OKlor<l

f'

It

1 34-l

OXFORD OR ROME?

OXFORD OR ROME?

A LETTER

THE REV. J. H NEWMAN,

ON No. 90.

"TRACTS FOR THE TIMES."

BY AN ENGLISH CATHOLIC.

" Under whicli King, Bezonian? Speak, or die ! " — Shakspeare.

LONDON:
JAMES EIDGWAY, 169, PICCADILLY.
1841.

LONDON;
PRINTED BY BLATCH AND LAMPERT, GROVE PLACE, BROMPTON

n

A LETTER,
Sfc.

Reverend Sir,
You now stand before the world as the ac
knowledged author of the 90th number of the " Tracts
for the Times." I therefore make no apology for ad
dressing personally to you a few observations, which
have been suggested to me by the perusal of that most
remarkable, and allow me to add, startling document.
In thus venturing to enter the lists with you, in the
arena of polemical discussion, I am well aware that I
run no small risk of being charged with presumption.
You are the avowed and revered leader of a powerful
and daily increasing body, either in or out of the
church ; — you are practised in controversy, skilled in
casuistical niceties, and deeply read in all the most re
condite lore of ecclesiastical history and tradition.

Your talents no man ventures to dispute ; your private
worth is fully, though reluctantly, acknowledged by the
fiercest of your opponents; and your position in the
University of Oxford entitles you alike to the worldly
observance which attends on exalted station, and to the
deference usually paid to high spiritual authority. I, on
the other hand, am but a plain, obscure, and unlearned
layman, — an humble adherent to the ancient faith of
Christendom ; and, as a necessary consequence, ex
posed to every battery of religious and political preju
dice, which the rancour and madness of the times direct
with unwearied perseverance, against the professors of
the Catholic religion.
These, Sir, are fearful odds in your favour; nor
should I be rash enough to encounter them in a cause
less righteous, or on points depending for their deci
sion on the weight of our respective authorities. But,
Sir, without here repeating the beautiful and well-
known simile employed by Bacon, to illustrate the re
lative powers of assertion and argument, it is enough
to saythat, as an individual of a class whom you and
yours systematically malign and misrepresent,! am fully
justified in repelling your calumnious attacks, and ex
posing your misrepresentation ; and fortunately for the
interests of truth and justice, yourov\'ii pamphlet, while
it conveys, or more often perhaps insinuates, the un
true charge, supplies, in many instances, the direct
means of triumphant refutation.
I need hardly remind you, Sir, that you have fallen
under a \eiy general and \'ehement suspicion of lean-

ing towards that particular mode of faith which your
low church assailants call " Popery," which your own
disciples insultingly term "Romanism," which the
laws and legislature of your country are content to de
signate as " the Roman Catholic," but which we, who
openly profess it, assert to be the Catholic religion. Un
doubtedly, Sir, as far as these imputed opinions, or
tendencies of opinion, may be supposed to affect your
orthodoxy as a clergyman of the Established Church,
or your fitness to administer her rites and sacraments,
I should have no concern with the matter, and might
fairly leave you to the indulgent forbearance of your
own ecclesiastical superiors. That you should deem it
consistent with your station in the Church of England
to sanction by your writings a belief in some of the
most unpopular doctrines of the Catholic Church, is no
doubt a subject of some surprise to the members of our
communion. But however we might wonder, we, at
least, should have no right to reproach you ; nor could
your equivocal position afford us any ground of com
plaint, had the question rested here. But, Sir, we have
a right to complain, and we do complain, that in order
to screen yourself in the adoption of our tenets, from
the obloquy and ruin that your profession of them, as
ours, would undoubtedly entail upon you, you delibe
rately distort and misrepresent our faith and practice; —
that in order to avert the impending storm of Protes
tant ire from your own devoted head, you erect a coun
terfeit image of " Romanism," to serve as an ecclesias
tical lightning-conductor, and thus secure to yourself
b2

the undisturbed enjoyment of that very orthodoxy,
which, in us, you would gladly see reprobated, and per
haps punished as heresy or dissent.
This, Sir, is, I admit, strong language, and conveys,
unquestionably, more of compliment to your ingenuity
than to your candour. But when you refer to your
own pages in Tract No. 90, and there see that you have
unhesitatingly and repeatedly charged on the Roman
Catholic Church at the present day, doctrines and
practices with regard to relics, images, invocations of
saints, SfC. which are expressly disavowed, repudiated
and condemned by those very decrees of the Council of
Trent, which you yourself cite, it is impossible to con
tend that the accusation I bring against you is unjust
or unfounded. You are not, you cannot be ignorant
that the decrees of the Counil of Trent, in the matters
referred to, are universally received in the Roman Ca
tholic Church, as the authoritative enunciation of the
orthodox belief and practice. You know well, and I defy
you to deny it, that any Roman Catholic, or person pro
fessing himself a Roman Catholic, who pays to images
or relics, &c., any higher degree of veneration than
such as is sanctioned by the decrees of that council, is
ipso facto, guilty of a departure from the Roman Ca
tholic faith, and, as such, is liable to the highest eccle
siastical censures. You know perfectly well that the
decrees of the Council of Trent, are the very measure
or standard of faith with us, on all points of dispute
between the Catholic and Reformed churches ; and that
you cannot receive the canons of that council, in mat-

ters of faith, without subscribing to every tenet whicli
the Roman Catholic holds to be essential to orthodoxy.
It is in vain, therefore, that you strive, cautiously and
warily, indeed, but still in a manner sufficiently intel
ligible, to prove that there is nothing in the Thirty -nine
articles, really inconsistent with the Council of Trent;
but that " Romanism," or " Romish " tenets, are alone
condemned by those articles. This is a contradiction in
terms. If you can only establish the fact that the accept
ance of the decrees of Trent is consistent with a belief in
the Thirty -nine articles, there is not a Roman Catholic in
England, Ireland, or Scotland, from his Grace of Nor
folk down to your humble correspondent, who may not
subscribe these articles with a safe and easy conscience!
If it be not the Roman Catholic, but merely the
" Romish " doctrines which are abjured in the articles,
and if by " Romish errors," we are to understand the
very errors which the Roman Catholic Church has her
self condemned, cadit qucestio, between the two churches,
and there is no reason why we should not be all " Ca
tholics " together in good earnest.
But it is right that I should enter into particulars;
and for this purpose I will take a cursory view of the
different sections of your tract, as they occur seriatim.
I have nothing to say against your interpretation of
articles VI. and XX. They are, as cited by you,
very felicitous illustrations of that character of con
troversial elasticity, which, according to your hypo
thesis (p. 81 of Tract No. 90, 2nd ed.) the framers of

the articles were desirous of impressing on these
formularies of their faith. As all denominations of
Christians affect to prove their religion from Scripture,
and would indignantly repel the charge of inculcating
anything contrary thereto, these imposing generali
ties of doctrine might probably be adjusted to fit
the views of any given communion. Your reasoning
with regard to the authority of the Church in the in
terpretation of Scripture (pp. 7, 8, et seq.) is per
fectly fair, and unassailable by those who prate about
the visionary " right of private judgment." No such
right ever did or ever could exist in the Church of
England, or any other religious communion inculcating
particular modes of belief. If you are a member of
any Church, you must, ex vi termini, receive every
doctrine which she lays down as essential to an admis
sion into her pale. If, in the exercise of your "private
judgment" on the matters which she proposes for your
acceptance as articles of faith, you are obliged to differ
from her, you have ceased, ipso facto, to be of her
communion. This is equally true of Catholic, Protes
tant, Presbyterian, Quaker, and Socinian. It is a self-
evident proposition ; and those who dispute it might
as well contend that parallel lines can cross each other,
or that the whole is not equal to the parts. The
opposite doctrine, however, absurd as it is, finds many
strenuous supporters, abounding in zeal, but needy
in logic, among that class of religionists whose Pro
testantism consists merely in rejecting what they call
" Popery "—the advocates, as it were, of " exclusive

damnation," who seem to think that every ecclesiastical
road which leads from Rome must, ex necessitate,
lead to Heaven.
But I am well aware that these absurdities could
never be justly charged on the orthodox members of
the Church of England ; and I freely acknowledge
that you are justified in the assertion, that " in the
sense in which it is commonly understood at this day.
Scripture is not, on Anglican principles, the rule of
faith." (p. 11.)
I now come to your remarks on the 2nd article,
which relates to "justification by faith alone." (p. 12.)
Your explanation of this is most skilful, and exhibits
a degree of ingenuity which would have done honour
to the Sorbonne or the Oratoire in the palmiest and
most casuistical days of those renowned congregations.
I shall content myself, however, with observing, that
if such be the orthodox interpretation of the 2nd
Article, so much the better ! Were I a member of the
Church of England, the suggestion would be a great
relief to my mind, by saving me from the difficulties
of the rigid Calvinistic doctrine which the Article cer
tainly seems to inculcate. I am perfectly convinced,
however, that no intelligible difference has really ever
existed between the practical belief of the Church of
England and the Catholics on this point.
The remarks on Articles XII and XIII (p. 14) may
be dismissed without comment. What I have said in
reference to Section 2, applies in great measure to this
point.

In Sections 4 and 5 (pp. 17, 21) you treat of the
" visible Church," (art. 19.) and of " general councils,"
(Art. 21.) These articles certainly seem drawn up on
the j udicious India-rubber system above adverted to ;
and I am not prepared to say that they may not admit
of your explanation. No doubt, " the visible Church
of Christ" is " a congregation of faithful men, in the
which the pure word of God is preached and the sacra
ments be duly administered." What is "the pure word
of God," and what "the due administration" of the
sacraments, are distinct enquiries. So, the assertion
that general councils " may err and have erred in things
pertaining to God," may be reconciled with their
asserted infallibility in matters of faith, by the expla
nation that they have made, from time to time, injudi
cious regulations on points of ecclesiastical discipline,
which, in a sense, are certainly " things pertaining to
God." I am happy to collect, from the tenor of
your observations, although you do not assert it in
direct terms, that you agree with me in thinking that a
general council, when deciding authoritatively on spe
culative points of religious belief, never can err.
" General councils," you say (p. 21) "may err 
unless in any case it is promised as a matter of express
supernatural privilege, that they shall not err — a case
which is beyond the scope of this Article, or, at any
rate, beside its determination. Such a promise, how
ever, does exist in cases where general councils are not
only gathered together according to the commandment
and will of princes, but in the name of Christ, accord-

ing to our Lord's promise  While councils are a
thing of earth, their infallibility of course is not gua
ranteed ; when they are a thing of Heaven, their deli
berations are over-ruled, and their decrees authoritative.
In such cases, they are Catholic councils." p. 21.
Why, Sir, all this is, as far as it goes, as Catholic as
the Pope. It is to be regretted, however, that you
have not thought it expedient to determine what are
the " conditions which fulfil the notion of a gathering
in the name of Christ." (p. 22.) The six earliest
councils, it seems, are entitled to this distinction, even
according to the Homilies, (p. 21.) There is thus no
doubt whatever about Nice or Chalcedon. But it
would be a great satisfaction if you would favour us
with your private opinion concerning Trent. That
you have some respect for its deliberations, is pretty
evident from the fact of your quoting its decrees in
favour of your own views, and in support of your own
statements. If it erred in matters of faith, what, ac
cording to your views, was the defect of constitution
which rendered it liable to error ? And if it did not
err, why do you hesitate to avow your belief in its
catholicity ?
I now come. Sir, to your 6th section, (p. 33), that
portion of your tract which contains the most novel
and ingenious attempts at evading the obvious meaning
of words, and excuse me if I add, the most palpable
departure from candour and fair argument, in dealing
with the doctrines of your Catholic brethren. The
text is Art. 22. "The Romish doctrine concerning

10
purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration, as
well of images as of relics, and also invocation of
saints, is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded
upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant
to the word of God."
Now, Sir, I would fearlessly put it to the common
sense of any reasonable man, accustomed to judge of
the meaning of a writer by the natural import of the
language in which his sentiments are conveyed, whe
ther the plain and obvious signification of this article
be not that " purgatory, pardons, worshipping of
images, &C.5 and invocations of saints," which, accord
ing to the framer, are " Romish doctrines," are vain
inventions, &c. ? If the framers of this article had
meant, according to your interpretation, to draw a dis
tinction between the Romish and the Catholic doctrine
concerning these several matters, by representing the
former as heretical and the latter as orthodox, implying
that these points of faith or practice were to be as
sented to and followed in the sense and degree sanc
tioned by the early Church, but not in the mode or
spirit recognized or displayed in the Church of Rome,
— if they were cautiously abstaining from a condem
nation of doctrines such as the Council of Trent has since
clearly defined, and directing their censures against the
heterodox abuse of those doctrines, amounting to absolute
idolatry, which you uncharitably and audaciously per
sist in charging upon us, in the teeth of those very decrees
whose infallibility we acknowledge and boldly proclaim,
— if, I say, this had been the object of the divines who

11
framed the 22nd article, would they, think you, have
contented themselves with stigmatizing such practices
as " fond," and rather (than otherwise !) repugnant to
the word of God? Would they have hesitated to
characterize as downright idolatry " all maintenance of
those idolatrous honours which," (according to your
mild and charitable expression,) " have been and are
paid them so commonly throughout the church of
Rome, with the superstitions, profanities, and impuri
ties (!) consequent thereupon." (p. 36.) Would they
have merely treated as " rather repugnant to the word
of God " the maintenance of addresses to the saints,
which entrench upon the " incommunicable honor due
to God alone," such as you assert to be actually taught
in the church of Rome ?
Assuredly, Sir, these zealous reformers would have
thought it their duty to draw the distinction, if they
had admitted its existence; but their object was to
involve in one sweeping condemnation the use and the
abuse of the several practices described. These they
undoubtedly mis-stated and overcharged, as might be
expected from the spirit and temper of the times ; but,
in this instance, although probably somewhat inferior
in faith to their official successors in modern Oxford,
whose belief has a good deal outgrown their cassocks,
the framers of the 22nd article have perhaps the ad
vantage on the score of charity.
But I will just suppose. Sir, as a further illustration
of what I have asserted with respect to the meaning of
the article, that the circumstances of the church had

12
rendered it necessary or expedient to disclaim the me
tempsychosis, and that, consequently, a 40th article had
been added, to the following effect, viz. : —
" The Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of
souls is a vain thing, and contrary to Scripture."
Now suppose, Sir, that after a lapse of more than
two hundred years, during which this has been received
by the Church as the authoritative condemnation of the
fanciful belief in question, some zealous clergyman
and ingenious casuist, having been appointed to an
Indian chaplaincy, repairs to Bengal, and in the inter
vals of his pastoral functions, endeavours to make
himself acquainted with the peculiar tenets of Brah-
minism. He traces to its source and authorities the
pious repugnance to animal food which is, we are told,
always exhibited by every orthodox Brahmin ; — and
as there is nothing very decisive in Scripture on the
subject of the immediate state of the soul after death,
he begins to think that the Indian doctrine may possi
bly be true. On his return to England, he hints his
belief, or at least his doubts, to some of his friends.
They, naturally enough, refer him to " article 40,"
which they conceive, has settled the point. What is
his reply ? " My good friends, what the Church here
condemns is not the doctrine of the transmigration of
souls, simpliciter, — but the Pythagorean doctrine of the
transmigration of souls. Non constat that the framers
of article 40, by particularizing the peculiar heresy of
Pythagoras, may not have meant to imply a belief in
the system adopted by Brahma. Why condemn Py-

13
thagoras alone, if you mean at the same time to cen
sure every other version of themetempsychosis .^^ Ex-
pressio unius est exclusio allerius."
I suspect, Sir, that in the case I have put, such
reasoning would not be looked upon as very satis
factory by the ecclesiastical superiors of the theorist
whom I have imagined. But the argument is iden
tical, in terms, with that to which you resort on the
present occasion.
But you say that "by the Romish doctrine is not
meant the Tridentine statement, because this article
was drawn up before the decree of the Council of
Trent; what is opposed is the received doctrine of the
day, and unhappily of this day too, &c." (p. 24.) How
touching is this lament over an assumed and supposi
titious fact ! the belief in which, on the part of your
protestant readers, may be useful in averting their
censures from you personally, to those whose real doc
trine on this point is, you are well aware, identical
with that which you are defending. I now ask you.
Sir, is it, or is it not the fact, that the decrees of the
Council of Trent in matters of faith are received uni
versally as the truth throughout the Roman Catholic
Church ? You dare not gainsay it. I ask you again,
whether the decree which you have cited at p. 24 is
not a decree concerning a matter of faith ? " Due
honor and veneration is to be paid to them, (images),
not that we believe that any divinity or virtue is in
them, for which they should be worshipped ; or that we
should ask anything of them ; or that trust should be

14
reposed in images, as formerly was done by the Gentiles,
which used to place their hopes in idols." Can it be
denied that this is a decree explaining and defining
the orthodox faith on this point ? Assuredly not. Is
not this therefore one of those doctrines which are
universally received by us ? And is it not in direct
contradiction to the doctrine which you are, for your
own purposes, endeavouring to fasten upon us ? You
cannot deny that the decree in question is one which
every Roman Catholic is bound to receive under pain
of spiritual rebellion and heterodoxy. How then, I ask
you solemnly — I adjure you to say, as you shall
answer before God — how can you reconcile it to your
sense of duty as a Christian, to your conscience as an
honest man, to assert that the condemned doctrine is
the received doctrine of this day in the Roman Catholic
Church ?
You will tell me, I presume, that you have yourself
seen, or have conversed with persons who have seen,
the peasantry of Italy or Spain prostrating themselves
before the image of the Virgin, or the Saints, &c. Now,
Sir, giving you the full benefit of such demonstrations,
and admitting, (which I assuredly only do for the sake
of the argument), that the prayers offered up in
presence of, and not to, those images, are such as are
inconsistent with the doctrine laid down by the Coun
cil of Trent — what would this prove? Simply that
these misguided people were bad Roman Catholics,
departing in the most flagrant manner, though, no
doubt, unwittingly, from that faith which they are

15
bound to hold. The matter would amount to no more
than this, viz. that there are in "Popish" Italy or
Spain many professing Roman Catholics, who, from
the want of proper orthodox instruction, believe doc
trines unsanctioned and condemned by their Church.
And this I think may indeed be highly probable;
especially when I see that in Protestant England, and
in the heart of orthodox Oxford, there are so many
professing Church of England men, who maintain
doctrines apparently so inconsistent with the articles
which they have subscribed.
Equally unfair and libellous is your representation
of our doctrine concerning purgatory. You would
fain lead your readers to suppose that, according to
our notions, it was a place where those " who had lived
and died in the wrath of God, " might gain pardon
through the prayers of the Church, (p. 26.) That such
is not our belief, I need not inform you, because your
allusion to the decree of the Council of Trent on the
subject, clearly proves that you know the contrary to be
the fact. " On the other hand," you say, (p. 26.), "the
Council of Trent, and Augustin and Cyprian, so far
as they express or imply any opinion approximating
to that of the Council, hold purgatory to be a place
for believers, not unbelievers, not where men who have
lived and died in God's wrath, may gain pardon, but
where those who have already been pardoned in this
life, m.ay be cleansed and purified for beholding the
face of God."
That this is the orthodox belief of the Roman

16
Catholic Church, is beyond dispute. The state of
Purgatory, whatever it may be, and perhaps the Church
has not very distinctly defined it — has never, I will
fearlessly assert, been represented by any Catholic
writer, as the condition of those, who, dying in unre
pented mortal sin, are supposed to have incurred a sen"
tence of eternal reprobation ; and assuredly, Sir, you
are the first antagonist of the Catholics, who has ever
ventured to charge them with a disbelief in the eternity
of those torments to which the " unrighteous Christian"
may unhappily be condemned. " Let it be consi
dered then," you say, "whether, on the whole, the
Romish doctrine of purgatory, which the article con
demns, and which was generally believed in the Roman
Church three centuries ago, as well as now, viewed in
its essence, be not the doctrine that the punishment of
unrighteous Christians, is temporary, not eternal." —
(p. 28.)
It is in vain. Sir, that you cite passages from Jeremy
Taylor, or lucubrations from the pen of an ingenious
and imaginative gentleman, hitherto unknown to
Fame, of the name of Johnson, to prove that knavish
impostors, or stupid fanatics, have from time to time
degraded the sanctity of their Religion, and defaced the
purity of its Creed, by unseemly fables and legendary
absurdities, invented with a view of working on the
minds and exciting the superstitious terrors of the
vulgar. Such flights of fancy, in religious matters,
are, no doubt, as injurious in point of moral effect, as
they are detestable in point of taste and decorum ; but

17
until you can cite some binding ecclesiastical authority
which forces us to receive the nightmare rhapsodies of
Mr. Johnson, as the orthodox faith of the Church, — it
would be quite as much to the purpose, to extract long
passages from the " Purgatorio" of Dante, and hold
them up to the world, as the " received doctrine" of
the Church in the present day !
The next point which you discuss. Sir, or rather
which you strive to elucidate by long extracts from
Bishop Burnet and Jeremy Taylor, is the subject of
indulgences, or as the article calls them, " pardons," a
favorite theme of vituperation and misrepresentation
with the opponents of the Catholic Religion. That
gross and scandalous abuses, connected with this part
of our system, had crept into the practice of the
Church, and been suffered to disgrace its discipline,
before the Reformation, nobody pretends to deny ; —
that an indulgence ever was, as you would have it be
lieved, — a remission of the guilt of past — or a licence
for the commission oi future sin, is utterly and fla
grantly untrue ! — It is nothing more than the remission
of the temporal punishment, which, according to the
pmctice and belief of the primitive Church, is sup
posed to remain still due to sin, after its guilt, and the
'sentence of eternal punishment incurred thereby, have
already been remitted in the sacrament of penance.
This punishment was, as correctly stated by Burnet, in
the passage which you cite, (p. 28,) inflicted by the
Church in early ages, in the shape of public penances
of considerable severity, and of longer or shorter
c

18
duration. An indulgence dispenses with the perform
ance of this canonical penance, and remits the punish
ment which it would otherwise have inflicted, or for
which it was considered an equivalent. But, — and
here I shall take the liberty of quoting the words of
Dr. Wiseman, — a higher" authority with regard to our
faith and practice, than either Dr. Burnet or Jeremy
Taylor :—
" The Church always makes and has made confes
sion and communion, and consequent exemption from
the guilt of sin, an indispensable condition for receiving
an indulgence ;" (Lectures, vol. ii. p. 83 ;) and every
Catholic knows that " without a penitent confession of
his sins, and the worthy participation of the blessed
Eucharist, no indulgence is a,ny thing worth." — (Ibid.
p. 90.)
I am not now entering into the defence of the doc
trine of indulgences, with the merits of which we have
here nothing to do. I am merely stating what an in
dulgence is ; and I have stated enough to show that
it is in perfect accordance with the practice which
Bishop Burnet cites as that of the primitive Church,
and that nothing can be more grossly incorrect than
the view which the Tract, on his notable authority,
would give of the subject.
So, also, in speaking of the invocation of Saints,
you charge the Roman Catholic Church with " actu
ally teaching" its disciples to address the Saints in a
manner which " entrenches upon the incommunicable
honour due to God alone, " at the same time that you

19
cite a decree of the Council of Trent, clearly pointing
out and marking the wide distinction between th(
worship which the Church pays to Almighty God
and the honour and observance which that Council
as explaining and fixing the doctrine of the Church
on this point, authorizes us to offer to the Saints. —
(p. 41.)
I repeat again, that it is a contradiction in terms to say
that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, or can teach
any doctrine inconsistent with the decrees of Trent in
such matters ; and the assertion, that on some points
they are occasionally forgotten or disregarded, goes to
prove no more than that there are Roman Catholics, as
there are Protestants, or members of the Church ol
England, both priests and laymen, ignorant of much
that they ought to know, and oblivious of many things
which they ought to remember.
Rely upon it. Sir, there is no use in endeavouring
to conceal, either from yourself or others, the undoubted
fact that from the moment when you admit the doc
trines and authority of the Council of Trent, you are.
in belief, as complete a Roman Catholic as the Arch
bishop of Paris, or Doctor Murray himself, and, as fai
as faith is concerned, satisfy every term of the definition
with most philosophical and logical nicety.
As to the practice of invoking the Saints, the mosi
common form of address to the Blessed Virgin, is, as
you are aware, the " Ave," or " Hail Mary," in which
we first use the words of salutation employed by the
Angel Gabriel, in announcing her glorious destiny to

20
the future mother of our Lord, — followed by the bless
ing addressed to her by St. Elizabeth, — and finally
entreat her to " pray for us sinners now, and at the
hour of death." This is unquestionably the text, or
if I may be allowed the expression, the key-note of all
the homage paid in our Church to the blessed Virgin.
I am aware that in some anthems or formularies of
very remote antiquity, still occasionally in use in the
Church service, in which Mary is apostrophized, ex
pressions occur here and there, which in their garbled
state (as served up by Bishop Andrews, in the passage
cited, p. 41), and without the context, may seem in some
degree to require the benefit of Bellarmine's explana
tion, (cited by you at p. 42,) vi4iich is satisfactory as
to the sense in which such language is used, although
certainly not as to the expediency of employing it.
These expressions are indeed, "few and far between,"
and have no doubt been suffered to remain for cen
turies unnoticed in our liturgy, because it never oc
curred to any person who used them, that they could
be taken in any sense inconsistent with the real doc
trine of the Church, or be supposed to " entrench on
the incommunicable honour due to God alone ;" a
fact of which any candid person who reads the entire
passages in which they occur, may easily persuade
himself. It seems, however, that the same species of invoca
tion which " entrenches on the incommunicable honour
clue to God alone," when employed by a Roman
Catholic, is not " fond," but perfectly orthodox, when

21
it proceeds from a Bishop of the Church of England.
Thus speaks Bishop Ken, as quoted by you with
evident approbation, (p. 37.)
" O may my guardian while I sleep.
Close to my bed his vigils keep !
His love angelical instil,
Stop all the avenues of ill." &c,
Alas, Sir —
" Quam temerfe in nosmet legem sancimus iniquam!"
When did the enthusiastic or hyperbolical lan
guage of pious veneration ever suggest to a Roman
Catholic, addressing the Blessed Virgin, language more
closely "entrenching on the incommunicable honour
due to God alone," than that in which the Right Reve
rend and orthodox prelate applies for the assistance of
his guardian angel ! What ! can any created being,
by supernatural power, instil " his love angelical" into
the human mind ? Does it belong even to an angel,
ex mero motu, to " stop all the avenues of ill ;" and are
we allowed to pray that he may do this, when we
may apply directly to Almighty God for protection ?
Surely the Bishop's language is open to this species of
animadversion. What then ? — Do I mean to accuse
him of seriously believing that any blessing could be
bestowed, or danger averted by the Angel, irrespect
ively of the power and will of the Almighty ? God
forbid that I should do so foul a wrong to one whom

22
I doubt not to have been a pious and exemplary
Christian ! — But the liberal interpretation which I
freely concede to his Lordship's questionable phrase
ology, I claim, in common candour and honesty, for
the venerable authors of much pious but injudicious
doggrel, with which the psalmody of the early Church
has undoubtedly been encumbered. To quote once
more the words of a heathen poet, from whom we have
received some lessons of good sense and mutual for
bearance not unworthy of the attention and imitation,
even of Christian controversialists : —
" Scimus, et haac veniam petimusque damijsque vicissim."
Before I leave this branch of the subject. Sir, let me
remind you, that the greater part of that beautiful and
impressive portion of your Church service, called the
" Litany" is verbatim the Catholic " Litany of the
Saints," miniis the Saints ; and if the Protestant reader
of these pages will only supply between the words
"Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy upon ?/,«.'", and
the words, " Be merciful unto us, spare us, oh Lord .'"
The names of some seventy or eighty saints or com
panies of men or women by our Church reputed holy,
with just so many repetitions of the words "Pray for
us !" he will have a perfectly correct idea of the real
nature of the " worship" we offer to the saints.
Your next section. Sir, (7, p. 43,) relates to the
Sacraments. Our Church says that a Sacrament is
" an outward sign of inward grace ;" and that ther

23
are seven of them. You are of opinion that there
may be seven, and that, at all events, the 25th article
only meant to deny that "Confirmation, Penance,
Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are Sacra
ments in the sense in which Baptism and the Lord's
Supper, are Sacraments," that is, " Sacraments of the
Gospel — Sacraments with an outward sign, ordained of
God." — (p. 43.) The article asserts that the five rites
in question are " such as have grown partly of the cor
rupt following of the Apostles," &c. There is, how
ever, according to your notion, nothing in the article
absolutely negative of the fact, that they are, or may
be Sa,craments, and, consequently, " outward signs of
inward grace ;" a definition in which both Churches
concur. I shall only observe, with regard to this, th^t
" an outward sign of inward grace," springing from
" the corrupt following of the Apostles," is a novelty,
if not an anomaly, in any religious dispensation.
We now. Sir, arrive at "Transubstantiation," sect. 8.
(p. 47.) And here I certainly cannot follow you
through the abstruse metaphysical reasoning by which
you endeavour to reconcile your avowed belief in the
" Real Presence," with the emphatic denial of the
doctrine of Transubstantiation contained in the 28th
Article. I could have wished, however, that you had
cited the definition given by the Council of Trent, as
the authorized doctrine of the Catholic Church, instead
of favouring us, on the authority of Jeremy Taylor,
with the opinions of Alanus or Bellarmine on this
matter. The doctrine of the Catholic Church unques
tionably asserts an entire change of the substance of the

24
bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood
of our Lord. This is what we believe ; but we are
certainly not called upon to enter into such irreverent
minuti<B, or subtle details in assertion of our belief, as
those into which the polemical zeal of the two last
named theologians appears to have led them. The
discussions about figure, extension, &c., in treating of
the mode in which this ineffable and divine mystery,
as we consider it, is effected, are as useless as they are
unedifying ; nor are we required to follow them through
their various intricacies. The Church is not bound by
the individual interpretation of Alanus or Bellarmine ;
although, if their doctrines do not contradict her autho
ritative decrees, they may, very naturally, have passed
uncensured. It is not for me to pronounce on their
orthodoxy; but I leave it to yourself to decide how far
they are or are not consistent with the following pas
sages from the hymn sung by our Church, on Corpus
Christi day, in honour of the blessed Sacrament, and
which must obviously be held to contain a perfectly
correct account of the orthodox belief concerning it :
" A Sermente non concisus,
Non confractus, non divisus.
Integer accipitur.
******Fracto demum sacramento,
Ne vacilles, sed memento,
Tantum esse sub fragmento
Quantum toto tegitur.
Nulla rei fit scissura ;
Signi tantum fit fractura.
Qua nee status, nee statura
Signati minuitur \"

25
It seems, however, that you think the Article does
not deny " every kind of change ;" from which I think
I am fairly led to imply, that you believe some change
does take place in the sacred elements by the effect of
the words of consecration. At p. 55, you say : " The
body and blood of Christ may be really, literally pre
sent in the holy Eucharist, yet not having become
present by local passage, may still literally and really
be on God's right hand." Again, p. 56 : " Now this is
what the Catholic Church seems to hold concerning
our Lord's presence in the Sacrament, that He then
personally and bodily is with us in the way an object is
which we call present. How he is so, we know not,"
&c. And at p. 58, we have these words : " Let them
but believe and act on the truth, that the consecrated
bread is Christ's body, as He says."
Now, Sir, I shall only remark, that if the words of
consecration effect a change in the bread and wine, — if
Christ is personally and bodily with us " in the Sacra
ment of the altar," in the way an object is which we
call present, — and if the consecrated bread be Christ's
body, — all this implies a mystery so nearly identical
with the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, that
it requires metaphysical perceptions of a very acute
character, to discover the boundary line which sepa
rates the two modes of faith from each other.
Your next section, p. 59, relates to "Masses," as
mentioned in Article 31. And you are of opinion
that, by the Masses, which that Article treats as " blas
phemous fables and dangerous deceits," it was not meant

26
" to condemn the creed of the Roman Church," but
certain errors or abuses which then existed, or were
supposed to exist, therein. We do certainly hold, in
your words, that the Mass is a commemorative offering
for the quick and the dead, far the remission of sins,
(p. 63.) We also undoubtedly maintain, with the
Council of Trent, " that the fruits of the bloody sacri
fice are through this most abundantly obtained, so far
is the latter from detracting, in any way, from the for
mer," (ibid.) Nor is it assuredly, according to us,
" independent of tire Sacrifice on the Cross," of which
it is a perpetual and daily recurring memorial, as our
service abundantly demonstrates. If this doctrine be
indeed consistent with the 31st Article, I am well
pleased that it should be so ; but I own that I should
never have discovered the accordance by my own un
assisted powers of reasoning.
With regard to the 32nd Article, on the marriage of
the clergy, I freely concede to you that " there is no.
subject for controversy in the words." (p. 64.) The
celibacy of the clergy is strictly a point of discipline,
which is not even uniform throughout the Catholic
Church. Married men are admitted to holy orders in
the Greek or Armenian section of the Church. I am
not here speaking of what is commonly called the
Greek Church, viz. the religion of Russia, and, I be
lieve, of most of the Christian inhabitants of Greece and
Turkey in Europe; but of that large portion of the
Catholic Church which follows the Armenian ritual,
but is still considered and treated as orthodox in point

27
of faith by the see of Rome, with which it is in com
munion, and whose ecclesiastical supremacy it fully
recognizes. The celibacy of the clergy, therefore, although at
present enforced, as a matter of discipline, in that
branch of the Catholic Church which follows the
Roman ritual, is no integral part of our system, and,
whatever may have been said or written on the subject,
constitutes no vital point of controversy between the
Church of England and the Catholics.
We now come, Sir, to the 35th Article, relating to
the 2nd book of Homilies, which it asserts to contain
"a good and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for
these times," p. 66. The last expression is certainly
remarkable ; for if the doctrine be true, one does not
very well see why it is more necessary at one time
than at another. That doctrine which teaches the
Christian faith, must be necessary at all times; and the
doctrine which is contrary thereto, cannot be necessary
at any time. My present business, however, is not
with the Articles, but their commentator, and here I
have but little to say.
I do not certainly quarrel with you for refusing to
believe, on the authority of the second book of Ho
milies, that the Pope is Antichrist ; but I cannot help
wishing that the sprit of liberal interpretation, which
you claim your right to exercise in this instance, were
more generally admitted where our faith and practice
are concerned. The College of Maynooth is assailed
by the press, and in the House of Commons, as in-

28
stilling diabolical principles into the minds of its
alumni, because there are to be found in its library, or
perhaps in its course of theology, certain voluminous
works containing stray opinions on the subject of he
resy, and the treatment of its professors, which are re
pugnant to the first principles of humanity ; — opinions
eagerly disclaimed and disavowed by every Roman Ca
tholic, and solemnly abjured by the members of our
religion, with the sanction, and on the authority of the
first Theological Faculties in Europe. But what,
think you, would have been recently the vantage-
ground of Mr. Colquhoun and Seijeant Jackson, if
they could have cited a passage to the following effect,
in some formulary of our faith, which every Irish Ca
tholic clergyman was bound to subscribe, viz., " The
seventh volume of Dr. Dens's works, contains a good
and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times."
Would not Doctor Murray's attempts to repudiate the
doctrines in question be treated as Jesuitical?
Now I, for one, would say to the directors or heads
of Maynooth : " In God's name, purge your library of
these abominations — expunge from your editions of
works which may be useful and orthodox in their
general tendency, and on strictly controversial points,
such doctrines as these, which you neither teach nor
defend, but on the contrary, vehemently disclaim."
But if, from bibliopolic veneration for the un-Bowd-
lerized purity of an original text, or from any other
crotchet of ecclesiastical Etiquette, they neglect to do
sOj and content themselves with denying that they are

29
bound by the particular notions of the individual wri
ters in question, on points connected rather with the
intercouse of social life, or civil government, than with
religious faith and practice, they are certainly still en
titled to the full benefit of that indulgence which you
claim, and justly claim, in your interpretation of a
work stamped with the most solemn sanction of your
Church. With respect to the 38th article, viz. " The Bishop
of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of Eng
land," (p. 80.) as you have forborne from assailing or
exaggerating our belief on this point, I have no right
to complain of the view which you take of the Pope's
ecclesiastical position. It is something that you con
sider him to be " the head of the Catholic world," (p.
78.) and concede to him " a primacy of order," (ibid.)
This is at least civil language, which is more than our
chief bishop generally meets with from Protestant au
thorities, and fully as much as can be expected from a
minister of that church which recognizes Her Majesty
as its spiritual head.
i have now. Sir, followed you, with more or less of
regularity and detail, through most of the questions
which your tract discusses ; and if I have been obliged,
in so doing, to convict you of a strong tendency to
Roman Catholicism in your doctrines, it is because I
had no other way of vindicating myself and my fel
low-catholics from foul and grievous imputations which
bigoted ignorance may well be prompt to cast upon
us, but which your more accurate knowledge of facts

30
and authorities should have disdained to sanction. God
knows we have much of contumely and hostility to
endure, in our native land, for the sake of those ve
nerated and sublime doctrines and rites, which we
openly avow and practise, — -which we are ever ready to
explain and defend ! But though willing calmly to
encounter the worst that can befal us in the cause of
what we hold to be the Truth, we will not quietly
submit to be made answerable for obsolete abuses or
falsely imputed error. We can easily disregard the
taunts of the infidel, the sneers of the Deist, or the
shallow arguments of the Socinian, when directed
against our orthodox faith ; but we may be allowed to
feel, and we are called upon emphatically to express a
just indignation, when we find those very men whose
theological researches have brought them round, most
reluctantly, to a belief nearly identical with our own,
eschewing our spiritual fellowship as if it were con
tamination, — charging us with idolatry in our faith,
blasphemy in our prayers, and " impurity" (.' J in our
rites; and degrading us, in the eyes of our fellow-
Christians and countrymen, to the level of the wor
shippers of Dagon and Jagernaut — the priests of Cy-
bele or or Cotytto !
One word more, and I have done. However
strongly I may have expressed myself in the preceding
pages, I most sincerely trust that I have said no
thing which can be construed as hostile or irreve
rent towards the Church of England. As the
religion of my sovereign, my country, and my

31
fi-iends, that church may well claim, and shall always
receive at my hands, every degree of cordial respect
and observance which may be consistent with
a conscientious adherence to the ancient faith from
which, on some points, she dissents, I do full justice
to the purity of her moral doctrine and discipline, to
the beauty and dignity of her liturgy, (taken, as it is,
ahnost entirely from our own,) to the sincere piety and
Christian zeal which animates a vast proportion of her
followers, to the learning and apostolic virtues of very
many among her pastors and hierarchy. Far, very
far, be it from me to widen the breach between the two
religions, whose respective doctrines are undoubtedly
much more nearly assimilated than is generally known
or acknowledged. No man would more rejoice than
myself at the prospect of a union between the churches ;
although I confess, that, with regard to this point, the
fears so generally entertained on one side, and the
hopes occasionally expressed on the other, appear to
me perfectly visionary and puerile.
If, however such a result were morally or politically
possible — if my sincere and straightforward countrymen
should ever consent to be reunited in faith to the cen
tre of Catholic unity, they will not, I am satisfied, be
conjured back into the circle of orthodoxy by any
feat of ecclesiastical leger-de-main, but will unhesi
tatingly renounce those opinions which calm inquiry
may have convinced them to be erroneous — and instead
of straining the Thirty-nine articles into a forced and
paradoxical accordance with the decrees of Trer

32
boldly determine to make an honest election between
them. I remain. Reverend Sir, with much respect.
Your obedient, humble servant,
AN ENGLISH CATHOLIC.
SthJpril, 1841.

LONDON:
gBINTED BY BLATCII AND lAMtERT, GROVE PLACE, BROMPtoft.

E UNIVERSITY LIBRARY