•* \x

I nr\€

FIFTH LETTER

N. WISEMAN, D.D.

CONTAINING

A REPLY

REMARKS ON LETTER I.

WITH ADDITIONAL PROOFS OF THE

IDOLATRY AND SUPERSTITION OF ROMANISM

BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A.
OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD.

OXFORD,
JOHN HENRY PARKER ;
J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON.
1841.

BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.

FIFTH LETTER,
8fc.

§. 1. Introductory Remarks.
Sir,
When you thought it necessary to call publicly
on a clergyman of the English Church for proofs
of charges which he had made years before against
the doctrines and practice of Romanists, and which
had been just repeated without any peculiar
reference to yourself, or any other circumstance
which particularly obliged you at this time to make
such a demand ; and when you availed yourself of
this opportunity to present the doctrines of your
Communion to the notice of the English public ;
it does not seem to me that you have any reason
to complain, if another clergyman uses the same
liberty which you have yourself taken, and pro
ceeds with a discussion to which you have led the
way. The question which formed the principal sub
ject of my first Letter was one, which most deeply
a 2

1 LETTER V.
and even vitally affects the religious character of
Romanism. It was no less than this : Whether
in the Church of Rome, created beings receive
honours which are only due to God ; whether this
idolatrous worship is sanctioned and encouraged by
authority amongst you, and is allowed generally by
the members of the Roman communion without
any protests or expressions of dissent.
In maintaining that such an idolatrous worship
exists and is authorized amongst you ; it was,
at the same time, most readily admitted, that every
Romanist is not necessarily an idolater '"¦ ; because
idolatry is only allowed and sanctioned in the
Roman Church : it is not enjoined or imposed on all
its members. This is a distinction which you are
still unwilling to recognise, and by losing sight of
it, you easily involve my statements in apparent
contradiction b. Could time be spared for the
discussion, it might easily be shewn, that there
is no contradiction in those statements. An intel
ligent reader will easily disentangle them for
" Letter I. p. 6, 43.
b Wiseman, Remarks, p. 6, 10— 13. I shall only observe,
that you are mistaken in supposing that I admit " an immense
aggregate of idolatrous Churches into a portion? with Christ's
true Church." (p. 13.) To speak of the Roman as an idolatrous
Church, would seem to imply that all its members must be
idolaters, which I am not prepared to affirm. Romanism, how
ever, i. e. the more popular system of religion in the Roman
ChuFch, is superstitious and idolatrous.

LETTER V.

himself, by remembering that I have maintained,
that the Roman Church is indeed deeply culpable
and very corrupt in permitting Idolatry to exist
within her pale; and yet that, as she does not
enjoin it, (either by the decrees of Councils or
otherwise,) she is not actually apostate or cut off
from Christ. In a word, she is still capable of
Reformation. In connexion with this subject I must say, that
I cannot see the justice of your " demand," (p. 8.)
that the expressions of those who are in authority
amongst you " be interpreted in accordance with
" your formularies." It is not impossible, that men
may hold what is inconsistent with the formularies
of their Church ; and there is still less difficulty in
supposing that their doctrines may go beyond the
wording of those formularies, without being opposed
to them. This is the case with Romanists. Their
formularies do not (I believe) teach or enjoin
Idolatry ; and yet Idolatry is taught and practised.
That is, Romanism is more corrupt than its own
formularies. The object of your reference (p. 14, 15.) to the
former prevalence of " the Bible alone" system in
this country, and to the support given to the Bible
Society by some of our Prelates, is to prove, that
the " Bible alone" doctrine, as opposed to any
Church authority, is as much sanctioned amongst
us, as idolatrous worship is amongst Romanists.
But you are surely aware, that this doctrine is

O LETTER V.
now, and has long been, openly condemned and
resisted by the great body of the Clergy ; and we
have no reason to suppose that the Prelates,
(always, I believe, a minority of the Episcopal
body,) who have supported the Bible Society,
intended to approve any unsound principles, or
to give their countenance to any thing but the
circulation of the Bible without note or comment,
which is, in itself, a perfectly unexceptionable and
most laudable object.
Your argument, however, in this case, concedes
the validity of that by which I shewed, that
Romanists are responsible for the idolatrous lan
guage and prayers employed by the Authorities,
without any opposition or protest from the mem
bers of their Communion. And the whole pamphlet
before me is a further admission of its correctness.
You do not attempt to deny that the character of
Romanism depends on the lawfulness of the ex
pressions which were adduced in my first Letter.
I must pass over several minor points in the
first and second sections of your " Remarks," the
discussion of which would withdraw attention from
the important features of this discussion. They
may perhaps be noticed at the conclusion of this
Letter. §. 2. Romanism convicted of Idolatry by Dr. Wiseman's
concessions.
Let us now turn to the really serious part of the

LETTER V.

question, and examine how far you have been able
to meet the charge which was made against your
system— that the blessed Virgin and the Saints
receive amongst Romanists " honours which are
' due only to the Trinity, and which interfere
with the sole prerogatives of the Deity."
Your Reply, Sir, has only confirmed the worst
apprehensions that could have been formed as to
the extent of the evils under which Religion is
suffering amongst you. It has shewn that the
corruptions which were pointed out are deeply
rooted, and widely spread in your communion.
Every expression and every practice to which
I referred, however idolatrous and impious, has
been studiously maintained and defended. Far
from disclaiming responsibility for such language,
or from protesting against it, you confidently main
tain its correctness in all points, and are prepared
to go to still greater lengths than any of the writers
whom I quoted ; for you cite in their justification,
language which is still more offensive than that
which was produced. This proceeding most fully
establishes the truth of what was said in my first
Letter; that " you (Romanists) content yourselves
" with general disclaimers of superstition and idolatry,
" but you will never venture to lay your finger on
" any specific case c." No : so far is this from being
the case, that the moment an attempt is made to
point out the real and undeniable corruptions
c Letter I. p. 19.

8 LETTER V.
existing in your communion, they are eagerly
defended and justified in their fullest extent.
Your Reply has established another point, which
is of great importance in our controversies with
Romanists. It has shewn that we are not called
on to enter into any discussion with you on the
propriety of asking the Saints and Angels to " pray
" for us." Such discussions may be put aside, until
you disclaim and reject those far more objectionable
and dangerous Invocations which invest the Saints
with the attributes of Deity ; which reduce God
to the same level with His creatures, or elevate
creatures to an equality with God. The mere
invocation of Saints to "pray for us" stands on
different grounds, because it distinctly recognises
the superiority of God.
You have conceded then what I contended for in
my first Letter, that Romanists are responsible for
the expressions sanctioned by Authority, which
were there produced.
But you concede still more than this. I con
tended, that the blessed Virgin and the Saints
receive in those authorized expressions, honours
which are only due to the Deity ; that the at
tributes of the Deity are plainly and repeatedly
ascribed to created beings. This you have not
attempted to deny. You have not answered the
arguments which were adduced to prove, that the
very powers and attributes ascribed in those pas
sages to the Saints, belong, according to Revela-

LETTER V. 9
tion, to God only. You have only adduced a
series of precedents for such prayers from various
writers. I have a right therefore to assume, that
you cannot deny the validity of my proofs; and
thus my conclusion remains established ; that the
Virgin Mary and the Saints receive amongst you
honours which are due to God ; and that your
prayers invest them with the attributes of Deity.
Now, Sir, according to yourself, "Idolatry is
" the giving to man or to any thing created, that
" homage, that adoration, and that worship which
" God hath reserved unto Himself d," and you ac
knowledge, that " throughout God's word, the
" crime of idolatry is spoken of as the most heinous,
" the most odious, and the most detestable in his
" eyes e." Have I not a right then to claim you as
a witness against the prayers which you have
defended ? Have I not a right to produce your
own confessions as amongst the strongest possible
condemnations of what is so generally practised
amongst Romanists, and practised without a word
of warning, of censure, or of opposition ?
Romanists allege, that all these acts of homage
and adoration to the Virgin and the Saints cannot
be in reality idolatrous ; — cannot trench on the
worship due to the Creator ; because they believe
that God is infinitely superior to the Saints ; and
d Lectures on the principal doctrines and practices of the
Catholic Church, vol. ii. p- 93.
« Ibid.

10 LETTER V.
hence they conclude, that He will regard all wor
ship of the Saints, however apparently idolatrous,
as in reality consistent with, and subordinate to,
that which is due to Himself.
But how can you be certain of this ? How can
you be assured that the Divine Justice of a "jealous
" Godf," will so easily excuse actions which to all
appearance despoil Him of his glory in the face of
the world ? Can it be consistent with the will of
God, that his professed disciples should commit
even external idolatry ? Is it fitting that they
should seem to the world idolaters — and that the
Heathen should be able to adduce their example to
justify themselves in worshipping more than one
God ? Is it Christian to make use of forms which
must, almost irresistibly, tempt the unlearned to
commit idolatry in the worst sense ? Surely, Sir,
if such addresses are, in their plain and obvious
sense, idolatrous ; and if they inevitably lead to the
grossest forms of idolatry, there can be no reason to
suppose that God will pardon those who employ
and sanction them, or those whose especial duty it
is to watch against idolatry, and who yet utter
no word of admonition or reproof to the people
entrusted to their care.
Is it right that Christians should offer honours to
the Saints which are even apparently and externally
idolatrous ? There cannot be any doubt of its im
propriety. Consider for a moment the object of
f Exodus xx. 5.

LETTER V. 11
all external worship addressed to God. We wor
ship God in order to glorify Him before men and
angels, — in order to testify that He is, as we believe,
All-powerful, All-wise, and All-merciful. It is, to
shew forth to his glory, the inward convictions of
our hearts. If then we divide that worship with
others, we do not accomplish the objects of our
worship. We do not so much raise others to an
equality with God, as bring down God to a level
with his creatures. If the external worship due to
God be imparted also to creatures, God is not
honoured : He is even insulted and offended.
Consider the anger of God against Moses, when
his language at the water of Meribah implied that
he could bring water out of the rock by his own
power. God said to Moses and Aaron, " because
" ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the
" children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this
" congregation into the land which I have given
" thems." Consider the rebuke and the punish
ment administered to Sennacherib for his impious
boasting, " I have digged and drunk strange
waters, &c." " Hast thou not heard long ago,"
said the Lord, " how I have done it, and of ancient
" times that 1 have formed it1'?" Think also of the
awful instance of God's displeasure, when Herod
did not refuse the divine honours which the people
of Tyre and Sidon paid him. " The angel of the
s Numbers xx. 12. " '2 Kings xix. 24, 25, &c.

12 LETTER V.
" Lord smote him, because he gave not God the
" glory ; and he was eaten of worms, and gave
" up the ghost'." These instances, to which many
others might be added, go to establish the con
clusion, that God will visit with his severest dis
pleasure those, who, in any way, attribute to crea
tures those powers, or offer to them that homage,
which is due to the Creator.
It is not merely our belief or our intention which
God requires to be sound and pure, but our external
profession of faith also, " for with the heart man
" believeth unto righteousness ; and with the
"mouth confession is made unto salvation11." If
therefore the external profession of our faith in
prayer and worship be unsound ; if it ascribe diviHe
power to creatures ; the mere inward persuasion of
our hearts will not suffice for our salvation. If we
are externally idolaters, we shall not be saved from
punishment, by believing that there is but one
God. If these principles be not adopted, you could not
offer any opposition to the introduction of profes
sions of faith, which, I believe, would be scarcely
acceptable even to Romanists. For if it be allow
able in prayer, which is a profession of faith, to
offer the Virgin and the Saints the same homage,
and ascribe to them the same attributes, as we do
to God, there cannot be any objection to introduce
' Acts xi. 23. k Rom. x. 10.

LETTER V. 13
them into a creed, which is only a profession of
faith in a different form. Suppose then, that Gre
gory XVI. were to substitute a new profession
instead of that of Pius IV. (which is a possible
case) ; and that after the Nicene Creed the follow
ing passage were inserted :
" And I believe in the Virgin Mary, the ' only
" refuge' of sinners, by whom ' the world is freed,'
" whose name is of ' salvation to the baptized.' I
" acknowledge that from her ' celestial inspiration'
" good counsels proceed. I believe that she can
"do whatever she wills ; and I adore and worship
" her, with the Father, the Son, and the Holy
" Ghost, as my saviour, my deliverer, and my
" sovereign. I believe also in the Saints and
" Angels, in whom my whole confidence is placed.
" I offer to them my heart and soul, and I worship
" and glorify them, with the Father, the Son, the
" Holy Ghost, and the Virgin Mary."
Now, Sir, there is nothing in this profession of
faith which would be inconsistent with the prin
ciples of your Letter. It might be defended by
exactly the same arguments which Romanists em
ploy to excuse the prayers which I quoted in my
first Letter. It would be easy to say, that, after
all, the belief of the Roman Church was quite
sound; that you rejected with horror the notion
of idolatry; and that you did not imagine, that
the Virgin or the Saints could do any thing for you
except by their prayers. On your principles no

14 LETTER V.
opposition could be made to such a profession of
faith. You could only object to it on the very
principles on which we object to your actual lan
guage to the Virgin and Saints. You could only
say, that such a profession would be, in its obvious
meaning, idolatrous ; that it was calculated to cause
the grossest idolatry; and that the external worship
and the professions of Christians ought always to
be in accordance with their faith.
This is what we contend for. We contend that
it can never be lawful for Christians to use an
idolatrous external worship, and that there is no
reason to believe that God will excuse such wor
ship, because faith is alleged to be sound.
Let us suppose a petitioner, on entering the
presence of his earthly Sovereign, to fall down
before some fellow-subject ; to profess his allegiance
to that subject ; to offer him all the honours due
to the sovereign ; and to solicit from him favours
which no subject can bestow. What would be the
feelings of that earthly sovereign, thus dishonoured
in his own presence? Or even suppose the peti
tioner to address his homage equally at the same
moment to the sovereign and one of his subjects.
Suppose him to couple their names in his petition,
and to express equal hope and confidence in the
power of each ; and to solicit favours from both
at once in the same form of words. Would not
this be an act of disrespect to the sovereign?
Would it be regarded as any thing less than in-

LETTER V. 15
sanity in the petitioner ? Would it be sufficient to
say, " that there was no intention to place the
" sovereign and his subject on the same level, or
"' to offer them an equal degree of honour ; but
" that it was only meant to ask for the prayers and
" interest of the subject?" The reply would be,
" Why then did not your conduct accord with
" your intentions? Why did you not practically
" make the distinctions which you acknowledge
" theoretically ought to be made?" Transfer this
example to the parallel case of your adoration of
the Virgin and Saints, and it may suggest a salutary
warning. §.3. Value of Dr. Wiseman's Defence. His quotations
from spurious and apocryphal writings.
I now come to your Defence of the expressions
on which my first Letter commented. It consists
in an appeal to Christian Antiquity, with a view
to shew that language of the same kind had been
employed by the early Fathers. Now, Sir, much
as the testimony of Catholic Antiquity is to be
valued, you must permit me to say, that we are not
bound to approve of every expression which parti
cular writers may have employed in rhetorical
compositions. Romanists have no scruple them
selves in exercising a reasonable criticism in such
cases1; and if therefore you had been able to
1 See Melchior Canus, De Iocis Theologicis, 1. vii. c. iii;

16 LETTER V.
produce exaggerated language from some of the
Fathers which approximated to that used by Ro
manists in their prayers to the Saints, it would
not follow that this indiscretion on the part of
some pious and holy men, could in any degree
justify you for systematically, soberly, and of set
purpose, employing language in itself idolatrous.
But, Sir, I most positively deny, that Christian
Antiquity furnishes any instances of prayers or
declarations like those which were adduced in my
first Letter. I say this, after having perused and
examined the apparently imposing mass of autho
rities which you have produced. I say " appa-
" rently ;" because I was not prepared to find, that
a large proportion of the passages which you have
quoted as from the Fathers, including all those on
which you lay the most stress, are derived from
apocryphal and spurious writings ; from works
written centuries after the time of the Fathers to
whom you attribute them ; from the writings of
heretics falsely attributed to the Fathers ! Page
Tournely, De Deo, t. i. p. 181 ; Delahogue, De Ecclesia, p. 436.
St. Augustine says, " Neque quorumlibet disputationes quamvis.
Catholicorum et laudatorum hominum, velut Scripturas Canoni-
cas habere debemus, ut nobis non liceat salva honorificentia
quae illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare
et respuere, si forte invenerimus quod aliter senserint quam
Veritas habet, divino adjutorio vel ab aliis intellecta, vel a nobis.
Talis ego sum in scriptis aliorum, tales volo esse intellectores
meorum.'' August. Epist. 148. al. 111. ad Fortunatianum Sic-
censem Episcopum, c. 4. t. ii. p. 502.

LETTER V. 17
after page of quotations, garnished with many
an ingenious remark, and many a grave admoni
tion, with your applause of the venerable authors,
and your contrasts between their sentiments and
mine, are derived from works, the genuineness of
which is disputed or denied by the ablest critics,
even of your own communion ! It is really impos
sible to refrain from a smile, when, after indulging
in masses of quotations of this kind, you deal so
leniently with a vanquished opponent, as to say, " I
" cannot persuade myself that he would have se-
" lected such phrases . . had he been aware, or, at
" least, had he remembered, that they were so
" nearly — indeed quite — identical with those that
" are found in their (the Fathers') writings"1." I
must confess that I was not aware of this fact, and
notwithstanding your labours, 1 still remain in my
ignorance. I have not been occupied in the same
" pleasing task" to which you allude at the close
of your Letter. The "pure sources of ecclesi-
" astical learning" from which you have been
" refreshing your mind"," do not seem to me
exactly to merit that title.
But I proceed to substantiate the truth of the
above statement, by noticing the various passages
which you have produced from spurious or doubtful
compositions. You cite (p. 20.) a prayer of St. Ephrem Syr us,
¦" Remarks, p. 66. " lb. p. 86.

18 LETTER V.
contained in the third volume of his works edited
by Assemani at Rome in 1746. This prayer,
together with a great body of similar prayers, from
which you quote largely, appeared for the first time
in this edition of Ephrem Syrus0, having been
unknown to all former editors of his works. Now
we find from Assemani's preface, that all these
prayers are copied from a manuscript in the Vatican
Library (of what age it does not appear), which
consists of a collection of prayers made by some
monk named Thecaras ; and in this collection,
the prayers above mentioned are attributed to
Ephrem p. So that the evidence for their genuine
ness depends on the veracity of this monk, of
whom we know nothing, and who may perhaps
have been a fictitious personage, or may have
forged these prayers in the sixteenth or seventeenth
century, for any thing that we know to the contrary.
This is the evidence for their genuineness. On the
other hand, we find that one or two similar prayers
° Ephrem Syri Opera, Grsec. Lat. t. iii. p. 524 — 552.
p " Precationes Ephrsemo tributse, aliae ad Deum sunt, aliae
" ad B. Virginem Deiparam, aliae ad Sanctos . . separatim ha-
" bentur . . prsesertim in collectione precum, quas Thecaras
" quidem monachus congessit. De hoc Thecara in cod. MS.
" GraBco Coisliniano ... sic legitur . • ' Sanctissimi Monachi
" Thecaras orationes compunctoriae, collectse ex divina Scriptura,
" utplurimum autem ex Sancto Ephraem.' . . . Suppresso The-
" carse nomine, extant in cod. Vat. 1 190. a fol. 1117. suntque a
" nobis editae hoc t. iii. p, 492." Ephrem Syri Opera, t. iii.
p. liii.

LETTER V. 19
in the former editions of St. Ephrem, containing
equally exaggerated expressions in honour of the
blessed Virgin, are rejected by Tillemont'1, Ceillierr,
Oudinus', and Cave*, as altogether unworthy of
this holy man, and inconsistent with the spirit of
the age in which he lived.
You cite (p. 22.) a passage from the first homily
" In Dormitione B. Marise," attributed to John
Damascenus. Ceillier has observed, that this
homily contains statements which are not con
sistent with the genuine sentiments of its reputed
author \ And Oudinus remarks, that the Festival
on which these homilies were delivered, was not
instituted till a century after the death of Damas
cenus ; and that the homilies themselves are attri
buted by some manuscripts to Andrew, Bishop of
Caesarea in the ninth century, by others to Germa-
nus Bishop of Constantinople in the thirteenth
century y. The next three quotations (p. 22, 23.)
are from a homily " In Annunciatione," ascribed
also to Damascenus. It appears from Ceillier, that
Leo Allatius believes this homily to have been

« Tillemont, Histoire Ecclesiastique, t. viii. p. 757.
r Ceillier, Hist. Gen. des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, t. viii. p. 65,
66. ed. Paris, 1740.
' Casimiri Oudini Comment, de Script. Eccl. t. i. p. 506.
' Cave, Hist. Literaria, t. ii. p. 238.
" Opera, Ed. Lequien, t. ii. p. 859.
* Ceillier, t. xviii. p. 15.
y Oudinus, ubi supra, p. 1782.
b2

20 LETTER V.
composed by Theodore Studites the younger".
When this writer lived, I cannot at this moment
discover, but the elder Theodore flourished in the
ninth century, nearly a hundred years after the time
of Damascenus. Cellier observes, that there are
passages in the homilies on the Annunciation,
" which do not correspond with the modesty and
" gravity of this Father*."
At p. 23, you extract three more passages from
the same collection of prayers attributed to Ephrem
Syrus by the monk Thecaras, of which I have
spoken before.
In pages 26, and 27, we have various extracts
from the Acts of St. Mary of Egypt, which are
introduced with a statement, that " the Bollandists
" have proved that her conversion took place about
" the year 383, and that the Acts themselves can-
" not have been composed later than 500." On
referring to the preface of the Bollandists, we find
first, that the Greeks suppose that Sophonius,
Patriarch of Jerusalem in the eighth century, was
the Author of these Actsb; and that the Bollandists
themselves admit, that there is nothing in their
own argument, which obliges us to place the history
of Mary in the fourth or even the fifth century c.
It is true they assert that the life of Mary was
1 Ceillier, t. xviii. p. 149.
a lb. p. 150.
" Acta Sanctorum, torn. i. April, p. 69.
« lb. p. 68.

LETTER V. 21
known in the West in the sixth century d. The only
proof which is brought for this, is an extract from
some manuscript, (of what age or authority is uncer
tain,) in which Mary of Egypt is indeed mentioned,
but without any allusion to the Acts, as far as I can
see. So that there is no evidence for the antiquity
of the Acts, or of the passages quoted from them.
You produce (p. 28, 29, 30.) very long extracts
from the Poem entitled " Christus Patiens" attri
buted to St. Gregory Nazianzen. Natalis Alex
ander, one of your most eminent writers, denies its
genuineness, and states that the most learned critics
generally attribute it to Apollinaris of Laodicea — a
heretic ! Ceillier observes, that it is rejected as a
spurious composition by Tillemont, Dupin, Baillet,
Baronius, Rivetus, Vossius, Bellarmine, and Labbef.
He is of opinion that it may have been composed
by another Gregory, who lived in the latter part of
the sixth century. The Benedictine editors suspect
it to be later than the ninth century.
We are next favoured (p. 30, 31.) with long
extracts from a Sermon attributed to St. Methodius,
bishop of Patarae. This Sermon is rejected as
spurious by Ceillier, who states, that the Feast of
the Purification, on which it was delivered, was not
«> lb. p. 71.
0 Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. t. iv. p. 147-
f Ceillier, Hist. Gen. &c. t. vii. p. 196. See also, Oudinus
Comment, de Script. Eccl. t. i. p. 644, &c. ; Cave, Hist. Literaria,
t. i. p. 248.

22 LETTER V.
instituted till A. D. 527, and that the style is
unlike that of Methodiusf. It is also rejected by
the learned Jesuit Gretser^, byCanisius\ Oudinus1,
and Cave. Gretser, Oudinus, and Cave, suppose
it to have been written by Methodius, patriarch of
Constantinople, in the ninth century. At p. 35, 36.
you indulge again in quotations from the same
spurious homily of Methodius.
The Apocryphal prayers of Ephrem Syrus by
Thecaras, already alluded to, are cited again,
p. 41, 42.
You have hinted that I could hardly have been
acquainted with the language of the Fathers, when
I ventured to reprove that of Romanists towards
the Virgin and the Saints. I must be allowed in
return to express my surprise, that one who is
fully qualified to examine into the genuineness of
writings ascribed to the Fathers, and who is
evidently acquainted with their real works, should
have rested the whole strength of his defence on
productions, which are, at the very first sight,
suspicious ; and which the slightest enquiry would
have rejected as valueless. I must say that such a
mode of defence is worthy of the cause in which it
is employed.
r Ceillier, torn. iv. p. 35, 36.
s Fabricii Bibliotheca Graaca, t. vii. p. 268. ed. Harles, 1801.
" See Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 152.
i Oudinus, De Script. Eccl. t. i. p. 303, 304, 305. proves its
spuriousness by several very convincing arguments.

LETTER V. 23
$.4. Dr. Wiseman's Defence of the Worship of the
Virgin.
Having thus disposed of the quotations from
spurious, doubtful, and apocryphal writings, which
cannot be brought in proof of any doctrine, let us
next proceed to enquire how far the remainder of
your citations justify the language to which ob
jections were offered in my first Letter. I fear
that this discussion of particular passages will be
rather too heavy a tax on the attention of the
Reader ; but as I am unwilling to leave any part of
your defence unexamined, I must only request him
to pass on to section 5, when he has been satisfied
of the inadequacy of your proofs.
I. The first passage you defend is the following.
' ' That she [the blessed Virgin] may propitiously
" assist us while we write, and by her celestial
" inspiration may guide us to such counsels as may
" be most salutary to the Christian Church."
Encyclical Letter.
I remarked that this passage distinctly invests
the Virgin with the attributes of Deity, and you do
not deny that it does. In proof of its lawfulness,
however, a spurious prayer of St. Ephrem is cited,
(p. 20.) and also a passage from his genuine
writings. The latter is wholly unavailing for your
purpose. St. Ephrem was speaking of the In
carnation of our Lord, on which he remarks, that
God " like a husbandman, grafted the Godhead [of

24 LETTER V.
" his Son] into the [human] nature of the Virgin ;"
after which he continues, in the words quoted by
you, " Mary was therefore to the Father a plant,
" to the Son a mother, and to men a fountain of
" the eternal Spirit and the dawn of incorruptionk."
She was so, by becoming the mother of our Lord ;
for had not our Lord been born, we should have
remained in condemnation ; but this is widely
different from saying, that she is "a fountain of
" the eternal Spirit," or that she herself inspires
good counsels.
Your next extract (p. 21.) is from Ildephonsus,
bishop of Toledo, in the latter part of the seventh
century. This is certainly not an early testimony ;
nor does it proceed from an author of much note.
It is however entirely free from the guilt of ascrib
ing the Divine attributes to a creature. Ildephon
sus says, " I entreat thee, that I may have the
" Spirit of thy Lord, the Spirit of thy /Son1." This is
perfectly unlike the language of the Encyclical
Letter. In the one case the Spirit of God is
prayed for: in the other the Virgin is invested with
the attributes of that Spirit.
These, Sir, are all the passages which you have
been able to produce in justification of the Ency
clical Letter, and I think it may be fairly said, that
they are wholly insufficient. You allude indeed
k Ephraemi Syri Opera, Graec. Lat. t. iii. p. 527. ed. Assemani.
i Ildephonsus Tolet. de perp. Virgin. S. Marife, Opera P. P.
Toletanorum, Madrid, 1782. p. 110.

LETTER V. 25
(p. 21.) to prayers quoted in another part of your
pamphlet ; but I have in vain looked for any
expressions like those which you here defend. My
conclusion then remains undisturbed ; that the
blessed Virgin receives amongst you honours which
are only due to the Trinity, and that she is practi
cally invested with the attributes of God.
II. The next passages you undertake to defend
are as follows.
" That She, whom we have acknowledged as our
" patroness and deliverer amongst the greatest ca-
" lamities, may &c." — Encyclical.
" We fly to thy protection, holy Mother of God,
" despise not our prayers .... but deliver us, at all
" times, from all evils." — Prayer before the Litany
of Loreto.
" Condescend to permit me to praise thee, sacred
" Virgin: Grant me strength against thine enemies." —
Prayer approved by Pius VI.
I produced some texts to shew, that the same
confidence is here expressed in the Virgin as Scrip
ture teaches us to repose in God. You reply first,
by quoting from homilies of Damascenus, and
prayers of St. Ephrem, which are rejected by the
best critics as doubtful or spurious'". You next
remark, that " nothing is more common than to
" find the Fathers thus attributing to the blessed
" Virgin directly, what must primarily come from
" God. Thus St. Amphilochius .... tells us, that
1,1 See above, §. 3.

26

LETTER V.

" ' the world is freed by a Virgin, which before by
" a virgin (Eve) had fallen under sin".' " The
language of this Father might be more accurately
translated : " The world was freed through a Virgin"
(f/Xevdeparai icoo-fio? 8ia ivapdivov) ; that is, by
our Saviour being born of the Virgin Mary, she was
an instrumental cause of our salvation. How dif
ferent is this from saying, that the Virgin is the
deliverer of mankind, or from acknowledging her
power to " deliver us at all times from all evils.""
The language of Amphilochius is that of every
Catholic : it is entirely free from the seiublance of
idolatry. It would certainly be easy to " fill pages with
quotations" of a similar character from the older
writers, from St. Irenseus downwards; (p. 24.) but
they would not be of any use to you. Sedulius0,
whom you quote, as a specimen of the rest, dis
tinctly teaches what Amphilochius did — that the
Virgin was an instrumental means of our salvation,
by becoming the mother of Christ our Lord. The
language of Chrysologus which you next cite, can
bear no other interpretation p ; and the rhetorical
" Gallandii Bibliotheca Patrum, t. vi. p. 465.
• The two first verses of the quotation from Sedulius, refer to
our Lord, not to the Virgin.
Unius ob meritum cuncti periere minores
Salvantur cuncti unius ob meritum.
(Sedulii Opera, ed. Arevalo, p. 361.)
p The whole passage is as follows. It occurs in a homily on
the generation of Christ, and the object is to shew, that " Maria"

LETTER V. 27
expressions, taken from an oration of St. Cyril of
Alexandria, which succeed them, are based on the
same doctrine throughout. The oration consists
almost entirely of a series of addresses in the same
style; for instance, near the beginning, he says,
" Hail, city of Ephesus, more than ' sea-beholding,'
" because, instead of earthly havens, angelical and
" heavenly havens [the bishops there met to protect
" the Christian faith against Nestorius] have come
" to thee ! Hail, glory of the Asiatic government,
" for as thou art surrounded with precious temples
" of the Saints like pearls, so now art thou hal-
" lowed by being trod by many holy Fathers and
" Patriarchs ! &c.9" In the same rhetorical strain
he afterwards addresses the Virgin, in the words
you have quoted; but the doctrine conveyed by
those words is perfectly sound, — that Mary was an
instrumental cause in the work of salvation, and in
was a fitting name for the mother of our Lord, because it pre
ceded salvation. " And that ' Maria' might always go before the
" salvation of men, it preceded with songs the people whom the
" regenerating water brought into light. ' Maria,' (Miriam) he
" saith, ' the sister of Aaron, took a cymbal in her hand, saying,
" Let us sing to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously.'
" This name, which was salutary to the regenerate, a sign of
" virginity, the grace of modesty, a sign of chastity, a sacrifice of
" God, the virtue of hospitality, an assemblage of holiness, was
" like a prophecy: justly therefore was this the maternal name of
¦" the Mother of Christ." Petrus Chrysologus, Sermo cxlvi. Bibl.
Patr. " Cyril. Alexandr. Opera, ed. Aubert. t. v. pars ii. p. 379.

28 LETTER V.
all that has happened in consequence, by being
made the mother of our Lord.
Venantius Fortunatus, whom you next cite,
teaches exactly the same doctrine'. The second
verse of the distich distinctly carries its own inter
pretation. Ad caelos facta es sors, via, porta, rota.
" Thou wast made the way and gate to Heaven,"
refers evidently to her share in the incarnation of
our Lord. It is in the same view, that he poeti
cally entitles her " his hope of pardon, since she
" carries the Help of earth ;" i. e. he supposes him
self to address her before the birth of our Lord,
an event on which all his hopes depend.
In all this, Sir, there is nothing whatever to
which we can object. It has not the slightest
tinge of idolatry or of superstition.
You next state, that " St. Ildephonsus seems to
" go even further than the rest, and to consider, that
" without devotion to her, there can hardly be hope of
*' salvation." (p. 26.) I cannot think that you have
perused the work from which you quote, or you
r The first passage quoted in the notes, p. 25, where the-
Virgin is spoken of as " the help of earth," is explained fully
by the context :
O Virgo insignis, benedicta ad gaudia nata,
Auxilium terras, fulgor honorque poli,
Ecce tuus fiorens uterus quae praestitit orbi,
Te generante, fidenos paradisus habet.
Venant. Fortun. de Laud. Virg. Mariae.

LETTER V. 29
would have seen that Ildephonsus goes further than
even you have stated, and really means, that with
out what you here call " devotion" to the Virgin,
but which might more properly be termed " sound
" faith," it is impossible to be saved. And in this
sentiment of Ildephonsus we most heartily agree.
He was arguing with a Jew who denied the
Virginity of the Mother, and consequently denied
that Jesus was the Messiah. It is to this un
believer that he uses the language cited by you,
after which he adds, " Come, let us confess, I the
" sins and ignorance of my youth ; you the sins of
" your sacrilege and wickedness, lest the heavens
" reveal their indignation8." The object was to
urge the necessity of believing the Virginity of
Mary ; not to express confidence in her power
The Acts of St. Mary of Egypt, to which you
next appeal (p. 26), have been already considered';
and it has been shewn that there is no evidence for
their antiquity.
The words of St. Gregory Nazianzen which you
cite (p. 28) are immediately preceded by the fol
lowing passage. " Despairing of all remedies, she
" (Justina) takes refuge with God, and makes her
" Spouse her protector against this detestable
"desire; who delivered Susanna, saved Thecla,
" &c. ... Who is this but Christ, who rebukes

' Ildephonsus, ap. Patres Tolet. Madrid. 1782. torn. i. p. 122.
' §.3.

30 . LETTER V.
" the spirits, lifteth up them that are. sinking,
" walketh on the sea, &c." Then follow the
words cited by you ; " Remembering these and
" many more [instances of Christ's power], and
" beseeching the Virgin Mary to aid a virgin in
" danger u," &c.
I would observe on the preceding passage, that
it is conceived in such terms, " beseeching the Vir-
" gin Mary to aid," &c. that we cannot determine
the form of prayer used. Justina may have em
ployed a perfectly unexceptionable form of address
to the Virgin. It may have been a mere request
for the Virgin's prayers x. Therefore this passage
does not touch on the question between us ; which
is not, whether all addresses to the Virgin are
unlawful ; but whether it is right to invest her
with the attributes of Deity. The passage, how
ever, distinctly shews, that the whole confidence
and reliance of Justina were fixed on God and
Christ, while she merely sought the " aid" of the
™ Gregorii Nazianz. Opera, torn. i. p. 279. Par. 1609.
* Critics have remarked, that the Homily on St. Cyprian from
which the above extract is taken, seems to have been composed
from some very inaccurate traditions, probably derived from the
monks. It confounds the lives of two Saints of the same name •
one of whom was Bishop of Carthage, while the other was of the
Eastern Church. We cannot depend then on the historical
correctness of this Homily, and the petition of Justina to the
Virgin was most probably added by recent oral tradition. You
need not suppose therefore (see p. 28.) that Justina, who died
in 304, offered any such petition.

LETTER V. 31
Virgin, as we ourselves might seek the " aid"
of a fellow-creature in moments of difficulty.
I shall not here enter on the question of the
propriety of asking for the prayers of the Saints —
a practice, of which the first examples are found
in the writings of Gregory Nazianzeny. The
abuses which naturally flow from this practice,
and of which the Romish prayers under con
sideration afford so melancholy an illustration, are
in themselves perfectly sufficient to shew the wis
dom of our Catholic and Apostolic Churches, in
discontinuing the Invocation of Saints ; and the
Roman Church herself does not consider such
invocations necessary z.
You produce long extracts from St. Gregory
Nazianzen, and from Methodius (p. 28 — 31) ;
but, as I have already shewn a, they are derived
from spurious compositions.
Having now disposed of all your arguments
y It may be observed, that Nazianzen, when he addressed the
departed in his orations, sometimes expressed doubts whether
they could hear him. Thus in his Homily on Gorgonia, he
says, " If thou hast any care of the things done by us, &c 
" receive this oration of ours instead of many and before many
" funeral obsequies."
2 ,c The Council of Trent barely teaches that it is good and
" profitable to invoke the prayers of the Saints ; hence our divines
" infer, that there is no positive law of the Church, incumbent on
" all her children, to pray to the Saints." Milner, End of Con
troversy, Letter xxxiii,
» See §. 3.

32 LETTER V.
in defence of the declarations and prayers under
consideration, I may again be permitted to say,
that you have not been able to produce any justifi
cation of them from the language of antiquity ;
and therefore my conclusion remains untouched,
and even strengthened, — that the Virgin Mary
receives amongst you honours which are only due
to God.
III. You next undertake to defend the ex
pressions of Cardinal Bona in his prayer to the
Virgin ; and here it may be remarked, that no
notice has been taken in your pamphlet of some of
the most objectionable parts of that prayer, in which
the attributes of God are most broadly ascribed
to the blessed Virgin ; such as the following :
" Place me near unto thee, and protect me from all
" my enemies visible and invisible. Say unto my
" soul, I am thy salvation. Direct me thy
" servant in all my ways and actions. Console me
" in all my griefs and afflictions. Defend and pre-
" serve me from all evils and dangers. Turn thy
" face unto me when the end of my life shall
" come ; and may thy consolation in that tre-
" mendous hour rejoice my spirit ''," &c. Surely
these are exactly the terms in which we should
address God — indeed they are the language actually
employed for that purpose in holy Scripture ; e. g.
" Deliver me from mine enemies, O my God."
(Ps. lix. 1.) " Stop the way against them that
b Letter I. p. 18.

LETTER V. 49
ofMalmsbury " on the Antiquities of Glastonbury,"
from which they are taken, is full of fabulous
narrations, supplied probably by the monks of
Glastonbury. (2) The next question is as follows: "Is it
" direct prayer to Saints, for favours which God alone
" can bestow, that Mr. Palmer so strongly reprobates
" in the examples last quoted? Surely he ought to
" be aware that in the ancient Church such prayers
" were admitted." (p. 59.)
Your citations do not prove this. St. Gregory
of Nyssa states, that a person by saying, " Holy
" Ephrem help (assist) meA," escaped from a
dangerous position. Such an expression does not
interfere with the Divine attributes. It is widely
different from your prayers to Saints. We may be
" helped" by a fellow-creature; but we have no
right to ask from him blessings, and graces, as if
he were a Divinity. The language of Gregory
Nazianzen (p. 60.) is plainly rhetorical. It occurs
in an Oration in praise of St. Cyprian. That of
St. John Chrysostom (p. 60.) recognises through
out the Divine power, and supposes that the Saints
can onlv aid us by their prayers. The same
may be said of the succeeding quotations from
Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nyssa. (p. 61.) The
passage cited from Basil (p. 61.) does not seem to
me to refer to any invocation of Saints. It is
A Nyssen. Opera, t. iii. p. 615. ed. 1638.
D

50 LETTER V.
thus introduced: " Where two or three are gathered
" together in the name of the Lord, there is He in
" the midst of them. Where there are forty, [in
" allusion to the relics of the forty Martyrs,] who
" doubts that He is present? The afflicted takes
" refuge with the forty Martyrs [i. e. in their
" Church]." Then follows the remainder of your
quotation6. The meaning is, that prayers may
be offered to God in the Church of the Martyrs,
with peculiar confidence. The passage from St.
Ambrose (p. 61, 62.) distinctly supposes that the
Angels and Martyrs aid us by their prayers, and
that they are creatures as we are.
In none of these cases were " direct prayers"
offered " to Saints, for favours which God alone
" can bestow."
The next passage, from St. Ambrose, is an
exhortation of a pious matron to her son to devote
himself entirely to God, in which she says,
" There we deposited our vows whence we took
" the name. The effect followed our vows: give
" therefore back to the Martyr, what thou hast
" received from the Martyrf." The meaning is,
that she had offered her vows to God at the Church
of the Martyr St. Laurence, and that the Martyr
had " obtained" (p. 63.) by his prayers this child.
This merely supposes that the prayers of a Martyr
had great efficacy. The language in reference to
• Basil. Homil. in XL Martyrs, t. ii. p. 155. ed. Benedict.
f Ambros. Exhort. Virgin, c. iii.

LETTER V. 51
Felix and Laurentius (p. 63.) is poetical, and cannot
be judged with the strictness which should be
applied to prose compositions. The same observa
tion is applicable to that of S. Prudentius (p. 64.)
Doubtful of his own merits, he wishes for the
additional prayers of the Saint. As for the senti
ments of Valerian, bishop of Cemela, we cannot
attach any weight to what has been rather inju
diciously said by this obscure writer, in opposition
to the sentiments of the most eminent Fathers
which I shall hereafter produce.
In conclusion, I will only observe, that in no one
of the passages adduced by you are there any direct
prayers to Saints for favours which God only can
bestow : nor are the Saints addressed at the same
time and in the same manner as God. Conse
quently the objections which have been offered to
your prayers and language remain unanswered.
§.5. Romanism condemned by Catholic Antiquity.
Having now completed the examination of your
defence, and shewn that the appeal which you have
made to Catholic Antiquity in justification of
Romish addresses to Saints and Angels, is perfectly
unavailing ; it remains for me to produce the real
sentiments of the Fathers, not derived from spurious
or heretical compositions, but from their own
genuine writings. It remains for me to shew, that
the principles and the practice of Romanists are
d 2

52 LETTER V.
equally condemned by Catholic Antiquity — that
they are derived from Heresies and Idolatries repu
diated by the Catholic Church. You have appealed
to Catholic Antiquity. Will you consent to stand
or fall by its real verdict ?
Which doctrine then is the most conformable to
that of the primitive Church ? We are of opinion
that religious worship is due to God only, and not
to any creature whatever, be it angel, spirit, man,
beast, or inanimate creature. We honour and love
Angels and Saints, because they are loved by God ;
but we think it wrong to offer religious worship
to any being whatever but God. We hold that
prayer ought only to be offered to God — that it is a
species of sacrifice which is only due to the Divine
nature. We think that it is unlawful to repose our
hope, trust, or confidence in any creature. We
think it needless to ask for the intercession of Saints
and Angels to render us acceptable to God; and we
believe that we ought ourselves boldly to approach
the Throne of Grace, confiding in the intercession
of Jesus Christ. We think it unlawful to unite the
name of God with that of his creatures in prayer,
and to offer the same acts of homage to them.
The doctrines and practice of Romanists are op
posed to ours on all these points. Let us then
place the question before the Fathers, and ascertain
their decision.
I. " Is it lawful to worship any other being but
God ? Is all religious worship to be offered to Him

LETTER V. 53
alone? And are the Saints, Angels, and other
created beings, only to be loved, honoured, imi
tated, or regarded, as the case may be ?"
The doctrine of Christian Antiquity is decisive
on this point. Justin Martyr, who wrote little
more than a century after the death of our Lord,
in describing to the Emperor Antoninus the doc
trines inculcated by our Saviour, speaks thus :
" That it is necessary to worship God alone,
" (Christ) thus persuaded us, saying, ' The greatest
" commandment is, Thou shalt worship the Lord
" thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve, with
" all thy heart and with all thy strength ; even
" the Lord God who made thee;' and when a
" certain person came and said to Him, ' Good
" Master,' He answered, saying, ' None is good
" save God only, who made all things/ But
" they who are not found living according to his
" instructions, be it known that they are not Chris-
" tians .... He answered them, saying, ' Render
" therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
" and to God the things that are God's.' Where-
" fore we worship God only, but in other respects
" we are gladly obedient to you?." It may per
haps be said, that the restriction of all worship to,
God in this passage, had reference only to the
Heathen worship of false gods or deified men,
and was not intended as any denial of that worship
" Justin Martyr, Apologia Prima, p-. 25, 26. ed. Thirlby.

54 LETTER V.
which is due to Saints and Angels. This is a
distinction entirely without foundation, because,
as will be shewn, the Fathers objected in general
to the worship of any creatures whatever ; and on
this one broad principle rejected equally the false
gods of the Heathen, and the idolatrous heresies
of the CoUyridians and Angelici. But I shall now
produce a passage to which you have alluded,
(p. 48.) and which is conclusive against you.
It is taken from perhaps the most beautiful
monument of Christian Antiquity — I mean the
Acts of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, Bishop
of Smyrna, which were composed A. D. 167,
immediately after the events which they narrate.
It appears, that after the martyrdom of Polycarp,
the enemies of the Christians endeavoured to pre
vent them from obtaining his remains. They
urged the Roman Proconsul not to give up the
body, " Lest, forsaking the crucified (Jesus), they
" should begin to adore this man. And this they
" said by the suggestion and aid of the Jews, who
" had watched our endeavours to remove him from
" the fire, being ignorant that we can never forsake
" Christ, who suffered for the salvation of those
" who are saved out of all the world, nor adore
" any other. For Him, as being the Son of God,
" we worship; but the Martyrs, as being disciples
" and imitators of the Lord, we love as they deserve,
" on account of their unconquerable love to their

LETTER V. 55
" King and Master'1." No words can more plainly
teach our doctrine — that worship is due to God
only. This is also, the language of Athenagoras,
a writer of the second century, " We (Christians)
" do not approach (spiritual) powers, and serve
" them; but their Lord and Master1."
St. Irenasus, Bishop of Lyons, and a friend of
the holy Martyr Polycarp, says, that " our Lord
" manifestly shewed that the Lord, who had been
" declared by the Law, is the true and one God,
" for He whom the Law (of Moses) had announced
" as God, Christ shews to be the Father, whom
" alone the disciples of Christ must serve . . . The
" Law commands us to praise God the Creator,
" and to serve Him onlyk," &c. Compare this with
the prayer to St. Joseph ', that he will " make us
" serve Jesus and Mary." The language of St.
Theophilus of Antioch, who lived in the latter
part of the [second century, is equally clear. " A
" king," he says, " does not wish those who are
" subject to him to be called kings" [i. e. to
receive royal honours]. "For ' the king' is his
" title, and it is unlawful for any other person
" to be called so. In like manner it is not lawful
h Eccles. Smyrnensis Epist. de S. Polycarp. Martyr, ap. Patres
Apostol. t. ii. p. 585. ed. Jacobson.
' Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christianis, ap. Gallandii Bibl.
Patr. ii. p- 15.
" Irenaeus, adv. Hseres. lib. v. c. 22. ed. Benedict.
1 See above, p. 35.

56 LETTER V.
" to worship any but God onlym." This, you wilt
observe, is the very argument I have employed
against your acts of external worship to the Virgin
and Saints. An earthly king would be offended at
seeing royal honours paid to his subjects : and it is
unlawful to act towards God in a way which we
should not dare to attempt with an earthly Sove
reign. St. Clement of Alexandria considers it a principal
point of religion to " worship one God alone, who is
" truly omnipotent";" and the same doctrine is
taught in various places by Tertullian0. Thus, in his
reflections on Prayer, he remarks on the wisdom of
our Lord's command " of praying in secret, by which
"he ... . desired the lowliness of faith, that to Him
" alone, whom he believed to hear and to see every
" where, he would offer his worship p." These senti
ments remained with Tertullian even after he had
fallen into the heresy of Montanus : " It is enjoined
" me," he says in his Scorpiace, " not to call any
" other being God; that I should not even in
*' speaking, by my tongue no less than by my hand
" make a God; that J should not adore, or in any
" manner venerate, any other but that One who thus

m Theophil. Antiochen. lib. i. ad Autolycum, c. xi. Gallandii
Bibliotheca Patrum, t. ii. p. 84.
" Stromata, lib. vi. t. ii. Oper. p. 825. ed. Potteri.
Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christianis, ubi supra, p. 13.
' Tertullian, De Orat. p. 129. ed. Rigaltii Par. 1664.

LETTER V. 57
' commands; whom I am also commanded to fear,
" lest 1 be forsaken by Him'i."
The language of the Fathers was always the
same ; St. Cyprian says, that evils are inflicted on
men, " in order that the One God of all, may be
" alone worshipped and prayed to by allr." St.
Dionysius of Alexandria says, "We worship and
" adore the One God and Creator of all things
" who entrusted the empire to Valerian and Gallie-
" nus beloved of God . ... We worship no other s."
Such also was the language of the Martyr Fructuo
sus Bishop of Tarragona, (about A.D. 262.) " I
" worship one God, who made heaven and earth and
" all that therein is." When his Deacon Eulogius
was asked whether he would worship Fructuosus
after his death, he replied, " I worship not Fruc-
" tuosus, but I worship Him whom Fructuosus
" worships also1." Lactantius says, " No other
" religion and worship is to' be held, but that of
" one Godu."
St. Athanasius supplies us with the principle on
which the Church refused to worship any being
except God. It was not merely because heathens
and heretics worshipped false or imaginary Gods :
•> Tertull. Scorpiace, p. 490.
' Cyprian, ad Demetrian, p. 232. ed. Rigaltii, 1649.
• Eusebii Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. c. 11. p. 258. ed. Valesii.
1 Baronii Annales, Anno 262. §. 60. t. iii. p. 126. ed. Lucae
1738. 0 Lactantii Instit. I. i. c. 20. ap. Galland. Bibl. Patr. iv. 245.

58 LETTER V.
it was, on this broad, plain, and most rational
principle — that religious worship was unsuitable to
any creature — that it belonged only to the Creator
of all things. He argues that Christ is God be
cause he is worshipped, for that no one except God
can be worshipped. His argument is very remark
able. " One creature," he says, " doth not worship
" another, but the servant his master, the creature
" his God. Whence Peter the Apostle hindered
" Cornelius when he wished to worship him, say-
" ing, ' I also am a man.' The Angel also hindered
" John when he wished to worship him in the
" Apocalypse, saying, * See thou do it not, for I
" am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the
" Prophets, and of them which keep the sayings
" of this book, Worship God.' Therefore it belongs
" to God only to be worshipped. And this the
" Angels themselves know, that although they
" excel others in glory, they are yet all creatures,
" and are not in the number of those who are to be
" worshipped, but of them who worship the Lordx."
It may be remarked here, that it would be perfectly
absurd to imagine even for a moment, that Corne
lius or St. John could have really intended to give
Divine honours to Peter or the Angel. Neverthe
less their worship was in each case forbidden ; and
according to St. Athanasius it is only due to God.
* Athanasii Orat. ii. contra Arianos, t. i. p. 491. Oper. ed.
Benedict.

LETTER V. 59
And the principle on which such worship is for
bidden is, that creatures are not to be worshipped.
This principle is also laid down by St. Gregory
of Nyssa in the following terms. " That none of
" those things which have their being by creation
"is to be worshipped by men the Divine word
" hath enacted, as we may learn from almost all the
" divinely-inspired Scripture. Moses, the Tables,
" the Law, the Prophets afterwards, the Gospels,
" the doctrine of all the Apostles, equally forbid
" the looking unto the creature." He then observes,
that the neglect of this introduced heathen idolatry ;
and continues thus: " Lest we should suffer the
" same things, who have been instructed by the
" Scriptures to look to the true Godhead ; we
" have been taught to understand, that every
" created thing is different from the Divine nature,
" and to adore and worship only the uncreated
" nature, the character of which is never to begin
" and never to end its existences"
The language of Hilary, a deacon of the Roman
Church in the time of Pope Damasus2, is also very
y Gregor. Nyss. contra Eunom. Orat. iv. t. ii. p. 144, 146.
Oper. ed. Paris, 1615.
z The commentary on the Epistles from which I quote, has
been commonly attributed to St. Ambrose, but the researches of
learned men have assigned its composition to Hilary. This
writer had fallen into the schism of Lucifer bishop of Cagliari,
but appears to have been reunited to the Church, as he speaks in
very honourable terms of Pope Damasus. See Natalis Alexander,
Hist. Eccl. saec. iv. c. vi. art. 14.

60 LETTER V.
remarkable, from its refutation of the pretences on
which the worship of created beings has been
justified in ancient and modern times. Speaking
of the heathen he says : " They are accustomed, in
" order to cover the shame of neglecting God, to
" use a miserable excuse, saying, that by them
" [created beings] they can approach God, as we
" approach a king by his ministers  Come
" then : Is any one so mad, so unmindful of his
" safety, as to give the king's honour to a minister —
" when, if any were even found treating on such a
" matter, they would be justly condemned as guilty
" of high treason } And yet these men do not think
" themselves guilty who give the honour of God's
" name to a creature, and leaving the Lord adore
" their fellow-servants ; as if there was any thing
" more that could be reserved to God. For we
" approach the king by his ministers, because he
" is only a man, and knows not to whom he may
" entrust the state. But to propitiate God, from
" whom nothing is hid, (for he knows what all
" men deserve,) there i& no need of any other
" spokesman but a devout mind. Wheresoever
" such an one shall speak to Him, he will answer
" him*." It is evident from this, that the heathen did not
intend to give the same honour to their deified
men and to God: they regarded them as mediators,
* Comment. inEpist. ad Rom. c. k Inter Ambrosii Opera, t. ii.
Appendix, p. 33. ed. Benedict.

<<

LETTER V. 61
or as greatly inferior to the Supreme Deity. This
is distinctly stated indeed by Tertullian, " Many,"
he says, " dispose the Godhead so, as to acknow-
" ledge that One has the empire or supreme
" government, but that many are engaged in His
service ; as Plato describes Jupiter in heaven
*' accompanied by an army of gods and spirits."
It would be easy to confirm the truth of this
statement from Orosius, Celsus, Hierocles, and
other heathen writers. It is evident therefore,
that the heathen did not mean, any more than
Romanists do, to give supreme honours to beings
who were inferior to the One Deity. And yet the
Fathers most strenuously resisted every act of ex
ternal worship offered to any being except God, on
the broad principle which we also maintain, that
religious worship of every sort is due only to the
Creator — never to the creature.
St. Ambrose says, " We read that nothing but
" God alone is to be adored, for it is written,
¦" ' Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him
" only shalt thou serve V " St. Jerome, in describ
ing the worship of the Christians, speaks thus;
" We do not worship and adore (I do not say
" merely) the relics of the martyrs, but not even
" the Sun and Moon, the Angels or Archangels, the
" Cherubim, Seraphim, or any name that is named
" in this world or the world to come, lest we should
b Ambros. de Spiritu Sancto, I. iii. c. II. Oper. t. ii. p. 680.
ed. Benedict.

62 LETTER V.
"serve the creature more than the Creator, who is
" blessed for ever. But we honour the relics of the
" Martyrs, that we may adore Him whose Martyrs
" they arec." St. Gregory Nazianzen says, that
the " one rule of piety is, to worship the Father,
" the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the one Godhead
" and Power in three Persons, honouring nothing
" above or beneath God  the former of which
" would be impossible, and the latter impious d."
St. Hilary of Poictiers teaches the same truth :
" You are not ignorant that religious devotion
" towards a creature, is accursede." St. Ambrose
in another place uses expressions which come still
more home to the question between us. " Without
" doubt the Holy Ghost is to be adored, since He
" also is to be adored, who, according to the flesh,
" was born of the Spirit. And lest any one should
" derive the same [adoration] to the Virgin Mary ;
" Mary was the temple of God, but not the God of
" the temple ; and therefore He only is to be adored
" who operated in that temple f." How completely
c Hieronymi Epist. xxxvii. al. liii. ad Riparium, t. iv. pars ii.
p. 279. Oper. ed. Benedict.
A Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. xiv. Oper. t. i. p. 221. ed. Pans,
1609. e Hilar. Pietav. de Trinitate, lib. viii. p. 963. Oper. ed. Benedict.
Compare the note of the Benedictine Editors; who state that
Ambrose, Basil, Athanasius, Nyssene, &c. employ this principle
in their proofs of the Divinity of our Lord.
i Ambros. de Spiritu Sancto, lib. iii. c. 11. p. 681. t. ii. ed.
Bened.

LETTER V. 63
this language of St. Ambrose overthrows all your
argument in defence of Cardinal Bona's prayer.
Theodoret is equally strict in refusing all religious
worship to any but God : " We honour those men
" who live virtuously, as most excellent men; but
" we worship only the God and Father of all, and
" his Word, and Holy Spirit6." Epiphanius, like
St. Ambrose, rejects the worship of the Virgin
Mary and the Saints. " Which of the prophets
" permitted a man (not to speak of a woman) to be
" worshipped? For she (the Virgin) is indeed a
" chosen vessel, but a ivoman, and in no respect
" changed in nature  But neither is Elias to
" be worshipped, though amongst the living; nor
" is John to be worshipped,  neither is
" Thecla, nor any of the Saints to be worshipped.
" For that ancient error shall not prevail over us,
" to forsake the living God, and to worship the
' ' things that are made by Him, for ' they served and
" worshipped the creature above the Creator, and
" became fools.' For if He will not have the Angels
"to be worshipped, how much more would he not
" have (Mary) her that was born of Annah." St.
Augustine also condemns your practice : " Let not
" the worship of dead men," he says, " be our
" religion ; for if they lived piously, they are not to
" be supposed to seek for such honours, but they
e Theodoret. Graecar. Affect. Sermo ii. p. 502. t. iv. Oper. ed.
Sirmond. b Epiphan. Hseres. lxxix. torn. ii. Oper. ed. Petavii, p. 1062.

64 LETTER V.
"wish Him to be worshipped by us, by whose
" enlightening they rejoice that we are partners of
" their merit. They are therefore to be honoured
"for imitation, not worshipped for religion  We
" honour them (the Angels) with love, not with
" service; nor do we build temples to them. For
" they do not wish to be so honoured by us, because
" they know that we ourselves, if we are good, are
" temples of the high God. It is therefore rightly
" written, (Rev. xxii. 9.) that a man was forbidden
" by an angel that he should not worship him, but
" God alone, under whom he was his fellow-
" servant1." I shall not carry the proof from Tradition any
further at present. From what has been said, it
must be evident I think to any candid mind, that
Catholic Antiquity entirely accords with us, in
believing that all religious worship is due to the
holy Trinity alone; and that it is unlawful to
impart it, in any degree, to creatures ; that even the
appearance of worshipping creatures is to be
avoided ; that Angels, and Saints, and even the
Virgin Mother of Christ our God, are to be loved
and honoured indeed, but never worshipped or
adored in any manner whatever ; either above God,
or equally with God, or even less than God.
II. " Ought prayer and praise only to be offered

1 Augustin. de Vera Relig. c. Iv. t. i. Oper. ed. Benedict.
p. 786, 787.

LETTER V, 33
" persecute me : say unto my soul, I am thy sal-
" vation." (Ps. xxxv. 3.) " O that my ways were
" directed to keep thy statutes." (Ps. cxix. 5.)
" Let, I pray theei thy merciful kindness be for my
" comfort." (Ps. cxix. 76.) " Preserve my life
" from fear of the enemy." (Ps. lxiv. 1.) " Turn
" us again, O God of hosts, and cause thy face to
" shine ; and we shall be saved." (Ps. lxxx. 7.)
But I turn to the passage which you have
selected for defence. It is as follows :
" Behold, I fall down before thee, most gracious
" Virgin, I fall down and worship in thee thy
" Son."You boldly deny this passage to be idolatrous,
and your proof is, " The blessed Virgin is con-
" stantly called by the Fathers the Temple of God,
" consequently the place in which He is to be
" worshipped." (p. 33.) We are accordingly
favoured with long quotations from Chrysologus
Ephrem Syrus, Cyril of Alexandria, Damascenus,
Sedulius, Maximus Taurinensis, and a spurious
passage from Methodius1. We fully allow the
doctrine taught by all these Fathers. The blessed
Virgin did, most undoubtedly, become the Temple
of the Godhead, by conceiving our Lord Jesus
Christ : but, Sir, do you mean to say'j that she is
still the temple of the Godhead in this sense ? No :
she ceased to be so, when our Saviour was born.
I can produce higher authorities than you have
c pp. 33 — 36.
C

34 LETTER V.
died, to prove that every believer is a temple of
God. St. Paul says, " Know ye not that ye are
" the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God
" dwelleth in you ?" (1 Cor. iii. 16.) " Know ye
" not that your body is the temple of the Holy
" Ghost which is in you?" (1 Cor. vi. 19.) And
yet, what would you think of saying to any living
man, " Behold, I fall down before thee ; I fall down
" and worship in thee thy God?" Observe that
the language of Bona is not, " I worship thy Son,
" who dwelleth in thee as in a temple ;" but, " I
" worship in thee, thy Son ;" i. e. " In worship-
" ping thee, I worship thy Son."
In a note (p. 36.) you produce a passage from
St. Ephrem Syrus, to prove that the mere type
of our Lord may be worshipped in a third person !
I really do not profess to understand the meaning of
this. The whole passage , as translated from the Syriac
by Assemani, is as follows. " The Year also, parent
' ' of all the months and days, with all the hours and
" moments which depend on it, adored [Christ]
" the Conqueror of death, by its child April [the
" month in which our Lord suffered]; like as
" Rachel through [her child] Jacob worshipped
" Joseph, whom, as a type of the Son of God,
" the Sun and Moon, the rulers of the year,
" adoredV The allusion is to Joseph's dreame,
in which the Sun and Moon, representing his
4 Ephraem Syri Opera, Syriaco-Lat. t. iii. p. 604.
' Genesis xxxvii. 9, 10.

LETTER V. 35
father and mother, did obeisance to him ; and it is
here introduced to illustrate the highly figurative
language in reference to the Year. Assuredly St.
Ephrem did not mean that Rachel or Jacob really
and literally adored Joseph: he only alludes to a
dream. Your justification of Cardinal Bona having thus
entirely failed, my conclusion remains unshaken, —
that the Virgin receives amongst you honours which
are only due to God.
IV. The next prayers which you undertake to
defend are as follows.
" Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, I offer to you my
" heart and my soul — Jesus, Joseph, and Mary,
" assist me in my last agony — Jesus, Joseph, and
" Mary, may my soul expire in peace with you."
Prayer approved by Pius VI.
" O holy Joseph .... I beseech and pray thee,
" by both these dear pledges, Jesus and Mary ....
" to make me ever most chastely to serve Jesus
" and Mary, &c." Approved by Pius VII.
You do not understand (p. 37.) what is meant
by my observation, that our Lord is made a sort
of Mediator between Joseph and his worshippers,
in this latter prayer. The term perhaps did not
fully express my meaning, which was, that Joseph
is here invoked to have mercy on us for the sake of
Christ, i. e. just in the same way in which we
should approach the Father. We should beseech
Him " by his dear Son," to make us serve Him.
c2

36 LETTER V.
Here the same form of supplication is addressed to
Joseph. Let us now turn to your defence of the prayers
before us.
(1) You enquire first: "Does the union of
" creatures with God, in the same address or
" act of homage, imply their equality in the mind
" of him who makes it ?" (p. 37.) I answer, that
it certainly does : unless there be some accompany
ing circumstance which implies that a difference is
made. You appeal to expressions of Terence and
Horace (p. 37.) ; but they are not " addresses" or
" acts of homage," and therefore do not affect the
question. You refer to the language of Scripture
(1 Chron. xxix. 20, 21.) " And David said to all
" the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God.
" And all the congregation blessed the Lord God
" of their fathers, and ©owed down their heads,
" and worshipped the Lord and the King. And
" they offered sacrifices unto the Lord, and offered
" burnt-offerings unto the Lord." Here you will
observe, that their thanksgivings, prayers, sacri
fices, were directed entirely to God; therefore no
one could imagine, that the act of bowing down
their heads to worship the Lord and the King,
(if both were worshipped in the same act, which
may not have been the case,) could have been
intended to express the same homage to each.
You observe (p. 37.) that our Lord is said to

LETTER V. 37
have increased " in favour with God and man."
This furnishes no excuse for praying to God and
man as if they had the same power. The language
of the prodigal (p. 37.) to his Father, " I have
" sinned against Heaven and before thee," does not
justify you in addressing your prayers in common
to God and man, as if they were equally the objects
of faith and confidence.
The inscriptions which you next produce (p. 38.)
in illustration of " tEe practice of the early Church,"
will not assist you.
The first is accompanied by the following remark.
" Muratori considers this inscription of the fifth or
" [early part of the] sixth century." (p. 38.) On
referring to Muratori f, I find that three most
eminent critics, including Fontanini, Archbishop
of Ancyra, attribute the inscription to the ninth
century ; that a fourth (Scalabrinius) thinks it
ought to be referred to the fifth or sixth century ;
and that Muratori himself gives no opinion as to its
date. The second inscription (p. 38.) appears from
Muratori g to be of the ninth century.
The third inscription (p. 38, 39.) cannot be
earlier than the seventh century, because the title
of " Arcarius of the Holy See" which occurs there,
is not of more ancient dateh. The inscription
' Muratori, Antiquitates Medii JEvi, torn. v. p. 358.
5 Ibid.
h Du Cangii Glossarium.

38 LETTER V.
however may have been of much later date than
the seventh century. These inscriptions then do
not represent the language of the early Church.
The fourth inscription (p. 39.) according to you,
" takes us back to the year 383 at least, as this
" Bassus was slain before the reign of Gratian."
(p. 39.) The same inscription is adduced in your
Letter to Mr. Poynder', where it is again stated,
that Anicius Bassus " lived about 380 years after
" Christ," and that "he is mentioned in eccle-
" siastical history as having with Marinianus the
" patrician, most calumniously accused Pope Six-
" tus ; upon whose full justification, his goods were
" confiscated by Valentinian." There is some sad
flaw in your chronology here ; for Pope Sixtus
was not elected till A. D. 432 k, and Valentinian
flourished about the same time. How therefore
you can " take us back" to 383, is entirely beyond
my comprehension. " Ecclesiastical history" in
the form of Baronius' Annals, fixes the transaction
alluded to in the year 433 '.
As to the inscription itself, which you have
produced, it can have no weight in a matter of
controversy, proceeding as it did from the pen
of a layman of no authority. Besides, we do not
' Wiseman, Letters to Poynder, p. 38.
k Baronius, Fleury, Hist. Eccl.
1 Baronii Annales, t. vii. p. 460. ed. Lucae, 1741. Ceillier
rejects the whole transaction as fabulous, t. xiii. p. 240; but it
appears from his account that Bassus was Consul in 431.

LETTER V. 39
know where it was placed, or with what object.
If these circumstances were known, they might
aid us in judging of the propriety of the inscription.
E. g. If it had been placed in a Church erected in
honour of the Saints or Martyrs, it might not have
been very unbecoming.
I have to make but one more observation on all
these inscriptions : it is simply this. They contain
no " acts of homage," no " addresses" to God and
the Saints in common, and therefore they cannot
justify your prayers.
You next refer (p. 40.) to the well-known pas
sage in St. Justin Martyr, where it is said, " Him
" [God], and his Son who came from Him, and
" taught us these things, and the army of good
" Angels who follow and resemble Him, and the
" spirits of prophecy, we venerate and adore m."
You are of course #ware, that the ablest critics,
even in the Roman Church, are much divided as to
the proper translation of this passage", and that
many writers render it thus : " Him ; and his Son
" who came from Him, and taught us and the army
" of good angels these things ; and the Spirit," &c.
But even taking it as you do, the Angels are not
really joined " under the same form of expression"
(p. 40.) with God ; for, as the Benedictine Editors
m Just. Mart. Apolog. i. p. 11. ed. Thirlby.
D The reader may here be referred to the valuable works of the
Bishop of Lincoln on Justin Martyr, p. 53. and of Mr. Tyler on.
" Primitive Christian Worship," p. 107 — 111.

40

LETTER V.

remark", the word " venerate" refers to the Angels,
and " adore" {irpoo-Kvvovp^v) to God. In another
place Justin expressly says, " We adore {Trpoo-nv-
" vov/xev) God only p."
Thus then it appears, that you have been unable
to produce either from Scripture or Antiquity, any
language which can justify Romanists in addressing
at the same moment the same homage and prayers
to created beings and to God.
(2) Your second question (p. 41.) is: "Can it
" be idolatrous to desire or pray that the blessed
" Virgin and the Saints should receive our souls
" when we expire, or assist us at the hour of
" death ?"
In proof of the lawfulness of this practice you
observe, that St. Ambrose says the blessed Virgin
will receive virgins when they die, and present
them to her Soni. You next refer to what St.
Gregory the Great relates on the authority of a
person named Probus, whose sister beheld a vision
of the Virgin as she was dying, and addressed her
in the words, " Behold, Lady, I comer." We are
0 Sifaftet xxi Tgtrxvvcvfta, colimus et adoramus. Nam primum
quidem ad angelos ipsos refertur, habita ratione discriminis quod
inter Creatorem et rem creatam intercedit. Alterum autem
nequaquam angelos necessarib comprehendit Saepe duo verba
simul conjuncta non ad unam et eandem rem, sed ad diversas
judicio legentium referuntur. Just. Mart. ed. Benedict, p. xxii.
•' Justin. Mart. Apol. i. p. 26. ed. Thirlby.
i Ambros. de Virgin, lib. ii. c. ii.
r Gregorii Dialog. 1. iv. c. xvii.

LETTER V. 41
next favoured with a spurious prayer of St. Ephrem,
and with the language of Maximus in an Oration on
St. Eusebius of Vercelli, in which he expresses a
wish, that when we depart from this world, he may
" receive us into his abode and his bosom'," as
Abraham received Lazarus into his bosom. Other
passages from the same writer follow, in which it is
said that the Martyrs "receive us," when we go
forth from the body.
All this may be more or less right, probable, or
true ; but I cannot see how it meets the objection
offered to your prayers. The real objection which
I advanced was, that Jesus, Joseph, and Mary are
placed on an equality, by being invoked in common
at the same moment, to receive our souls. This
would lead one to think that they are equal: that
they are a Trinity of some sort — that they are three
Gods, or three human beings. It is no answer to
this objection to say, that the saints or angels
receive our souls at the hour of death.
(3) Your third question (p. 43.) is: " Does the
" ' serving of Jesus and Mary' necessarily imply a
" division of service or allegiance between them ;
" and not a bestowing on each a different species
" of it?"
In proof that it does not, you refer to the answer
to the first question. It has been shewn, I think,
that you will not find much help in that quarter.
' Maximus, Horn, lxxviii.

42 LETTER V.
As to the passage from Ildephonsus, which is
adduced (p. 44.) in further proof, I need only re
mark, that it makes a broad distinction between
the Virgin and God : " Ideo ego servus tuus, quia
" tuus Filius Dominus meus. Ideo tu Domina
" mea, quia tu ancilla Domini mei\" " Thou art
" my mistress, because thou art the handmaid of my
" Lord." These latter expressions you have thought
proper to omit. In no part of the passage does
Ildephonsus say, " I serve Jesus and Mary," or
use any expressions like those that have been ob
jected to.

Such then is the result of your defence of the
prayers and homage offered to the blessed Virgin
by the most eminent authorities in the Roman
Communion. You have not attempted to deny
that they attribute Divine powers to creatures;
that they solicit from them favours which God
alone can bestow; that they place created beings
on a level with their Creator. You have entirely
failed to bring from Scripture or Tradition any
instances of similar forms. I have a right there
fore to re-assert that they are idolatrous ; that your
Communion is deeply tinged with idolatrous prac
tices ; and that those idolatries are openly defended
and justified by the very persons, whose office (if
it was legitimately acquired) would compel them,
* Ildephonsus, ap, Patres Toletanos, p. 158. ed. 1782.

LETTER V. 43
under pain of damnation, to oppose every thing
that is connected with Idolatry.
It is to the nature of the prayers and other
honours offered by you to the Virgin that we object,
so that we shall not attempt to dispute the right of
the Roman Church to use such prayers frequently
(p. 45.) if they may be used at all. There is not
the slightest evidence that the primitive Church
ever practised such worship. We have no reason
to think that any ancient devotional works (p. 45.)
contained expressions like those which you employ.
There is no trace of them in the ancient liturgies ;
none in the genuine writings of the Fathers. They
only appear in the writings of heretics, in spurious
and apocryphal writings, or in the figurative lan
guage of poetry.

I shall only make a few remarks on the re
mainder of your third section, in which a theory,
which I have not time to examine, (p. 45 — 53.) is
propounded to account for the greater veneration
paid to the blessed Virgin in later than in earlier
times. I cannot but wonder that you should appeal
(p. 47.) to the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, in proof
that " devotion towards the martyrs began from
" the earliest ages." I shall reserve the passage
for future consideration : it is decisively opposed to
you. You observe (p. 52.) that " Christian monu-
" ments of the age of the Catacombs represent the

44 LETTER V.
" Virgin as superior to the Apostles themselves."
This is quite consistent with a sound faith, and yet
it does not warrant our giving Divine honours either
to one or the other. The figures to which you
allude u may be as ancient as you imagine, but they
resemble those found in manuscripts of a much
later date.
In allusion to the Collyridian heresy, which
elevated the blessed Virgin into a Deity, you re
mark, that " this foolish idolatry could hardly have
" sprung up, where no sort of veneration had ever
" been paid." (p. 52, 53.) Very true : but who
supposes that " no sort of veneration had ever been
" paid," or that no sort of veneration is due? All
that we contend against, is what the Collyridian
heretics practised, and what Romanists follow them
in practising, i. e. worshipping the Virgin with
Divine honours ; offering to her the same homage
and worship which is offered to God. How you
can venture to quote the language of Epiphanius,
" Let honour be given to Mary, but let only Father,
" Son, and Holy Ghost be adored," (p. 53.) after
having so systematically justified prayers and
addresses in which the Virgin is placed on a level
with the Trinity, is a matter of no small surprise
to me.

Sedulii Opera, ed. Arevalo, p. 351.

LETTER V. 45
§.4. Dr. Wiseman's Defence of Prayers to Saints.
I have maintained that the Saints receive amongst
you " honours which are only due to God51," and in
proof of this have cited the following passages.
" We will earnestly beseech with humble prayers
" from the Prince of the Apostles Peter, and from
" his co-Apostle Paul, that you may stand as a
" wall. Relying on this delightful hope, we trust
" that the Author and Finisher of our faith,
" Jesus Christ, will at length console us in all our
" tribulations." Encyclical.
" Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, I offer you my heart
" and my soul, &c." as above, p. 35.
" Angel of God who art my guardian, enlighten
" me who am committed to thee with heavenly
" piety ; guard, direct, and govern me." Approved
by Pius VI.
" O holy Joseph  I beseech and pray thee
"  to preserve me from all uncleanness, and
" make me ever most chastely to serve Jesus and
" Mary." Approved by Pius VII.
(1) Your first question on these prayers is as
follows. " Is it idolatrous or wrong to address or
" to speak of any Saints, more especially the two
" great Apostles, as protectors?" (p. 55.)
I do not mean to say that it is idolatrous in all
cases ; but I do certainly think it wrong to attribute
* Letter 1. p. 25.

46 LETTER V.
to the Apostles the protection of the Church, while,
in the very next Words, we only attribute to Christ,
its consolation; because this seems to place the
Apostles on a level with our Saviour, to say the
least. I think also that it is wrong to express at
the same moment, in the same terms, the same
confidence in God and in his creatures.
You refer to St. Basil's homily on the Forty
Martyrs when he speaks in the following terms.
" These are they who having obtained a place
" amongst us, (their relics were deposited in the
" Church of Csesarea,) like continual towers, afford
" security from the incursions of the enemies7."
That is, their memory and example was calculated
to encourage Christians against the assaults of
heresies and evil spirits. I do not see that we can
deduce any thing more from this passage, or that
it can justify your practice.
Your next proof is from Paulinus of Nola, who
in an epitaph, and a poetical epitaph on the pres
byter Clarus, desires his prayers for himself and his
wife Therasia. The whole passage is free from any
thing that looks like idolatry, and does not afford
any justification of the prayers and expressions
to which we object'. It is doubted whether the
y ovroi eio-iv 6i t«v kx6 ifias ypettv 2i»ha/inTts, etovti -riigyo< rtin
<rm%yjH<;, tarlputeutv tx. t«s tSv incnluf xcCTctfyoftHf ?rai>i%ifcevoi. Basilii
Opera, t. ii. p. 135. ed. Benedict.
1 Sic Deus accivit, sic nos Martinus amavit
Sic et tu pariter Clare tuere pares.

LETTER V. 47
passion of Genesius was written by Paulinus of
Nola, but the exhortation is to pray for the inter
cession of Genesius, " Patrocinetur" may well be
translated, " plead for*." The next extracts from
Paulinus are poetical, and cannot afford precedents
for prayers, and solemn declarations. It was sup
posed by many persons, that the martyrs took a
particular interest in those places where their relics
were deposited, and honoured ; and that they
prayed for them. This notice, however uncertain,
led to expressions of confidence in their intercession
and patronage with reference to those particular
places. The language of St. Prudentius (p. 56.) amounts
to a wish that St. Laurence may love his fellow-
citizens ; and the same sentiment in another form,
appears in his hymn on St. Eulalia. (Ibid.) But
these again are poetical expressions, such as any
Christian poet who disapproved of your prayers
might still employ.
The language of Gaudentius, Venantius, Leo,
Chrysostom, Maximus, (pp. 57, 58.) merely shews
that those writers sometimes used the terms of
Non meritis sed amore pares, tu sancte valebis
Exorare pares et meritis fieri,
Si cum Martino socia pietate labores,
Ut vincant vestras crimina nostra preces.
Paulinus Epist. xxxii. ad Severum, ed. Muratori.
' Paulini Passio S. Genesii, p. 316.

48 LETTER V.
" patronage" or " protection," when they alluded
to the prayers of the Saints to God for men. This
does not excuse you for expressing your con
fidence at the same time and in the same manner, in
the power of God and of His creatures. It does
not justify Gregory XVI. for asserting that Peter
and Paul protect the Church, while Christ consoles
it. It does not excuse you for " offering your
" hearts and souls" to " Jesus, Joseph, and
" Mary," instead of to the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
You are right in saying that the bishop of Rome
might safely repeat the homilies of St. Leo, " with-
" out disparagement to his claim of supremacy,"
(p. 58.) ; for no one was more zealous to maintain
and augment the dignity of his See. The " pro-
" tection" of which St. Leo speaks in the passage
you have cited, refers to the promise of Christ that
Peter's faith should not fail, Luke xxii. 21. which
St. Leo uses as an encouragement to us\ His
continual object was to represent that St. Peter
still lived in his successors, and that all the
promises made to him, were made to the bishops
of Rome also0.
It is doubtful whether any such verses as you
mention (p. 59.) were ever inscribed over the gate
of Glastonbury Church ; for the book of William
" Opera, ed. Quesnel. t. i. p. 18.
« Opera, t. i. p. 103, 104—106, 110, 112.

LETTER V. 65
"' to God and not to any creature ? Is it a species
" of sacrifice which is only due to the Deity ? And
' are we bound to place our hope, trust, and con-
' fidence in God only, and in no creature what-
" ever?" These questions are immediately connected with
that which has just been considered ; and all the
sentiments of the Fathers which have been adduced,
bear most directly on them ; for prayer, and praise,
trust, and confidence, are all parts of inter
nal or external worship or adoration. If it be
unlawful then to adore or worship creatures, it is
equally unlawful to offer them religious prayer or
praise, or to place hope and confidence in them.
But I proceed to bring specific proofs from the
Fathers, in confirmation of our doctrine, and in
condemnation of the doctrine and practice so com
mon and so authorized in the Roman Commu
nion. I shall commence with St. Irenaeus. " As the
" Church," he says, " has freely received from the
" Lord, so does she freely minister ; nor does she
" do any thing by invocation of Angels, nor by
" incantations, nor by any evil curiosity; but by
" directing her prayers cleanly, and purely, and
" openly, to the Lord who made all things, and
" calling on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ k."
It is evident from this, that St. Irenaeus thought it
k Irenaeus, adv. Haeres. 1. ii. c. xxxii. ed. Benedict, p. 166.
E

66 LETTER V.
unlawful to pray to- Angels or any created being.
St. Clement of Alexandria is equally explicit : " It
" is," he says, " the extreme of ignorance to ask
" from those who are not Gods, as though they
" were Gods  Whence, since there is only
" one good God, both we ourselves and the Angels
" supplicate from Him alone, that some good things
" might be given to us, and that others might
" remain with us1." That prayer is a sacrifice due
to God, is taught by the same Father in the follow
ing terms : " We do not without cause honour God
" by prayer, and with righteousness send up this
" best and holiest sacrifice1"." It is also maintained
by Tertullian, thus : " We Christians pray for all
" rulers a long life, a secure government 
" These things I cannot ask in prayer from any other
" except Him from whom I know that I shall
" obtain ; both because He is the one who alone
" grants, and I am the one whom it behoveth to
" obtain by prayer ; being his servant, who looks to
" Him alone, who for his religion am put to death,
" who offer to Him a rich and a greater sacrifice
" which He hath commanded — even prayer pro-
" ceeding from a chaste body, from a harmless
" soul, from a holy spirit"."
" If," said Athenagoras, " we lift up pure hands
" to Him (God), what need is there of a hecatomb?
' Clemens Alexandr. Stromata, lib. vii. p. 853. ed. Potteri,
" Stromata, lib. vii. p. 848. See also p. 850.
¦ Tertull. Apologet. c. 30. p. 27. Oper. ed. Rigaltii.

LETTER V. 67
"  What have I to do with burnt offerings,
" which God does not require, though it be neces-
" sary to offer to Him a bloodless sacrifice, and a
" reasonable service0?"
The sacrifices of prayer and praise were then
only to be offered up to God ; as Origen expressly
says. " Every prayer, and supplication, and inter-
" cession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up unto
" God who is above all, through the High Priest
" who is above all angels, the living Word and
" God  For it is not reasonable that those
" who do not comprehend the knowledge of
" Angels, which is beyond men, should invoke
" them. And even supposing that their know-
" ledge, which is somewhat marvellous and secret,
" were comprehended ; this very knowledge, de-
" daring their nature and the things over which
" they are appointed, would not permit us to pre-
" sume to pray to any other but unto God, the Lord
"over all, who is sufficient for all, through our
" Saviour, the Son of God p." Nothing can be
more conclusive — more decisively condemnatory of
the practice of Romanists.
In another place Origen confirms our view very
strongly : " To those who place their confidence in
" the Saints, we fitly produce as an example,
" 'Cursed is the man which hopeth in man;'
" and again, ' Do not put your trust in man ;'
0 Athenagoras, ubi supra, p. 13.
' Origen. cont. Celsum, lib. v. p. 580. t. i. Oper. ed. Delarue.
E 2

68 LETTER V.
" and another, ' It is better to trust in the Lord
" than in princes.' If it be necessary to put our
" trust in any one, Let us leave all others, and hope
" in the Lor d*"
Novatian, presbyter of the Roman Church in the
middle of the third century, argues, as many of the
Fathers have done, that Christ is God, because He
is every where invoked. " If Christ be only man,"
he says, " how is He present, being invoked every
" where, since it is not the nature of man but of
" God to be present in every place ? ... If Christ
" be only man, why is hope reposed in Him, when
" hope in man is said to be accursed r?" Had
Invocation of Saints been practised at that time
in the Church, Novatian could not have argued
thus ; because the immediate answer would have
been, that Christ was invoked as a man, even as
the Saints were. But his argument is directly
opposed to any calling on created beings.
The doctrine of St. Athanasius is also strongly
opposed to you. " It is written, ' Be my pro-
" tecting God, my house of refuge, and save me,'
"> Horn. iv. in Ezechiel, p. 373. t. iii. The Latin translation,
from which the above passage is taken, was made by St. Jerome*
' Novatianus, De Trinitate, c. xiv. This Treatise was fre
quently attributed to Tertullian or Cyprian, even in the time of
St. Jerome, as he remarks, Catalog. Script. Keel. c. 81, and
Apolog. cont. Ruffin. lib. ii. Natalis Alexander has shewn that
the doctrine of this Treatise is sound. Hist. Eccl. Saec. ii. Dissert,
xi. art. iv.

LETTER V. 69
" and ' the Lord was the refuge of the poor,' and
" whatever things of the same sort are found in
" Scripture. But if they say that these things are
" spoken of the Son, which would perhaps be true,
" let them confess, that the Saints did not think of
" calling on a created being to be their helper and
" house of refuge 5." Compare this with the prayer
addressed to the Virgin by Cardinal Bona, and
those to the Virgin and Joseph which have been
produced. It is really hard to imagine, how, in the face of
such sentiments, Romanists can dare to appeal to
Catholic Antiquity in justification of their idola
trous prayers to created beings. You have, how
ever, explained what might otherwise have been
hard to account for. You have demonstrated, that
Romanism depends for its justification on forged
and spurious compositions. You have proved, that
it is still necessary to resort to such dishonest
arts ; that men of literary character like yourself
are obliged to cling to them, in the desperate
effort to support a bad and a feeble cause. It is
in this way that your unhappy followers are de
ceived, blinded, and ruined.
We affirm with all the Fathers, that prayer is
only to be offered to God. Look through their
pages, and you will find that this doctrine enters
into their very notion of prayer. " Prayer is a
' Athanasii Orat. i. cont. Arianos, torn. i. p. 466. ed. Benedict.

70 LETTER V.
" request of some good thing made by pious men
" to God," says St. Basil'. It is " a discoursing
" with God" according to St. Gregory Nyssene u —
" a colloquy with God," according to St. John
Chrysostom* — " an ascension of the mind to God,
" or a request of fit things from God," according
to John Damascenus ?. Could any of these Fathers
have prayed to Saints? The thing is wholly im
possible. We have heard the doctrine of St. Athanasius :
let us now attend to that of one of his successors,
St. Theophilus of Alexandria. " How shall they
" call on Him in whom they have not believed?
" It is necessary in the first place to believe that
M the Son of God is, in order that calling on Him
" be right and reasonable ; and as he who is not
" God is not to be adored, so, on the other hand,
*'¦ He that is God, is to be adored V Here we see
that invoking or " calling on" any one by prayer,
is a part of adoration, and as such is due to God
only. Hilary, Deacon of Rome, in commenting on
the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians,
1 Basil. Orat. in Julitiam Martyr. Oper. t. ii. p. 33. ed. Bene
dict. » Nyssen. Orat. ii. de Oratjowe Dom. Oper. «• 724.
* Chrysost. Orat. ii. de Orat.
y Damascenus, De Fide Orthodox, lib. iii. c. 24. Oper. t. i.
p. 248.
z Theophil. Alexandrinus, PaschaL ii. p. 718. t. iv. Bibl. Patr.
Colon. 1618.

LETTER V. 71
says, that the Apostle " in the beginning declared
" how great and infinite is the Almighty greatness
" of Christ, that He might instruct us, that hope is
" only to be placed in Him; because all things are
" his, and because nothing can exist without Him,
" neither in heaven nor in earth. ' For He is
" before all things, and by Him all things consist,
" because He hath the preeminence in all things ;'
" so that if any one thinks that he ought to be
" devoted to any of the Angels, or elements, or
" powers, let him know that he is in error a."
This was the language of the fourth century. Now
we hear of nothing but " devotion to the Virgin
" and the Saints" — " trust" and " hope" in their
power. What was impious in the fourth century,
is now obtruded upon us as Catholic and laudable.
So strictly did the Catholic Church in primitive
times adhere to the Apostolic tradition, that in the
Eucharist, prayer was not even to be directed to
the second or third Persons of the blessed Trinity.
The third Council of Carthage, at which St.
Augustine was present, decreed, that " At the
" Altar prayer should always be directed to the
" Father, and whatever prayers are composed by
" any one, he may not use till he has submitted
" them to the examination of the more learned
" brethren15." Thus jealous was the Catholic
" Hilar, in Coloss. i. p. 266, Ambrosii Opera, t. ii. pars ii. ed.
Ben. b Concil. Carthag. iii. c. xxiii. Labbaei Concilia, t. ii, col. 1 170.

72 LETTER V.
Church of the prerogatives of the Father, to whom
our Lord had directed us to address our prayers
in His name. " Verily, verily, I say unto you,
" Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name,
" He will give it you  At that day ye shall
" ask in my name ; and I say not unto you, that I
"will pray the Father for you; for the Father
" Himself loveth you." (John xvi. 24, 26, 27.)
And if our prayers are generally to be directed to the
Father, instead of to the Son or the Holy Spirit —
if even in the Trinity itself, where there is the
same Godhead in three Persons, the priority of the
Father is to be practically recognised in our worship ;
how much greater becomes the sin of those who
worship and pray to mere creatures, as they would
to the Supreme Fountain and First Principle of all
things. The practice of Romanists in praying to Angels
was first invented by a sect in the fourth century,
who for the purpose of exercising this unlawful
worship, held private meetings separate from those
of the Catholic Church, in which it was not per
mitted. The Council of Laodicea, the decrees of
which were received and approved by the whole
Church, condemned this sect in the following
terms: "Christians ought not to forsake the
" Ci.urch of God, and depart, and call on angels,
"and make meetings; which are forbidden. If
" any one therefore be found giving himself to
" this hidden idolatry, Let him be Anathema,

LETTER V. 73
" because he hath left our Lord Jesus Christ the
" Son of God, and hath betaken himself to
" idolatry'." Prayers to Angels are forbidden in
this decree, but the same principle applies equally
to all prayers to created beings. Prayers to
Angels and Saints were therefore in the judgment
of the Catholic Church of the fourth century,
idolatrous; and yet you adopt and defend those
prayers without any scruple.
The Adoration of the Virgin was also introduced
about the same time, and was regarded as a heresy
by the Catholic Church. It commenced in Arabia
about A. D. 373, and seems to have given rise to
an opposite heresy, that of the Antidicomarians,
who spoke irreverently of the blessed Virgin. We
learn that the sinful and misguided persons who
adopted this new worship, made offerings of cakes
to the Virgin at particular times of the year, from
which they were called CoUyridians, (a word which
signified the nature of their offering.) There is no
evidence that they separated from the Church or
its worship, or refused to worship God, or regarded
the Virgin as equal to God. They are not accused
of this by any writer. They, however, offered
external worship to the Virgin, and were therefore
' Concil. Laodicen. Can. xxxv. Beveregii Pandect. Canon, t. i.
p. 468. This heresy is referred to by Epiphanius, Hseres. lx.
Oper. t. ii. p. 505. and by St. Augustine, Lib. de Haeres. n. xxxix.
t. viii. p. 1 1. Oper. ed. Ben. ; and it seems to have become extinct
in a short time.

74 LETTER V.
regarded as heretics. St. Epiphanius has refuted
this heresy, and at the same time furnished the
strongest arguments against Romanists, in a work
from which the followihg extracts are made. —
" The body of Mary was holy indeed, but she
" was not God. She was a Virgin and honoured,
" but not proposed to us to be worshipped, but as
" worshipping Him who, born of her flesh, had
" descended from Heaven and from his Father's
" bosom. Therefore the Gospel warned us before-
" hand, in which Christ thus speaketh, ' What
" have I to do with thee, woman? my hour is not
" yet come,' in order that from this expression,
" ' What have I to do with thee, woman ?' none
" might think the holy Virgin more excellent (in
" nature) .... none might by excessively admiring
" the Saint, fall into this folly of heresy*. Which
" of the prophets ever permitted a man to be
" worshipped, not to speak of a woman" ? Let
" Mary be in honour, but let Father, Son, and
" Holy Spirit be worshipped: let no one worship
" Mary. That service is not enjoined by God ; I say
" not to a woman, but even to a man. Not even
" the Angels are worthy of such honours. . . . Let
" no one taste of that error concerning the holy
" Mary, for although the tree be beautiful, it is
" not good for food ; and although Mary is most
" excellent, and holy, and worthy of honour, yet
' Epiphan. Hseres. lxxix. t. ii. Oper. p. 1061.
• p. 1062.

LETTER V. 75
*
" she is not to be worshipped  Let such
" women (as worship her) be silenced by Jeremiah,
" and no longer disturb the world. Let them not
" say, ' We honour the Queen of Heaven1.' Let
" Mary be in honour. Let the Lord be worship-
" ped. For the righteous afford to no one an
" occasion of error?."
To speak of the blessed Virgin as a woman, in
the way which St. Epiphanius here does, would be
regarded by many Romanists as little less than
blasphemous. If indeed those magnificent titles
which they bestow on her (amongst which is that
very one of " Queen of Heaven," here reprehended
by St. Epiphanius) be rightly and piously applied,
it must be disrespectful to speak of her as " a
" woman." III. " Is it necessary to ask for the intercession
" of Saints and Angels with God, or is it better to
" approach the throne of God with our own
¦" prayers, relying with confidence on the inter-
" cession of the Great High Priest Jesus Christ?"
Our belief is in this case also confirmed by the
voice of Catholic tradition, and the practice and
opinions of Romanists approximate to those of the
heathen and heretics, against whom the holy
Fathers contended.
You have quoted (p. 64.) Valerian, Bishop of
Cemela, A.D. 450, as urging the necessity of
f p. 1062.

/ O LETTER V.
having recourse to the Saints, because " it is the
" only way to secure the favour of God." " What
" place of pardon will there be," he says, " if you
" know not how to entreat the friends of the king?"
I have not examined into the genuineness of this
piece — but admitting it to be genuine, I maintain,
that the doctrine here advanced was not that of the
Catholic Church.
The heathen, as we learn from the example of
Celsus, defended their worship and prayers addressed
to Angels or Spirits, by representing that we ought
to put our trust in them because they were ministers
of God. To this Origen replies : " Away with the
" advice of Celsus, saying that we should pray to
" Angels, and let it not be heard for a moment.
" For we must pray to God alone who is above all,
" and we must pray to the only-begotten Word of
" God, ' the first-born of all creatures,' and we
" must entreat Him, as a high-priest, to offer up our
'•'¦prayers to his God and our God*". We must
" endeavour to please God alone, who is above all
" things, and labour to have Him propitious to us,
" procuring His good will by godliness and all
" kinds of virtue. And if Celsus will yet have us
" to procure the good will of any others after Him
" that is God over all ... . having God, favourable
" to us, who is over all, it follows that we shall
" have all His friends both Angels and Spirits
11 Origen. cont. Celsum, 1. viii. p. 760. t. i. Oper. ed. Benedict.

LETTER V. 77
" loving unto us '. To whom we offer our first-
" fruits, to Him also do we send our prayers,
" having a great High Priest that is entered into
" the heavens. . . . But if we have a desire towards
" a multitude [of Saints, Angels, &c] whom we
" wish to be favourable unto us, we learn that
" ' thousand thousands stand by Him,'&c. . . . who
" labour together for the salvation of those who
" call upon God, and pray lawfully V
I have already quoted the answer of Hilary the
Deacon to the argument for the necessity of ap
pealing to creatures in order to propitiate God.
St. John Chrysostom speaks still more, distinctly.
" It is often impossible to present our gift imme-
" diately unto the masters themselves, and to con-
" verse with them, but it is necessary first to obtain
" the favour of their ministers and stewards ....
" But with God it is not so, for there is no need of
' ' intercessors for the petitioners, nor is He so ready to
" give a gracious answer, being entreated by others,
" as by our own selves praying unto Him1. Amongst
" men .... it is required that he should flatter all
" those that are about the Prince .... but here
" there is no need of any thing save of a watchful
" mind only, and there is nothing that hindereth
" us from being near to Godm." " God does most
" when we do not ask of others. As a kind friend,
1 P. 789.
" P. 766.
1 Cited by Damascenus, Sacra Parallela, t. ii. Oper. p. 466.
'" Chrysost. in Psal. iv. t. v. p. 8. ed. Benedict.

78 LETTER V.
" he blameth us most, as not having courage to trust
" in his love, when we entreat others to pray to Him
" for us". We do not therefore so pacify Him
" when we entreat Him by others, as when we do
"it by ( ur own selves"." Damascenus, in the
eighth century, adopts these sentiments. " Mark
" the philosophy of the woman of Canaan. She
" entreats not James, she beseeches not John,
" neither does she come to Peter, but broke through
" the whole company. I have no need of a
" mediator, but taking repentance as my spokes-
" man, I come to the Fountain-head itself. For
" this cause did He descend, for this cause did He
" take flesh, that I might have the boldness to
" speak unto Him  I have no need of a
" mediator: Have mercy on me p." This is even
the language of Theophylact, Metropolitan of
Bulgaria in the eleventh century. Speaking of the
woman of Canaan : " Observe," he says, " that
" although the Saints pray for us as the Apostles
" did for her, yet we praying for ourselves, prevail
" much more*." These authorities are sufficient to
shew that the ancient Church did not believe it
necessary to use the Saints as mediators with God,
and that they held it much safer and more pious to
approach God with our own prayers, confiding in
the intercession of Jesus Christ.
" Horn, xxxvi. in Act. Apost. t. ix. p. 278.
° Expos, in Ps. iv. t. v. p. 9.
p Cited by Damascenus, Oper. t. ii. p. 467.
i Theophylact. Comment, in Matt. e. xv. p. 89. ed. Paris, 1631.

LETTER V. 79
IV. " Is it lawful to unite the name of God with
" that of His creatures in prayer, and to offer the
" same acts of homage to both at the same time?"
In proof of the unlawfulness of this practice, I
shall only adduce the language of the great Atha
nasius. " No one," he says, " would pray to
" receive any thing from the Father and the Angels,
" or from any of the other creatures. Nor would
" any one say, ' God and the Angel give thee.'"
In reply to the objection derived from Jacob's
language, Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. " The God which
" fed me from my youth  the Angel which
" delivered me, &c." Athanasius says, " He did
" not couple one of the created beings, and by nature
" Angels, with God who created them .... but in
" saying, ' which delivered me from all evils,' he
" shewed that it was not any of the created Angels,
" but the Word of God, whom he coupled with
" God and prayed unto1"." I need not produce
any further evidence. Compare this with your
indulgenced prayer, " Jesus, Joseph, and Mary,
" assist me in my last agony."

I have produced but a small portion of the
evidence which may be brought from Christian
Antiquity in refutation of your doctrines and prac
tice on this subject. What has been said, however,
will I trust be sufficient for the vindication of the
' Athanasii Orat. iii. cont. Arianos, t. i. p. 566.

80 LETTER V..
early Fathers from the imputations of superstition
and idolatry which your pamphlet tends to fix upon
them. Their doctrines stand out in bold relief,
against the heathenish corruptions which Romanism
sanctions and defends.
§. 6. Additional proofs of Romish Idolatry and
Superstition.
We have now sufficiently seen what the doctrine of
the Catholic Fathers is on the subject of the worship
of creatures. Let us contrast it with the doctrines
and practice of Romanism. I can only afford space
for a very few citations from your popular books of
devotion, but they will afford a fair specimen of the
remainder. Your admired saint Alphonsus de Liguori shall
speak first.
" From the moment that Mary consented to become
the Mother of God," says St. Bernardine of Sienna, " she
merited to receive sovereignty over all creatures." " Mary
and Jesus having but one and the same flesh," says St.
Arnand, abbot, " why should not the Mother enjoy,
conjointly with the Son, the honours of royalty." Mary
is then Queen of the Universe, since Jesus is its King :
thus, as St. Bernardine again observes, " As many crea
tures as obey God, so many obey the glorious Virgin*."
" I am," said she, to St. Bridget, " the Queen of heaven
¦ The Glories of Mary, Mother of God, translated from the
Italian of Saint Alphonsus Liguori by a Catholic Priest. Third
Edition, Dublin, Coyne, 1837.

LETTER V» 81
and Mother of Mercy"— I am " the joy of the just, and
the gate through which sinners go to God." (p. 22.)
" Queen of heaven and earth ! Mother of God ! my
Sovereign mistress ! I present myself before you as a poor
mendicant before a mighty Queen, (p. 29.) No grace, no
pardon, emanates from the throne of the King of kings
without passing through the hands of Mary, according to
St. Bernard. The plenitude of Grace is found in Jesus
Christ as the head, whence it flows to Mary, who commu
nicates it to all his members, (p. 121.) No doubt, Jesus
the Man-God, alone sufficed to effect our redemption ;
but it was more convenient that both sexes having con
curred to our ruin, both should conspire to save us.
Albertus Magnus styles Mary * the coadjutrix of our
redemption !w (p. 128.) All is subjuct to Mary's
empire, even God Himself ! . . . . Jesus has rendered
Mary omnipotent: the one is omnipotent by nature, the
other is omnipotent by grace, (p. 138.) St. Germanus
says to Mary, ' You, O holy Virgin, have over God the
authority of a mother, and hence you obtain pardon for
the most obdurate sinners' (p. 141.) It is impossible
that a true servant of Mary should be damned, (p. 165.)
' My soul,1 says the blessed Eric Suzon, ' is in the hands
of Mary, so if the Judge wishes to cohdemn me, the
sentence must pass through this clement Queen, and she
well knows how to prevent its execution, (p. 171.) O
Jesus ! O Mary ! may your names live in my heart . . .
O Mary ! my Mother ! when my last hour shall come,
when my soul shall be at the eve of its departure from the
world, grant I beseech you, that my last words may be,
Jesus, Mary, I love you. Jesus, Mary, I give you my
heart and my soul. Amen." (p. 205.)
My next extracts shall be from " the New
F

82 LETTER V.
" Month of Mary," published last year with the
formal approbation of authority '.
" Thou art the only hope of sinners. Through thee do
we hope for pardon of our sins ; and in thee, O most
blessed Lady, is the expectation of our rewards, (p. 42.)
Recite the Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, to-day, in
honour of Mary, and make this one of the devotions which
you will resolve to practise in her honour, (p. 121.) In all
the infirmities of the body, and all the maladies of the
soul, be thou, 0 Mary, my refuge and my relief. Num
berless are the sick who through thee have recovered
health. Relying on thy power and goodness, I fly to
thee, and implore thee to heal my infirmities, and obtain
for me perfect health of body and of soul, that I may be
the better able to serve thee and thy Divine Son. (p. 146.)
O heavenly Queen, thou dost excel the highest of the
Angelic host in merit, in grace, and in holiness. All
heavenly spirits bow down before thee, and praise and
glorify thee." (p. 168)
The next extracts shall be made from " Devotion
" to the holy Angels from the French of Boudon.
" Dublin, 1837."
" The Virgin Mary ' being the august Empress of
Paradise,' the Angels are her subjects, and consider it a
great honour to be obedient to her laws. (p. 44.) It is
most useful to perform a Novena in honour of the Angels.
1 The New Month of Mary, principally designed for the
Month of May, by the Very Rev. P. R. Kenrick, Dolman,
London, 1841. Approved, April 25, 1841, by " F. P. Kenrick,
Bp. Arath. and Coadj. of Bp. Philadelphia."

LETTER V. 83
 It may be as follows; the first day honour the
Angels of the last choir by some prayer — nine Gloria
Patris for example — and ask them for the grace or favour
you want ; and thus ascend to all the choirs successively.
 On the first day ask the Angels to obtain for you a
lively faith ; on the second, beg of the Archangels holy
zeal ; on the third, honour the Principalities, and beg the
extinction of the reign of sin. (p. 62.) Tuesday in each
week . . . should be sacred to the Angelic devotion, (p. 62.)
If we would be truly devout to the Angels, we should
once for all take the resolution of avoiding deliberate
faults and imperfections, of searching out and overcoming
our predominant passion .... Endeavour every day to
sacrifice some inclination of yours in honour of the Angels.
(p. 69.) It was proposed to form an Association for the
purpose [of worshipping the Angels], each member of
which would successively honour the Angels in the name
of the rest — and thus a continual homage would be
rendered to these blessed Spirits, (p. 71.) [The Pope
granted Indulgences in favour of this Association, p. 71.]
Some persons devout to the holy Angels .... wished to
dedicate to these holy Spirits a whole month — that of
October. They during that period perform the following
practices esc  O, all ye holy Angels .... I your un
worthy servant, present and offer you all the practices of
this month, consecrated to you, not only as a means of
obtaining, {here specify your request,) but also as a repara
tion for my past ingratitude, and that of all men. (p. 75.)
[After this follow, « The Little Office of the Holy Angels;
Hymns to the Angels, Litany of the Saints who have
been specially favoured by the Angels ; Beads of the holy
Angels; Litany of the holy Angels; Litany of the Angel
Guardian,' &c.]"

84 LETTER V.
I extract the following from " Reflections on the
" prerogatives, power, and protection of Saint
" Joseph .... with special devotions to that most
" glorious Patriarch. London, 1825."
" He must be looked on as his (Jesus') legitimate
parent, and entitled in all things to the right of paternity,
except that of generation, which, according to Rupertus
Abbas, the eternal Father supplied, by infusing into the
husband of Mary a paternal love for her Son Jesus, (p. 6.)
The illuminated St. Theresa of Jesus . . . (said,) I have
seen clearly, that this Father and Lord of mine, St. Joseph,
hath drawn me, as well out of this necessity, being crippled
with sickness, as out of others greater, when there was
question of honour and loss of my soul. (p. 37.) This
glorious Saint brings also whole provinces and nations to
the Catholic faith. New France owns him as the pro
pagator of His gospel whose legal parent he was. (p. 64.}
The universal practice of honouring our holy Patriarch, is
to recite his little office, his litanies, hymn, and prayer,
either daily or for a set time. (p. 72.) There are several
other ways of honouring him, as to say the beads, to wear
rings with his name engraved  others have on their
rings Jesus, Maria, Joseph, (p. 85.) O holy Joseph . . ,
I N. N. in the presence of Jesus and Mary, do from this
moment choose you for my Lord and Master, (p. 89.)
[After this follows the office of St. Joseph, or worship of
him seven times in the day, The Litany of St. Joseph, a
Hymn in his honour, Beads of St. Joseph, Seven Prayers
to St. Joseph in honour of his seven dolours, Eight Medi
tations on his Life.]"
The following extracts are taken from " The
" imitation of the blessed Virgin, composed on the

LETTER V. 85
" plan of the imitation of Christ. From the French.
" Dublin, Coyne, 1836."
" Thou art truly become the Queen of the world, as well
as the Queen of Heaven . . . O Virgin Mother, the highest
in grace and perfection among the Angels, deserves only
to rank among thy servants; so great is the distance
between him and thee. (p. 268.) I comprehend that in
that quality (Mother of Jesus) thou hast a sort of right
over all the treasures of grace .... Who can comprehend
the elevation of thy dignity ? All is so great and eminent
in the Mother of God, that the Seraphims themselves can
only admire it. (p. 269.) At the sight of thy greatness
and sublime elevation, I am seized with religious fear and
respect, which, as it were, annihilates me at thy feet.
(p. 270.) He (God) has given her a sort of superintend
ence over His treasures, and it is through her that He is
pleased to distribute them to us." (p. 289.)
I quote the following from " The glories of Saint
" Joseph, chiefly taken from the French of Rev.
" Father Paul Barrie. Dublin, 1835."
" As God the Son is the Redeemer of mankind, so St.
Joseph is his coadjutor in this great work, since he employs
all his cares ... to gain wherewithal to nourish and main
tain our merciful Redeemer. Lastly, as the Holy Ghost
is the spouse of Mary the Mother of God, so St. Joseph
is also her spouse. What, therefore, can be a greater
subject of jealousy to the Angels than this? (p. 25.) The
learned and devout Gerson says, that if the first rank or
hierarchy in heaven is that of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost ; so the second is this of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph ;
and that all other Saints are of a lower rank, and of a

86 LETTER V.
different hierarchy. These other great Saints hold, in
deed, the first place in their rank and hierarchy, according
to the ordinary law of love ; but not in that of the order
of the Hypostatical union, and in the mystery of the
Incarnation, wherein those are only comprised, who most
nearly relate to Jesus and Mary: namely, St. Joseph, who
completes this created Trinity." (p. 39, 40.)
The following passages are extracted from " A
" Short Treatise on the Antiquity, &c. of the Con-
" fraternity of our blessed Lady of Mount Carmel.
" Dublin, 1838."
" Another benefit or privilege of this Confraternity of the
Scapular, is contained in these words : he that dieth in
vested with this habit shall not suffer eternal fire : which
is as much as to say, that the Scapular is a great help
in order to obtain eternal felicity, (p. 43.) St. Anselm
saith, There is no doubt but the blessed Virgin Mary, by
maternal right, is with Christ, president of heaven and
earth. St. John Damascene saith, it is fitting and con
venient that Mary should possess what is her Son's 
She being really Mother of the Word incarnated, there is
in all propriety due to her a certain power ; or as others
say, a dominion over all things, as well spiritual as tempo
ral, to which the authority of her Son doth extend itself.
So that she had by natural right of maternity, a power
almost like that of her Son. (p. 49.) Purify my heart, O
immaculate Virgin, from every sin, .... purge this soul of
its affection for earthly and sinful goods, and raise it to the
love of celestial and heavenly blessings." (p. 74.)
I need not carry this proof any further. The
passages which I have selected are taken almost at

LETTER V. 87
random from a few of your books of popular
devotion, and furnish but an imperfect specimen
of the real state of religious worship amongst
Romanists. I am obliged to refrain from citing
similar passages from numbers of books now lying
before me. I cannot afford space for describing
the multiplicity of your acts of worship and adora
tion to the Virgin, the Saints, and Angels— The
special months devoted to their daily worship —
The repetition of hymns, prayers, and litanies to
them seven times in the day — The vows made to
them — The Eucharist offered to their honour —
Acts of faith, hope, and charity, the reception of
the holy Eucharist, almsgiving, all the works of
religion done to please them— Offerings of gifts
to them — Confraternities for the purpose of wor
shipping them, supported by Papal Indulgences —
Confession made to them conjointly with God —
The ascription of all the titles and prerogatives
of the Creator to his creatures. How deplorable,
how awful, is this scene of superstition and idolatry !
And how fearful a contrast does it present to the
religion of Scripture and of Antiquity ! Can no
thing awaken the conscience of Romanists to a
sense of what is due to God ?
I can only adduce one more passage in illus
tration of your religious system. It is taken from
the writings of Alphonsus de Liguori, your favourite
Saint, and describes the mode in which those who
are in their last agony are to be aided by the priest.

88 LETTER V.
" When the sick man comes to his agony, let the
Priest employ the usual arms of the Church in his assist
ance. 1. Let him often sprinkle him with blessed water,
especially if he is troubled by diabolical temptations. . . .
2. Let him fortify him with the sign of the cross, and bless
him, saying, ' God the Father who created thee bless
thee, &c.' .... 3. Let him frequently give him the image
of our Saviour and of Mary to kiss. 4. Let him take care
that the sick person gains all the Indulgences that he can,
and especially receives benediction in the article of death,
with plenary indulgence granted by Benedict XIV 
5. Let him suggest some sentiment of grief, conformity,
hope in the passion of God and the intercession of S.
Mary  6. Let him endeavour that the names of Jesus
and Mary be very frequently invoked, at least mentally,
and the prayer, ' Mary, mother of grace,' be said. 7. In
the last agony let him cause the bystanders to say many
litanies of the Virgin Mary for the sick man. It is
desirable to procure the bell of the agony to be rung. . . .
8. As the time of expiring draws near, let the Priest with
a mournful voice and bended knees recite the accustomed
prayers of the Church, ' Go forth, &C.' ... 9. (Directions
as to handling the sick person.) 10. When he is near
death, let him give him a blessed candle, and thus profess
that he dies in the faith. 11. While he is yet sensible, it
will be advisable to give him Absolution frequently, after a
short reconciliation  Let him admonish him often to
call on the names of Jesus and Mary"-
" When the sick man is near expiring, the [following]
acts should be recited without pausing and in a loud voice
[by the Priest].
" Ligorio, Theologia Moralis, t. ix. p. 175. (Praxis Confessarii,
n. 276.)

LETTER V. 89
" Lord Jesn, receive my spirit. My God, help me, per
mit me to come and love thee for ever. My Jesus, my
Love, I love thee. I repent. I wish that I had never offended
thee ! O Mary, my hope, help me, pray for me to Jesus.
My Jesus, for thy passion save me. I love thee \ Mary,
my mother, in this hour help me. St. Joseph, help me.
Archangel Michael, defend me. Guardian Angel, guard
me. Saint N. (here let the principal protector of the sick
man be named) commend me to Jesus Christ. Saints of
God, intercede for me. Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. Jesus and
Mary, I give my heart and my soul to you" !"

I should only injure the effect of this most awful
scene by offering any comments : I leave it to
the reflections of the Reader. May the last hours
of those he loves have other consolations — and
peace.

On the remainder of your Pamphlet I can at
present only make one or two remarks5'. The
* lb. p. 178, 179.
i I wonW refer an anonymous Correspondent to my Treatise
on the Church, Part ii. c. xi. objections x. and xi. It can never,
under any circumstances, be lawful to profess what is false or
deny what is true. The wish for union may however exist ;
and may be lawful, even where great corruptions are visible,
provided there is no intention of uniting in those corruptions,
but rather an intention of protesting against them.
G

90 LETTER V.
passages which you have adduced (p. 79, 80.)
in support of the doctrine of Purgatory do not
relate to it. They shall be examined in my next
Letter. I shall also have an opportunity of con
sidering your remarks on Indulgences. I did not
mean to deny your veracity as you suppose, (p. 84,)
in calling for sufficient evidence of a fact, and
implying that " others might have been able to
" give a somewhat different account." I merely
meant, that what you did not think superstitious
might have appeared in a widely different point
of view to others. With reference to your ob
servation (p. 4.) that my denial of your ordination
was irrelevant, I must say that it was highly
relevant in a controversy between you and me ;
because, had I admitted your assumed title of
bishop, it would have been necessary to address
you in a tone of great respect. You have hinted
that my style is uncourteous : I confess that I
have not treated you with any ceremony, because
I do not recognise Romish ordinations in these
countries2, and am unwilling to place them on a
level with those of the Catholic Church in England.
If there has been any apparent uncourteousness in
the tone of these Letters, it has not, I assure you,
arisen from any desire to inflict pain ; for to
yourself personally, I can have no feeling but

- See Treatise on the Church of Christ, Part vi. chap, xi ;
Episcopacy Defended againht Wiseman, Sect, xviii.

LETTER V. 91
that of good-will. It is intended to apply to
you only in your official capacity, as Vicar
Apostolic and pretended bishop.
I remain, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
WILLIAM PALMER.
Oxford, June 8, 1841.

NOTE.

A layman of the Romish persuasion, calling himself Verax,
has published a Letter to me on the worship of the Virgin
Mary, in which the Fathers are quoted copiously in justifica
tion of the prayers to which attention was drawn in my First
Letter. This gentleman has prevented me from noticing his
proofs more particularly, by omitting to annex references to
his quotations. I observe, however, that many of them are
derived from spurious productions, and in particular, a long
passage purporting to be from S. Augustine (Sermo 18, de
Sanctis), on which this writer, and Mr. Ambrose Phillips
in his recent pamphlet, have rested the whole strength of
their cause. Verax, in his Appendix, puts questions and
difficulties to me, which only shew his entire ignorance of
the Anglo-Catholic Theology of the present day.

&AXTER, PRINTER, OXFOBD.

ERRATUM.
Page 34, line 24. far " Rachel through [her child] Jacoh worshipped Joseph"
read " Rachel through Jacbb worahippied [her child] Jbseph"

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08561 8735

I