-
stition Avill assume. In this country I have found a much
greater degree of superstition amongst Protestants than
amongst Catholics, in the belief of fortune-tellers, witchcraft,
omens, lucky and unlucky days, nay, frequently in the spiritual
powers which they believe the Catholic clergy to possess, and
for the exertion of which they not unfrequently apply to us.
But Catholics who are told from their infancv that all these

Sec. 8.] Christian Rdujion. 135

things are forbidden by the first commandment, and who,
whenever they commit them, are obliged to confess their fault
and sincerely promise amendment, are infinitely freer from such
superstitions ; but they may be guilty of others, with which I
am unacquainted.

Whether every exertion is made in Catholic countries, which
ought to be, to eradicate or prevent superstitions, I cannot
pretend to say. But if any would assert, that the chance of
correcting such abuses, as actually do exist in the most igno-
rant portion of the Catholic Church, would justify, in prudence
or in piety, the separation of any country from the communion
of the Universal Church, the establishment of a new order of
ministers, and a new source of spiritual jurisdiction, the con-
tinuance for centuries of ehdless divisions, contentions, animos-
ities and hatreds, the enactment of cruel, sanguinary and
oppressive laws against the majority of a nation, in fine, the
risk of involving a whole people in scenes of violence and
bloodshed, and, perhaps, leaving them at last without any
Christianity whatever, I entirely disagree with him. I had
rather, for my part, see half the old women in the kingdom
place too muoh confidence in the burning of a taper, than half
the young men applying the torch of destruction to the dwel-
lings of the other.
- If any one is wishful to ascertain to what extent, idolatry or
superstition prevails on the subject in question in Catholic
countries, I would recommend to him, when he next travels
abroad, to adopt the folloAving ordeal. Perhaps in Flanders,
Italy, or Spain, he will observe some poor woman lighting a
little taper, before a very tawdry image of the Blessed Virgin,
and then kneeling down before it to say some prayers. Let not
my friend Viudex, should he be the man to make the experi-
ment, be too much transported with zeal at this shocking sight,
nor, in the first ardour of his piety, overturn the poor woman,
or insult the image. Let him not even exclaim idolatry, abom-
ination of desolation, or any other expression of orthodox
horror, with which he may be familiar. Such conduct would
only frighten the party against whom it is directed, and prevent
the chance of his receiving any answers. But, bridling his
feelings for a few moments, let him quietly and good-naturedly
approach the suppliant, and address to her the followiug inter-
rogatory. " My good woman, what is your object in burning
that taper J" I predict he will receive for answer, ' It is to
honour the Holy Virgin or the Mother of God.' " But is
that figure the Mother of God ?" The answer will be, ' It is

136 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

her image,' " But do you think that the Mother of God is a
goddess? or that she can grant you any favour, which she does
not first receive from God?" The answer will be * No.'
" Do you think that image can hear you V The answer will
be again ' No ;' or perhaps it may be only a smile signifying
that the interrogator is supposed to be in jest. " Do you
think that the imago before which you are burning that taper
and praying, can either see, hear or help you, or that there re-
sides in it any divinity, virtue, or power, which entitles it to
the honours you pay it ?" A more homely mode of expression
may be required to make the questions understood I but I feel
perfectly convinced that the moment their meaning is compre-
hended, a decided no will be the reply. Here the examination
must close on the score of idolatry, and the defendant must be
pronounced not guilty.

To ascertain whether there were any superstition in the case
the interrogatory may proceed thus. "Do you think that pray-
ing to the blessed Virgin will save you if you do not keep the
commandments I Do you think that your salvation is certain if
you say such or such prayers before this image I Do you con-
sider it certain that the prayers you offer to the blessed Virgin
before this image, will be heard and granted I Do you expect
any effect from these prayers, which cannot be obtained by
other prayers t Do you believe that any miraculous effect is
sure to follow the prayers you offer here?" If the person
answer ' Yes" to any of these questions, she is certainly guilty
of superstition, in attaching to an external act, effects which
neither reason nor religion authorizes her to attach to it. There
may be other ways in which superstition might be committed
m an act of this kind, which would be criminal, excusable or
innocent, according to various circumstances. There might be
also a fault of credulity which is neither idolatrous nor super-
stitious. Thus, if the woman believed, without sufficient proof,
any stories of miracles having been wrought at that image, and
said her prayers before it, merely hoping that she might receive
similar favours, but not calculating upon them as certain, she
would be chargeable with credulity, not with idolatry or super-
stition. For the existence or non-existence of any such mira-
cles, is a mere point of history, which we may believe or disbe-
lieve as we think it proper, with the same innocence that we
may believe or disbelieve any ordinary fact. If we believe
such accounts without the strongest evidence, we are certainly
guilty of credulity ; as, on the other hand, if we disbelieve
them on such evidence we are guilty of folly. If the woman

Sec. 8.] Christian Reliyion. J 37

prayed before that particular image rather than another, ajid
expected, on that account, greater effects from her prayers ;
this also may be a persuasion, perhaps ill founded, but certainly
innocent. There is no gttilt in believing that the Almighty is
more liberal in bestowing his favours in one place than in
another. Solomon prayed that God would be more liberal of
his favours in the temple of Jerusalem than in other places,
and there is no harm in supposing that Solomon's prayer was
heard. It is possible that the Almighty may, for some similar
reason, perhaps on account of the piety of some eminently
virtuous person who had prayed in such a chapel, or before
such an image, bestow greater favours there than in any place
not similarly circumstanced. Whatever may be without im-
piety, may be believed without impiety. Hence, if I found
that the person of whom I spoke above, offered her pray-
ers before one particular image rather than another, merely
because her parents or friends had done it before her, or
because she thought she had a better chance of being heard
there than elsewhere, either for the reasons assigned, or
for some other reason that does not militate against any
principle of religion, I, for my part, would not condemn
her. Were I indeed her religious instructor, I should caution
her against being too credulous, and, for fear of superstition,
should request her to say her prayers more frequently else-
where ; but I should not think that I was acting either cha-
ritably or wisely, if I proclaimed the poor woman an idolater
or a fool ; for in my opinion there is no znore striking proof of
unchristian illiberality, vulgar ignorance, or senseless fanaticism,
tiian to be for ever roaring out idolatry, superstition and blas-
phemy at every thing which seems to agree with certain vague
and undefined notions a person may have formed of these
offences, or to be perpetually bestowing pity (as English pro-
testants are very apt to do) on those who know what is right
and what is wrong quite as well as themselves.* For my own
part, I can truly say that in the churches abroad, I have re-
peatedly been ashamed of my Protestant countrymen and
women, when, though ignorant, as to my knowledge they

* As far as my observation extends, tliere is quite as much credulity in the
Church of England as there is in the I'atholic Church, and of a much more dange-
rous kind. There are many Catholics in the sister island who believe, that St. Pa-
trick drove all venoraons animals (except Orange-meu) out of Ireland, but the most
ignorant Catholic in the united kingdom, never paid one momeut's attention to the
reveries of Johanna Southcott, -whilst she boasted of having vast numbers of res-
pectable Protestants, and even tvpelve Protestant clergymen, amongst (he believers
and propagators of her ridiculous and blasphemous pretensions !

138 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

sometimes were, even of their own religion, I have seen them
looking at each other with expressions of indescribable self-
complacence, and apparently thanking God for their own
superior wisdom, merely because they did not understand
some Catholic ceremony of nearly two thousand years old.

Let them follow the advice I humbly presume to offer them
of first examining evidence, before they pronounce sentence ;
and if they should discover any idolatry or superstition in
Catholic countries, let them rather, with a view of benefitting
the souls of their neighbours, have the charity to state the case
to the bishop or parish priest of the place, who will spare no
pains to correct the abuse, than commit the injustice of pub-
lishing their discoveries, with ill-natured exaggerations, in
England, for the purpose of depriving English Catholics of
peace, reputation and liberty.

.»>CZ3.

§9.

Breach of Faith. — Accusation hy Dr. Moysey and Vindex
stated and refuted. — Council of Constance and John Huss.
— Dispensations of Catholics and Protestants compared.
— Council of Later an. — Sir John Cox Hippesley, ^c.

I shall not detain the reader long on the subject of "keeping
faith with heretics." It will be recollected that Dr. Moysey,
in his Charge, the original cause of this controversy, asserted
that it was a docrine of the Catholic Church, that faith might
not be kept with persons of other religious persuasions, that
many Catholics, particularly clergy, actually adhered to this
doctrine, and that he conceived they would all be bound to act
upon it " if the good of the Church, which," says he, " is a
consideration paramount with them, require them to do so :"
that no dependance could be placed upon the Catholic clergy,
they being the sworn and obedient servants of a foreign juris-
diction, and that the most solemn assurance of Catholic lay-
men were of no value, because they were " under the entire
subjection of their priests."

Sec. 9.3 Christian Religion. 131)

In my former letter to the Archdeacon, I acknowledged
that if such Avere the prmciples of Catholics, " not only would
it be just to exclude them from power in the state, but that it
would be proper to expel them from the country, as beings
unworthy of the blessings of civil society, and expose them as
monsters to the general execration of mankind." In fact,
such doctrines strike at the very root of civil society, nor
would it be possible, as a spirited and eloquent writer very
justly remarks, for any government to subsist, the members of
which believed them to he true.* Hence, the very existence
of so many Catholic states through so long a series of ages, is
a sufficient refutation of their charge. Yet grievous and in-
credible as the accusation was, the Archdeacon, with a dignity
becoming a person in his station, adduced no proof in support
of his assertions, but merely said that such vxis the doctrine of
our Church, that we obstinately refused to repeal it, and that
it " still stood as a decree of authority in the words of Inno-
cent the Third."

Every one of these assertions I positively denied; and ad-
duced as proofs that we do not hold such doctrines : First,
the authentic decisions of six Catholic universities, situated in
different parts of Europe, obtained by Mr, Pitt, for the satis-
faction of the British Government in 1788, all which most
positively disclaim the odious imputations, with strong expres-
sions of astonishment, that a learned and enlightened nation
like England, should in the eighteenth century be capable of
entertaining them. Secondly, I proved that the British go-
vernment, which was so deeply concerned in the truth or fals-
hood of the charges, had publicly and repeatedly acquitted us
of it: that even our warmest parliamentary opponents had
given it up, and that not even the bishops themselves, had
dared to bring it forward in the late critical discussion of our
claims. Lastly, I showed that all the Catholics of England,
Ireland, and Scotland, bishops, priests, and people, do, with
the approbation of the Pope himself, solemnly call God to
witness upon oath, that they do " reject and detest the impious
and unchristian principle" imputed to them.

I had hoped that arguments like these would have satisfied
even Dr. Moysey, nor do I think he would dare to expose him-
self to the odium of again makins: the charge openly, and in
his oivn name. But either he, or some other person or persons
acting in his defence, have done it under the cover of an ano-

* Artliur O'Leary.

140 A Defence of the [Let. 2

nymous publication; and as there may be some, with whom
such publications have weight, I subjoin, for their considera-
tion, the following additional facts, in confirmation of my
former proofs.

In the first place, the late Pope Pius the Sixth, in an official
communication to the bishops of Ireland, solemnly disclaimed
on the part of the Catholic Church, the odious doctrine in the
following terms. " The see of Rome never taught that faith,
is not to be kept with the heteredox ; that an oath to kings
separated from Catholic communion can be violated ; that it is
lawful for the bishop of Rome to invade their temporal rights
and dominions. We too consider an attempt or design against
the life of kings and princes, even under the pretext of religion,
as a horrid and detestable crime."*

Secondly : If Catholics believe that oaths when made to per-
sons of other religious persuasions are not binding, why do our
nobility and gentry refuse their seats in parliament, and submit
to a total exclusion from every office of trust, honour and emol-
imient in th^ state, even to that of acting as a justice of the
peace on their own property, and amidst their own dependants,
thus exposing themselves and families to be looked upon from
generation to generation as a suspected, misfrusted, and degra-
ded race, when the simple taking of an oath to the Protestant
government is the only obstacle that stands in their way to
power, wealth, liberty, and reputation I

Thirdly : If Catholics maintain that oaths made to persons
of other religious persuasions are not binding, why are their
oaths admitted in courts of justice as evidence, to dispose of
the property, and even take away the lives of his Majesty's Pro-
testant subjects equally with those of Protestants J

Fourthly : Why does the Government of England, in its
treaties with foreign Catholic powers, accept of their simple
oaths, without requiring any additional security on the ground
of their religious principles i

Fifthly : Why do not the bishops of the Established Church,
whenever the Catiiolic claims are brought forward, stand up as
the guardians of truth and the friends of their country, and, by
convincing the lay lords of the guilt and mischief of Catholic
principles, preserve the Church from that danger which so much
alarms themselves and their archdeacons? And why, when a

* See the whole letter in the Appendix to the Report of the Committee of the
House of Commons " on the Laws and Ordinances in foreign states respecting;
Roman Catholic subjects," page 427. Also the speech of Sir John Cox Hippesley,

page 84.

Sec. 9.] Christian Relifjion. 141

bishop has returned home from one of those important discus-
sions, in which he has not so much as whispered a syllable
against Catholic breach of faith, does he make the assertions
in his cathedral, which he did not make in the House of Lords,
or countenance his archdeacons to publish them all over the
country, for the purpose of inflaming the Protestants with ha-
tred against the Catholics, and inspiring them with suspicions
of the conduct of the government I It is not my place to ac-
count for this apparent contradiction in conduct ; but this I
know, that whilst no one is at liberty, or thinks it worth his
while to contradict the assertions of a bishop or an archdeacon
made only from the pulpit, should any bishop dare to assert in
the House of Lords, that it is a tenet of the Catholic Church
that faith might not be kept with heretics, a hundred lay voices
would be raised to refute his assertion, ridicule his ignorance,
or expose his bigotry. Even one of his own brethren, the ven-
erable and respected Norwich, would enter his ardent and inde-
pendent protest, and, by his single voice, rescue the Established
Church from universal shame,*

I shall now make a few remarks upon the arguments which
are brought forward by Dr. Moysey's anonymous friend, to
substantiate the odious charge he continues to advance against
us.

I have observed, that the only proof which the Archdeacon
himself condescended to offer, was an assertion, that the doc-
trine he imputed to us actually " stands as a degree of autho-
rity in the words of Innocent the Third." This assertion I
opposed by a flat denial. Vindex replies, " I neither know
nor care whether the doctrine that faith is not to be kept with
heretics, stands as a decree of authority in the words of Inno-
cent the Third." This is a mode of defence so dignified, that
I cannot help suspecting it to come from the same quarter as
the Charge. But its dignity here is misplaced; for if the as-
sertion of Dr. Moysey be not true, it will follow, whether Vin-
dex cares or not, that the Archdeacon, u})on the authority of
a decree which has no existence, did under circumstances of
peculiar solemnity, in the house of God, and in the presence of
his clergy, and afterwards before the public in print, assert
what was not true, to the serious injury of his " Christian bre-
thren," the Catholics. Vindex therefore deserts the ground on
which Dr. Moysey had rested his accusation, but continues to

• If the English Catholic were in any danger of coramiting idolatry, it would be
from the reneration he feels for this friend of justice and humanity. •• Justissimus
«M«s." " Qui fuit in Teucris et servantissinins aequi,"

142 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

maintain it, upon a decree of the council of Constance, in 1415,
respecting- the trial and condemnation of John Huss, which
he says, " decreed and declared it lawful to violate the most
solemn engagements when made with heretics." This broad
and damning- conclusion, Vindex rests upon the following quo-
tation. " When nevertheless the said John Huss, by pertina-
ciously infringing the orthodox faith, rendered himself incapable
of any safe conduct and privilege, neither ivas any faith or
promise, either hy natural, divine, or human law, to be ob-
served towards him to the prejudice of the Catholic faith ."
Now I think the reader will agree with me, that a milder
interpretation might possibly be put on this passage, and that
it requires considerable violence to bend it to the meaning
which Vindex assigns to it ; that consequently he ought not to
have brought it forward with so much confidence, particularly
after witnessing the fate of Dr. Moysey's attack. But will
the reader believe me when I tell him, that it is more than
probable that the above are not the words of the council !
" The clause," says Butler, " is an evident interpolation. It
is to be found in no manuscript, excepting one in the imperial
library at Vienna ? and in this it has not the formal signatures,
which are subscribed, without exception, ' to all the other
acknowledged canons,"* But there is another canon of the
council, on this same subject, which is much clearer, and is
acknowledged to be genuine. Why did not Vindex quote
this I Why chuse that which is more obscure and the authen-
ticity of which is not only doubted but denied ? Perhaps here
again he will answer " that he neither knows nor cares !"

The fact respecting Huss and the decree of the council
concerning him is simply this. John Huss was a Catholic
priest in Bohemia, his native country. He fell into certain
errors contrary to Catholic doctrine, maintaining, amongst other
things, that "princes, magistrates, bishops, and other superiors,
lose their authority when in the state of mortal sin; that the
people have a right to correct their temporal rulers as they
shall deem necessary ; that tythes are mere alms, and that
parishioners may whenever they please, take them away from
their clergy on account of their sins."f These and many
similar doctrines he preached publicly, drew over considerable

* Memoirs of tbe English Catholics, &c. vol. iii. page 104.

t Nullus est DomiDus civilis, nollus est praeatas, nnllus est episcopus dum est in
peccato niortali. Error 30 Joannis Huss. Cone. Const. Sess. 15.
Populares possunt ad suum arbitriuui dominos temporales corrigere.

Sec. 9.]

Christian Reiicjion.

143

JOHN HUSS.— See page 142.

" Princes, magistrates, bishops and other superiors, lose their aathority when in the

state of mortal sin."

numbers to his opinious, raised some serious commotions in the
country, and threatened still greater, when the Church and
state becoming equally alarmed, he was ordered by his sove-
reign, the Emperor Sigismund, to repair to the city of Con-
stance, and answer for his doctrines before the general council
which was there assembled. That he might not be molested
on his way to or from Constance, the emperor gave him a pass-
port, or safe conduct. Instead of submitting to the judgment

Decimae sunt purse eleemosynas et parochiani possunt, propter peccata suornm
prajlatornm ad, libitum saum, auferre eas " Errores 17 et 18 Joannis Wicklifl"."
Huss positively declared, that the condemnation of the errors of Wickliflf was un-
natural, wicked and unjust. Concil, Const. Error 25.

144 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

of the council, the authority of which he had repeatedly
acknowledged, and the decisions of which, as an ecclesiastic,
he was bound to obey, he continued to maintain his dangerous
doctrines publicly, under the eyes of the council, and at last
attempted privately to make his escape. He was then put
under arrest,* and when some of his partizans raised a cla-
mour, alledging that the emperor had pledged his word for his
safety, the council passed the decree which declared that no
safe conduct of the emperor however worded, or with what-
ever promise or oath it might be accompanied, could deprive
the council of their right of judging a man who was their sub-
ject in spirituals. " Every safe conduct," says the council,
" granted by the emperor, by kings, and other temporal
princes to heretics, or persons accused of heresy, in hopes of
reclaimmg them, ought not to be of any prejudice to the Catho-
lic faith, or to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or to hinder that
such persons may and ought to be examined, judged and
punished, as justice, shall require," &c.t They accordingly
condemned Huss of heretical doctrines, and, after every effort
made to induce him to retract, when he still continued obsti-
nate, he was declared a heretic by the council, and delivered
over to the power of the state to be treated as the civil law
should direct. The civil law directed that heresy should be
punished with death, and the unfortunate John Huss was pun-
ished accordingly.

I shall not examine here whether Huss deserved his fate or

* If the council treated John Huss with severity for attempting to make his
escape and for causing disturbances, it was not because he was a heretic. It is re-
markable, that this council deposed no less than three popes, and one of them
(John the Twentj-third,) for the very ofleace, attempted by Huss, namely, with-
drawing himself from the judgment of the council, and privately making his escape.
Coun. Const. SeSs. 12.

t See Rutler's Memoirs of the English Catholics, from which I copy this trans-
lation, and where the canon is given more at length with a dissertation, vol. iii.
page 102.

The above is the explanation given to this decree of the council by all the Catholic
writers I have read. That the council did not consider it lawful to violate an oath
on any account ichatevfr, is evident from the following questions, which, amongst
•others, were ordered bv them to be put to persons suspected of the errors of Wick-
lift' and Huss, who were said to have taught this doctrine. '' Let the suspected
person," says the couacil, " be asked, ' 'Viniether he believes that perjury knowingly
committed, on whatever cause or occasion, for the preservation of our own, or ano-
ther's life, even in favour of the faith, is a mortal sin?' And if any one is found to
maintain, that perjury, under any of these circumstances, is not a mortal sin,
the council directs that he shall be obliged, publicly, to revoke and abjure his
errors,"

" Utrum credat quod perjurium scienter commtssam ex quacumque causa vel
occasione pro conversatione vitae corporalis vel propriae vel alterius etiaminfavorem
fidci, sitmortale peccatum." Bulla Martini quinti. Sess. 45. Cone. Const.

Sec. 9.] Christian Religion. 145

not.* But were any man to come to this country from Italy,
with a passport from the Pope, and preach in England that the
Established clerg-y had no right to their tithes, and that they
might be deprived of them for their sins, I do think that the
bench of bishops would very soon come to the same conclusion
respecting the Pope's pasport, as the council of Constance did
respecting that of the Emperor Sigismund. They would say
that his Holiness had no right to grant a passport to license a
man to transgress the laws of England with impunity, and that
if he had guaranteed his safety, even on oath, his oath in such
cases could not be binding. And should there be any hesitation
on the part of the bishops or the government to proceed against
this dangerous innovator, I do suspect that we should see the
Archdeacon of Bath as active in collecting signatures for a pe-
tition to parliament against him, as he has been in collecting
them against the Catholics. Nay, should the offender, after
all, be sentenced to be burnt, as many Catholics were for a very
different reason under Henry the Eigth, I should not be at all
surprised to see my friend Vindex in a mask, one of the most
busy men about his pile. At all events, I am sure he would
soon bring his metaphysics and criticism into play to demolish
the reasoning of any Italian theologian, who should, on account
of the above decision of the bishops, charge the Church of En-
gland with maintaining " that it was lawful to violate the most
solemn engagements when made with Catholics." So far was
the Emperor Sigismund himself from considering that his word
to John Huss violated by the condemnation and punishment of
that unfortunate man, that he repeatedly declared, during the
trial, that, if Huss refused to retract his errors, he would him-
self light the first faggot at his pile.f

But had the decree, passed by the council, actually taught
the odious and infamous doctrine Vindex asserts, still it could
not have constituted an article of Catholic faith, nor conse-
quently have bound the inward assent of any Catholic. First,
because no decree of a general couuil is ever admitted as an
article of faith, unless it be proposed as such to the whole
Church. Now this decree was never proposed to the Church

* If Huss taught the doctrines attributed to him, and he certain!)' did teach most
of them, he deserved to be punished as a disturber of the public peace, and an ene-
my to civil society. If his errors were no ways injurious to the state, it was a cruel
and unchristian act to put him to death for them ; and if the council directly or in-
directly sanctioned such temporal punishments for mere spiritual offences, it exceeded
its powers, and must be so far condemned by every Catholic.

t See the Protestant historian L'Enfant. His. Conci Const.

146 A Defence of the [Xef . 2.

at all, nor was it even ratified by the Pope who presided at the
council,* but was a mere assertion of right, made on a particu-
lar occasion, and applicable only under particular circumstances.
Secondly, nothing can be considered as an article of Catholic
faith, unless it is aecieved as such by the great body of Catho-
lic bishops. Now so far from the decree in question, having
ever been recieved by the great body of Catholic bishops as
an article of faith, I defy Dr, Moysey, or any other man with
a name, to produce one single instance of a Catholic bishop
recieving it as such, or deducing from it the odious doctrine
asserted by Vindex.-f-

How hard is the fate of the British Catholic ! Not only is he
deprived of the civil rights and privileges purchased for his
country by the bravery of his Catholic ancestors, and this for
no other crime than refusing to condemn their relioion as idol-
atrous and wicked, but as if, with the revenues of his church
and the liberties of his person, his understanding also had been
made over to the clergy of the new religion, he has never since
. the reformation been allowed the poor privilege of knowing
what himself believes. It is in vain that he protests against
the injustice of having doctrines imputed to him which he
abhors; in vain that he declares, in the most solemn manner,
even upon oath, that such are not his doctrines ; in vain that by a
conduct above reproach, he pleads his innocence; the ministers of
a religion, which for ever boasts its liberality, return him for an-
swer, ' ' We know your religion better than you do yourself. You
believe as we assert. Even your oaths are undeserving of
credit, because it is a tenet of your religion, estciblished at the
council of Constance, " that it is lawful to violate the most
solemn engagements when made with heretics !' "

Vindex asserts that Bellarmine, a Catholic divine of whom
we have before spoken, taught, " that the Pope had power to
establish, abrogate, suspend, dispense with ecclesiastical canons ;
to void promises, oaths, vows, obligations to oaths by his dis-
pensation." Now, suppose Bellarmine had really taught this

* Pope Martin the Fifth, who presided at the latter part of this conncil, expressly
declared, that he gave his ratification only to such of its decrees an regarded faith,
not to others. "Martinus quintus dixit quod omnia et singula determinata et derecta
in materiis fidei per praesens concilium conciliariter tenere et inviolabiliter obser-
vare volebat, et nunquam contraire quoquo raodo. Ipsaque sic conciliariter facta
approbat et ratificat et non aliter nee alio modo." Sess. 45.

t The thirty -nine articles of the Church of England were established by an act of
parliament. But does it therefore follow, that ei-erij act of parliament is an article
of faith in the Church of England ? Then will it follow, that it is an article of faith
of the Church of England, that the City of Bath may be lighted yp with gas!

Sec. 9.] Christian Religion. 147

doctrine, must his opinious be charged upon the faith of the
Catholic Church, or must the Catholics of England necessarily
be traduced as perjurers, and deprived of their civil rights,
" because an Italian wrote nonsense in bad Latin, two centu-
ries ago ?"* But as Vindex gives no reference, and as Bellar-
mine, though a stickler for the extravagant pretensions of
some Popes, has never been accused by those who know his
works best, namely. Catholic divines, of teaching the wild and
absurd doctrines which Vindex wishes to impute to him, I am
quite convinced that he never held them.

There are certain powers of dispensation exercised by the
Catholic Church, as there are by the Church of England, and
as there must be by every government, whether spiritual or
temporal, and some few of these are reserved to the Pope, for
the express purpose of rendering them more difficult to be
abused. With regard to ecclesiastical canons, if Vindex by
this term means canons or articles of faith, it is untrue that
either Bellarmine or any other Catholic divine ever allowed to
the Pope the power of abrogating, suspending or dispensing
with one of them. If he means canons of discipline, in whose
hands should a dispensing power, limited and regulated by
laws, so properly reside as in the chief magistrate of the
Church I And what has Vindex to do with the discipline of
our Church ?

The fact is, the Catholic Church never alloAved, nor did the
Pope ever claim the right of abrogating or dispensing with the
immutable laws of God and nature, and every power short of
this, which the Pope ever exercised in England, was expressly
reserved at the reformation to the Archbishop of Canterbury
and the king. I- Whatever therefore the dispensing power of
the Pope might be, it is manifest that the same is claimed by
the Church of England. But in its mode of exercising this
power, the latter has greatly outstripped the former. It is
manifest to me, that all the Popes who have sat during eighteen
centuries in the chair of St. Peter, have not granted so many
or such extraordinary dispensations as have been granted in the
three last centuries by the Reformers alone. In fact, the
reformation was wholly founded on dispensations. Luther
could not begin the godly work, till he had granted himself a
dispensation from the oaths of obedience which he had taken to
his bishop, to his religious superiors, and the Pope; nor coiUd
he afterwards take a wife without exercising another power of

* O'Leary's Tracts.
t Act of twenty-fifth of Henrj the Eighth.

148 A Defence of the [Lei. 2.

dispensation, tlie greatest that is reserved by the canons to the
Pope, and which many Catholic divines maintain the Pope
himself has not the power to exercise. Luther was as liberal
in his dispensations to others as he was to himself, and infinitely
more so than the Pope had ever been. Henry the Eighth,
one of the greatest and most powerful sovereigns of Europe,
requested of the Pope a divorce from his wife Catherine, and
urged his request with every argument that his passion could
devise, or his power enforce ; yet, after repeated examinations,
difficulties, hesitations and delays, the suit was at last positively
refused, on the ground that the grant of it was inconsistent
with the divine law. The landgrave of Hesse, a petty prince
of Germany, represents to Luther and his fellow apostles, how
very agreeable and convenient it would be to hira to have two
wives at the same time, and his wishes are instantly complied
with. " It is one thing," says this Protestant council, " to
introduce a new law, and another to make use of a dispensa-
tion. If, therefore, your highness has absolutely determined
upon marrying a second wife, we judge that you ought to doit
secretly, as we before said when speaking of dispensations ;
that is to say, the thing should be known only to your high-
ness, to the lady herself, and to a few corifidential friends,
bound under the seal of confession. In this case, no great
difficulties or scandal could arise from it. For it is no unusual
thing for princes to keep concubines ; and though the reasona-
bleness of the thing might not be understood by the ignorant,
the better informed would understand it, and see that this
mode of proceeding was much better than living in adultery ;
nor is it necessary to trouble ourselves about what others may
say, so long as all is right with our conscience. Thus, and so
far, we approve your highness's design; for the gospel does
not recall what was permitted by the law of Moses." They
recommended the happy man particularly not to say any thing
to the Emperor, because as he was impressed with papistical
notions, he might amuse himself at his highness's expense,
&c.*

The divorce from Queen Catherine v/hich Henry the Eighth

* See this carioas aud scandalous document at full length in Bossuei's Histoire des
Variations liv. vi. I shall add the following extract in the original Latin only. " Certis
tanien casibus locus est dispensation^ Si quis apud exteras nationes captivns, ad
curam corporis et sanitatem, inibi alteram uxorem superindaceret ; vel si qais ha-
heret leprosam : his casibus alteram ducere cum consilic sui pastoris, non intentione
nuvam legem inducendi, sed suee uecessitati consulcndi, banc uescimus qua ratione
damnare liceret.' '

Sec. 9.] Christian Reli(/ion. 149

had in vain solicited from the Pope, was granted by Archbishop
Cranmer, empowered by the king-, without a moment's hesita-
tion. Not only did this first royal head of the Church of
of England, grant a dispensation to all his bishops from the
oath of obedience they bad taken to the Pope, authorizing
them to transfer the same to himself, but he even punished
with death, those who refused to acknowledge his dispensing
power, and accept its favours, Elizabeth offered the same
dispensation to her Catholic bishops, but it was accepted only
by one, the rest chusing rather to resign their sees than to
acknowledge a dispensing power so new and extraordinary.
She afterwards dispensed with the necessity of apostolical
jurisdiction, if not orders, in favour of her new bishops, as
well as with her own female incapacity to govern the Church
of Christ. And who, I Avould ask, dispenses with our legisla-
tors when they continue to swear that "no foreign prelate hath
any jurisdiction, or power ecclesiastical or spiritual, within the
realm," when it has been publicly known for centuries, that the
whole Irish Catholic Church is governed by bishops, acknow-
ledging the authority, and acting under the jurisdiction of the
Bishop of Rome, nay, even after these same bishops have been
publicly received and acknowledged in this capacity by the
sovereign himself.' Who dispenses with that multitude of poor
ignorant beings who fill the lowest offices under government
for sixpences and shillings ; and who, without ever having heard
such a word as transuhstantiation, or having the least idea
what is the doctrine or practice of the Catholic Church, either
on that or other subjects, " do solemnly and sincerely, in the
presence of God, profess, testify and declare, that (they) do
believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's supper there is not
any transuhstantiation of the elements, &c. and that the invo-
cation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and
the sacrifice of the mass, as thexj are now used in the Church
of Rome are superstitious and idolatrous /" Far be it from
me to condemn all these poor unthinking mortals of the horrid
crime of perjury, or even their better informed superiors, the
Commons, Lords, and Bishops of England ; but surely there
must lie a dispensing power some where or other, to authorize
these awful proceedings ; and such a power as I maintain never

This dispensation was signed by Martin Luther, Philip Melancton, Martin Bu'
cer, Antony Coriin, Adam, John Lening, Justus Wintferte, and Denis Mflanther,
and the marriage was actually celebrated in the presence of Melancton, Bucer, Me-
lander and others. AVho could resist the tratli of a g«spel like this!

150 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

was claimed or exercised by any Pope since the days of St. Pe-
ter. Even the solemn subscription to the tliirty-nine articles,
which Paley so easily allows to be made by the Established
Clergy who do not believe them, implies a power of dispensa-
tion, and a liberty of explanation which would never have been
approved by Rome, nor accepted, I do hope, by any Catholic,
had it been sanctioned even by a general council.

Had Catholics the same happy facility in adapting the mea-
ning of oaths to existing circumstances as their Protestant bre-
thren, thy would not so often annoy the parliament with a dis-
cussion of their claims, nor so often give Dr. Moysey the
trouble of collecting signatures against them. It would only
be necessary for them to desire some Catholic casuist to bor-
row the words of Archdeacon Paley and argue as follows.
" They who contend that nothing less can justify the taking of
the oath of supremacy and the declaration against transubstan-
tiation, than the actual belief of every proposition contained
in them, must suppose that the legislature expected the con-
sent of ten thousand men, and that in perpetual succesion,
not to one controverted proposition but to many. It is diffi-
cult to conceive how this could be expected by any one who
observed the incurable diversity of human opinion upon all sub-
jects short of demonstration." After laying down these very
convincing premises, our Catholic casuist has only to follow
Paley in his reasoning and say, " The intent of the legislature
in proposing the above oaths, is merely to keep those men out
of parliament and public offices, who are weak enough not to
take them. But as we do not intend to be kept out of par-
liament and public offices, therefore we may swear as well as
our neighbours to what is not true." The Catholics might then
march into Parliament and enjoy, with the rest of the popula-
tion, a share in all those good things which government can
bestow.

" Who art thou that judgest another man's servant ? To his
own master he standeth or falleth," is a maxim which I hope
Catholics will ever bear in mind when they contemplate the
conduct of their neighbour. Still there are occasions in which,
if a Catholic refrain from judging, he cannot restrain his won-
der ,• and on none more than when he witnesses the extraor-
dinary use which is made of oaths in this country.

" Non equidem invideo, miior magis

But when a man comes forward, and asserts that the Catho-
lic Church claims a power of dispensation on these awful

Sec. 9.] Christian Relif/ion. 151

subjects, that can be compared in the most distant manner
with that which is exercised by the Church of England, and
other Protestant communities, we must be allowed to think
either that the man has lost his senses, or that he has just awa-
ked from a slumber of 200 years, and thinks that the country,
at the present day, will swallow the same gross preparations,
which were administered to them, in former times, by the
book of Homilies and the fathers of the reformation. " Judge
not and ye shall not be judged. Give and it shall be given
unto you : good measure jxressed down and shaken together
and running over shall men give into your bosom. For with
the same measure that ye mete withal, it shall be measured to
you again."*

Vindex asserts, on the authority of some scraps of quota-
tions, chiefly from the fourth council of Lateran, that Catho-
lics allow to the Pope a power of freeing subjects from their
oaths of allegiance to heretical, and excommunicated princes.
I shall answer him in the words of tAVO gentlemen of the Es-
tablished Church.

" If those councils (of Lateran, Constance, and Basil)" says
Sir John Cox Hippesley, must be pressed into the discussion,
it must be said that neither they, nor any other, ever de-
clared that the deposing and dispensing doctrines are parts of
the Catholic faith : consequently, all Catholics are at liberty
to renounce them ,- and the only question must be, whether
those councils did actually excercise or vindicate to themselves
the deposing and dispensing power I It is well known indeed,
that the council of Constance deposed three Popes, though
this is a fact that the learned and right honourable gentleman
(Dr. Duigenan) has not condescended to notice.

" In which ever way this is determined, it cannot effect the
present Catholics, as they do not acknowledge, but have ex-
pressly renounced, on their oaths, the existence of such pow-
ers in any council, much less in any Pope. We will not deny
that some of these councils did assume such powers in a cer-
tain degree, not however as belonging to these ex officio, but
as conferred upon them by the free consent of the temporal au-
thorities. It must be recollected that, before the dismember-
ment of the empire, the emperors frequently enforced the ob-
servance of the ecclesiastical canons by temporal laws ; and
also that, after the conversion of the barbarous nations, their
princes did frequently, in dubious cases, (particularly those of

* Luke, vi. 37.

152 A Defence of the [Let. 2

a mixed nature, partly temporal, partly spiritual,) submit
themselves to the decisions of the pontiffs, and request them
to confirm their temporal laws, by the spiritual authority. In
such cases, the Popes certainly did not usurp any power,
since it was freely given to them.

" The famous decree of the council of Lateran, so much ob-
jected to, will be found as a constitution of the Emperor Fre-
derick, and in the precise words of the canon ; though, as a
canon, even its aulhenticityis called in question by the Catho-
lic Bishop Hay, and by Collier and other Protestant writers.
The canon, nevertheless, appears in several collections of the
councils, nor is it necessary to dispute it, inasmuch as it is not
a canon of faith, nor was ever considered as such by any
Catholic.

" Those councils may be considered as general parliaments
of Christendom, the lords temporal and spiritual being assem-
bled, and almost every Christian sovereign, with the emperors
of the East, and of the West, being present, either in person
or by representation. On those occasions, the temporal princes
(and it must be recollected too, that the abbots often held
great temporal sovereignties) often advised the bishops to en-
force their canons with the threat of temporal punishments,
and promised to see that such threats were executed. It is
well known that the Emperor Sigismund, whose safe conduct
to John Huss the council of Constance is accused of having
violated, declared in that council, that if Huss did not retract,
' hijnself would light the first fagot at his pile.'

" The assumption of such power by general councils under
such circumstances, cannot therefore be said to be usurpation,
as it was only ass.umed with the consent of the civil authorities,
and could have no effect ivithout their concurrence.'"'''^

" The heavy charges," says a clergyman of the Established
Church, " brought against the Roman Catholic Church, of

* Substance of the speech of Sir John Cox Hippeslj, bart. 1810, Second edit,
page 69, &c. The indefatigable exertions of this gentleman for some years in the
cause of Catholic emancipation, entitle him to a gratitude from the Catholics, simi-
lar to that which Mr. Wilberforce so justly receives, from every friend of humanity,
for his benevolent exertions in procuring the abolition of the slave trade. Perhaps,
there is no Protestant in the kingdom, who has paid so much attention to, or
understands so well the tenets of the Catholic Church on all subjects, particulaily
such as are connected with civil matters, as Sir John Cox Hippesly. I quote him
with the greater jileasure because he is in our own neighbourhood, and because I am
convinced, though I have not the honour of knowing him personally, that he would
be very ready to give any information on the Catholic religion, to those Protestant
clergymen who are determined to write upon it without giving themselves the trou-
ble to study its doctrines.

Sec, 9.] Christian Religion. 153

having- sanctioned by its canons the dreadful doctrines, * that
the Pope may depose kings, absolve their subjects from their
oaths of allegiance, and give away their kingdoms,' rest entirely
on the resolutions adopted by some general councils, held du-
ring the dark ages, vt^hen feudal tyranny prevailed throughout
the greater part of Europe. Even the canons adopted at
those councils have been strangely if not ■willfully misrepre-
sented, by modern Protestant writers of high rank ; and who
have displayed but little candour, and less learning, on the
subject; being, apparently, quite ignorant of the policy of the
feudal system. It is unnecessary for me to say any thing fur-
ther on this particular point, as it has been amply treated on,
and completely set at rest, by two of the most learned writers
of the present day, namely, by Mr. Lingard, in his review of
certain Anti-Catholic publications, and by the late M. Eustace,
in his Answer to the Charge of the Bishop of Lincoln."*

The deposing power of the Pope is solemnly abjured by the
whole Catholic body in the united kingdom, in the following
terms : " I further declare that it is not an article of my faith,
and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion, that
princes excommunicated by the Pope and council, or any au-
thority of the see of Rome, or by any authority whatsoever,
may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any person
whatsoever. "f

That there are occasions when the duty of allegience on the
part of the subject ceases, Mr. Locke and most Protestant
writers are agreed. That Protestants have invariably acted
upon this principle, and that the present institution of Great
Britain is founded upon it is equally certain. Bellarmine and
some other Catholic divines have maintained that it belongs to
the Pope to decide when the oligation of obedience ceases,
and that his decision may safely be followed. Every indepen-
dent government does well to guard against the acknowledge-
ment of such foreign authority, by any of its subjects ; and
therefore no English Catholic hesitates to declare to his govern-
ment, on oath, that he neither does nor will acknowledge such
authority. To me, however, it appears, that much greater
importance has been attached to this doctrine, and much more
use made of it to terrify the honest people of England than
was necessary or reasonable. Happy would it be for govern-
ments could they persuade their subjects that it is never lawful

* Substance of the speech of the Rev. I. P Jones, delivered at a county meet-
ing at Exeter, 1821, page 23.

t Oath and declaration prescribed by an act of the thirty-first of George the Third.

154 A Defence of the [Lei. 2-

to disobey or rebel, except when they have authority for this
purpose from the Pope. But unfortunately, when men are
disposed to resist authority, they do not trouble themselves
about dispensations. All history proves that, for one instance
(if one instance can be found) in which rebellion has been
countenanced by the pastors of the Catholic Church, ten thou-
sand have occurred, in which rebellion has been prevented, or
peace restored, by their benevolent and zealous exertions.
The want of a dispensation from the Pope did not prevent the
Protestants of England from rebelling sgainst, and murdering
one king, attempting the life of a second, and dethroning and
banishing a third, whilst a solemn declaration from the Pope,
pronouncing, not without some shew of plausibility, the ille-
gitimate and tyranical Elizabeth as an usurper, and entitled to
no allegiance, did not prevent the Catholics of England from
voluntarily and ardently defending her to the last, even at the
time when she was murdering their priests, compelling them-
selves to live in a new religion which their consciences disap-
proved, and to die in grief and misery, deprived of those spi-
ritual helps and consolations which they considered essential
to their future happiness ;* and all this^t a time when the

* XXm. Eliz. cap. 1. — A person hearing mass — Punishment, one hundred
tnarks and one years imprsnnment.

One not repairing to Church according to I. Eliz. cap. 2, — Punishment, twenty
pounds for every month he is absent

XXVII. F.liz. cap. 2 — Jesuits, seminary priests, and other ecclesiastical
persons, born in these realms, and ordained by the pretended authority of the See of
Rome, coming into or remaining in the queen's dominions — ^'uilty of high treason —
Puitishnent, to be drawn, hunged, and quartered. Their receivers, aiders, and
maintainers, knowing them to be such — felony without benefit of clei'ay.

All others brought up in seminaries beyond sea, (and not in orders,) not return-
ing in six months after proclamation in London, and within two days after their re-
turn, submitting and taking the oath of supremacy. — High treason — Punishment,
to be drawn, hanged, and quartered.

Giving, carrying, or sending relief to any ecclesiasical person or seminary beyond
sea. — A Premunire.

A Jesuit, or other ecclesiastical person, who within three days after his return,
submits, and takes the oath of supremacy. — Discharged of the penalties.

Any person knowing a Jesuit or priest to remain within the queen's dominions,
and does not, within twelve days, discover him to a justice of peace. — To be fined
and impriioned at the queen's pleasuie.

The justice of the peace not discovering it to the privy council within twenty-
eight days, forfeits two hundred marks,

XXXV. Eliz. cap. 2. — A Jesuit, or priest, or one suspected to be so, refusing to
answer whether he be so or not. — To be committed to prison till he ansivers directly,

I quote the above from many similar acts passed in the reign of Elizabeth, mere-
ly as a counterpart to the severe decrees Vindex quotes from some Catholic councils
and Popes. I beg the reader also to observe, that those decrees of the councils
and popes were directed against a comparatively small number of men, the Albigen-
ses, theWickliflBtes, and Hussites, men whose doctrines y/ere not only neu', but
subiwrsive of civil society, some of which would, by the laws of England, as they
now stand, be punished with death. But the laws of Elizabeth were enacted a-

Sec. 9.]

Christian Religion.

15:

Father Huddleston and King Charles the Second, See Page 136.

Catholic body formed at least " nine-tenths of the population,"*
and had certainly the poiver of asserting- their rights. The
same wonderful devotion to the principles of obedience shewed
itself in their steady defence of the unfortunate Charles the
First against Protestant rigicides, and in saving the life of
Charles the Second from Protestant rebels.f It has continued

gaiDst the great mass of the population of the kingdom, not for maintaing anjnew or
nnsocial doctrine, but for adhering to what had been the religion of their ancestors
for a thoasond years, which was and is still the religion of an immense majority of
the Christian world, and under the auspices of which the laws and liberties of Eng-
land had been founded. There is no use in reproaching each other with (he cruelties
and outrages of past times. But if the comparison of iniquity must be made, I
should not fear to oppose the treatment of the Catholics of these kingdoms since
the reformation, to all the persecutions, that have taken place in Christendom or
Turkey, since the days of Dioclesian.

* Speech of Sir John Cox Hippesley, Bart, page 74.

t It is remarkable that Charles the Second, during the first six days after the

15G A Defence of the [Let. 2.

to the present day, through a long period of savage persecution,
to keep them so steadily an invariably loyal, that even the host
of consecrated defamers, who have never ceased to prefer
against them every other crime that malignity could devise,
have never dared to accuse them of disloyalty.

Vindex cannot imagine what I mean when I assert that
" the infallibility of the Pope is not an article of the Catholic
faith,'^ and attempts to prove that, in making this assertion,
I am guilty of "a mental reservation extremely clever and
convenient." I am much obliged to him for the cleverness he
gives me credit for, when I had no idea that I had done any
thing to merit it. When I say that the infallibility of the
Pope is not an article of the Catholic faith, I mean that no
Catholic is bound to believe it, but that each one may think of
it as he pleases, just as much as a Protestant may do. Bellar-
mine and some other divines, chiefly Italian, have believed
the Pope infallible, when proposing ex cathedra, an article
of faith. But Vindex says what is not true, when he asserts
that " the Church at Rome regards not as her ligitimate child-
ren, those who renounce it." In England or Ireland, I am
not aware that any Catholic maintains the personal infallibility
of the Pope. We believe the Universal Church to he infal-
lible in matters of faith and morality. In other words, we
believe that all such doctrines of faith or morality as are recei-
ved by all Catholics in every part of the world as articles of
faith, must necessarily be the true doctrine ; and as truth is
immutable, we maintain that this doctrine must be equally so.
It is found in our creeds and professions of faith. On all
other points, we consider private individuals. Popes, and even
general councils, as fallible and liable to change.*

If Vindex had attended to this necessary distinction, he

battle of Worcester, " when there was the strictest search made after his majesty's
person, and the reward of a thousand pounds was promised to the discoverer, and
the penalty, as in cases of high treason, denounced against anyone that should con-
ceal him, was entirely in the hands of Catholics." His chief attendant and com-
panion during this time was the Rev. John Huddleston, a Catholic priest and a
Benedictine monk, who frequently concealed him in his own hiding hole, where he
himself had often been obliged to lurk to escape the severity of the king's laws
against the Catholic clergy ! During this time Father Huddleston made so strong an
impression on the king's mind in favour of the Catholic religion, that his majesty ne-
ver forgot it, and on his death-hed made profession of the Catholic faith, and recei-
ved the sacraments of the Catholic Church from the hands of this same worthy and
loyal clergyman. See the authentic account of these interesting transactions in
Dodd's Church History, vol.iii. page 177, &c.

• On articles of Catholic Faith see Verron's Regula fidei CathoUcoe ; on the li-
mits of the different ecclesiastical authorities, see Hooke's Principia Religionis
naturalis et reveiatae.

Sec. 9.] Christian Relujion. 157

would not have found himself under the necessity of placing us
in the unpleasant dilemma, of either admitting that we were
not to be believed upon our oaths, or that our Church had
changed her faith. Had indeed his explanations of the decrees
of the councils of Constance and Lateran been correct, it
would have followed that the Church had changed her disci-
pline or opinion, but not her faith, because those decrees were
never given or received as articles of faith. But since his ex-
planations of these decrees are as incorrect as his reasoning upon
them, we can neither consent to give up our immutability, nor
allow ourselves to be traduced as perjurers.

I will just observe, however, that had Dr. Moysey originally
allowed us this alternative, and merely asserted that 400 years
ago the Catholic Church had taught the above odious doctrines,
but that the Catholics of England, having solemuy abjured
them on oath, were to be acquitted of them, I should probably
not have thought it worth my while to give him a reply. The
charge of having changed our tenets could not have injured us
in the opinion of most of our countrymen, Avho boast of being
liable to error, and amongst whom changes in religion are such
very ordinary occurrences. We should have satisfied ourselves
with knowing that he was mistaken, and retained our respect
for that religion, which our knowledge of one single change, in
an article of faith, would for ever utterly destroy. But to
chuse the harsher alternative, and positively assert that, not-
withstanding our oaths, we do maintain the odious and mis-
chievous doctrine, was a proceeding as unnecessary on the part
of the Archdeacon, as it was unbearable on ours.

I shall conclude this odious subject with a quotation, which,
with the change of a few names and dates, is perfectly applica-
ble to the present occasion.

" Mention no longer ' violation of faith with heretics.' You
violate all the laws of civil society, in dissolving the ties of
friendship, and pointing out your fellow-subjects as the victims
of legal severity. You split and rend the nation : you weaken
its power, ancl trespass upon the respect due to your rulers,
whom instead of being the fathers of their people, you would
fain force to become the heads of factions.

" You violate the sacred rights of nature. Her bountiful
Author declares, that ' he makes the sun to shine on the good
and the bad.' The light of the sun, the brilliancy of the stars,
the sweetness of the fruit, the balsamic effluvia of flowers, are
dispensed with a liberal hand to the heathen and idolater.
Must you deprive your neighbours of gifts common to all

158 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

Adam's children, because they stick to a religion which all your
forefathers professed, and which if wrong, can hurt no man but
themselves?

" In vain do you attempt to impose upon the public, with
extracts and spurious canons, obsolete decrees, patches of
councils, legends of massacres, in order to iix a creed upon us.
The world knows that Roman Catholics sway the sceptre of
authority in kingdoms and republics. The very nature then of
civil society, is a manifest contradiction to the creed you impute
to us : for, if wewere no more thanmachines veering at the breath
of Popes and priests, whom neither conscience, religion, the
sacred ties of an oath, nor the fear of God's judgment can re-
strain, patentees of guilt, and sure of impunity, we could not
form a society for the space of one year : for, in such a society
the notions of vice and virtue would be confounded; the black-
est crimes and the purest virtue reduced to the same level ; the
discipline of morals destroyed ; the harmony of the body politic
dissolved ; the brother armed against the brother ; and if, by
a kind of miracle, in such a cursed number of men, a second
Abel could be found, the earth would soon groan with the cries
of his blood. If divines have attempted to^ demonstrate the
existence of God from the nature of civil society, the very na-
ture of civil society demonstrates the falsehood of the creed with
which you compliment us. And if the gloomy plan of such a
horrid republic please your imaginations, go and lay the foun-
dations of it in some distant part of the earth. Be yourselves
its members and governors, for no Christian could live there.

"When the delicate pencils of the Gibbons, Reynolds and
Marmontels, will paint the political scenery of the eighteenth
century; when on the extensive canvass, they will represent
the gloom of long reigning prejudice, scattering, as the clouds
of night, at the approach of the rising sun ; when they will
paint the poignard, drenched in human blood, snatched from
the hand of stern persecution — the French praying in concert
with the American — the Americans invited into Russia — the
order of military merit established in favour of Protestants, in
the palace of a Catholic king — Ireland rising from the sea, co-
vered with her Fabii and Scipios, pointing their spears to dis-
tant shores, and holding forth the olive and sheaf of corn to
their neighbours of all denominations; when they will con-
trast the present to former times, shew the happy result of
a change of system, and prove that the world is refined ; you,
painted in as frightful attitudes as the group of figures in
Raphael's Judgment, with stern fanaticism in your counte-

Sec. 10.] Chrisiiau Relif/iou. 15J)

uances, a bible in one hand and a faggot in the other — you, I
say, will be an exception to the general rule : the world will read
with surprise, that, in seventeen hundred and eighty, there have
been fanatics, in England and Scotland, that gave birth to so
many illustrious writers. Your transactions shall be recorded in
the appendix to the history of Jack Straw and Wat Tyler ; and
your chaplains and apologists shall be ranked with James Nailer
and Hugh Peters."*

§ 10.

Remarks on the Charge of Misrepresentaiion, pointed at hy
Vindex. — Examination of his Reasons for Opposing Ca-
tholic Emancipation. — Explanation of the name of Roman
Catholic. — Concluding Remarks.

Having disposed of the accusations preferred against the
Catholic religion, it will not be expected that I should notice the
abuse cast upon myself by one of Dr. Moysey's anonymous de-
fenders. There is, however, one reflection which I must notice,
because in attacking me, it is meant to injure the cause I de-
fend. Speaking of my former Letter to the Archdeacon,
Vindex says, " It appears to me from the subject of your let-
ter, that you ignorantly misconceive, if you do not wilfully
misrepresent, the tenets of your own Church."t Now I pre-
sume, that when Vindex makes the supposition of my "i2:no-
rantly misconceiving the tenets of my own Church," he ima-
gines that the theological education of a Catholic clergyman is
confined to the translation of the Greek testament, or the read-
ing of a few Catholic controvertists. In this case I grant it
would have been as easy for me to misconceive the tenets of
my Church, as it is for the clergymen of another Church to
misconceive theirs. But it may be proper to inform him that
the theological education of a Catholic priest, is something
very different from this. Before he can be admitted to or-
ders, he must not only know accurately what are the doc-

* Father O'Leary's Tracts, Dublin edit. ISlG, page 153. Whoever wishes for
furtlier information on this subject will find it in these spirited and eloquent works.
Also in Jliiner's Letters to a Prebendary, &c. ; Lingard's and Eustace's Tracts, &c.
t Letter to the Rev. V. Baines, page 2.

160 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

trines of his own religion, but he must be convinced of the
truth of them all, and must have examined into and seen
the force of every objection, which heresy or infidelity has
brought against them. Not only are the works of Catholic
divines put into his hands, but the ablest productions of Anti-
Catholic writers are subjected to his examination, and he is en-
couraged to draw from them every argument he can devise
against his own religion. If after these examinations, there
should appear any doubt of his perfect conviction of the truth
of his religion, he would not be allowed to receive ordination,
and in this country particularly, he would be a madmad if
he did.

In every country indeed the restraits and privations to which
the Catholic priesthood is subjected, are calculated to prevent
any one from embracing it, except from principles of real reli-
gion, and a sincere desire to benefit his fellow-creatures. But
in England, where the ancient honours and revenues of his
Church are enjoyed by a more favoured race, where a mere
subsistence, frequently dependent upon the gratuities of his
own flock, and oftentimes scarcely this is afforded him ; where
the poor pittance obtained for his maintenance, is expected to be
shared, and always is willingly shared with the objects of distress
and the necessities of his mission ; where the most arduous and
painful duties generally fill up every moment of his day, and
frequently break his hours of nightly rest ; when in the midst
of a life like this, he sees himself surrounded by men who hate
him for his religion's sake alone, and who sometimes traduce
him, as the worst of men, in the very churches which his fore-
fathers built, and in the pulpits from which, for ages, they
zealously inculcated the amiable duties of fraternal charity ;
when he sees himself an exile in his own country, poor in the
midst of plenty, despised where he might be honoured, he is
worse than a madman, if he embrace such a state, or continue
in it one single day, without the fullest conviction of the truth
of his religion, and the consequent hopes of a future recompense.
The English Catholic priest may indeed tn/hj say with St.
Paul, " If in this life only we hope, we are of all men most
miserable." *

What inducement then, can an English Catholic clergyman
have "wilfully to misrepresent the tenets of his Church?" Is
it likely, if he knows whose tenets to be idolatrous, that he will
subject himself to the above hardships in this world, that he may
be eternally damned in the next i Is a Catholic clergyman

* Corinth, xv, 19.

Sec. 10.] Christian Re/ii/ion. K>t

different in nature from all the rest of mankind i Is he alone
insensible to the attractions of a life of ease, affluence and plea-
sure ? Is it in his nature to prefer the barren desert to the
fertile plain i the stern poverty of the monk, which admits of
no additional enjoyment, even in the midst of wealth, to the
soft comforts of the modern churchman, who can enjoy all the
good things of this world and lay exclusive claims to all the
happiness of the next ? If conscience would permit the change,
is it likely that the love of images or falsehood would prevent
it ? Where is the man who would not say with the poet,

" Pone metus, veniam, simulacraque nostra relinqaam."

Will it be said, that the object of the Catholic priest is to make
converts to his religion by misstating its doctrines ? But will
not these very converts immediately abandon it, when they find
they have been deceived ?

And how could a person like myself, if I wished it, mis-
represent the tenets of my Church on this important subject ?
For some years I have been in the weekly habit of teaching the
doctrines of the Catholic religion to a numerous and respectable
congregation in a public place of worship, where many Protest-
ants (as Dr. Moysey, I am told, so feelingly deplores) are in the
habit of attending. If I teach one doctrine from the press and
another from the pulpit, are there not thousands of persons,
both Catholics and Protestants, who could come forward and
expose my duplicity ? Have / ever been convicted of a false-
hood I Have I ever misstated the religion of others for the pur-
pose of defending my own I Why then are such insinuations
thrown out against me, and that too under the cover of an
anonymous publication ? Can this be the work of the digni-
tary of the Church of England ? Or can he, by more than
mere silence,, approve of such proceedings 1

Vindex bears honourable testimony to the " unshrinking
bravery of the Catholic soldier in the field of battle," but denies
that after he "has fought bravely, and bled profusely in his
country's cause," he ought to be admitted to offices of trust,
because it cannot be expected that he will " make the Protes-
tant Church and state the object of his fostering care and pro-
tection in an equal degree with the Protestant."* This is a
hard saying to address to a body of brave men who constitute
one half, if not two- thirds of those victorious armies and navies
which have raised England to such a height of military renown.

* Letter to the Rev. P. Baines, page 9, &c.
X

102 A Defence of the [Let. 2.

It is hard, (and if they were not Catholics it might be hold,) to
say to them, " You have fought bravely, and shed your blood
profusely in defence of your country ; but you must not pre-
sume to expect any reward ; because ' it is one thingj^to be a
good soldier, and another thing to be qualified for a confidential
legislator.' You are, unfortvmately, a suspected race, and how-
ever gallant your conduct, however steady your loyalty, and
however irreproachable your lives, you must never expect to
rise from your degraded state, because certain comfortable and
wealthy clergymen of the Established Church think that you
would not ' make the Protestant Church and state the objects
of your fostering care.'"

But what reason has Vindex to suspect the Catholic of want
of attachment to the state ? Was not that state founded by
his Catholic ancestors, and has not he, except for the persecu-
tion he suffers, as much interest in its preservation as his Pro-
testant countrymen?

But it is theChurch, I dare say, that Vindex has in his eye.
And what does he mean by the word Church ? Does he mean
the relic/ion of Christ ? I hope this is not so precarious a
state as to be in danger of ruin should the government of En-
gland, allow to a few brave men the liberties of their country.
Does he mean the doctrines of the Established Church 1 I
know of no doctrines peculiar to this Church, except such as
are contained in the thirty-nine articles ; and surely there can
be no necessity for a Catholic senator's defending them, when
even the established clergy declare that there is no necessity for
believing them. Does he perhaps mean by the word Church,
the revenues which are enjoyed by the higher orders of clergy
in the Established Church I The importance of defending these
may, indeed, be a very proper subject for an archdeacon to
discuss, v/hen addressing his clergy ; (for to them nothing can
be more interesting ;) but is it equally so to the public ?

There was a time when Englishmen were told and believed
that the Church of England was destined by Providence " to
beat down sin, death, the Pope and the devil, and all the king-
dom of Antichrist in every part of the world, and to gather to-
gether ' the poor silly flock of Christ all into one fold.' "* Nor
can we wonder that, under such impressions, the honest people
of this country should feel anxious that the holy men appointed
by heaven to accomplish this desirable work, should be well
rewarded for their pains. Experience, however, has proved
that these expectations were altogether delusive. The empires

* Book of Homilies, p. 398.

Sec. 10.] Chrisliun Reltr/iun. 103

of "siu, death, the Pope, and the devil," are each as power-
ful as ever, and " the poor silly flock of Christ" in this country
instead of being more united than formerly, is more disunited
than any body of Christians in the whole world. Hence the
opinions of men respecting the deserts of those apostles, who
were to have renewed the face of the earth," have greatly
changed, and the " poor silly sheep" who have leaped over the
fences of the new fold, and appointed themselves new shep-
herds, are no longer so deeply impressed with the advantage of
maintaining the pastors whose assistance they have spurned, in
addition to those whom they have chosen for their guides.
Even our legislators themselves, though not Catholics, begin to
doubt whether it is quite essential to the welfare of the state
that Ireland should be thrown into a state of rebellion, and its
wretched inhabitants driven by famine and despair to commit
atrocities at which humanity shutters, merely that a large body
of Established clergymen who have never seen their flocks, may
be enabled to dance and abuse the Catholics at Bath and Chel-
tenham. To me it appears that if the Established clergy saw
clearly their own interests, they would enjoy quietly the good
things which the law has given them, and not in these days of
domestic distress and foreign revolution, direct the eyes of a
starving and daring populace to a fruit which ought to be for-
bidden.

That Catholics shoidd have much affection for a body of
men from whom they have and do experience so great injus-
tice, cannot reasonably be expected ; but if only such as love the
establishment of the church, are to be admitted into the coun-
cils of the state, I am much mistaken if ere long the Established
clergy do not find themselves entirely burdened with the offices
of the latter, and entirely released from those of the former.

Vindex maintains that the Catholics are perfectly free "be-
cause exclusion from power is only negative in its operation.
It inflicts nothing," says he, " it only withholds somethinti'."
I cannot always fathom the depth of his metaphysics, but to
me it appears that the present state of the sister island is a re-
futation of his system. The " withholding something," namely
meat and drink from the poor Irish, is not a negcdive, but
a positive evil, which is not altogether done away with, by the
privilege they enjoy of practising a religion, which despair has
driven them to forget. It is even thought by many, that the
Established clergy of Ireland would soon be less free to collect
their tithes, if the Catholic clergy were more negative in en-
forcing the payment of them, or withheld {qx a few months that

164 A Defence of ike [Let.'2.

powerful influence they are reproached with exercising- over
their flocks, and which they never cease to employ to induce the
people to practice that difficult gospel lesson of" loving those that
hate them, blessing those that curse them, and praying for
those that persecute and calumniate them.

I cannot conlude this dissertation without offering a few re-
marks on a postcript added by Vindex to his letter. " I have,"
says he, " throughout this letter, designedly styled the mem-
bers of your church ' Roman Catholics,' because I conceive
the appropriation of the term ' Catholic in your Church to be
founded on arrogance and presumption." I must own that in
reading Vindex, and observing the style to which he frequently
descended to, I was surprised not to meet with the old nick-
names of Papist, Romanist, &c. with which writers of his
level generally honour us ; and it gratified me to think that even
an anonymous writer, who copied the arguments, did not ven-
ture to copy all the abuse of former days. It appears, how-
ever, that Vindex really did not intend to be so civil as I ima-
gined, and that in calling us Roman Catholics, he thought he
was giving us an appellation which we disown, and which,
like the above nicknames, had been the fruit of Protestant li-
berality. It may be proper then to inform him, that although
Catholic is our family name,* which we (jenerally use with-
out any addition, and which we have received from apostolic
times, yet when we wish to do ourselves particular honour, we
add to it the title of Roman. By the former we are disting-
guished from all heretics, as a learned Protestant writer could
inform him ; by the latter, from all schismatics. " Heretics,"
says Bingham, " commonly confined religion either to a par-
ticular region, or some select party of men, and therefore had
no pretence to style themselves Catholics : but the Church of
Christ had a just title to this name, being called Catholic (as
Optatus observes) because it was universally diffiised over all
the world. And in this sense the name is as ancient almost as
the Church itself. "f But as the early Christians adopted the
name of Catholic to distinguish the members of the true

* Christian is my name, Cathelic is my surname, said a Christian writer of the
fourth century, St. Pacian.

t Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church, chap. i. sect. 7. N. B. I em-
ploy the word heretics in this place, hecause Bingham employs it. In a Catholic
sense, this word implies a person not only in error, but obstinate in error. On
this account, / nerer would employ it against the generality of Protestants in
this country ; because thongli I believe them to be in error, I do not tliink they are
generally ohstinalely so, but are deceived by interested men, who misrepresent to
♦hem the religimi of tbeir ancestors,

Sec. 10.] Christian Relli/ion. 165

Church from all heretics, so in later times they assumed the
additional title of Roman, to disting'uish themselves from all
schismatics, and to point out more clearly their exclusive right
to the name of Catholic, For when larger portions of the
Church were by schism separated from her communion, it
sometimes happened that they retained for a certain time their
ancient appellation of Catholic, and it was then that the great
body of the faithful added to the name of Catholic the title of
Roman, to signify their continued adherence to that authority
from which the others had revolted.

During the reign of Henry the Eighth, before the Church
of England had adopted any of the new doctrines, and whilst
she remained purely schismatical, she continued to be called
Catholic, and had she continued so to the present day, we,
who adhere to the communion of the universal Church, should
have been careful, on all occasions to have styled ourselves
Roman Catholics. But when England afterwards adopted the
doctrines of the Reformers, and i*eceived, in consequence, the
name of Protestant, she instantly ceased to be called Catholic,
a name to which she had indeed forfeited her right when she
became a national church. Her attempt to recover this name,
should such attempt be made, is useless ; as no one will ac-
knowledge her right to it. For did she even comprise Avithin
her pale the whole population of the kingdom, still, according
to Bingham, she could have no pretension to the name of Ca-
tholic, " because her religion would be confined to a particular
region, or a select party of men." But when at least one third
of her population are the ancient Catholics of the country,
and more than another third is composed of a variety of sects,
each less numerous, and generally of even more modern date
than herself, should the Established Church in such a case,
call herself the universal or Catholic church, it would only be
acknowledging publicly that she ought to be what she is not.
Since therefore, in this country there is Jio fear that we shall
be misunderstood when we call ourselves simply Catholics, we
generally, for the sake of brevity, omit the title of Roman, but
on more solemn or more ceremonious occasions we add it at our
option. What Vindexcan mean by saying that " he considers
our appropriation of the term Catholic to be fbimded on arro-
gance and presumption," I cannot imagine. Surely he does
not expect that we shall ask his j)ermissiou to use a title which
has descended to us from apostolic times, a!id to which our
right is established by a prescription of above eighteen centuries.

166 A Defence of the [Let. %

If so, I fear the " presumption and arrogance" is on his side,
not ours.

It is curious to observe, how all sects of Christians, who
have separated themselves from the Catholic Church, have in
all ages laboured, but in vain, to obtain this envied title.
" Among many considerations," observed St. Augustine, in
the fifth century, " that bind me to the Church, is the name
of Catholic, which not without reason, in the midst of so
many heresies, this Church alone has so retained, that, although
all heretics wish to acquire the name, should a stranger ask
where the Catholics assemble, the heretics themselves will not
dare to point out any of their own places of meeting."* Now
to apply St. Augustine's rule to our own times, I ask Vindex
whether if a respectable man enquired of him the way to the
Catholic chapel in this city, he could, in honour, send him to
Laura Chapel or the Octagon ?

The veneration which the ancient Christians paid to the Ro-
man See, is scarcely excelled by that which they expressed for
the name of Catholic. St. Ireneus, in the second century,
calls Rome " the greatest, the most ancient, the most illustri-
ous Church, founded by the glorious apostles Peter and Paul,
receiving from them her doctrine, which was announced to all
men, and which, through the succession of her bishops, is
come down to us. Thus," continues he, " we confound all
those, who, through evil designs, or vain glory, or perverse-
ness, teach what they ought not. For to this Church, on ac-
count of its superior headship, every other must have recourse,
that is the faithful of all countries, in which Church has been
preserved the doctrine delivered to the apostles."f He then
gives the succession of Popes down to his own time, namely,
not quite a century from the death of the apostles, and whilst
Eleutherius, the twelfth Pope, filled the apostolic see.

That the veneration of Christians for this illustrious Church
and for the title of Roman, should have continued to increase
with the lapse of time, no one can wonder, when he consi-
ders, that whilst so many empires have risen and fallen, and
every earthly establishment has yielded to the destroying hand
of time ; whilst even in the Church itself, a regular succession
of bishops can no where be traced to the apostolic times, ex-
cept in the Church of Rome alone, that Church, like the

* Contra Ep. Fundam, toin. ii. page 46. —Faith of Catholics, page 94.
t •' Ad hanc, propter potiorem principalitatcin, oaiiiein necesse est convenire
ecclesiam." Advcrs. lla^reses. Lib. iii. c. 3.

Sec. 10.]

Christian lieiiffUm.

See also page 168.
rock, upon which Christ promised that he would build his
Church, against which the gates of hell should never prevail,
has alone withstood the shock of ages, alone holds up to the
world her unbroken succession of bishops up to the days of St.
Peter, and continues to this day the great rallying point and
centre of Christian unity. These sentiments are the more
deeply impressed when we reflect, " that there has been no
nation as yet, since the apostolic age, converted from Infidelity
to Christianity, which has not been brought to the light of faith
by men, either sent by the Pope of Rome for that purpose, or
in communion with him."*

It is to me a matter of surprise, that Vindex is not as eager
to claim, for his own Church, the title of Roman, as he is to

• See an historical proof of this asser<ion in the Religions World displayed, bj
the Rev. Robt. Adam, B. A. Oxford, vol. ii. page 3, 4, &c.

168 A Defence of the [Let. 2

give it to us. For unless the Church of England has received
her orders from Rome, it is certain she has no clergy. To the
appellation of Catholic she can never hope to have the slight-
est pretension ; to that of Roman she might have put in some
claims, however doubtful.*

It is the universality, unity, perpetuity and stability of the
Church, expressed by the appellation of Roman Catholic,
which inspire its members with such unbounded confidence in
its truth, and is the chief cause of that " lofty and dictatorial"
(Vindex ought to have said firm and decided) tone, of which
he complains in the writings of its defenders. When a Catho-
lic clergyman has been taught to extend his tiew beyond the
boundaries of his native island and to take a survey of the
whole Christian world ; when combining the past with the pre-
sent, he sees a religion beginning with Christ, and descending
ill one unbroken succession to the present day ; when he con-
templates the Church, founded on an immovable rock, which
becomes the centre of a circle, widening through every age,
like the waves on a ruffled surface, till it embraces in its pale
all the nations of the known world ; when he beholds the spouse
of Christ, looking down from her proud eminence on the
wrecks of all human things, scattering the blessings of religion
from shore to shore, and guarding them from age to age for
her obedient children, whilst those who forsake her, like sheep
that have left their fold, wander for a time in restless uncertain-
ty, till at last they are seen no more ; when he sees her in the
midst of the rudest assaults of earth and hell, still resting se-
curely on the promises of him who cannot fail, as confident of
the future protection of heaven as she is secure of the past, her
confidence becomes his own ; and if at that moment he beholds
some consequential member of a modern sect, cased from head
to foot in the armour of misrepresentation, advancing towards
him and hurling his little spear or striking his pettish hand a-
gainst the rock of the Church, he cannot repress the feeling at
least oi pity, which is only encreased by the anger and vexation
of his disappointed foe.

I have the honour to remain,
Very Reverend Sir, Your obedient servant,
Bath, March 22, 1822. P. BAINES.

* Luther, though never accused of being too modest, felt so strongly the incon-
sistency of professing a belief '' in the holj Catholic Church," after he had separa-
ted himself from her, that he changed the apostle's creed, sabslituting the word
Christian instead of Catholic !

APPENDIX.

AN lEXFOSITION

OF THE

CONTROVERTED DOCTRINES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH,

Bij BOSSUET,

WITH PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS AND NOTES

BY THE

REV. JOHN FLETCHER,

Extiiicte.l from the CATHOLIC'S MANUAL.*

On the Invocation of the Saints.

*' The doctrine of the Church upon this subject is, — that it
is useful to address ourselves to the saints, in order to obtain
the aid of their intercessiou.f She, however, at the same
time, teaches, that we must do this in that same spirit of cha-
rity; and according to that same order of social fellowship,

* I hope none of my readers will be alarmed when I tell them that this exposi-
tion of Bossuet appears to have been mainly instrumental in bringing about the la-
mentable conversion of Miss Loveday, which has drawn more expressions of horror
from the religions editors of English news-papers, and mora tears from the pious
ladies of England, than the conversion of a thousand Misies to any of the sects
which deny the divinity of Christ would have done !

t Tobias xii. 12. The angel Raphael says to Tohis ; When thou didst pray
tcith tears, and didst bury the dead, I offered up thy prayer to the Lord.

" 2 Machabees XV. 12, &c. This, says Judas, relating his vision, this is Jere-
miah, the prophet of God, who prays much for the people and the holy city

170 Apjjendix.

which prompts us to solicit the mutual assistance of one ano- -
ther, whilst we dwell together on this earthly theatre. Did
the mediatorship of Christ receive any injury, or disparage-
ment, from the circumstance of our addresses to the saints,
then would it also, as the Catechism of the council of Trent
remarks, be violated in like manner by the prayers, which we
thus reciprocally offer up for each other's benefit.

" In order, however, still farther to prevent any misunder-
standing, the Catechism, which I just referred to, points out
the very great and essential difference that exists between the
manner in which we implore the assistance of the Almighty, and
that in which we petition the intercession of the saints. We
entreat the Abnighty, it says, either to confer upon ns some
hlessincj ; or to deliver us from some misfortune. But since
the saints are rnore pleasing to him than ive are, we, hence, en-
treat them to lend us their assistance, and to obtain for us the
grant of our requests,. For this reason, the forms of our pe-
titions, on each oo§asion, are extremely different. Address-
ing ourselves to God, xve say to him: Have mercy on us ;
Hear us. Whereas, speaking to the saints, ive say ?nerely :
Pray for us. (Tit. de Invoc. Sanct.) Hence, be the
manner what it may in which men chance to present their peti-
tions to the saints, it is at least to this form, that the Church
and its enlightened members are always careful to reduce them :

" Luke XV. 10. / say to ijou, there shall be joy before the angels of God, upon
one sinner doing penance.

*' Apocalypse v. 8. And when he had opened the book, the four living crea-
tures and the four and twenty ancients, fell down before the Lamb; having each
of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the
Saitits.

" Apostle's Creed. / believe in the co7n7nunion of Saints.

" The belief of the Fathers of the church respecting this article is sufficiently,
perhaps, stated in the preceding chapter. But should the reader wish to see the
testimonies of these holy men, either upon this, or any other controverted subject,
I refer him to the work of Messrs. Berington and Kirk, entitled, ' The Faith of
Catholics, confirmed by Scripture ; and attested by the Fathers,' a work, which
stands a splendid monument of learning, industry and talent; and whose utility, if
equalled, is not surpassed by any modern publication.

" The fact, however, is so notorious, that in the early ages of the Church, the
faithful every where invocated the saints, that it is not contested by the enlightened
Protestant. ' It is,' says Bishop Montague, 'the common voice with general con-
currence, without contradiction, of reverend and learned antiquity. And I see no
cause to dissent from them (the Catholics,) touching intercession of this kind.
Christ is not thus wronged in his mediation. And it is no impiety to say, as the
Catholics do : HoLY Mary, Pray for me.' (Invoc. of Saints.)

'' Indeed, even Luther himself approves of the invocation of the saints. ' I al-
low,' he says, ' with the whole Christian Church, and believe, that the saints in hea-
ven should be invoked. For who can contradict, the miracles wrought daily at their
tombs? (De purgat. quorund art.)

Invocation of Saints. 171

and this, the above catechism, in the subsequent parts, confirms.

" But it may be well, too, to take notice of the manner in
which the council itself, instructing the pastors of the Church
how they ought to speak of the invocation of the saints, com-
mands them to address the faithful. It bids them say that ' The
saints, ivho reign with Christ, offer tip their prayers for the
henefit of men ; that it is good and nsefid, snpiMantly to ask
their intercession ; and to have recourse to their aid and influ-
ence, in order to obtain favours from God, through His
Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord ; ivho alone is our Savi-
our and our Redeemer.^

" Neither is this all that the council teaches. For, besides
this, it condemns all those who presume to inculcate any doc-
trine that is at variance with the foregoing principles.

" From these principles it is, therefore, easy to understand,
what the belief is of the Catholic Church, respecting the invo-
cation of the saints. It is simply this, — that it is useful to soli-
cit their intercession, in order to obtain from God, through the
inerits and mediation of Jesus Christ, those benefits which we
stand in need of. It is, indeed, entirely through Jesus Christ,
that we obtain whatsoever we do obtain, in consequence of the
influence of the saints : since it is in the name of Jesus Christ,
that the saints themselves address the Eternal Father ; and in
his name only, that their petitions are attended to. Such, ex-
pressed thus clearly in few words by the council of Trent, is the
faith of the Catholic Church on the article of the invocation of
the saints. How astonishing then it is, that after an explana-
tion so plain and satisfactory, the Protestant should still obsti-
nately accuse us of ' departing from Jesus Christ.' We thus,
in reality, only beseech his members, who are at the same time
ours ; his children, who are also our brethren ; his saints, who
are our first-fruits, to unite their intercession to our supplica-
tions ; entreating the common master of them and of us, to grant
our petitions, in the name of our common mediator, Jesus
Christ.

" The same council explains to us still further, and in very
few and easy words, what the spirit is, or what the intention
of the Church, when she offers up to God the sacrifice of the
mass, by way of honouring the memory of the saints. The
honour, which we pay to them in this sacred action consists in
naming them in our prayers, ' the faithful servants of God ; in
returning thanks to God for the victories, which, through his
grace, they have so happily purchased ; and in beseeching him
humbly, to allow "his indignation to be softened by the influ-
ences of their intercession.

172 Apppendix.

" St. Austin, above thirteen hundred years ago, had madei
the observation, that, 'although it was the custom of the uni-
versal Church to offer up the sacrifice of the mass over the bo-
dies, and in the memory of the martyrs, yet it ought not hence
to be imagined, that it was to the martyrs, that the holy obla-
tion was presented.' (L. 8. De Civit. Dei.) In like manner,
the same saint remarks again, that 'at the holy table, during
the celebration of the sacred mysteries, a commemoration is
made of the blessed martyrs ; not by the way of praying for
them, as it was the custom to pray for the rest of the dead, but
rather to entreat them to offer up prayers for us.' I cite the
words of the holy bishop, because they are nearly the same with
those, which, upon this subject, the council of Trent makes
use of in Its instructions to the faithful. The Church, says the
council, does not offer 7ip sacrifice to the saints, hut to God
alone, who has crowned the saints. Hence, the priest ad-
dressing Saint Peter or Saint Paul, does not say to them : I
OFFER THIS SACRIFICE TO YOU; but returning thanks to
God for their victories, he asks only their assistance ; in or-
der that they, whom we commemorate on earth, may he pleased
to intercede for 7is in heaven. (Ses3. 22.) Thus it is that we
honour the saints ,• wishing thus to obtain by the help of their
suffrages the grace of God ; and above all the grace to imitate
their virtues ; to which we are animated by the contemplation
of their bright example; and by the honour which, before God,
we pay to their happy memories.

" The Protestant who will give himself the trouble to consider
the above explanation of our doctrine, will, if he be candid, be
compelled to own that, as we neither take away from the De-
ity any one of the divine perfections, so neither do we attribute
to the creatures any one quality or operation that is appropriate
but to God. Thus are we distinguished from idolaters, a name
which, as it is applied to us, was invented only by Protestant
ill-will, in order to make us odious.

" But it is objected, that, * by addressing our prayers to the
saints, and by honouring them as if they were present in every
place, we attribute to them a kind of immensity, or at least a
knowledge of the secrets of the human heart ; a circumstance,
which according to the testimony of the scriptures, God reserves
solely to himself.' Now this objection, although indeed often
repeated, is still founded upon ignorance, or upon a very mis-
taken notion of our tenets. For without examining upon what
foundation a certain degree of knowledge of earthly things, or
even of the secrets of the human heart, may be attributed to the

Invocation of Saints. 173

Saints ; without examining this, it is melhinks evident, that it
is not raising the creature above the sphere of its condition, to
say, that it does possess some knowledge of these objects, by
the means of that light which God communicates to it. The
example of the prophets evinces this. God has often imparted
to the prophets the foresight of future events, although such
quality ought to appear confined most peculiarly to himself.

" But in short never did there exist any Catholics so unwise
as to have imagined that the saints are acquainted with our
wants, or read our desires, through the medium solely of their
own sagacity. All that the Church, after the example of
every age of antiquity, teaches upon this subject is, that it is
useful to address our supplications to them, whether they learn
our necessities through the ministry of the angels ; for the an-
gels, the scripture informs us, are acquainted with human
transactions, being ' ministering spirits,' appointed by God, to
promote the work of our salvation : whether they know our
desires through the medium of a particular revelation ; or in
short, whether God himself discovers the secret to them in the
mirror of his own infinite essence, that principle in which all
truth is comprehended. These are points upon which the
Church has decided nothing.

" Be the medium however what it may, by which God com-
municates to the saints the knowledge of our prayers, it is still
true, that the Catholic does not, as did the idolaters, attribute
to any human creature any one of the divine perfections : since
he does not acknowledge, even in the greatest saints, any pos-
sible degree of excellence which does not immediately derive
from God. He entertains no veneration for them, save that
which results from their virtues ; owns no virtue, save that
which is the gift of grace ; no knowledge, besides that which
God communicates; no power to assist us, beyond that which
arises from their intercessions, ; nor any share of happiness, ex-
cept that which is the effect of their conformity to the rule of
the divine will.

"Whoever, therefore, considers our sentiments concerning the
saints, will conceive it manifest, that we do not exalt these happy
beings above the rank of human creatures. He will likewise
understand, what the nature is of that external honour which
we pay them. The external honour which we pay them, is
merely the expression of those interior sentiments, which we
entertain for their virtues and their sanctity.*

* "The Protestant who has seriously considered the real sentiments of the Ca-
tholic Church, with respect to the veneration which we pay to the saints, will I am

174 Appendix.

" But since the honour which the Catholic Church pays to
the saints, is manifested principally by the respect Avhich we
shew to their images and relics, it is for this reason proper to
explain what our belief is respecting these two objects of our
veneration.*

On Images.

" In relation to images, the council of Trent expressly for-
bids any one to believe, that there is any divinity, or any
virtue in them, ivhich should appear to claim the tribute of
his veneration ; that it is sinful to ask any favour from them
or to place our confidence in them. The decree of the council
is, that 'all the honour which is paid to them, shall be referred
to the originals whom they are designed to represent.' Sess.
25. de Invoc. Sanct.

*' In these words of the council, the plainest distinction is
made between the ideas of the Catholic, and the notions of the
idolater, on the subject of images. So far, according to the
above definition, is the Catholic from believing, as did the idol-

snre, if candid, acknowledge that there is not in it any thing that even distantly
resembles the nature of idolatry. Hence, he will reprobate that insolence which
daily reviles us as stnpid idolaters ; and he will feel astonished at that singular po-
licy, which compels men to swear, (as our legislators swear,) that we are such. 'I
do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God profess, (this is the oath which
qualifies our legislators for their acts of wisdom') testify and declare, that I do be-
lieve, that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, as
now used in the Church of Rome, is superstitious and idolatrous.' Good God ! how
truly horrible ! To swear that it is idolatry, which has not a shadow of idolatry in
it ! To call heaven to witness, that it is idolatry which the Christian universe,
through every age, the saints and the sages of every country, have fervently cultiva-
ted! Pitiful is the policy which requires the frightful oath, and dreadful the hardi-
hood that takes it.

* " Like the invocation of the saints, the early use and veneration of their images,
are conceded to us by the best informed Protestant writers. The Centuriators allow,
that they were common, even, in the third and fourth ages of the Church. Eusebius,
they say, writes that he saw in Asia, Christians who preserved the images of St. Pe-
ter and St. Paul, and of Christ himself. (Cent. 3.)

" Tertullian, the same writers add, seems to declare, that the Christians kept
the imago of the cross both in their public assemblies and in their private houses. —
And it was hence that the Pagans called them, ' Worshippers of the Cross.' (Cent.
3.) See also Cent. 4 passim. Our own English writers, nearly all who have
treated on this subject, make the same concessions.

" In the Wittemberg editions of Luther's works, the great reformer is represented
on his knees before a crucifix.

'* I could indeed adduce the authority of many celebrated Protestants, who ap-
prove of the use and veneration of images. The pictures of Christ, says Bishop
Montague, of the Blessed Virgin and of the saints, may be had in houses, and
plaged in Churches : and respect and honour may be given them. (In Epistom.)

On Images. 175

ater, that there resides any divinity in such objects, that not
even does he think, or conceive, there is any virtue in them
whatsoever, except that of awakening in the mind the remem-
brance of those originals whom they are intended to exhibit. —
This is the sole foundation of the honour that we pay to images.

" It cannot, for example, be denied that the image of
Christ Jesus crucified, awakens in us, when we cast our eyes
upon it, the lively remembrance of him, * who hath loved us
so, as to lay down his life for our salvation.' Whilst the con-
templation of the image nourishes in the soul this useful re-
collection, we are, of course, inclined naturally to declare, by
some external expression, the tenderness of our gratitude ;
and, by humbling ourselves before the representation, to testify
the willingness of our submission to the divine original. So
that, to speak correctly or theologically, when we honour an
image of an apostle or a martyr, our intention is not so much to
honour the image, as to honour the apostle, or the martyr, in the
presence of the image. Such is the language of the Roman pon-
tifical. That of the council of Trent is similar to it. 'The honour,'
says the council, ' which we pay to images, is referred to the ori-
ginals whom they represent ; so that, by means of the images
which we kiss, and before which we kneel, we adore Jesus
Christ, and venerate his saints.' (Sess. 25.)

" In short, it is easy to understand in what spirit the Church
designs to honour images, by the characters of that respect,
which she pays to the cross, and to the book of the gospel.
Bending down to the cross, our intention is to adore him ' who
bore our sins upon the tree.' And if we bow our heads before
the book of the gospel ; if we rise from our seats when the
holy volume is presented to us ; or if we kiss it with profound
respect, the whole honour, on such occasions, is referred sole-
ly to that eternal truth, which is therein proposed unto us.

" The Protestant is indeed unreasonable, who considers as
an act of idolatry, that religious feeling of the mind, which
induces the Catholic to uncover, or bow down his head before
the image of the cross, merely in commemoration of Him, who
expired upon it for the love of man. And blind, exceedingly
blind, is he, who does not perceive the infinite difference which
there is between those who put their trust in idols, under the
idea that the idol contained some divinity, or at least some se-
cret vktue ; and those, who, like us, declare that the only use
of images, is, to raise the soul to heaven, in order theret o hon-

176 Appendix.

our Christ Jesus or his saints ; and in the saints, the Almighty
himself, who alone is the author of all grace and sauctifica-
ton.*

On Relics.

" The honour which, in imitation of the first Christians, we
pay to the relics of the saints, is similar to that which we tes-
tify for their memories, f The bodies of the saints are so
many victims that have been offered up to God, either by the
sacrifice of martyrdom, or by the hardships of penance. And
did the Protestant reflect, that it is in this point of view that
we consider them, he would not then conceive, as through
prejudice he does too often, that the respect which, from such
motives, we shew to these venerable objects, could possibly de-
tach us from that honour which we owe to God.

•" It is a fact, that there is hardly a single passage in the scriptures, which is
connected with any controverted question, that the Reformers did not, some way or
other, alter and pervert ; • making,' as the learned Protestant, Zanchius, admits
• the scriptures agree with their own fancies,' They did this, particularly in those
texts which, relating to idols, they thought fit to apply to images. In all these,
they constantly translated the word ' idol,' image, or else' ' image,' idol, precisely
as the alteration was adapted to their designs ; or as it seemed best calculated to
alarm the piety, and to scare the simplicity of the ignorant. It was thus, for ex-
ample, that they translated the twenty-first verse of the fifth chapter of the first
epistle of St. John — ' Babes keep yourselves from images ;' a translation which is
false and ridiculous, as its aim was mischievous. For, in order to deceive the vul-
gar and excite confusion, they fixed np the awful words in huge and terrific charac-
ters, throughout all, or nearly all, the churches of the nation. It was by falsehoods
and impositions, such as these, that they, at length and chiefly, succeeded in cheat-
ing the credulity of the public.

t " Fourth book of Kings, xiii. 21. When a dead man was let down into the
sepulchre of Eliseus, no sooner did he touch the bones of the prophet, than he was
revived, and stood up on his feet.

" Acts xix. 11, 12. And God wrought, by the hand of Paul, more than com-
mon miracles. So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handker-
chiefs and aprons ; and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits
went out of them.

" The Centuriators allow that the veneration of relics prevailed in the Church in
the third and fourth centuries. Saint Cyprian, they say, exhorts the priests of
Rome carefully to mark down the days of the deaths of the mart}TS, in order that
they might celebrate their commemoration in the chapels of the martyrs. (Cent. 3.)
' It was,' they add, ' in this (the fourth) century, that began the translation and
veneration of the relics of the saints.' (Cent. 4.)

So manifest, in reality, is the veneration which, in the early ages of the Church,
the Christians used to pay to relics, that not even do the most learned, though in-
veterate Protestants attempt to dispute it. Daille, Blondel, Chemnitius, Whit-
aker, &c, attest the prevalence of this veneration frequently. Indeed, the works
of the fathers are full of testimonies in commendation of it. Every where, says St,
Hilary, is the blood of the martyrs received, and their venerable bones bear wit-
ness ; the devils trembling before them, maladies expelled, and wonders wrought.
(Contra Constant.)

Christian Religion. 177

" The affection which, in the cases of human friendship, a
friend experiences for a friend, extends, not only to the che-
rished individual, but to his children and relations ; and not
merely to these, but even to whatever represents him, to what-
ever once belonged to him, or that brings back to the mind the
pleasing- remembrance of him. This is the dictate of the in-
stincts of nature. And did the Protestant again weigh this,
then would he likewise understand how the progress of honour
is similar to that of friendship ; since honour is nothing else,
in reality, than affection united ^ith fear and mingled with re-
spect. In short, did the Protestant consider that the whole ex-
terior worship which the Catholic cultivates, derives its origin
from God alone, and returns solely to God again ; did he con-
sider this, then would he, too, conceive clearly that such wor-
ship, animated as it thus is merely by the Author of sanctity
cannot possibly be displeasing to any one of his divine perfec-
tions. He would, on the contrary, conceive that if God,
jealous as he is of the love of men, does yet permit them to
love each other for the love of him, nor deems such love the
division of our affections ; just so, jealous as he likewise is
of the respect and veneration of the faithful, still does he al-
low them also, without looking upon such act, as any partition
of the worship which is due to him, to honour, for his sake,
those happy beings, whom himself has honoured so greatly.

It is however true, that the external marks of reverence
which, at different periods, the Catholic may have employed
in expressing his veneration for the saints, are by no means,
all of them, essential to religion. Without making any al-
teration in her doctrine, the Church has often extended, or
abridged, her external practices ; regulated in these points,
by the nature of circumstances, by the character of times
places and events, not wishing that her children should be ser-
vilely subjected to visible things, but by their means, be ani-
mated only to greater fervour, and admonished to turn the
mind to God, in order to present to him, in spirit and truth,
' that reasonable service,' which he expects from all his
creatures.

After this natural and simple exposition of our tenets, it is
obvious, as I have remarked already, that a great part of our
disputes would be prevented, or at least hushed, did men only
give themselves the trouble to appreciate terms ; or else, con-
duct themselves with Christian charity. Would the Protes-
tant only consider calmly the above explanations, which com-
prise the express doctrine of the council of Trent, he would

178 Catholic Doctrine.

cease to reproach us with violating the mediation of Jesu&
Christ ; with invoking the saints ; or honouring their images,
in a way that should be appropriated to God alone. Adoration,
it is true. Invocation, and the name of Mediator, do in some
sense, belong only to God, and to Christ Jesus. And hence,
it is easy to abuse or misapply these terms, in order to throw
an odium upon our tenets. But if men would act candidly,
and reduce words to the signification which I have just been
giving them, then would their reproaches vanish, and their
objections lose all their influence. Or, if they had any other
difficulties, less important than the foregoing, to object against
us, sincerity would compel them to acknowledge that they are
satisfied, at least, upon the principal subjects of their preju-
dices and complaints.

" At all events, certain it is, that nothing can be more un-
just than the objection which is so very often urged against us,
' that we make piety consist in mere devotion to the saints ;'
whereas, all that the Church or the council of Trent teaches
upon the subject, is simply this ; that * it is good and useful
to invoke their intercession.' The design, therefore, of the
Church is to condemn those who, either out of contempt, or
through error, reject this act of piety. Her censure, in such
cases, is wise ; because, whilst it is wrong to permit the con-
tempt of practices which are beneficial to salvation, it is wrong
likewise to tolerate, under the mere sanction of a few upstart
teachers, the condemnation of a doctrine, which every age of
Christianity has authorized and cultivated.

REMONSTRANCE,

IN A THIRD LETTER,

ADDRESSED TO

CHARLES ABEL MOYSEY, D. D.

ARCHDEACON OF BATH,

ON THB

RENEWAL OF HIS FORMER ATTACKS
UPON THE CATHOLICS

IN HIS

LATE CHARGE

TO THE

CLERGY OF THE DEANERY OF BEDMINSTER,

July the 19th, 1824.

Very Reverend Sir,

A printed Charge delivered to the Clergy of" the Deanery
of Bedminster at the Visitation of the Venerable Charles Abel
Moysey, D. D. Archdeacon of Bath, June 29, 1824, and
printed at their particular request, has within these few days
made its appearance in this city.

It expresses the most lively apprehensions for the safety of
the Established Church of England, in consequence of the ra-
pid increase of Catholics and Dissenters, the hostility with
which both these growing bodies are animated against the Es-
tablishment, and the alarming concessions which Government
seems inclined to make to them, in spite of the ardent and re-
peated remonstrances of the Established Bishops and Clergy.

It passes some high compliments upon the latter, as the
most zealous, active, learned, liberal, and disinterested body
of Churchmen that ever astonished, edified, and relieved man-
kind ; and represents to the people of England, in the most
glowing colours, how sad would be their fate, should Provi-
dence, in its severity, permit them to be deprived of the spi-
ritual guidance and protection of these incomparable pastors.

To these or any other encomiums, which you may think pro-
per to pass upon yourselves aud your brethren, I have not the

180 Defence of the [Let. 3.

smallest objection ; nor do I wish that the people of England
should undervalue your services, or think less favourable of
you than they seem disposed to do. But can you not commend
yourselves without vilifying your neighbours l Cannot the pure,
the enlightened, the apostolical Church of England appear in
sufficient relief without throwing all the rest of the Christian
world into darkness and shade I Has truth no charms unless
accompanied with falsehood ; no brightness unless encompassed
with clouds of misrepresentation and abuse I

Of the aspersions cast upon the Dissenters, I shall say no-
thing. Indeed the chief offence, with which you charge them,
is that of endeavouring to overthrow the monopoly of honour
and emolument now enjoyed by the Establishment ; a crime,
to which, I dare say, they will readily plead guilty ; and for
which, if others do not, neither will I condemn them. But
of the violent misrepresentation and unprovoked abuse which
Vou have thought proper to pour upon the Catholics and their
religion, I shall say a few words.

You assert that the Catholic Church "is an idolatrous and
tyrannical empire, a terrible authority which blinds the consci-
ences and tyrannizes over the mental liberties of the people ;"
that its " modes of worship are superstitious and idolatrous,"
and its doctrines a mass of " errors and abominations^ You
represent the Catholic Priesthood as an unprincipled and de-
signing race of men, who, to swell the number of their pro-
selytes, descend to " every art,'' even that of bribery, and to
*' ensnare their hearers, explain away in public the monstrous
doctrines" they secretly profess. You endeavour to alarm the
honest credulity of the people, by assuring them that there are,
in the Catholic Church, " certain Papal edicts against all Pro-
testants carefully kept out of sight," but which will be brought
forth and executed upon them the moment the bulwark of the
Established Church is thrown down. You descend even to
the use of nicknames, denominating the Roman Catholic re-
ligion Popery, and its professors Pajnsfs, Romanists, &^c.
To complete the outrage, you earnestly recommend to the peru-
sal of your readers a work, by a brother Archdeacon^
surpassing even your own in misrepresentation, abuse, and
scurrility.

I confess I am surprised at your conduct and at that of your
Clergy. It is now three years since you published a Charge
at their request, and I did hope it would have been the last.
It produced a discussion, the results of which were certainly
not favourable to yourself or your cause, and which materially

Let, 3.] Clirisiian Relujion. 181

benefited that of the Catholics. It placed a Catholic Clergy-
raan under a necessity of vindicating his religion, and induced
the public to read his vindication. It enabled many well mea-
ning Protestants to discover that their own Clergy, however
respectable and deserving of credit on other accounts, are not
to be trusted when they speak of the religion, from which
their forefathers revolted. It led many to examine more fully
into the doctrines of the Catholic religion, and to become its
proselytes or its zealous defenders.

Your former misrepresentations were similar to your present
ones ; something more violent. We were as criminal as the
ancient Pagans on the score of idolatry, and on some points
we even surpassed them in. guilt. No Pagan nation ever au-
thorised the systematic violation of oaths. That impiety was
peculiar to the Catholic Church. Our Clergy were imposters
and our Laity dupes, ready to break through every moral tie
to promote the interests of their Church. These and many si-
milar aspersions you poured out upon the Catholics, and you
exhorted your Clergy to imitate your example, assuring them
that their Ordination oaths and the safety of the purest, the
most enlightened, the mildest, and most tolerant Church in
Christendom obliged them to do so !

I refuted your accusations in a short pamphlet, and proved
you to have asserted the most notorious mis-statements. I
was answered by an anonymous publication signed " Vindex,"
which endeavoured to maintain most of the positions you had
taken, and asserted, with the book of Homilies, not only that
the great body of Christians are at the present day, but have
been for thirteen hundred years " immersed in damnable idola-
try of all vices most detestable to GoD and most hurtful to
man ;" also that this same immense body of Christians hold
the moral doctrine that promises and oaths are not binding
when made to Protestants ! This production compelled me to
write a Defence of the Christian Religion during ths last
thirteen centuries, in which I demonstrated that the charge of
idolatry made against the Catholic Church had its origin in
days of fanaticism, and was brought forward to justify the se-
paration of England from the universal Church ; that the
Church of England has since altered her opinions on the sub-
ject of images and pictures, and that she now practically agrees
with the Church she forsook ; that images and pictures nei-
ther are nor ever were worshipped by Catholics, in the proper
sense of that word, and that the Catholic Church never au-
thorized, much less commanded, any respect to be paid to

182 Defence of the Let. 3.

them, which a Protestant mother does not pay to the picture
of her deceased husband, or Protestant Bishops and Lords to the
King's empty throne. I pointed out the unworthy artifices
which were employed by yourself and Vindex to convict the
Christian world of the horrid crime of idolatry ; your quibbles
upon the word ivorsJiij) ; your garbling and misrepresentations
of the doctrines of our councils, perversion of historical facts,
misinterpretation of our Divines, and distortion of our religious
books and practices. I adduced authorities from eminent
Protestant Divines, giving the same explanations of our doc-
trines that I had done, and acquitting us of the charges of
which, some of their virulect writers accused us.

It is evident that your character as a writer, as a clergyman,
and as a man, required you to justify yourself if you could;
and had my statement been capable of refutation, there was
nothing so easy. I brought forward documents to prove my
assertions. Nothing could be so easy, had those documents
been unsatisfactory or incorrect, as to prove them so. Was
this done '( So for from it, the very work which had under-
taken your defence, which had been ushered into notice with
such unusual eclat, had been advertised in so many news-
papers, and had figured in so many windows, was, upon the
appearance of the Catholic Defence, suddenly withdrawn from
circulation. Why was this done.' Its authors felt that it
would not stand the test ; that its misstatements had been too
glaringly exposed, and that the sincerity and truth ot the Catholic
statement would only appear more manifest if contrasted with
the quibbles and falsehoods of the unlucky Vindex. Perhaps
it was thought that a day might come when even Vindex,
under a new name, might figure amongst the ghostly tracts
that sneak from their graves under the patronage of the
Religious Tract Society, after the occasion that gave them
birth and the disgrace that attended their death have been
forgotten.

Two years and a half elapsed, and no advocate for you or
your ally appeared, when, behold ! a brother Archdeacon, won-
dering that so flimsy and flippant a work as that which refuted
your charges, and which was then out of print, should have
made so much impression on certain weak minds, and trem-
bling for the salvation of so many poor ignorant souls, who
continued to forsake the purest Church in Christendom, and
return to the idolatrous religion of their forefathers, charitably
stepped forward, and presented the public with a work signifi-
cantly denominated " The Protestant's Companion; or, a

Let. 3.] Christian Religion. 183

seasonable Preservative against the Errors, Corruptions,
and Unfounded Claims of a Superstitious and Idolatrous
Church"!

This is the work which you so earnestly recommend in your
Charge, as justifying your former, and covering your present at-
tack. You describe it as containing the essence of Bull, Barrow,
Leslie, and other ponderous champions of the Establishment,
as " bringing the matter within a small compass, and stating it
with irresistible perspicuity and power." It is an octavo
volume of 408 pages !

Till I saw this recommendation of Archdeacon Daubeny's
work, I fancied it was the spontaneous production of an aged
Churchman, whose zeal prompted him to defend the cause
which you had abandoned, and whose vanity made him de-
sirous of adding the conquest of a " Pojnsh Bishop'' to his
other literary trophies. It appears, however, that he is only
accting as your ally, to finish a campaign which you as principal
commander, opened with so much dignity, but which your
more weighty occupations leave you not leisure to conclude.
Under the former persuasion, I had designed to address an
answer to the author of the " Protestant's Companion," with-
out any reference to yourself, who, though the original ag-
gressor, had, as I supposed, prudently withdrawn from the
contest, and to whom I was unwilling to give the least unne-
cessary molestation. Your strong recommendation and adop-
tion of Dr. Daubeny's work induce me to alter my design, and
continue my correspondence with you as the original mover
and principal leader in the controversy. To avoid unnecessary
delay and break the tediousness of a discussion, embracing so
many points of difference, I shall address it in separate letters.
The following is the outline of the intended communication :

It is my intention to shew that the " Protestant's Com-
panion" is not, as you assert, a concise and perspicuous state-
ment of the difference between the Roman Catholic Church
and the Church of England, but a huge and ill-digested com-
pilation of whatever was most incorrect and most abusive in
the old writers of the Establishment, accompanied with a vio-
lence and ferocity which animated religious combatants two
centuries ago, and adorned with a coarseness and scurrility
which after its present aged proprietor, it is to be hoped no one
will possess. I shall prove that on every subject he has un-
dertaken to discuss he has grossly and designedly misrepre-.
rented the Catholic doctrines ; that like you and Vindex, he
has been unable to make good his cause without falsifying his-
tory, misinterpreting the acts of councils, garbling the writings

184 Defence of the [Lef. 3.

of ancient fathers and perverting the sense of modern theologi-
ans, to a degree, which I venture to predict will astonish some
of his admirers, though I do not expect it will cause himself to
blush. In fine, I shall meet him on every subject, which has
not been already discussed, and furnish the reader with new
editions of former discussions.

The public will then be able to form a judgment between us
upon the momentous questions — whether the Roman Catholic
Church or the Church of England is the " One, Holy, Ca-
tholic, and Apostolic Church" mentioned in the Nicene Creed ;
whether the former or the latter Church is in error and schism,
and to which the promises of Christ belong ; whether the un-
repented sins of men, of whatever degree, are in a future world,
equally punished with everlasting torments, or whether there
are not temporar}'^ punishments for smaller, as well as eternal
punishments for greater offences ; whether the Churchof
England is a divine or a human institution, and its establish-
ment a relief or a burthen to the country ; whether the cause of
Truth is promoted by annexing to certain religious opinions all
the wealth of the Church and all the favours of the State, or
the peace of the country secured by making it the interest of a
smaller body of Religionists to traduce and insult at pleasure
an immense majority of the nation; whether this state of things
is likely to last long ; and whether, if the Church of England
should be given up, there would be any pure Christianity in
the world.

These and many other important points, suggested by the
" Protestant's Companion," will form the subject of future
letters. At present I shall direct your attention to certain
minor accusations contained in your late Charge. You inform
your readers (page 11) that the Catholics are at present busily
and successfully employed in making proselytes to their reli-
gion ; that for this purpose " every art is tried — on the poor
benevolence and alms — but always accompanied with the con-
dition of frequenting their worship."

Had you merely asserted that alms are sometimes employed
by Catholics for the purpose of making proselytes, or are some-
times accompanied with the condition you mention, it would not
have been easy to contradict your statement ; because it would
have been as difficult for me to know what some Catholics
might do, as it is easy for me to know what no well-instructed
Catholic would do. But your assertion that Catholics always
accompany their alms with the condition you assert, enables me
to give you a positive contradiction, and to call upon you to
substantiate the odious charge with even a semblance of proof.

Let. 3.] Chrisiian Religion. 185

I do not believe you can produce a single instance of a single
Catholic doing that which you assert to be the constant prac-
tice of all. But this accusation is evidently intended to insi-
nuate that Catholics make use of improper inducements to
bring over persons to their religion, and that this is the real
cause of the numerous conversions which have for some years
past and still continue to swell our numbers. It may be proper
therefore, to set you right on this subject : the following facts
will suffice for the purpose.

In the first place, with respect to alms, Catholics are taught
that in bestowing them a certain order of charity is to be ob-
served. That if tAvo persons are in equal distress, and one of
these persons is a parent, the other a stranger, and it is not in
our power to relieve both, the preference must be given to the
parent ; but if the other person is in e.vtreme distress, whilst
the distress of the pareut is noiextreine, then the former, though
no relation, must be assisted in preference even to a parent.
There are various other considerations, besides kindred, which
amongst objects equally distressed, may entitle one to a pre-
ference : a friend, a neighbour, an inhabitant of the same town
or country, would be entitled to our assistance, in cases of equal
distress, before perfect strangers or the inhabitants of other
climes. For the same reason, a Christian might be preferred
before a Pagan ; and even amongst Christians, a member of the
religion to which we belong might, in cases of equal distress,
be preferred before one who belonged to another religious con-
nexion. But Catholics are taught, and I hope Protestants
are taught the same, that if two objects in luiequal distress
present themselves, and we cannot relieve both, we must give
to him who is in great want, though not of our religion, in pre-
ference to him who is in lesser need, though a brother in faith.

This doctrine I conceive to be conformable to that of St,
Paul, Ephesians vi. 10, and to the dictates of right reason.
The same doctrine, as thousands can testify, J have ever pub-
licly and privately inculcated : I have, moreover, never failed
to guard my hearers against all narrow-minded and sectarian
distinctions in the discharge of that amiable duty, which more
than any other, is to mark us as the disciples of Christ. I
have constantly pressed upon their attention the lovely example
♦ of this Divine Being, who asked no questions about the religion
or conduct of the children of distress, but with equal kindness
imparted relief and consolation to the Jew and Samaritan, to
the true believer and to the Pagan, to the virtuous and to the
wicked, to the unjust, the extortioner, the adulterer, and the
dyinu thief. '2 A

186 Defence of the [Let. 3

On the same principles I have endeavouretl to regulate my
own conduct : I have made it a rule not to ask the religion of
the party applying for relief, and never in my life was I, and
never I trust, shall I be guilty of an act so odious, so con-
temptible, and so unchristian, as to refuse relief because the
distressed object was a Protestant, or grant it only as the price
of hypocrisy. If a distressed object has had the honesty to tell
me he was not a Catholic, I have always relieved him the more
readily on that account ; but I have repeatedly sent away with-
out relief, applicants who urged their being Catholics as a plea
for my relieving them, considering that persons who could urge
such reasons were, in all probability, impostors, or intended to
insult me. Does this conduct, which I am convinced, is the
conduct of Catholics in general, merit the odious charge you
have made against them I Would your own conduct, and
that of your friends, bear a stricter scrutiny I Could you con-
scientiously declare, that you have always acted on the same
liberal principles I

But your insinuation that Catholics use bribes to swell the
number of their converts, proves how little you know of the
process through which every convert to the Catholic religion is
obliged to pass. You seem to suppose that a man becomes a
Catholic as he becomes a member of most of the sects in this
country, namely, by merely attending the Catholic worship. It
may be proper to inform you of the real case. We never con-
sider a Protestant as having become a Catholic merely by his
attending the Catholic place of worship, however frequently or
regularly he may do so. A man must have been admitted to
our sacraments, or at least have made a solemn and deliberate
profession of our faith, before we consider him a Catholic. The
usual method of proceeding is this. When a Protestant has
by some means or other discovered that the doctrines of the
Catholic religion have been misrepresented to him, he is recom-
mended to apply to the Catholic Priest, to know what those
doctrines really are. Upon such application being made, the
Catholic Priest puts a Catechism into his hands, or explains to
him accurately the doctrines it contains, and the reasons upon
which they are founded. This is generally a work of time. In
well-informed persons a few weeks (it is very seldom less) may
suffice ; in ignorant persons, it is generally the work of months.
The Apostles' Creed is explained article by article ; the Com-
mandments, with all the religious and moral duties they im-
pose, relating to God, to our neighbours and to ourselves are
fullv and repeatedly inculcated. The nature, obligation and

Let. 3.] Christian Reiujion. 187

necessity of prayer, sacrifice and sacraments, is clearly pointed
out ; the various kinds of virtues and vices ; the difference, as
far as it is known, between mortal and venial, original and actual
sin : the commands of the Church, the ceremonies of religion,
&c. are taught and explained. When the applicant has been
made fully acquainted with every thing it is necessary for him
to believe and practise, he is not immediately admitted to his
profession of faith, much less to the sacraments. The Priest
is bound in conscience, and never fails to satisfy himself that
his convert really believes and is thoroughly convinced of the
truth of the Catholic reliofion. In cases of doubt, the convert
IS often encouraged to apply to the minister of some other re-
ligion, and see what arguments the latter can alledge against
the doctrines taught him by his Catholic instructor. With well-
informed persons I have always pursued this method, and I
have ever found it the most effectual means of confirming them
in the Catholic faith. They have almost invariably found that
the Clergyman to whom they applied, did not even know what
the Catholic doctrines were, and that all his arguments were
directed against doctrines we do not hold. It has sometimes
happened that the convert has been unable to determine be-
tween the positive assertions of the Protestant Clergyman that
Catholics do hold such and such doctrines, and those of the
Catholic Priest that they do not. In such cases I have always
offered to meet the Protestant Clergyman in the presence of
the convert, that the latter might see whether the same asser-
tions would be made before me that were made before him,
and that he misfht fairlv decide for himself^ In no one instance
has my offer been accepted, though every advantage but that
of truth lay on the other side. Dr. Moi/setj knows that I have
made himself this offer, and that he has suffered his jmrish-
ioners to become Catholics rather than accept it. I am ready
to make him the same offer still, with respect to any convert
he may choose to select.

If the convert is poor, I have never failed to represent to
him, in the strongest colours, the difficulties to which his con-
version would in all probability expose him. *' If you look,"
I have said, "to any worldly advantage, you will be much mis-
taken. You will offend your former friends, and I cannot
promise you that you will gain any new ones. If the obtaining
of charity is your object, / shall never consider myself obliged
to bestow upon you the smallest trifle because you are a Ca-
tholic. The Catholic bodv is charitable, but it is overburthcned

188 Defence of Ihe [ief. 3

with poor, and you will obtain less from them than you have
done from the Protestants. In short, your change of religion
will only injure you in this world. It will therefore be folly in
you to make it for any other motive than the good of your soul
and from a conviction that it is your duty to do so."

I have given similar cautions to those in better circum-
stances. I have asked them if they were prepared to encoun-
ter the displeasure of their friends, the loss of a parent's, bro-
ther's, sister's love ; the banishment from domestic confidence ;
the being looked upon as fools or dupes ; if they could bear the
sneers, the taunts, the insulting pity of the bigoted, the illiberal
and the ignorant : if their conviction of the truth of the Catho-
lic Religion was so strong, that they considered themselves
bound to follow it, to the injury of their future prospects in life;
if in the rewards which religion promised in a futvu"e world, and
the consolations it afforded in this, they would find a sufficient
recompense for the sacrifices it would require them to make I I
have recommended them to pause before they took a step,
which could not without guilt be retraced ; to examine into
their own hearts and see if their intentions were pure, to em-
ploy their reason in the enquiry, and implore, with calm and
composed, though sincere and fervent prayer, the light of Hea-
ven to guide them. In no one instance have I ever consented
to admit a convert into the Catholic Church, till by imjself or
through others, Ihadheenfidly satisfied that his motives were
such as I have described.

Such are the methods I have ever pursued in making con-
verts, and such have been the methods pursued by every Ca-
tholic Priest with w hom I am acquainted. Can any thing be
more fair, more candid, more favourable to the liberty of man J
If a Catholic Priest believe his religion to be the only true one,
(and he is an ideot if he continue in it without such con-
viction,) will charity allow him to be relax in inducing others
to embrace it I And if his object be to lead his converts to the
discovery of truth, not to ensnare them ; to enable them to
follow the free dictates of their conscience, not to lead them
captive into error ; could he pursue more effectual methods
than those I have described ?

If the statement I have made is not true you have the means
of refuting me. You know different persons, even of your
own parishioners, who have become Catholics. Let them be
questioned, and if you discover that they have been withdrawn
from you by alms or bribes, or unfair arguments, or by any

Let.'^i.] Clirisiian Reli(jton. 180

other means than tho8c I have described, and that they con-
tinue in the Catholic Religion from any other motive than the
conviction of its truth, I will myself assist you in the recovery
of your lost sheep. 1 will exclude them as intruders from the
Catholic fold, and tell them that they had better be good Sa-
maritans than wicked Jews ; better be sincere members of a
false religion, than hypocritical members of the true one. I
promise you also, that if you will mention to me a single Priest
or Layman, who has resorted to the disgraceful methods you
assert to be always employed by Catholics in making converts,
and if the offender is within the limits of my jurisdiction, he
shall be reprimanded as he deserves.

But the above mentioned are not the only " arts " of wliich you
accuse us in making; proselytes. You proceed " Every art is
tried — on the poor; benevolence and alms; but always accom-
panied with the condition of frequenting their worship : on the rich,
broad and fearless assertions of priority ; assertions of apostolical
authority, said to exist on their part, and of defection from Rome
(our mother, as they say,) on ours. Their policy is to urge such
things, and to keep the saint and image-worship, and the pre-
tended infallibility of their head, and other such abominations,
for a time, out of sight. And very lately the monstrous doc-
trine of Transubstantiation was (as is said) so explained away, in
order to ensnare the hearers, as to represent that the ques-
tion between us and them is not concerning a corporeal pre-
sence of Christ in the holy communion ; but that they hold no-
thing except a spiritual presence to be therein ; in direct de-
fiance of the Council of Trent, the acknowledged standard of
the Church of Rome.*"

To the charge of " making broad and fearless assertions of
priority and apostolical authority on the part of the Catholic
Church, and of defection from that church, on the part of the
Church of England, I plead guilty ; but shall have occasion
hereafter to show abundant cause why these assertions are
made. But as to the charge of keeping our " saint and image- wor-
ship, and the pretended infallibility of the Pope and such other
abominations out of sight," I must beg leave to deny it altogether ;
first, because our saint and image worship (as you nickname it)
is, as I have abundantly proved,t so very similar to that of the
Established Church, that there can be no possible reason whv
we should wish to conceal it. Secondly, because I have also

* Charge pages 11 and 12. t See tlie Stcoud Letter.

190 Defence of the Let. 3.

proved to you, and you ivell knoiu,* that the inrallibility of the
Pope, is not an article of our faith. Thirdly, because it is ab-
surd to talk of a Church like ours concealing its doctrines and
practices, known as they are in every country of the world, and
public as the sun at midday.

And now, very Reverend Sir, allow me to ask, upon what
plea of justice, truth or decency, have you ventured to charg^e
us with holding ahominable doctrines, knowing, as you did,
that one of these doctrines was admitted by many divines of
your own Churchf to be innocent, and that the other was not
held by us at all !

You proceed : " Very lately the monstrous doctrine of Tran-
substantiation was (as is said) explained away, in order to en-
snare the hearers," &c. Again, let me ask, could no term less
harsh than that of monstrous be vouchsafed, by the Archdea-
con of Bath, for a doctrine, which he knew to be that of so
vast a proportion of the Christian world ? Would it have
compromised the dignity of a Church of England Divine, when
speaking of the belief of such men as Fenelon, Bossuet
and Sir Thomas More, to add to the epithet monstrous (if it
must be used) some such qualification as "in my opinion, to
the best of my judgment," or the like? But by whom were
these monstrous doctrines so lately explained away for the
purpose of ensnaring the hearers? Here, at least, we have an
instance of your modesty. You were too modest to mention
the name. I will spare your blushes, and relieve the curiosity
of all who wish to know. I am the person. It was I who ex-
plained the doctrine of Transubstantiation ; but not I trust, the
monstrous doctrine. Nor was it my motive to ensnare my
hearers. By what wondrous penetration did you arrive at the
knowledge of my motives ? Neither did T explain away the
doctrine of Transubstantiation, but explained it faithfully as
follows :

The Council of Trent teaches, and the whole Catholic
Church believes, that in the most holy sacrament of the Eu-
charist the body and hlood, together with the soul and divinity
of Jesus Christ, that is, Jesus Christ himself, is contained
truly, really, and suhstantially , under the sensible species or

* This is the third time that Dr. Moysey and Vindcx have asserted that the
infallibility of the Pope is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, thoi:<;h in botli
my former letters I informed him that it was not. See the Second Letter.
■ If he doubted the accuracy of my statement, why did he not inform
himself better before he repeated the mis-slatement ? Sir John Cox Hip-
pisley, or any wcll-iuformed Protestant Layman, woukt have set him nght.

t Vid. Second Lttlcr.

Let, 3.] Christian Relief ion. 191

appearances of bread and wine. This is the Catholic doc-
trine of the Real presence.

The doctrine of Transuhstantiation teaches, in addition,
that bread and wine do not remain in the sacrament, in con-
junction with the body and blood of Christ (as was taught by
Luther,) but that the same consecration, wliich causes the body
and blood to be substantially present, causes the substance of
bread and wine to be no longer there.*

From this definition, it follows that Jesus Christ himself is
present in the sacrament; not merely a ficjure of him, or only
ii pari of him, as some of the Reformers taught.

But this definition does not decide any thing respecting the
state in which Christ has existed, and does at present exist,
out of the sacrament, subsequently to his resurrection from the
dead, and his ascension into heaven.

On this subject, the Catholic Church believes, as I presume
all Christians do, that the body of Christ, since its resurrection,
is greatly changed ; at least as much so as our own bodies will
be changed after their resurrection. Now St. Paul informs us,
that the body of man will be changed, after the resurrection,
into a more spiritualized substance. " It is sown in corruption,
it is raised in incorruption ; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised
in glory ; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power ; it is
sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a
natural body, and there is a spiritual body." Cor. c. 15. v. 42.

That the body of Christ was thus changed after his resur-
rection, is manifest from the Gospel. It combined together
some of the properties which belong to natural or mortal bo-
dies, with others belonging to spirit, and incompatible with
bodies in their mortal state. He entered the room, like a spirit,
when the doors were shut, and then presented to the hands of
Thomas a solid tangible substance, like a body in its natural
state. He altered his appearance, or held the eyes of his be-
holders in such manner, that Mary Magdalen and his two dis-
ciples did not know him. He sat down at table with the latter
and partook of their food, and then, like a spirit, vanished from
their sight, and became invisible.

It is the body of Christ, thus spiritualized and changed, or,
in other words, it is this spiritual bod / of Christ, which the
Catholic Church believes to be present in the sacrament ; not

* " Uno verbo transubstantiatio uiliil addit prsesent'uc corporis Cliristi, nisi desi-
tiuitem jianis virtute si^niiicatiouis verboiaiii, seu quo verba Cliristi sint vera; et
nomine Traiisnbstaatiationis nihil a!iad est inteliigenduni." Regnla Fidei, sect. 1'2,
No. 5.

192

Defence of the

[Let. 3.

He sat down at table, Sfc. see page 191- and St. Luke xxiv.

the gross mortal flesh, which the people of Capernaum thought
he meant to give them, when they said, " How can this man
give us his flesh to eat V and which Dr. Moysey, and his Esta-
blished brethren, in spite of our repeated protestations, insist
upon our believing.

With respect to the manner in which this spiritual hody of
Christ is present in the sacrament, the Catholic Church has
not decided. She does not require us to believe, that even the
spiritual body of Christ is present in the sacrament, in the same
state in which it exists in heaven, at the right hand of the Fa-
ther ; she allows us to suppose, that a body in its spiritual
state, like a spirit itself, may not have essentially any relation
to place, or that it may have a different mode of existence in
different places. Hence, all that she requires Catholics to be-
lieve on this point is, that the spiritual budy of Christ is sa-

Let. 3.] Christian ReUgion. 1J)3

cramentally pressnt in the holy Communion ; or, in otiier
words, that the body of Christ, which is now become a spirit-
?<a/&ofZy, is, in some manner or other, conformable to the nature
and intention of a sacrament, iridy, really and suhstantiaUy
present in the Eucharist.*

Were I to give Dr. Moysey credit for being quite serious,
when he urg-es these words, truly, really arid substantially
present, to prove that we believe in a gross carnal presence,
like that of a mortal body, I must concliide that he is no philo-
sopher, and that he attaches to the Avord substance the same
vulgar notion which unlearned persons attach to it. But I
trust I need not inform an Established. Dignitary, of his literary
attainments, that the word suhsta7ice, in its philosophical and
theological sense, is as applicable to spirit as to body ; and that
we can, with equal accuracy, speak of the substance of spirit
as the substance of body. It signifies, when speaking of spirit
or body in general, that portion of their composition which
would remain, if all their properties or qualities were removed.
When speaking of individual spirits, or individual bodies, the
word substance signifies that portion of their composition which
is essential to their being what they are, evey^y other property
and quality being removed from them.

What the nature of this substance is, whether in its general
or individual acceptation, we are wholly ignorant, and must re-
main so till we are gifted with other faculties than those we
now possess. All we know either of spirit or body are their
properties or qualities, and of these we know so little, that we
cannot v/ith certainty determine whether any, or which of them,
are essentialto constitute the Being in which they residef

* The following are the words of the Council of Trent:

" Priucipio docet sancta synodus et aperte ac simpliciter profiteteur in almo
sanctae Eiicharistiac sacramento post panis et vini consecrationem dominuin
nostrum Jesum Christum, verum Deura atque hominem, vere realiter ac sub-
stantialiter, sub specie illarum rerum sensibilium contineri : nee enim haec in-
ter se pugnant, ut ipse Salvator noster semper ad dexteram patris in coelis as-
sideat juxta modum existendi naturalem ; et ut multis nihilominus aliis in
locis sacranientaliter prasens sua substantia nobis adsit, ea existendi ratione,
quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus, possibilem tamen esse Deo, cogita-
tione per fidem illustrata, assequi possumus et constantissime credere debe.
mus." — Sessio, xiii. cap. 1.

Hence Verron's Rlgida Fidei concludes.

" Non solum corpus Christi sub symbolis potest dici spirituale, et ipsemet
Christus spiritus, sed etiam sub symbolis spirituali modo seu spiritualiter, et
non aniniali nee corporali modo, seu corporaliter seu carnaliter. — Sect. 11. No. ^

t '' Of the nature of this matter all philosophers are equally ignorant: for,
as BIr. Harris says, it is in truth /orm; or, as modern philosophers would say,

2 B

194 Def(ince of llie {Let. 3

Nothing can demonstrate more clearly the total ignorance
liuder which we labour, respecting the nature of bodies, than the
endless variety of opinions which the ablest philosophers and di-
vines have adopted, and the very little agreement that subsists
amongst them . Amongst the rest one eminent Bishop of the Esta-
blished Church* has maintained that bodies are nothing more than
a collection or combination of certain properties ; and another;];
no less eminent, has maintained that bodies have no existence
at all, except in the Divine mind, and that our perceptions of
bodily qualities are all the effect of the immediate agency of the
Diety upon our minds,

But if such is our ignorance respecting the nature of bodies
of their earthly and mortal state, how much more ignorant may
we be supposed to be, respecting bodies in a glorified and spi-
ritualized state ! To believe that the substance of such a body
may be present, thougli unaccompanied with its usual, or m ith
any sensible properties, is certainly not repugnant to the princi-
ples of philosophy : to assert that it cannot be present, without
such properties, betrays equal ignorance and presumption. To
pronounce that the belief is mojistrons, upon whatever reasons
it is fouuded, is characteristic of the modeSty and science of the
Archdeacon of Bath. But to proceed.

It is manifest to our senses, that after the consecration of the
bread and wine, the sensible properties Avhicli meet the sight,
the taste, the touch, &c. are 7iot changed, or at least that the
same effects continue to be produced upon our senses that were
produced before.I It is equally manifest that the sensible pro-
perties belonging to the natural body of Christ are not present

they are in truth qualities, which arc tlie whole that we either hear, or see, or
feel, or of wliich we have either idea or conception. ]Mr. Locke says ex-
pressly 'that if any one will examine himself concerning the notions of pure
substance in 2,eueral, he will find that he has no other idea of it at all, only a
supposition of he knows not what support of such qualities as are capable of
producing simple ideas in us." Enc\c. Brit. Metaphysics, No. 148.

" The things then immediately perceived by us, or of which we have an ade-
quate idea or conception, are only qualities tliat must belong to a subject ; and
all that Ave know about the subject is, that it is that to which such qualities
belong. For this is evident, that our notion of matter, as distinguished from
its qualities, is a relative and obscure notion, and must remain obscure till
men have other faculties." Ibid. No. i50.

* Dr. Law, bishop of Carlisle.

t Dr. Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne. — " Dr. Reid himself, the ablest of all Dr.
Berkeley's opponents, frankly acknowledges, that no man can show, by any
good argument, that all our sensations might not have been as they are, though
no body or quality of body had ever existed." Bletaphysics, No. 1G3.

t " It is certainly possible that the Supreme Being, without the instrument-
ality of matter, should communicate to our minds all the sensations and notions
from which we infer the reality of solid substance." Metaphysics, No. 172.

JLel. 3.] Chrislian lielifj/oii. 11)5

to our senses. The change, therefore, that has been made in
the elements, must be in their iuvisibh; snhslaiice or essence,
not in their external qualities. Hence the Council of Trent de-
fined, that the body of Christ is suhsfanfialli/ present in the
sacrament, that is to say, that it is present as to substance or
essence, not as to its usual qualities or properties.

For the same reason v/e are taught that when the visible part
of the sacrament, viz. what appears to be bread and wine, is
broken, or div ided, the invisible essence of the sacrament, viz.
Christ, is not broken, nor divided, nor in any Avay changed ;
and that whilst the former is eaten and nourishes our bodies,
like ordinary food, the latter being of a spiritual and heavenly
manner, for the nourishment and refreshment of our souls,*
nature, is eaten after a spiritual and heavenly. In fact,
the intention of Jesus Christ, in giving' himself to us in this
most, holy and adorable sacrament, was not to feed our mor-
tal bodies and increase our animal strength, but to impart
to both our bodies and souls, by an ineffable union with himself
a principle of spiritual life, and strength, and immortality. It
was to shew the ardour of his love for us, by making m-, as it were
one with himself, that we may live by him and he in us, till we
arrive at that still more perfect and eternal union, which we
shall enjoy with him in heaven. " He that eateth my flesh,
and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. — As the
living Father hath sent me, and i live by the Father, so he that
eateth me, even he shall live by me. — This is that bread which
came down from heaven : not as your fathers did eat manna,
and are dead : he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."
— St. John vi. 56, ^a.f

* " Totum quod diximus de coipoie spiritual! et modo illo spirituali exis-
tendi sub speciebus potest etiamob id dici de receptione et manducatione, sci-
licet Christum manducavi, iit sacramentaliter ex concilio, ita spiritualiter et
spiritali modo et non carnaliter seu carnali modo, ore tamen corporis. Patent
haec ex se ex dictis etapplicarihic facile possiint. JManducare corporali modo
et carnali sue corporaliter et carnaliter est manducare ad modum quo niandu-
camus carues alias scilicet masticaiido et dividendo carnem iu ore, palato
gnstando ejus saporem, &c. Non sic manducamus Ciiristum ergo nee corpora-
liter, nee carnaliter, nee corporal et carnali modo, sed spiritali et spiritualiter.
Adde etiam efiectum manduci\tiouis corporaliset corporaliter, esse nutritionem
corporis ; at vero efiectum manducationis Christi esse gratiam per modum re-
fectionis animse, id est vegetantem et roborantem auimaminoperationibus vita;
spiritalis, et sic esse refectionem et nutritionem anima; nostrce, quee estspiritus ;
ergo etiam inde scilicet ex eftectu, potest dice manducatio spiritalis et non cor-
poralis sea non carnalis seu non carnileter, et corporaliter, in dicto sensu."
Ibid No. 3. Regnla Fidei, sect. II. No. 2.

t Sumi autem voluit sacramentum hoc, tamqxiam spiritualem animarum ci-
bum, quo alantur et confortentur vivenles vita illius qui dixit: qui manducat
me et ipse vivet propter me : et tamquam antidotum, <nu) liberemur a

19(j Defence, ojlhe [Lel.S.

Such is the doctrine of the Catholic Church as explained by
me " on a very late occasion," as well as on many former ones.
Of our reasons for believing it I have spoken elsewhere, and
shall at present say nothing.* Let us now see what is the doc-
trine of the Church of England, as declared in her Articles and
explained in her Cathesism.

The twenty-eighth Article says, that "the supper of the
Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have
among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament
of our redemption by Christ's death ; insomuch, that to such as
rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread
which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ,, and like-
wise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

" The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the sup-
per, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the
manner by which the body of Christ is received and eaten in the
supper, is faith."

The explanation of this cautious and accommodating article,
as given in the Cathecism of the Church of England, is as
follows :

" Question. — What is the outward part^r sign of the Lord's
supper i

" A7isiver. — Bread and wine, which the Lord commanded to
be received.

" Question. — What is the inward part or thing signified I

Answer. The body and blood of Christ, which are verily
and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's
s tipper.

Question. — What are the benefits, whereof we are partakers
thereby I

Ansiaer. — The strengthening and refreshing of our souls by
the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread
and wine."

Such is the doctrine of the Church of England. Now, Sir,
you are aware that the words of both the Articles and the Ca-
techisms have been variously explained by* your own bishops
and divines. Indeed, so various are the explanations given
and tolerated in the Church of England on this most important
subject, that I have not had the good fortune to meet with two

ciilpis quotidianns, et apeccatis niortalibus praEservemnr. Pigniis prastereaid
esse voliiit futursc nostra giorife etperpetuje t'ellcitatis adeoque symbokira unhia
illiiis corporis cnjus ipse capvit existit : cuique nos tamquam membra arctiesi-
ma, fidei, spei, et caritatia connexione, astrictos esse voluit, ut idipsuin oranes
diceremus nee essent in nobis schismata." Concil. Trident : Ses : xiii, c. 2.

* See a Sermon preaclied at Taunton on flij Evicliaristic sacrament and t^A-
rriiice, &c., I)y the Author.

Lel.S.] Chrisllan Rdiyion. ii)?

which perfectly agree. Some have gone so far as to inaintaiii
that when the catechism sajs, that ihe body and blood of Christ
are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the
Lord's supper, it means that mere bread and wine are eaten in
remembrance of the death of Christ ; that Christ is not present
in the saciameat at all, unless the receiver think of him, and
that then he is present only as any thing else is present when
we think of it. Bishop Hcadley says, that if this is not the
meaning of the Catechism, he is unable to say what is.*

He has many followers in these days of increasing light and
liberality. But most of your old divines, and perhaps most of
your more orthodox modern ones, maintain a real presence of
(Uirist in the sacrament of some kind or other ; and the Esta-
blished Church is not nice with them, provided they are always
ready to swear that transubstantiation is idolatry .f But sup-
posing that some bishop or dignitary of the Established Church,
exercising the liberty of opinion assumed by and conceded to
the lowest of her freeboru children, should reason as follows,
what would be his fate I

" The Catechism says, ' that the body and blood of Christ
are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the
Lord's supper,' therefore I conclude, that the body and blood of
Christ must be verily and indeed present in the sacrament, and
therefore that there must be a real presence of the body and
blood, or in other words, a real bodily presence.

"■ But the article declares * that the body of Christ is given,
taken, and eaten in the sacrament only after a heavenly and
spii'itual manner,' therefore I conclude, that the body of Christ
is present only after a heavenly and spiritual manner.

"Again the Catechism teaches, that the outward part or

* " This passage in the Catechism will, I tiiink, lead us to the only consis-
tent sense of tlie words we are now considering ; which, I own, are very figu-
rative, where a figure ought rather to have been explained than made use of. .
The faithful are said verily and indeed to take and receive the body and blood
of Christ ; because believers alone, coming as snch, eat liis body and drink
his blood indevd, or in that very sense in which he appointed them to do it ;
viz. by eating brend and drinking xoim in a thankful and serious remembrance
of his natural body broken and bhiod shed. .If this be not the sense of this
passage, I own myself unable to say what is." Accouni, of the nature and end
of the sacrament of the Lord's supper, by Beuj. Hoadley, bishop of Winchester.

t Archdeacon Daubeny will not allow Bishop Hoadley to have been ortho-
dox on this point, " Bishop Hoadley's book (says h',0, on the sacrament, is
not considered by the Church of England to be a stanJurd for her doctrine ?"
He adds, "The difference between the two Churches of England and Rome
is not about the real presence itself, but about the manner of it." Protestant's
Companion, pages 77 and 78. — We shall discoss the Archdeacon' system in a
future letter.

li)8 Defence of the [Lei. S.

sign of the Lord's supper is bread and wine, and that the inward
part or thing signified in the body and blood of Christ, ' which
are verily and itideed taken and received hij the faithful in the
Lord's supper' Hence I conclude, that the sacrament con-
sists of two parts, an external and internal part. Now all ma-
terial objects ai'e known to consist of two parts ; an external
part which we see, feel, taste, &c. which is called its qualities
or accidents, and an internal part which we can never either
see, or feel, or taste, which is called its suhstance. So far the
sacrament agrees with all other external objects. I conclude,
therefore, that when the Catechism says that the outward part
of the sacrament is bread and wine, it means that the outward
properties of bread and wine, namely, all that we ever see, as
tte, or feel in bread or wine, not the inward substance of bread
and wine, which, in fact, we never either see, or taste, or
feel. First, because it would be incorrect to call that an
outward sign, which is inward and imperceptible to the senses :
and secondly, because in that case, the sacrament, different from
all other external objects, would consist of three parts; one ex-
ternal, namely the properties of bread and v.ine, and two in-
ternal parts, namely, the internal substancer-of bread and wine,
and the internal substance of the body of Christ.

"In the next place, I conclude that the bread and wine,
when they become the sacrament, must undergo a certain
change, not of properties, for these evidently continue the same ;
but a change of suhstance, with the nature of which substance
we are wholly unaquainted, and which, as it is never subject to
any of our senses, may be withdrawn or changed by the Crea-
tor without our perceiving it, as he pleases.

" Moreover, as it is evident that the external properties of the
body of Christ are not present in the sacrament, and that if they
were, the sacrament, different from all other objects, would
consist of three parts ; namely, the external properties of bread,
the external properties of the body of Christ, and the internal
substance of the latter ; therefore I conclude that when the
Catechism says that the inward part of the sacrament is the
body and blood of Christ, it means only the inward substance or
essence of this body and blood, which mode of existing the ar-
ticle denominates spiritual and heavenly, because different from
its natural and earthly mode. Or perhaps, the article may
employ the words heavenly and spiritual to intimate that the
body of Christ being, since his resurrection, in a spiritual and
glorified state, its substance in the sacrament is of a more re-
fined and spiritual nature than that of mortal bodies ; or, per-
haps, it wishes to teach us that the substance of a spiritual body.

Let. 3.] Clnisiian ReUcjlon. 199

like the suljstance of spirit itself, may have no essential refer-
ence to place, or may be present in different places, in a differ-
ent state, conformably to the reason or object of its presence.
My belief, therefore, drawn from the Articles and Catechism of
my Church, is this :

" First. — That the external part of tlie sacrament is the usual
properties of bread and wine.

"Secondly, that the iuward part is the body and blood of
Christ, which beina: verily and indeed taken and received bv the
faithful, are verily and indeed present in the sacrament; not,
indeed, as to their external properties, but merely their internal
substance ; which internal substance being of a spiritual and
heavenly nature, strengthens and refreshes our souls, according
to the words of the Catechism, in like manner as our bodies
are refreshed by the external and bodily properties of the bread
and wine.

" Thirdly. — That whereas, before the consecration of the
elements, their internal part was merely the substance of bread
and wine, but is afterwards the body and blood of Christ, it is
evident that a change of substance has taken place, and that it
may be truly said, that in the sacrament the bread and wine are
in truth and reality changed as to substance ; or in other words,
are truly, really, and substantially changed into the body and
blood of Christ."

Suppose, I say, that some bishop or dignitary of the Esta-
blished Church, taking the Articles and Catechism into his
hands, and exerting as others have done, his best endeavours to
discover their real meaning, should affix to them the mean-
ing which I have supposed, what would be his fate ? Would he
be treated as a fool or an ideot ? Is there any power in the
Church of England to degrade or suspend a bishop who should
give such an explanation of the Articles and Catechism ? Could
he not preach, and write, and print it with impunity? Could
he be excluded from his seat in the House of Lords, if he there
maintained it? Or could he deprive of his care of souls any
clergyman who held the opinion I If he could, where is the
boasted liberty of the reformation ? And by what law or canon
could he do it? If he could not, then is the above-mentioned
opinion consistent with the doctrines of the Established Church?
Yet it is neither more nor less than the Catholic doctrine of
Transubstantiation ; the doctrine, which, however vilified and
misrepresented by the reformers of England, every Catholic in the
world believes to be the truth, which he cannot abjure without

200 Defence of the {Lei. 3.

violating- Ins conscience,nor profess in this free, liberal, and en-
lightened nation, without being- abused and insulted by the Es-
tablished Clergy, ridiculed by the most ignorant of the people,
and excluded J)y the Government from the liberties of his
country !

Shall I be told that no clergyman of the Established Church
would be foolish enough to put such an interpretation upon the
meaning of the Articles and the Catechism ? Then il must be
that the intellects of the Established Clergy are brighter than
those of other persuasions ; for as far as my judgment goes,
the above-mentioned explanation is the most natural and con-
sistent one which can be put upon the articles and Catechism,
and one, which I have reason to suspect the framers of those
Articles intended should be put by all who liked it ; and why
should not I say with Bishop Hoadley, " if this be not the
sense of the Catechism, I am unable to say what is ?"

But be the explanation ever so foolish, or, as you express it,
so monstrous, still if there should happen to be a bishop or
priest of the Establishment as sparingly gifted as his Catholic
brethren, he may hit upon it, and in that case it becomes the
allowed doctrine of the Church of England-, which she has nei-
ther right to condemn, no power to repress. It is true she may
put to such bishop or priest, on certain occasions, the declara-
tion against Transubstantiation ; but what shall prevent him
from understanding that word in the gross, carnal sense, which
the Jews at Capharuaum, and the Archdeacons of Bath and
Sarum have affixed to it , or understanding it even in the Ca-
tholic sense, what shall prevent him from adopting Archdeacon
Paley's explanation, and taking the oath, not as a declaration
against any particular doctrine, but as a general protest against
the inconveniences of Popery I In either case, the King, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, or any of or all the dignitaries of the
Established Church may, with perfect safety to their souls in a
future life, and the full enjoyment of their honours and com-
forts in this, believe maintain, and teach a doctrine for believ-
ing which, the unfortunate Catholic is declared incapable of
present and future comfort, excluded from the pale of the Bri-
tish Constitution and condemned of ignorance by the Archdea-
con of Bath !

And after all, may there not be many persons in the Church of
England, who, without knowing or suspecting it, believe as we be-
lieve? The positive words of the institution, the declaration of
the Article and Catechism, the repeated assertions of certain
churchmen of the Establishment, that the Church of England

Lei, 3.] Christian Reltylon. :2()1

believe a real presence, the solemn forms of the Liturgy, its re-
peated cautions and admonitions to the communicants, and its
solemn comminations against the unworthy receiver, declaring
to him in the words of St. Paul, that " he eats and drinks his
own damnation, not discerning the Lord's body ;" these and
many similar considerations, which constantly meet the ear and
the eye of the members of the Church of England, point too
clearly to the real Catholic doctrine to be easily understood in
any other sense. To convert all these positive declarations of
a real presence of Christ into mere figures of speech, or to un-
derstand how this Divine Being, who is essentially composed of
body, soul and divinity, can be present in the sacrament, and
yet this body, soul and divinity not be there, even in a sjjiritual
or sacramental manner, requires more acuteness than I must
own I possess, or than I suspect, is possessed by many members
of the Church of England, as sincere and not more gifted than
myself.

And yet it is melancholy to think that these very pei'sons,
actually believing the Catholic doctrine, though little suspect-
ing that they do, and supposing that doctrine to be the hideous
thing which the Established Clergy represent it, do, in order to
qualify themselves for seats in the Senate, or offices in the
State, or dignities in the Church, solemnly call God to witness
that they do not believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation,
and that they do believe the sacrifice of the mass, as now used in
the Church of Rome, to be superstitious and idolatrous !*

Should not considerations so awful induce those who are
liable to take these oaths to inform themselves well, before they
venture conditionally to abjure the protection of their Creator,
what the Catholic doctrine really is ; particularly when they
find that such extraordinary ignorance prevails on this subject,
even amongst the clergy, that two learned Archdeacons of the
Established Church, hearing a Catholic Bishop give a plain,
simple statement of the doctrine of his Church, as understood
and believed by the whole Catholic world, did not hesitate to
accuse that Bishop ot being ignorant of the doctrines of his re-

• The declaration against Popery by the 30 C. 2. st. 2. e. 1. "I, A, B. do
solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare,
that 1 do believe, that in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, there is not any
Transiibstantiution of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood
of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof, by any person whatsoever ;
and that the invocation, or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other Saint,
and the sacrifice of the Mass as they are now used in the Cimrch of Rome, are
superstitious and idolatrous." !! "W'liat an aweful oath to exact from the iguo-
rdvt, illiterate and unreflecting!

2 c

:>02 Defence of ths [Let. 3.

ligion, or of wishing " to explain them away for the purpose of
ensnaring his hearers." *

Yet both these learned and zealous Clergymen, before they
could fill their high stations, did solemnly take the oath against
Transuhstantiation ; the meaning of which they ought care-
fully to have explained to such of their flocks as were liable to
take these frightful tests, but which it now appears they did not
themselves understand !

I have noticed that you accuse the Catholics of idolatry, in
your present as well as former Charge. In the former you
rested your proofs wholly on the respect we pay to the saints
and their representations. You now rest them wholly on the
adoration we oay to Chi'ist in the sacrament. The most ad-
admirable quality of your present demonstration of this most
weighty charge, about which others have written volumes, is its
extreme conciseness. It is compressed into one half line. \-
You adduce a short quotation from the Council of Trent, stat-
ing that true Latria is due to the sacrament, and you add
"This is quite enough to prove the charge of idolatry to the
full." I hope not; for if our idolatry is so easily proved, the
Lord have mercy on us, it must be stupid indeed. I regret
that you did not read three lines farther in the Council of
Trent, before you closed the book and settled the point. I
think you might have settled it differently ; I trust you v/ould
have allowed us some chance of escape. In the words imme-
diately following those which you quote as directing divine
adoration to be given to the sacrament, the Council adds the
reason, namely, " because we believe Christ our Lord and God
to be really present in it, who is not less deserving of our ador-
ation, because he presents himself to us as our spiritual food."
Hence the canon of the Council founded upon the chapter you
quote, defines " that Christ the only hec/otten Son of God, is
to he adored in the sacrainent." It is, therefore, clear that
the object of our adoration is Jesus Christ himself. Indeed we
believe the sacrament to contain nothing else. But why are we
idolaters I Dr. Daubeny declares, that the Church of Eng-
land believes Christ to be really present as firmly as we do.
If so there can be no idolatry in adoring him. If you do not
adore him, I consider it certain that you do not believe him to
be present, and that all these positive assertions of his being
really present and bein^' ''verily and indeed taken and recei-

* Dr. Daubeny charges me with having ''introduced a new-fangled doc-
trine [for the invention of which I may justly claim the patent]," Protestant's
Companion, page 81. t Charge, page 12. in the note.

Let. 3.] Chrislian HeUgioii. 203

ved hy the faithful" are but so many "equivocations and men-
tal reservations" to make the people suppose that you believe
what you do not, and habituate them to the use of scripture
phrases stripped of their meaninjE^. Either then adore Christ in
the Euchai'ist, or at once candidly acknowledge that you do not
believe him to be present, and say honestly, with Bishop Hoad-
ley, that the sacrament after all is mere bread and wine.

But supposing" that Christ is not really present in the sacra-
ment, are v.e not then idolaters l Certainly not ; for whether
lie is there or not, still He and He alone is the subject to which
our adoration is directed. I grant that if any Catholic should
say, "it is my intention to adore that suhstance upon the altar,
ivhether it he Christ or not" and it happened not to be Christ,
he would be guilty of idolatry. But such an idea never enters
the mind of any Catholic. His intention is simply to adore
Christ.* He believes Christ to be present under the sacra-
mental species, and he adores him there. But should he hap-
pen not to be present, through the priest's forgetting to conse-
crate, or from any other cause, the only thing with which the
adorer could be charged would be a mistake as to the presence
of the object he adores, not as to the object itself. If the blind
man after receiving his sight, had by a mistake of persons, wor-
shipped St. Peter instead of Christ, would he have been guilty
of idolatry I

Perhaps you are not av/are how much more consistent than
yourselves many of your most eminent bishops and divines have
been, who considered the adoration of Christ in the Bucharest
as a necessary consequence of his presence. Perhaps you little
suspect that several of them have anticipated our defence against
your half-line demonstration. The celebrated Dr. Jeremy Tay-
lor, bishop of Down, thus defends us : " The object of their (the
Catholics') adoration in the sacrament is the only true and liv-
ing God, hypostatically united with his holy humanity, which
humanity they believe actually present under the veil of the sa-
crament ; and if they thought him not present they are so far
from worshipping the bread, that they profess it idolatry to do
so. This is a demonstration that the soul has nothing in it
that is idolatrical ; the will has nothing in it but what is a
great enemy to idolatry." Bishop Forbes goes still farther.

* " Quis Catholicovum, haec objecta adorationis sub speciebus somniavit ?
NuUussane: etpestifere somuiaret : n(ica.Aov^m\isaliquidsubsistens indefinite,
(juidquid illudsit, sub speiciebus, sed solum Christum credilum ibi esse." Re-
gulaFidei, sect. 13. u. l.

t Liberty of Prophecying, sect. 20.

204 Defence of the [Let.Z

"The sounder Protestants (says he) make no donht of
adoring Christ in the Eucharist ; for in receiving the Eucha-
rist he is to be adored with triie Latria." He adds, that " it
is a monstrous error of the more rigid Protestants, who deny
that Christ is to be adored with any thing more than an internal
and mental adoration, and not by any external act of worship."*
But I have an authority still in reserve, which I feel convinced
will induce you to withdraw your condemnation, if not cause you
to join us in our worship. Bishop Andrews informs us not only
that he himself worshipped with (St.) Ambrose the flesh of Christ
in the mysteries ;" but that Kinff James the First, that most
learned and most theological of all the heads of the Church of
England, ''declared that Christ is truly present, and is to he
truly adored iu the sacrament." t

I am curious to know what will be your next proof of our
idolatry.

I trust that the reader and yourself will now be satisfied,
that you formed a decision more hasty than either modest or
correct, when you asserted that my doctrine respecting a spiri-
tual presence was " in direct defiance of the Council of Trent."
You adduce, indeed, two passages to prove your assertion ; but
imfortunately, you mistranslate one and misinterpret the other.
You assert that the Council condemns those who hold that
Christ is present only in '• symbol, or in figure, or in spirt. ^'
The words of the Council are, in symbol, or in figure, or in
poiver, that is, in effects : " ut in signo, vel figura, aut virtute."
You say the Council curses those who say " that Jesus Christ
is received in the sacrament only spiritually, and not sacra-
mentally and really ;' but then it explains, in the same passage,
what it means by spiritually. It tells you, that by receiving
Christ spiritually , it means in the passage alluded to, receiving
him in desire ; or in other words, endeavouring to be united
with him hy faith and love, when it is not in our power to re-
ceive him in the sacrament.:}: Had you read the Council, you
could not have made these mixtakes, for I will not suppose
them to be wilful misrepresentations.

I wish I could make the same remark respecting a petty at-
tack you make upon the phraseology of this Council, where
you say, that in 1551 the Council of Trent "formerly anathe-
matized [in plain English cursed and devoted to perdition] those

* De Eucharist ia, lib 2. c. 2.
+ Answer to Bellarmin, c. 8. See on this subject Bishop Mihier's End of Re-
ligious Controversy, and an Essay towards a Proposal for Catholic Communion.
I See Council : Trident. Sess. xiii. c. 8.

Let. 3.] Christian ReTujion. 205

who held certain doctrines." I had ho]3ed that these little and
illiberal and uncanded artifices, to inspire the illiterate multi-
tude with a vulgar horror of the Catholic Church, had been
abandoned to field preachers and writers of rvligious tracts, I
am sorry to see them linger with even one dignitary of the Es-
tablishment. Can I then suppose you so ignorant of the forms
of spiritual censures, ancient and modern, as not to know or
condemn the meaning of the terms "uvx^iixot, Ur'sr, anathema sit i
Read, then, a lay writer of your own Church (Selden de Sy-
iiedriis, book 1st, chapter 8), and he will tell you that this form
of censure is more ancient than Christianity; and that " th^re
is no one who does not know that it was employed by the
Clu-istian Church in the primitive ages" (alas ! he little thought
how profoundly unknowing future Archdeacons could be) ; that
it is repeatedly employed by St. Paul himself; and that it is
nearly equivalent in meaning to excommunication, and conse-
quently to the corresponding termination of the Canons of
the Church of England. The Catholic Church says, " If any
one denies the real presence, or transubstantiation, let him be
anathema;^*' and the Church of England says, "Whosoever
shall affirm that any of the Thirty-nine Articles are in any part
superstitious or erroneous, let him be excommunicated, ipso
facto and not resorted, but only hy the Archhishop, after his
repentance and public revocation of such his wicked errors"^
I said above that the Catholic anathema was nearly equivalent
to the Protestant excommunication ; it is not so severe ; be-
cause, as Selden and every other writer on the subject will in-
form you, the term excommunication alone comprises all the
evils to the full implied by the term a7iathe?na. The ipso facto
of your excommunication, audi j^uhlic revocation of the ivicked
errors, and restoration only hy the Archhishop, are consider-
able aggravations, and render the Protestant excommunication
so much more severe than the Catholic anathema.

But the fact is, the Catholic form, whatever its import, was
borrowed by the Chui'ch from St. Paul, and is used in the same
manner, and with the same meaning, as the Apostle used it,
St. Paul said (Galat, c. i. v. 9), "if any man preach any other
gospel to you than that you have received let him he anathema;'
or, as the English translation has it, " let him he accursed,"

The Apostle passed this condemnation on certain reformers
of those days, who professed to give the Galatians a purer sys-
tem of faith than they had received from him. Hence when-

* Council of Trent, session 13, canons 1 and 2
t Constitution and Canons Ecclesiastical, canon 5.

206 Defence of the [Let. 3.

ever any similar reformers have risen up in subsequent ages,
and introduced among the faithful similar improvements on the
received helief, the Catholic Church has always applied to them
the anathema of St. Paul. Whether the Apostle meant to
" cur'se and devote to perdition'' ihe&e teachers of new doc-
trines, I will not presume to decide : I leave him and you to
settle this point between you. If he did, it shews very clearly
that he considered the teaching of new doctrines a most grie-
vous crime, and justifies the Church in carefully adopting,
thi-ough every age, the means he proposed for suppressing the
evil. But if St. Paul did not mean to " curse and devote to
perdition' the Galatian reformers, neither did the Council of
Trent mean to "curse and devote to perdition" the reformers
of these days.

But the object of this little attack is something more than at
first meets the eye. You evidently wish to persuade the peo-
ple, and perhaps you really think, that Catholics hate and wish
evil to those who are not of their communion, and that they
would, if they were able, persecute all Prostestants in this
world, and devote them to perdition in the next." It is thus
the established Clergy in former days, and tlie high churchmen
and field preachers of these, continue to slander the great body
of Christian believers. May God forgive you, if there is malice
at your heart, or enlighten your mind, if your conduct proceed
from pure ignorance. Heaven forbid that I should condemn
you, or prescribe limits to human blindness, or forestall the
judgments of God on any human creature.

But can you persuade yourself that the uncharitable judg-
ments you form of so many hundred millions of your fellow
Christians could be justifiable, even if confined within the se-
crets of your own breast? In publishing these judgments to
the world, and endeavouring to instil into other hearts the
deadly aversion that rankles in your own, have you no fears that
you may be still more guilty? We live in an enlightened age
— all, except Papists, are much wiser than their forefathers —
the bounderies of science are become almost unlimited — scarcely
are the mysteries and secrets of the third heaven placed beyond,
our reach. In such an age, cannot a learned Archdeacon, who
thinks it his duty to speak of Catholic doctrines, by any means
discover what those doctrines are I The public libraries are
full of our books of instruction, our clergy are known and public
characters, our places of worship are open to all the world, and
public explanations of our doctrines are given weekly to all who
choose to hear them. You are met daily in the streets by Ca-

Let. 3.] Chrislian Reli()ion. 207

tbolics of every rank and condition, from tlie Earl Marshal of
England to the ra^^ged charity schoolboy, any one of whom, if
asked, would satify you that we do not hold the strange and
barbarous opinions with which you charge us; anyone of whom
would tell you, that to love every human being as himself,
whatever his religion