IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^% // ^ J^^. .^W ^^ K^" «^. fc 1.0 I.I 1.25 L£|^ §15 lAo 111112.0 1.4 1.6 -► pm '/ <^ w 0% /a / O 7 .^ # ^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y 14580 (716) 872 1503 ^ ^ V iV .^ ;\ % V .,% <^ <>, ^ ^^% w .^^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian InstitLte for Historical Microraproductions / Institut Canadian de microraproductions historiques ;V Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notes tachniquas at bibiiographiquas Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha boat original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of this copy which may ba bibliographically urjqua, which may altar »ny of tha imagas in tha reproduction, or which may significantly change tha usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm* la mailleur exemplaira qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Las details de cet exemplaira qui sont paut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmaga sont indiquAs ci-dessous. / D D D n D D n D D Coloured covers/ Couvartura de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e Covers reftored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurAe at/ou paliiculie Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiquas en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black}/ Encre do couleur (i.e. ^utre que bJeue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches at/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli* avac d'autras documents Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within tha text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ 11 se peut que certaines pages blanuhes ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas iti filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimentaires; □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restauries et/ou pelliculies Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicolories, tacheties ou piquees El Pages detached/ J Pages d^tachees D D Pages Showt Transparence rri Showthrough/ □ Quality of print varies/ Qualiti inAgale de I'impression r~~] Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the beft possible miaga/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc.. cnt 6t6 fiimies A nouveau de facon a obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ca document est film* au taux de rMuction indiqui ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X fhe copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Seminary of Quebec Library L'exempiaire filmA fut reproduit grAce i la ginArosltA de: Siminaire de QbAbec Bibliothique The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and In keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6ti reproduites avec le plus grand soln. compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet* de rexemplaire film*, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de fllmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed gr illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —4»>( meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol ▼ (meaning "END"), whichever Applies. IVIaps. plates, charts, etc., may be filmed &t different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included In one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following dlegrams Illustrate the method: Les exemplslres origlnaux dont la couverture en papier est imprlmte sont filmAs en commenfant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impresslon ou d'illustration. soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exempiaires origlnaux sont filmAs en commenfsnt par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impresslon ou d'illustration et en terminnnt par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants appsraTtra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: la symbols — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbols V signifie "FIN ". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent itre filmte i des taux de rMuction dIffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul cllchA. 11 est film* 6 pertir de Tangle supArleur gauche, de gauchs i droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'Images nicessalre. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent le m^thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 :>'- ai^p ^'(^> t Mf. ^* 'i"% > >, nt. ><>;,^ L"'* -^ 9*i *f- .«?■ ;^*'.%'^_Al t t 'a ^-yf: I ^ AAA ■,>-,- 4 «>?? * ' ^^ f fcA- - '-»f --j-i" — if, «i 'J ^ »'ii ^ Y"' ■" ■ ■ • r ■ -:¥-■ -- 1^ 1 ■, ' >*>■'.' '■ '■'i.-i'- LETTERS FROM A CHURCH OF ENGLAND CLERGYMAN TO A -1"' ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST. .,■./' "■ ^-C. (Bintbu: PRINTED BY DAWSON k CO. 1876. PREFACE, Perhaps it will be well for me to state the circamstances under which the letters, &c., herein contained; were written. From the first letter it will be seen what really gave rise to the discussion. But, alter what is there related had taken place, I visited the Cur6 of the offending sheep, who expressed his regret. At this interview we talked about some of the differences between our churches, and he lent me the lecture of the late Father Murphy, as well as a course of lectures by the Abb6 B6gin, delivered in the Laval University, on the Infallibility of the Pope. I wrote a reply to both, in the form of remarks on their contents. My remarks on the first are herewith published. There may be some unimportant verbal differences in the copy as printed and the one I sent to the Cure, because I wrote out my remarks, and then made a copy of them, making little improvements, as I thorght, as I went on. I, after sending this away, made another copy for myself, making, as far as my memory served me, the same changes. In the case of the letters, they are published word for word like the copies I sent to the Cure. This gentleman did not undertake to reply personally to what I had written, but he showed my MS. to another priest, who undertook to write a reply to what I had written on Father Murphy's lecture. My letters are replies to what this other priest, whom I shall call M. S., wrote. In regard to his two first letters, I endeavoured to meet all his arguments, at lenet those which I thought he would consider iniportant, for there were some that I thought that he would not consider of much importance by themselves. In my reply to his last I did not answer it fully, because he wrote as if he did not wish to be troubled further. It will be seen that a good deal is said about << Apostolic Succession," and M. S. in his last letter said a good deal more about it. He says that I regard history as the only means of proving that we have this in the Church of England. But here again he was altogether mistaken, if by this he means that I rely upon past history alone to prove that in the Church of ■•"^A IV Eogland we have a Ministry recognized bj God. I am one who value the bialorioal succesaion, but I am very far from relying upon this alone. To do 80, would, it eeema to me, be to fall into the error of the Jews, who relied for jusliflcation before God, on the fact that they were descendants of Abraham, according to the flesh. To ray mind, one essential thing to constitute the Apostolic Succession, is that there should always be an order, or orders, of men, who have authority to perform the work of the ministry in the Church of Christ, and whose authority is recognized by God, the proof of this recognition being that their labours are blessed to the saving of ■ouls. Now historically it is proved that we have teachers who have inherited their office by succession from the Apostles. I, therefore, appealed to history, because, according to the theory of the Roman Church, as 1 understood it, those who can prove from history that they have this Apostolic succession, must be a portion of that ministry, with which our Lord premised to be to the end of the world. But M. S. has called history ''human testimony," and rejects our proof drawn from this. I am not ') going to reject all human testimony as worthless, tut I do not think that we depend upon this alone. I think there can be no doubt but that by the ministry of the Church of England, men have been in luced to lead godly and holy lives, and have died in peace, relying upon the merits of CiiristJe.sus our Lord. This must be of God. Then God has recognized our ministry. If God owns us, we need not distress ourselves because Priests of the Roman Church deny us. In his letters M. S. wrote in Latin and French, and made quotations in Greek. I wrote in English, at the same time using freely the above mentioned languages in quotations. Thiu of course I have had to translate, except in some cases in which I have used Bishop Harold Brown's translations of the quotations from Latin or Greek authors. In one instance I also used Hebrew in reference to a Latin translation of Genesis IIL 15. I have not published ray arguments by which I proved the said tranrdation wrong, because it would require some knowledge, on the part of the reader, c( the Hebrew, Latin and Greek languages, in order to understand them. But the sum of the arguments is that it would require three changes in six Hebrew words, in order to make their translation right ; and that even then the verse would not mean what they wish it to mean. M. S. souglit to meet me by saying that I wished to rob (ravir) Mary of the Immaculate Conception, (a doctrine that I did not lueutiou,) and that this doctrine does not rest upon the Latin words, "ipse ipiia ipsum," but upou the ideality cf M. 7alue the one. To ews, who ndants of thing to an order, ministry God, the saving of ho hare herefore. Church, lave this hich our history I am not : that we by the odly and ^esue our 8try. If I Roman tions in e above anslate, Brown's natance III. 16. K^Ution reader, them. in six n then iglit to koulate e does ility of the emnity between the devil and the seed of the woman, and that which was to intervene between the devil and the woman herself. In this way M. S. tells the Cur6 thut he will be able to appease my Hebrew " dimangeaison." M. S. not being able to see that we may believe that the emnity on the one side and on tho other wati continued from Eve to Chritft, and yet believe that it was our Lord who bruieed the serpent's head. What I wrote in reference to Luke I., 28, is summarized in reference to it in my letter, and I give M. S.'s reply in a note to what I say in my last letter. On Romans XL, 17 to 22, inclusive, I said: "From these verses it seems to me clear:— (1) That the Christiana who made up the Church of Rome in the time of St. Paul, were conuidered by him as having been gratfed in amongst branches, which previously existed, i.e., that the Church of Rome was not the first in existence ; but when it began to exist, took its place amongst other churches, which no more depended upon it than the branches of a tree depend upon a new branch graffed in amongst them. This was St. Paul's view in the year of our Lord 60, or thereabouts. (2) " St. Paul saw that this would be overlooked and forgotten ; therefore, he cautioned them not to exalt themselves against the other branches, and warned them that they might be cut off again, which he would not have done, ii he had believed that the Church of Rome was infallible." To this M. S. attempted no reply whatever, and no one has tried to meet my deductions, which were against the Infallibility of the Pope, from the statements of the AbbS B6gin. I have no doubt but that many would like to see the arguments " in extenso" of M. S. If he is still convinced of the truth of all bis statements, and of the furce of all his arguments, let him publish what he has written, and let him reveal to the public his name, and, I give him permisBion, mine al60» » ' REMARKS ON THE LECTURE OF THK LATK FATHER MURrflY ON "PAPAL INFALLIBILITY." " All power is given unto me in heaven and earth : go ye therefore and teach all nations .... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and lo ! I am with you always to the end of the world." " He that believeth not shall be damned." From these words Father Murphy infers that (a) the eleven Apostles then addressed, and they alone were endued with the teaching office, and that they thus had a monopoly of the teaching office ; (6) that these were in each age to have successors, who should also have a monopoly of the teaching office, and whom all men should be bound to believe, and these alone ; and he infers that this body of teachers cannot teach error. But when our Lord promised to be with his Church and its teachers, there is no proof that He intended that no part of the Church could fall away, or that none of its teachers could teach error. His promise would be kept so long as error had not corrupted and destroyed the whole Church, and so long as there remained some faithful and true teachers. As a matter of fact we find from the first chapter of Revelations and other portions of the Holy Scriptures, that false teachers did arise and corrupted branches of the Church. Now, if some might fall away and teach error, there is nothing in the Scriptures to show — 2 — I s ■ that the majority in a given period of the Church might not he involved in error. And it is certain that there are Churches which have a succession of teachers from the times of the J^postles, and which hold no communion with the Church of Rome. So in this way the teachers of the Roman Chu.'ch form only a portion of the teachers in the Church of Christ who inherit their office by • succession from the Apostles. Then the whole of the teachers in the Roman Communion might err in any given doctrine, and yet if the other Churches were preserved from such an error, the promise of our Lord would be fulfilled. Again, to suppos'> that all who inherit the office of teaching must be kept from error, would mean that each one is infallible. Who would say that no Priest, or even a Bishop, in the Church of Rome cannot err ? The particular point with Father Murphy is that the collective Bishops of Rome are the only body that as a body claim to be infallible. Well it is a strange argument to say that if the whole body of the teachers in the Church of Christ cannot fall away and teach error, therefore if a portion of them set themselves up as the whole, and claim the prerogatives of the w^hole, that they must possess what they claim. Now, to speak of the instance in which our Lord speaks of St. Peter alone, and says that He had prayed for him that his faith might not fail. Suppose that these words meant that our Lord had prayed that he might be infallible, so that he could neither make a mistake himself, nor deceive others ; before it would prove the Pope of Rome infallible, it would be necessary to prove that the Bishops of Rome were the successors of St. Peter, (which has not been done,), and that not only was the prayer for St. Peter, but also for his successors, of whom no mention is here made. But again, do the words mean this at all ? I think not. Our Lord did not pray that St. Peter might not fall, but that in his fall his faith might not fail. As a matter of — 3 — might ^re are (m the lunion lachers ichers [ce by >f the any were Lord fact he did fall and sinned grievously, when he denied his Lord. But did he lose all belief and faith in that Lord at that sad time. No. Then his faith did not fail. In the same way, suppose it were true, that in praying for St. Peter, our Lord also prayed for the Popes of Rome, it seems to me that it would not follow that He prayed that they should neither be deceived nor deceive others, but only that their own faith might not fail. Now, so long as a person has faith in our Blessed Lord, clearly his faith has not failed, even though he should make many mistakes in doctrine. Mistakes may indeed be so many obstacles to the fulness and distinctness of faith, but yet the faith may be there in spite of them. So I do not see that the same would be ilnpossible in the case of the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, suppose it were true that the words of our Lord implied that there never would be a Bishop of Rome without faith, it does not follow that he cannot teach an error. But again if our Lord meant to tell His disciples that He had prayed that St. Peter might be infallible in the sense in which that word is now used, then the wrong Greek word has been used by the Evangelist. The Grreek word actually used is " ekleipo," but the proper word to express erring is "hamartano," or to express erring in matters of faith "planaomai," e.g., Matt. XXII., 29. St. James V., 19. But Father Murphy says that in giving to St. Peter personally and in the singular number the charge to feed His sheep and His lambs. He gave to him in the presence of the remaining ten " some power which to the remaining ten He pointedly denied." Where and when, I adl^did he so pointedly deny that power to them, or even hinx that they were not to have it ? In the seventh chapter of St. Luke's Grospel we have an account of a poor woman, who was a sinner, going to our Lord for pardon and forgiveness. He said to her, in the presence of others who were there : " Thy sins are forgiven." Does this imply that He " pointedly denied" pardon and forgiveness to the others ? ^ ^ ^.. . :. : ^ . :. . - B — 4 Now I come to where our Lord calls Simon by the name of Peter. Well, any one who can read the Greek knows that ihere is a difference bctveen Petros and Petra, (Lat. Petrus and Petra,) our Lord says: 'Thou art Petros," and then "upon this Petra I will build my Church," &c. The Petra in this case need not be the same with St. Peter, but may be understood of the faith of which he had just made profession ; or otherwise it may be understood of our Lord Himself, seeing He is called Petra in the Holy Scriptures, see. 1 Cor. x. 4. This was so interpreted by the early Fathers: and we learn from the Bible that our Lord is the " foundiition" which has been laid. t'ather Murphy, in order to exalt the Pope, depreciates Grod's own Word. He seeks to make out that it is difficult to find out what the Bible means. So it is in some cases, but there is an abundance that Protestants of very little education so undei stand or misunderstand, that they are induced to lead godly and honest lives and die happy deaths, with a hope of a joyful immortality through Christ. Father Murphy says : "I know that men are essentially servants, and I know that unless their Master, the Master of this tangled Universe be a maniac, He must have given clearly and completely the rules and conditions under which He would have His servants serve Him." From whence did Father Murphy obtain this knowledge? Science at any rate does not teach us that this is a " tangled Universe," and I do not see how the Bibi^ would be true, when it says : " All thy works praise thee, O Lord," and again that " God is not the God of confusion but of order." But who is to know that God " must" make known His will and purposes to man in such a way, that all must know for absolute certainty, and this without trouble ? It is dangerous ground we are treading on, when we come to say what God "must" do, without being able to substantiate such a statement by His own Word. ^5 — y the Greek Petra, u art d my De the faith H^ise it He is X. 4. id we cition" But if it " must" be that God should appoint a tribunal to which men in questions of doubt would be able to appeal with a certainty of satisfaction, then, I think, it would follow that this appointment must be made known w^ith as much certainty. Now, where is there a single express statement in Holy Scripture that such an appointment has been made ? Father Murphy's remarks about Dr. Doellinger and others, are worthy to be studied by the side of what Chateaubriand says about the Apostles going forth to perform the work entrusted to them. I have not the work of this eminent Frenchman by me, but I read it some years since, and I remember the substance of his remarks, although I cannot give his words. From this it may be seen that I have not found in Father Murphy's lecture any satisfactory grounds on which the claims of the Popes may be founded. I am afraid that I can only use, of the Bishops of Rome of later times, the words of that excellent man. Pope Gregory the Great. He says : " No one of my predecessors ever consented to use this so profane a title : because plainly if one patriarch be called Universal, it would be to derogate from the title of patriarch in the case of th«3 rest." Again the same Pope writes : " May the Almighty disclose to your felicity by how great a wailing I am tortured on this consideration : because, he who was once so modest to me, he by all beloved, he who was seen occupied in alms, prayers and fastings, from the ashes in which he sat, from that humility which he pretended, took to himself such arrogant assumption, that he attemps to ascribe all things to himself, and through elation of pompous discourse, studies to subjugate to himself all the members of Christ, which adhere to that one only head, that is Christ." Again, another Pope, Gelasius, writes : • " Certainly the sacraments which we take of the body and blood of Christ, is a divine thing, on account of 6 — which, and by which, we are made partakers of the Divine Nature, and yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be." Is this in accordance with the teaching of the Church of Rome in our days ? (ir FIRST LETTER. Revd Sir: I beg to offer the following reply to the letter of M. S. who undertook to reply to what he called my "notes c;ritiques" on the lecture of the late Father Murphy. But M. S. seems to have altogether misunderstood the origin and cause of the discussion. He writes as if he looked iipon it as one between Father Murphy and myself, and considers that you and himself are but "peaceful spectators of this great conflict." Now I do not wish it to be considered that I have put myself forward, or been put forward by others, as the Champion of the Church of England. You know what caused the discussion. My neighbour, one of your flock, taunted me with your being " a terrible Cure," and that you knew how to make your doctrines believed. Now, this implied two things : — (1) That you were so much superior to myself personally in powers of persuasion and argument. (2nd.) That the Church of England was a poor denomination of Christians or persons calling themselves such, but who were only fit to be laughed at. Well, I did not know whether my capabilities were such as to fit me to engage in controversy with you ; but I thought of my position, and that, if I ali owed such a sneer to pass unnoticed, truth, or what I considered truth, would itself suffer. So I thought it my duty to act as I did whether I succeeded or failed in defending the Church of England, or if I should become convinced that the Church of England was in the wrongs and the Church of Rome in the right. Although I had some confidence or assurance that the Church of England was in the right, and that this could be shown. , I take it as an axiom that though there may be much to t/hurch I be said on the side of error, yet, after all, there must be more to be said on that of truth. M. S. thinks that I put the question of the " Apostolic Succession" of the Bishops of the Church of England forward as the first point of litigation, because " this first objection comprehends all the others, at least implicitly." Here he is completely mistaken. I think that if he looks at Father Murphy's lecture he will find that I took this " objection" first, because it comes so in the order of the points treated in the lecture. So to that deceased gentleman must be attributed the praise or blame of this being put in my " notes critiques" as the " first objection." But again, says M. S. : " This objection comprehends all the others, at least implicitly." And he endeavours to maintain this statement by a quotation to the effect that as all faith harmonizes, so heresies ramify into one another, and have a secret sympathy with each other. Hence he concludes : "An answer then to this first objection would include implicitly, an answer to each objection comprised in it." Granting that an answer to a specified objection may implicitly contain an answer to each objection therein comprised. I still fail to perceive that all my objections are comprised in this point which M. S. calls my first objection. This of mine here referred to was to the effect that since the Bishops of the English Church have their teaching office by succession from the Apostles, and that the Pope has been declared " Infallible" only by the Bishops of the Roman Church ; that, therefore, he has been declared " Infallible" only by a portion of what M. S. calls the authentic body of teachers, (" magisterium authenticum") ; and that since a portion may err ; that, therefore, the portion which declared the Pope Infallible, may have erred. I think this to be a fair statement of the objection. i 8 — But how all my other objections can ^e comprised in this, I cannot make ont. Some of these others were objections to the interpretations given to certain texts of Scripture by Father Murphy ; texts out of which he endeavoured to build a scriptural foundation for the doctrine about which he was speaking. Now, surely M. S.'does not think that if it could be proved that the Bishops of the Church of England have not their teaching office by succession from the Apostles, that the proof of this would be a proof that Father Murphy was right in his interpretations. This would be equivalent to saying : " The Bishops of the English Church have not their teaching office by succession from the Apostles ; therefore, Father Murphy's interpretations of Luke xxii. 32. John xxi. 15-17, (inclusive), and Matt. xvi. 18, are correct. If this is M. S.'s way of reasoning, I cannot understand him. Nor again can I understand how proving the Bishops of the English Church not to have the Apostolic Succession would explain how the statements in my quotations from the Epistle of Grregory the Grreat, can be reconciled with the claims and pretentions of the Church of Rome now. To state the case in other words: — The Church oi" Rome, with the Pope at its head, puts forth certain claims and pretentions against these Protestants, and myself amongst them, bring forward several objections. The defenders of these claims and pretentions, amongst whom is M. S., think that if they can prove one of these objections groundless, they thereby prove all the rest so. One might just as well say that if a man were brought into a Court of Justice charged with many crimes, and that if he were proved innocent of one, he would thereby be proved innocent of all. Let my " loyal adversary" then be assured that when he shall have succeeded in proving that the Bishops of the Church of England have not a part in the Apostolic Succession, I shall still want something else to prove that Bu have the >/\ I am and t Engl accoi there from Bish — 9 — hsed ill [s were Itexts of Jich he lOr the surely Ihat the Caching )roofof ight in laying : t their erefore, John correct, erstand bishops 3ostolic in my can be Church rch oi' claims myself . The whom these ist so. ought s, and lereby the Pope is " Infallible," and this proof must be one from the written " Oracles of God." Let him prove that the Bishops of the English Church make claims to that to which they have no right. We should still need proof that the Pope was not doing the same. But I say " we have proof" that the English Bishops have a share in this Apostolic Succession. M. S. makes the word " we " to refer to myself alone. 1 may say that I am not in the habit of speaking of myself in such a way, and that, when I wrote " we," I meant that the Church of England possesses such proof. But I myself have some account of this proof, and which is sufficient to show that there has been a succession of Archbishops of Canterbury from the time of St. Augustine, not to mention the Bishops of the old British Churches, three of whom were present at the Council of Aries in a.d. 341. In this succession was Cranmer and Cardinal Pole, whose appointments had together with that of the English king and people, the alleged authority of the Pope. After them, as the first without this authority, came Matthew Parker, who was " consecrated at the Chapel at Lambeth, by Barlow, Scory and Coverdale," three Bishops who had been consecrated with the pretended authority of the Pope, or in the time before his authority was repudiated. Not that the claims of the Pope to such authority having been granted, would invalidate their consecration, because with this they had the proper authority. These three Bishops were assisted in this consecration of Matthew Parker by " Hotchin, the Suffragan l^ishop of Bedford." After this consecration others quickly followed, and so the succession was continued. The story of the consecration at the " Nag's Head" was " never heard of at the time, not even by Saunders, who wrote most violently against the Reformation ; and its falsehood was established h^j the testimony of a nobleman, who had been present at the consecration of Parker, and who was yet alive when the story was told ; as well as by the original records of that event which are still preserved, ard in which the whole proceedings are minutely described." m - 10 — But M. S. sees that there is nothing in Scripture to form a solid foundation on which to rest such doctrines as the Infallibility of the Pope, so he seeks to put unwritten tradition on a level with the written word of Gtod. Well we know that in this matter the TJl tramontanes in the Church of Rome are only doing as the Pharisees in the Church of the Jews in the time of our Lord. They had their traditions which they pretended had been handed down from Moses, &c. Our Lord said of them: "Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." Matt. xv. 6. But, as says Lafontaine : " The Sovereign Maker of the Universe has made for our own defects the pocket behind, and that in front for th» faults of others." "Who could doubt this truth after reading, for example, Bossuet's " Chapter xvii," in " La suite de la Religion" ? M. S. speaks of its being a great change from the oral teaching of the Apostles as the " organ" for conveying instruction to the "organ" of the written word. Well, it took place in such a way as to meet the wants arising out of another great change. Whilst the Apostles were alive the Christians were taught by those who spoke of what they had seen and heard — 1 John i. 3, or, in the case of St. Paul, of what he had received by Revel»^tion from Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. xi. 23. Gal. i. 2. After their decease Christians would havf t^o be taught by those who had not seen and heard. Now this would be a very great difference and a great change. God, hovfever, provided that when the living voice could no longer be heard, the testimony, all the more reliable for having been sealed with their blood, should be still preserved in written documents to which Christians could appeal and say, as our Lord said so often, especially when he wished to baffle Satan, as well as his human adversaries : " It is written." And it was in order that Theophilus " might know the certainty" that St. Luke wrote. As, then, when our Lord was going away. He sent the Holy Ghost, so when the voice of the Apostles was to be silenced in the grave, He \i — 11 — provided, to take its place as direct testimony, their written testimony. But do we in this way deny or set aside the * "magisterium authenticum" of Christ? I shou/d say by no means. The only thing is that Protestants are not willing to give to tLis " magisterium" what we do not believe the founder gave. M. S. writes : f *' Christ choose from amongst His disciples masters and teachers, to whom He communicated His teaching, ruling and saccrdotial authority and power," and that to these He subjected the rest of the faithful to be " taught, ruled and sanctified." Now, where is it stated in the Scriptures that Christ gave to His Apostles " His authority to rule ?" We read that He said : " All power is given to me in Heaven and Earth." He then goes on to charge them to go into all the vworld to teach ; to baptize all nations, but not a word about giving them an^* " authority to rule." So the Scriptures say nothing about His having committed to them the faithful " to be ruled." That He did " to be taught" is true. But " to teach" means one thing, "to rule" another; and this M. S. knows or he would not have added " to be ruled" after the word " to be taught." And if our Lord intended to subject the faithful to the disciples " to be ruled," what could He mean by what He is reported to have said in St. Matt. xx. 25-27? But our Lord is stated to have subjected His followers to the " magisterium authenticum" not only " to be taught, to be ruled," but also " to be sanctified." This I suppose means that the teachers were to sanctify those who should * I think it better to retain the Latin words " magisterium authenticum.'' They refer to the body of teachers in the Church of Christ, who have their office by succession from the Apostles. t It is difficult here to find words in English which would express exactly the meaning of the Latin. The words used were : " Suam communicavit auctoritatem ac potestatem maglsterii, imperii et sacerdotii." lili — 12 — have believed and been baptized ; and that it is still part of the work of the " magisterium" to sanctify Chrstians. Well, Protestants believe that it is the work of the Holy Spirit to sanctify, and we are taught to believe in " God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God." But seeing that in the Church of Rome, according to M. S., the " magisterium" does this, members of that Church can do without the Holy Ghost, who is so necessary to us Protestants. " That economy, by which Scripture is thought to be the one only fountain of the Christian doctrine and religion in such a way that each one independently of authentic teachers draws it out from books alone." I wonder where M. S. gotJiis information about Protestants. I do not doubt but that there may be such teaching amongst Protestants in some cases, although I^am not much acquainted with such- But I suppose that this is what the sheep of the Roman Church are taught about Protestants, by those who profess to teach the truth in the name of Christ. But because some people may hold such theories, is it to be supposed that all do ? One might as well argue that because some Protestants are drunkards, all are drunkards. Who can talk of the Church of Rome being misrepresented after this ? Any one who chooses to notice what is before his eyes, may see at once that what M. S. says in this respect must be false for the most part. Have not nearly all denominations of Christians persons who hold the position of Ministers? Now, amongst Protestants, one of the special duties of such persons is to. study the truths of religion, and teach them to the people. How then is each person left to make out the truths of religion for himself from books alone ? But, to be more particular, how is it in the Church of England ? In the Baptismal Service, the sponsors of the child are told : "Ye must remember that it is your parts and duties to see that this infant be taught, ro soon as he * shall be able to learn, what a solemn vow, promise and profession he hath here made by you.^ And that he may — 13 know these things the better, ye shall call upon him to hear sermons ; and chiefly yc bhaii provide that he may learn the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments in the vulgar tongue, and all other things which a Christian ought to know and believe to his soul's health." Then, in order that this may be carried out, we have " a Catechism, that is to say an instruction to be learned of every person before he be brought to be confirmed to the Bishop." In this are found " the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments in the vulgar tongue." Then again look at our services. In every service, except on specified occasions when the Athanasian Creed is used instead, the Apostles' Creed is used ; in every Sunday morning service, as well as some others, the Nicene Creed is used; in nearly every Sunday morning service the " Te Deum Laudamus" is used, all this too is in the tongue of the people. Let M. S. consider these facts, and he must acknowledge that the Church of England has been misrepresented here, and that he has broken the commandment which says : " Thou shalt not bear false witness," &c. But, it may be said, that with us a Inan is allowed to search the Bilble and judge for himself This is .true. But it is one thing to teach a man the truth which is of the utmost importance to him, and yet allow him to believe it or not ; it is another thing not to tell him the truth at all, but to leave him to find it out for himself If you offer money in payment of a debt, the creditor has a perfect right to test whether it be good or bad, by any proper test. So when we offer, as we owe it, doctrines to the people, we consider that before they accept them, they have a perfect right to test them by that " Touch stone" the Bible, which they can be taught to use. 14 f I think, Kevd. Sir, that this is a sufficient reply to the first of the two letters of M. S. You will see that I consider that what he has written fails altogether to meet my arguments or objections, whatever they may be called, on Father Murphy's lecture. But you will remember that in addition to that I wrote " notes critiques" on the lectures of the Abb6 B6gin, of which at present I have heard nothing. I have also asked you to explain how the solemn declaration of the Hierarchy of the Koman Church in Ireland, in 1826, to the effect that it was not an article of the Catholic Faith, and that they were not required to believe the Pope Infallible, is to be reconciled with the declarations of the Roman Church now. Again how can it be explained that such a blunder as " Ipsa conteret" * as a translation of " Hu' yeshuphecha" f in Genesis iii. 15, should be allowed to remain from the time of Bossuet to the present without correction, in a Church, such as yours professes to be. " Pleine de gr&ce" | as a translation of " Kecharitomene" in Luke i 28, so as to make the Greek Word have the same meaning as " Pleres charitos" in John i. 14. What authority for this ? Again how can Romans xi. It to 22, (inclusive), be explained ? My answer (D.V.) to the second letter will be prepared as soon as possible. * She shall bruise, .• ' t He, or it, shall bruise thee. X English version: " Highly ravourcd.'' — 15 — SECOND LETTER. Revd Sir: The following is my answer to the letter of M. S. in which he endeavours to reply to my quotation from th«' writings of Pope Gelasius : M. S. wishes the words "substance or nature"* in thai quotation to be understood not " in the philosophic sense of that expression," but " of the properties or sensiblt^ Qualities" f of the Bread and Wine. I think at least that tnis is his meaning. "Well, let us see. These words are a quotation from a work published against Eutyches and Nestorius. The former of these two, in his zeal in opposing the doctrines of the latter, was led into the error of maintaining a confusion of the Human and Divine Natures in our Blessed Lord, in a way that implied, as I understand the controversy, the passing of the Human into the Divine, so that the former as such would cease to exist. Now, to meet this heresy was the very object of the Epistle of Gelasius ; and he met it by showing that, as in the Holy Communion, the nature or substance of the Bread and Wine do not cease to exist, but remain in their substance and in their qualities, (for such I think " nature or substance" means), so in the case of our Lord, the substance or qualities of what was human in our Blessed Lord remained, notwithstanding^ its union ("Henosis" of St. Cyril) with the divine. Now, if it were believed that in the Holy Communion there was a " transubstantiation".| Eutyches could have made use of this as an illustration on his own side and against his adversaries. I think this a sufficient proof that in this case, at any rate, the words " substance" and " nature" • Latin used : '* Substantia vel natura." * t Latin : " De proprietattbus seu qualitatibus sensibilibus." t I got this argument from some author, but I do not remember from whom. — 16 — were used in the philosophic sense of these words. So I repeat my question : " Is this in accordance with the teaching of your Church now 7" Whether the Epistle ascribed to Gelasms was written by him or not, although I think it generally acknowledged as his, yet it was written about his time, and so it still testifies that the Church in his time did not believe in transubstantiation. M. S. quotes St. Athanasius and others, where they teach that : " The nature of the body of Christ was, in the resurrection, changed into something more divine, afterwards explaining nature of certain properties of the body," as well as St. Chrysostom when, speaking of the ^ servants pres*»rv'^ed in the furnace of Babylon, he says, " the nature of the fire" was " changed." Well, both of these quotations go to show that when the word " change " is used, it does not mean necessarily transubstantiation, in which the substance of what is spoken of ceases to exist as such, and becomes the substance of something else. Plainly St. Athanasius, &c., did not mean to teach that the substance of our Lord's human body ceased to exist, and that in that sense it was "changed into something more divine." Nor could St. Chrysostom mean that the fire ceased to exist and became something else, which it was not before. So there was, according to them, a "change" without any transubstantiation. Let this be remembered in the passages where the early Fathers speak of a " change" in relation to the Bread and Wine in the Lord's supper. Tertullian evidently wishes us to understand that he considered that -^y the nature or substance of anything was sometimes meant its characteristic quality. But what would this prove ? By this way of arguing one might say that when it is said that the substance of the Bread and Wine is changed into the body and blood of our Lord. Latin " pueri." — 11 it is meant that the characteristic quality (or qualities,) of the Bread and Wine is changed into the characteristic quality (or qualities) of the body and blood of our Lord. But this would still leave the substance, in the philosophic sense of this word, remaining. Does the Church of Rome teach this ? M. S. says that " in Sacred Scripture itself it is said : ' The water forget his own quenching nature.' "=^ Sap. xix. 9. I would say: (1) That here " nature" is put as a translation of " Dynamis,"! so M. S.'s argument is founded only on the Latin translation, and could have no force according to the Greek original. (2) The substance (in the sense, &c.,) is allowed to have remained. (3) The book from which the passage is taken belongs to the Apocrypha, which Protestants do not acknowledge as belonging to the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures. Of course to say that a thing " is demonstrated from the common doctrine" would have some meaning, when it can be proved what the " common doctrine" was. But again, M. S. quotes a Lutheran, Leibnitz, to confirm his position. Well, we do not acknowledge his authority, we are not Lutherans. X And I think that I have shown that in the quotation from Grelasius, " substance or nature," must have been used in the philosophic sense of these words. And with reference to what St. Ambrose says : that the substance of the Bread and Wine " are (converted into something else." I have not seen sufficient proof that " conversion" has the same meaning as ' transubstantiation." • The pas&age which seems to be referred to is found in the English version of the Apocrypha. Wisdom xix. 20. t When I have to write Greek or Hebrew words I shall write them in Roman characters as nearly as possible. t In the quotation given by M. S., Leibnitz teaches that when Gelasius said that the nature of the Bread, after consecration, remained, he, Gelasius, meant its qualities or accidents^ r — 18 — But there is one thing in this very quotation from Leibnitz that is especially worthy of the attention of M. S . He, (Leibnitz,) quotes St. Ambrose as saying : " The accidents are what they were, the substance is converted."'*^ Now, here is plainly a distinction made between the accidents and the substance. I think this sufficient to show that in the time of St. Ambrose, men had come to distinguish between the accidents (and thus I suppose between the "properties or sensible qualities by which the substantial nature manifests itself,") and the substance . itself. Now , St. Ambrose lived before Grelasius. Was the former then acquainted with this distinction, and the latter ignorant that it had been made ? Or, if he knew of it, why was he not more guarded in his language if he meant that only the " accidents" remained ? But do not ask us to acknowledge Leibnitz to be one whose authority we should accept to settle this, when, in the one quotation given by M. S., he (Leibnitz) speaks of St. Ambrose making a distinction between the accidents and the substance, and yet tell us, that in the time of Grelasius, fhey had not come to entertain such " metaphysical notions." Well, if he chooses, M. S. may say : " Respondendum est : This is in accordance with the teaching of our Church now." M. S. may have " conscientiously studied" my objections, and may have " answered with the care due," &c., but not, I think, with much satisfaction. However, he wishes to ask me a few questions in return. I will try to answer them. First. " What sense ought we to give .... to the profession of faith put forth in a Council at Rome under Gregory VIL, in 1079, subscribed by Berengarius himself, Ego Berengarius," &c. ? With reference to this, " he compared his own weakness to St. Peter's denial, and "• Latin: " Accidentia sunt quae erant, substantia conveiso est." V — 19 — complained as if threats and terror had been used against him." We learn from this that he " wanted the moral courage necessary to a successful defence of the truth." Perhaps " fright" had something to do with it. According to M. L'Abbe Begin : " Fright often takes away all liberty in action and destroys the will, without which one cannot be culpable."''*' But further, " secondly : what is the meaning of the condemnations of the doctrine of Berengarius by the Councils of Rome, of Verceil," &c., &c. ..." Under eight Popes .... who approved these Councils ?" To my mind all this signifies : (1) That the doctrine af transubstantiation was very much opposed and resisted by those who at that time thought themselves believers in the articles of the Christian Faith, of which they did not recognize the doctrine of transubstantiation as one. (2) That the authority of the Popes, in those days, was not recognized as sufficient to determine articles of faith. In regard to the doctrines of the Grreek Church on this subject, I have not a full account of their teaching by me. But even if their teaching in this respect were the same as that of Rome, we should only hold that as the Church of Rome has erred, so have the Churches of the East. But now let me speak of the other quotations. St. Justin of course must be allowed to be a writer of great consideration, and from him M. S. quotes the following sentence : " And we do not take these as common bread and common drink .... but we are taught that, after it has been made the Eucharist by the prayers of the words instituted by Himself, this food, by the conversion of which our flesh and blood are nourished, is the flesh and blood of Him the Incarnate Jesus." * As one could easily Imagine, the above theory was used in order to defend the character of a Popc» The worcU in the original are : "La frayeur ote souvent toute liberte dani Taction, ct detruit ie volontaire, tans lequel on ne peut etre coupable." — 20 — You will not object to my using the Greek original, instead of this Latin translation, and supplying the words which M. S. has left out, and marked as left out. Then I think that in this passage there seen to be three things which prove that their author did not believe In transubstantiation. (1.) I will quote for the first, from a writer of the Church of England : " "Whereas he (Justin) says it is not common bread, he evidently believes it to be bread ; otherwise, he would naturally have left out the epithet common^ and have said that they, esteemed it no longer bread at all." This completely accords with the teaching of St. .Paul in the 11th Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, the 26th and two following verses. In each of these verses, the bread, after consecration, is still called bread by St. Paul. Does the Church of Kome do the same ? (2.) Justin says : " As by the word of Grod our Lord Jesus Christ was made flesh and took flesh and blood for our salvation : thus have we been taught that * this food blessed by the word of prayer, which comes from Him, is the body and blood," &c. Now, when our Lord became man, did His divinity cease to be, or did it remain in appearance only ? Therefore, in the same way (Houtos) Justin would teach us that in becoming the bread of the Eucharist, the bread does not cease to be bread, and the same may be said of the wine. (3.) " This food which is blessed by conversion of which our flesh and blood are nourished." Do these words teach a doctrine allowed by the Church of Rome? I ■ * It will be seen that this translation differs from the preceding of the same passage. The reason is that in this latter I have adopted the translation of Bishop Harold Browne, which T did not in the previous case, because it did not suit as a translation of the Latin, whilst it does for the original Greek. — 21 — M. S. says of the early Fathers: "In such a thing they cannot be at variance." So be it. Then the remaining quotations which M. S. gives, must nave a meaning which can be reconciled with what St. Irenseus teaches, when he speaks of "who partake of these antitypes." Irenaei, scripta anecdota. Now, we should not think of calling anything an "antitype" of itself, although we might call the " antitype" by the name of the thing of which it was the antitype. Just as if we held in our hand a photo of a person, we might say : " This is such and such a one ;" when we should not think of calling the person his Photo. And I think that those who believe that in the Lord's supper there is the natural body, &c., of Christ "in reality," are like the "slaves" mentioned by St. Irenaeus as " thinking that in reality it was flesh and blood." Fragmentum ab CEcumenio in Comment. TertuUian says that : " His body is understood in bread." Therefore, of course, he held that the bread still existed, and so he could say when writing against Marcion, Bk. i., c. 4. : " Bread, by which He represents His very body." Again in Bk. ii., c. 40, against Marcion : " Having taken bread and distributed it to His disciples,. He made it His body by saying : This is my body, i.e., the figure of my body." Origen writes : " Acknowledge that they are figures, which are written in the sacred volumes ; therefore, as spiritual, not carnal, examine and understand what is said. For, if as carnal you receive them, they hurt, not nourish you. Not only in the Old Testament is there a letter which killeth ; but also in the new, there is a letter which killeth him, v ho does not spiritually consider it. For, if according to tiie letter you receive this saying: " Except ye eat my flei h and drink my blood ! that letter killeth." In Levit., Hom. vii., n. 6. . St. Athanoflius: "What He (Christ) spoke was not carnal, but spiritual. For, to how many could Fis body have sufficed for food, that this might be for nourishment — 22-^ for all the world ? But, therefore, He made mention of His ascension into Heaven, that He might draw them from understanding it corporally ; and that they might understand that the flesh He spoke of, was heavenly food from above, and spiritual nourishment given them by Him." Athanasius: In illud Evangelii, "Quicumque dixerit." St. Augustine writes : " Our Lord hesitated not to say : ' This is my body,' when He gave the sign of His body." • Contra Adimantum. Tom. viii., p. 124. Again St. Augustine : " Spiritually understand what I have spoken to you. You are not to eat that body which you see, and drink that blood which they will shed, who will crucify me. I have commended to you a sacrament. Spiritually understood, it will quicken you." In Psalm xviii. Tom. iv., p. 1066. Is the teaching of the Church of Rome " in conformity" with this? I thittk not; but I believe that the teaching of the Church of England is. M. S. writes : " M. D. will without doubt permit us to ask him in what the Roman Church actually differs from the Catholic teaching of all ages ?" I will endeavour to give an answer to this question by mentioning some of the doctrines, in which we believe that the Church of Rome differs from the teaching of the Church nearest the times of the Aposrles. I shall not attempt here to give any proof, as M. S. does not ask for it. But, even if he did, I would reply that the " burden of proving' belongs to those who assert the doctrines to be true. We believe then that the doctrines of transubstantiation and of the Infallibility of the Pope are false and erroneous, as well as that the following are not doctrines of the Christian Religion, as taught by its author and His Apostles, with the Primitive Church. (1.) That unwritten tradition is to be received and venerated "with equal affection and reverence" as the written Word of G-od. — 23 — (2.) That the books of the Apocrypha form part of the inspired Word of Grod. (3.) That " in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice, for the living and the dead." (4.) That "there is a purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful." (5.) That "Saints .... are to be venerated and invoked and that their relics are to be venerated" as done by the people in the Koman Church. (6.) That " the power of indulgences also was left by Christ in the Church," so as to be obtained by money or by pilgrimages, &c. (t.) That "... the Koman Church is the mother and mistress of all the Churches," &c. THIRD LETTER. Revd Sir: j From what M. S. says, or rather writes, it seems that I have been too ready to attribute to him the virtue of sincerity, as he objects to my having considered him as speaking earnestly, when he was only using " oratorical precautions." Well, if he thinks that I have done him a wrong, in this respect, I am quite willing to express my regret, for really I do not profess to be infallible, nor do I think myself incapable of stumbling, although I believe that I am walking in the right road. If I had thought so before, I should not, after finding that I could, without — 24- noticing it, omit the letter "^ " s" in writing a word, and transpose two numbers in a date. " We " in the Church of England allow that " we " may make mistakes, or, if you will, that "i£;e" have made mistakes. By "wc" I mean that " /" have made some, and that other members of the Church of England have made others, but I do not mean that " / " have made all the mistttkes which may have been made by those who belong to this Church. But surely M. S. will allow that he too may make mistakes, or that he is capable cf an oversight, for he has given sufficient proof of this in the meaning which he gives, or seems to me to give, to the words : f " Pasa propheteia graphes idias epilyseos ou ginetai." (Lat. : " Omnis prophetia scripturse propria interpretatione non fit.") I cannot see the object of this quotation, except it were to condemn what M. S. has called the private interpretation ("interpretation privee") of the Scriptures ; and this text could have no possible reference to " private interpretation" of Scripture, except by attributing to the word " idios," (Lat. : " proprius,") the meaning of " idiotikos," (Lat. : " privatus.") But this will never do ; because if we make " idios" to mean " belonging to an idiotes, or private man," then in Romans viii. 32, we should make St. Paul teach, not that God gave up His " own " son for us, but the son of some private person. * I here referred to two mistakes, (rightly enough called "peccadillos" by M. S.) In the one case I wrote 341 instead of 314; in the other " elegit," 1.^., He elected, instead of "selegit," i.e., He selected. These mistakes, together with what he considered a wrong use of the pronoun " we " by me, seems to have proved to his mind that my authority in matters of his history, grammar and language is worth nothing. But I never claimed to be an authority in such matters. I cai'^not expect better treatment than St. Paul received from the Bereans of old. I do not wish for it, much less ask for it. I have not corrected the tnistakes above referred to, becaus:: I wish my letters to be printed as nearly as possible the same as written, otherwise I would ha/e made several improvements. t In the English version it reads : " No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." 2, Peter i. 20. 25 — Let us then give to the above words the meaning of the Greek original or of the Latin translation, which, as quoted by M. S., seems to me quite correct ; but do not let us give to them the meaning expressed in such wrong translations as the French " interpretation priv6e," or the English "private interpretation." It seems to me that what St. Peter meant to teach was that there were =* some passages of Scripture which did not contain their own explanation or interpretation. This would thoroughly accord with what he teaches in his first Epistle i. 10-12, about the very writers themselves. In other words, St. Peter was clearly speaking of portions of sacred Writ, of some of which we might say what Bossuet says of the Prophecy of Jacob : "In observing simply the nistory of the people of G-od, you w411 see the meaning developed of itself, and the events alone will be its interpreters." f But becuase we look at things in this way, and choose to believe that when our Lord spoke, or Holy men, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, wrote in any language, they w^ould not use words which meant something different from what they wished to teach ; but that when the words used have a proper and fit meaning, that that was the meaning of the Spirit ; are we, I ask, on that account, to be classed with those who rejected the " oral interpretation" of our Lord ? M.S. may not hesitate to do such a wrong ; but the Judge of all the earth will not thereby be prevented from doing what is right. Our Blessed Lord called upon the people to accept His oral instruction, when He condemned traditions. Allow us then to accept what He approved, and to reject what He condemned. * I think that the words : " No prophecy of the Scripture," &c., should be : " Not every prophecy," &c. See Matt. vii. 21, where the Greek ** ou pas" is translated, " not every one." t The original of this quotation is : *' En reraarquant simp'ement la suite du peuple de Dieu, vous verrez le sens se developper de lui-mime, et que les seuls evenements en seront les interpretes." La sutie ds la Religion, chap. ii. - 26 — , * I cannot verify all that M. S. says about Gregory the Great, but if all that he writes of him be correct, then my estimation of the Great Gregory is less than it was, seeing he, according to M. S., claims in portions a title that, as a whole, he characterized as " rash." f I The relative condition of Roman Catholic and Protestant countries and communities will have to be completely reversed before we can believe " German Protestantiem to be more disastrous than the superstitions of the Angles." If M. S. still wishes to believe that, of which some of the most learned and impartial members of his own Church are ashamed, i.e., the " Nag's Head" story, he must excuse us if we are inclined to think that he might be reckoned amongst those of whom St. Paul writes that they would believe " the lie." As for the supposed defects of the English ordination, we shall consider them worthy of more serious consideration, when M. S. can prove that there were no similar deficiencies, as he considers them, in the Ordination of the Apostles, or of those ordained by them. • M. S. gives a number of quotations from the letters of Pope Gregory the Great, who lived at the end of the sixth century, to show that he claimed what is claimed by the Popes now. Of cour:>e if it could be shown to be so, it would not affect the position of Protestants. But when that Pope condemns, as I think it clear he does, the assumption by any Bishop of the title of *' Universal," the Roman Church stands condemned by one whom they pretend to believe Infallible. So altboueh to prove that he claimed to be Universal Bishop would be of very little importance as against us ; yet, to prove that he rejected that title is, it seems to me, fatal to the claims of the Pope now. t M. S. uses the French word " tSmeraire," I suppose as » translation of the Latin word " profanus." •' X In connection with this, I would recommend any of the readers of this pamphlet, who have not yet done so, to obtain and read at once the pamphlet by M. Emile de Laveleye on *' Protestantism and Catholicism in their bearing upon the Liberty and Prosperity of Nations." .1^ -27— • But why should I proceed, I do not wish to force M. S to continue the discussion which he took up with me. It is pretty plain that he is tired of it, and that he does not wish to consider me as part of that " creation" ^ referred to in Mark xvi. 15, when amongst other detrimental language, with which his letter " abounds," f (I suppose, according to him, I should be correct in saying Kecharitotai,) he applies to me the words: , "Adieu, je n'ai que fj-ire '♦ D'une babiliarde a ma Cour." But let me state here the conclusion to which what M. S. has written would alone lead me. From what he has written it is evident that the Church of Rome teaches error and gives wrong interpretations or explanations of Scripture. But, as M. S. holds^ the True Church cannot do this. Then the Church of Rome cannot be the Catholic Church whose Head is Jesus Christ. " The whole," not only " without bitterness or animosity," but also with the prayer, in the words of our English Litany, that the Lord may be pleased " to bring into the way of truth all such as have erred and are deceived." * English version •- " Preach the Gospel to every creature." I have in my letter adopted the Greek form : " To all the creation." . t This has reference to a translation given by M. S. to the Greek word translated, quite correctly, in our English version, "highly favoured." Luke i. 28. M. S. says that the active voice of that word meana " abundance." When I saw from his last letter that he did not wish for any more discussion, I did not attempt to reply in full to his letter, or I should have said a great deal more ahout this translation^. which is no honor to his religion. s APPENDIX. The following is the quotation from " Chateaubriand " referred to in the remarks on Father Murphy's lecture, but which I could not find at the time. I do not believe in the fable referred to about the Apostles hidden " dans lew entrailles de la terre," &c., but the remarks about the undertaking of those fishermen, and what the " Roman of the Court of Augustus" would have thought of them, are w^ell worthy of the attention of those who profess allegiance to the Roman Pontiff now. , " Tandis que le monde entier adorait k la face du soleil mille divinites honteuses, douze p^cheurs, caches dans les entrailles de la terre, dressaient la profession de foi du genre humain, et reconnaissa: ent I'unite du Dieu createur de ces astres a la lu^dere desquels on n'osait encore proclamer son existence. Si quelque Romain de la Cour d'Auguste, passant aupres de ce souterrain, eut aper9i les douzc Juifs qui composaient cet oeuvre sublime [the Apostles' Creed,] quel m§pris il eut t^moigne pour cette troupe superstitieuse ! Avec quel dedain il eut parl§ de ces premiers fideles ! Et pourtant ils allaient renverser les temples de ce Romain, detruire la religion de ses peres, changer les lois, la politique, la morale, la raison, et jusqu'aux pens§es des hommes ; ne desesp^rons done jamais du salut des peuples. Les chretiens g^missant aujourd'hui sur la tiedeur de la foi : qui sait si Dieu n'a point plante dans une aire inconnue le grain de seneve qui doit multiplier dans les champs ? Peut-dtre cet espoir de salut est-il sous nos yeux sans que nous nous y arr^tions ; peut-^tre nous parait-il aussi absurde que ridicule. Mais qui aurait jamais pu croire a la folie de la Croix ?" — Itineraire de Paris a Jerusalem. — 29 — The following is part of the chapt«^r from Bossuet referred to in my first letter : " Cependant, k la fin des temps, les Juifs mdmes, qui le [Dieu] connaissaient, et qui etaient les d^positaires de la religion, commencerent, tant les hommes vont touiours affaiblissant la v6rite, non point k oublier le Dieu de le;ir.s p^res, mais k m^ler dans la religion des superstitions indigii«s de lui. Sous le regne des Asmon^ens, et des le temps de Jonathas, la secte des pharisiens commenya parmi les Juifs. lis s'acquirent d'abord un grand credit par la puret6 de leur doctrine, et par I'observance exacte de la loi : joint c[ue leur conduite 6tait douce, quoique r6guliere, et qu'ils vivaient entre eux en grande union. Les recompenses et les chMiments de la vie future, qu'ils soutenaient avec zele, leur attiraient beaucoup d'honneur. A la fin I'ambition se mit parmi eux. lis voulurent gouvemer, et en effet ils se donnerent un pouvoir absolu sur le peuple : ils se rendirent les arbitres de la doctrine et de la religion, qu'ils tournerent insensiblement k des pratiques superstitieuses, utiles a leur int^rfit et k la domi- nation qu'ils voulaient 6tablir sur les consciences ; et le vrai esprit de la loi 6tait pr^t a se perdre. " A ces maux se joignit un plus grand mal, I'ogueil et la pr6somption ; mais une presumption qui allait a s'at- tribuer a soi-m6me le don de Dieu, Etre sorti d' Abraham selon la chair leur paraissait une distinction qui les mettait naturellement au-dessus de tous les autres ; et, enfl^s d'une si belle origine, ils se croyaient saints par nature, et non par gr^ce : erreur qui dure encore parmi eux. Ce furent les pharisiens qui, cherchant a se glorifier de leurs liimieres et de I'exacte observance des ceremonies de la loi, introduisirent cette opinion vers la fin des temps. Comme ils ne songeaient qu'a se distinguer des autres hommes, ils multiplierent sans bornes les pratiques ext6rieures, et debiterent toutes leurs pensees, quelque contraires qu'elles fussent a la loi de Dieu, comme des traditions authentiques." — 30 — Since sending the preceding to the press, I have learnt that Bishop Bouvier, in his " Institntiones Theologicae," acknowledges that the equivalent of " Ipsnm" and not of " Ipsa" is found in all the more ancient versions of G-enesis iii. 15. I suppose M. S. did not know this, or he would not have spoken of my " demangeaison hebraique," by which I came to the same conclusion as that to whicn Bishop Bouvier came by studying the ancient versions of the Scriptures, «.e., I concluded that " Ipsa" was wrong, and Bishop Bouvier does the same. But because I endeavoured to prove " Ipsa" wrong, M. S. accused me of trying to rob (ravir) Mary of the "Immaculate Conception." The Bishop, has, according to M. S.'s way of looking at things, therefore robbed Mary of her " Immaculate Conception." See ''Institutions," vol. I., page 51. According to what the Bishop above referred to states, our English translation of Gienesis iii. 15, "IT shall bruise," &c., is correct. And we are quite right in believing that our Blessed Lord has bruised for us the serpent's head, although those who seem so anxious to magnify the Mother above her Saviour, may say that w^hen it is written : " ' ipsum,' id est ipsum semen," we must understand it to mean " ipsa mulier, per semen suum conteret," &c. To Him then we must look, for St. Paul has taught us that " there is one Grod, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all." — 1, Timothy ii. 16, 16. " Neither is there salvation in any other : for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be s-aved." — Acts iv. 12. .f' « '\"'l.U '/4? rm .t-^)- ki' "t'J !f, l' ^C* ^.. Mf, ;f,«« , .\~f^f