„;«!* Il!ii!i;l' iiili ■liiliii mffiif? 7i *Jl.V PRINCETON, N, J. BX 5945 .B45 1859 Bede, Augustin. Letters to an Episcopalian SAel LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN, ON THE ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DOCTRINE OF TUE BOOK OF COMMON-PEAYER. BY A UG US TIN BEDE. He^ \r BALTIMORE: PUBLISHED BY KELLY, HEDIAN & PIET, 174 Baltimore Street, 1859. Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the ye.ir Eighteen Hundred and Fifty-Nine, by Kelly, IIedian & Piet, in the Clerk's Office of tJie District Court of the State of Maryland. Kelly. Hedi.^.n & Piet. Printei •^ j> *A Aii Li G I G .ii. ^.- . PREFACE. The lullowing letters were prepared with reference to the case of a particular individual, but it is believed that they will be found equally applicable to a very large class of readers. Episcopalians generally regard the ••' Book of Common-Prayer" as second only to the Bible, both in excellency and authority. To them, it is at once a treasury of spiritnal reading, a book of devotion and worship, and a standard of faith and doctrine. Anj' treatise relating to a book so intimately bound up with their religious life, must at once awaken their interest and inquiry. However great may be their veneration for it, they will scarcely maintain that it is too perfect to admit of improvement. However mucli they may honor the memory of those who compiled it, they will not venture to pronounce them absolutely infallible. It is therefore believed that they will have too much good sense to put away from them a work which is designed to throw light uiwn these points. Esteeming their Prayer-Book so highly, they must also feel too much interested in its origin and history, to forego the opportunity aflbrded by these letters, to obtain the only complete account of the sources from which that book was compiled, as well as of the means by which it was first brought into use. Acknowledging it to be the authorised exponent of their doctrinal belief and of their ecclesiastical polity, they must feel con- cerned in any logical deductions which may be drawn from its creeds, articles of religion, and other theological statements. Let it be no offence to say that many of them, although habitually using IV . PREFACE. that book, have never yet taken the trouble to subject it to an histo- rical and critical examination, nor even to compare part with part, with a view to reduce its teachings to an hannonious system. Per- haps they will not disdain the assistance of the following Letters, in this long-neglected investigation. Although it has been necessary, in some of the letters, to use much plainness of speech, and to call up historical facts of a disa- greeable nature, yet the author has endeavored to avoid giving just cause of offence — for he seeks not to wound and exasperate, but only to instruct and edify. Although unveiling much that has hitherto remained hidden, he has endeavored to conduct the dis- cussion with moderation and charity. As many of the points discussed can be decided only by means of historical authorities, the writer has confined himself mainly to such authorities as Episcopalians themselves acknowledge — citing in proof of every material point, their own historians and divines. It is hoped that this feature alone may serve to recommend these Letters to their calm and unprejudiced perusal. It is believed that these Letters will be found interesting, not only to the Episcopalian, but to Protestants of all denominations.. The peculiar claims of the " Protestant Episcopal Church," in reference to other Protestant bodies, serve to invest the discussion with general interest. Episcopalianism professes to occupy a sort of middle ground between Rome and Geneva. It is important for every Protestant to ascertain how far this profession is true; and if true, whether such ground is tenable. With these few remarks, the author commends the Letters to the candid perusal of all who feel an interest in the great .questions which unfortunately divide the nominal Christians of the present day. A. B. CONTENTS LETTER I High estimate in which the Prayer-Book is held !>y Einseopa- lians, although some find favilt •\vith certain parts ot it.— Compiled by Cranmer and others from the Scriptures and Cath- olic sources, as the Missal, &c.— The Catholic Church older than the Bible, and her authority prior to it.— The Scriptures origi- nally entrusted to her keeping, and by her handed down to the present generation.— The Catholic Liturgy used in England until the reign of Henry VHI. who quarrelled with the Pope about a divorce, rejected the authority of the Church, set up a Church for himself, and laid the foundations of the Prayer-Book.— The Praver-Book more fully composed under Edward VL — The Catholic Liturgy abolished and the Book of Common Prayer imposed upon the Church by Act of Parliament*-.— Its use en- forced by penal laws.— The" Prayer-Book revised and altered repeatedly. — Inconsistencies of its authors « LETTER II, Vain attempts of the Anglican party to set aside Queen Mary on account of her religion.— Laws enjoining the use of the Prayer- Book repealed, and the Catholic Liturgy restored. — Parliament and Convocation acknowledge their errors, and obtain aljsolu- tion.— The severities of Mary's reign much exaggerated, and were mainly inflicted upon rebels and traitors.— Accession of Queen Elizabeth.— She conceals her sentiments at first, but soon begins to restore the Anglican worship. — She is made Supreme Governor of the Church.— Her subjects required to renounce the authority of the Pope.— The bishops refuse to sanction her changes and'are driven from their Sees.— The Prayer-Book is again revised and altered, and once more forced upon the nation. — Its use again enforced by fines and imprisonments. — Bloody persecutions against the Catholics. — The Puritans ap- pear, and demand changes in the Prayer-Book. — They attain to power and abolish the Prayer-Book and establish the Directory in its place. — Charles II. restored to the throne, and the Prayer- Book once more re-estal dished . — Changes demanded by the Non- conformists, and a Conference appointed. — The Prayer-Book again revised and amended.' — The clergy refusing to use it, eject- ed from their livings. — Recajjitulation of changes in the Prayer- ji.ook. — Its fortunes ever dependent on the wiil of Parliament. — Its use compulsory. — It is once more revised by the American Convention for the'use of the Episcopal Church. — Great changes then made in its pages 2G VI CONTENTS. LETTER III. The Piiiycr-Book origuially made upon the plea of reforming the Liturgy and tlie Church. — The character of its principal authors examined.' — Henry VIIL, Thomas Cromwell, Anne Bolej'n, Ed- ward VL. the Duke of Somerset, the Duke of Northumlierland, Ridley, Latimer, Cranmer, Queen Elizabeth, reviewed as a class.' — Nearly- all of them renounced Protestantism after em- bracing it. — All were intolerant and sanguinary. — Most of them perished as felons. — Were not "reformers," and were not moved by "Church corrnjitions.'' — The real cause of the Eng- lish Schism set forth LETTER IV. Title of the Praj-er-Book . — Remarks on the Preface. — Tallies of Lessons. — Festivals and Saints' Days. — In the Praj'er-Book, but not observed. — "Apocryphal" Books of Scripture read. — The Calendar. — English and American compared. — Great changes in the latter. — Saints of the "Dark Ages" found in the English Calendar. — Festival of the Conception of the Virgin. — Only one Anglican Saint, King Charles. — Departure from standards. — Rogation and Ember Days. — The Festivals, &c., borrowed from the Catholic Chtirch. — Morning Prayer examined. — Confession and Absolution. — The Catholic and Protestant doctrine of for- giveness of sin compared. — Priestlj^ Absolution taught in va- rious places. — Arguments and Protestant admissions in its favor. — The Glorui in Excehns. — The Te Donii 102- LETTER V. Remarks on the Benedicite. — Invocation of Saints and Angels. — Rubric before the Apostles' Creed. — Athana.siean Creed. — Left out of the American Prayer-Book. — Remarks on the Apostles^ Creed. — The Nicene Creed. — Additions made to those ancient symbols. — The Descent into Hell. — Communion of Saints. — The Consnbstantiality of Christ. — Articles of the Ci-eed cannot be proved from the Scriptures alone. — The Incarnation. . .11 L E T T E R V I . Remarks on the article concerning the Church. — Singular omis- sion. — The Church of the Creed, One, \lo\y, Catholic and Apos- tolic. — Meaning of the term Church. — The Church one, and not several. — In what sense one. — One in organization, and not vari- ous "independent branches." — Protestant acknowledgments. — Branches mere divisions. — The Church is "Holy." — This mark incompatible with branches or divisions. — The Church is " Ca- tholic." — Meaning of this term. — How rmderstood by the Fa- thers.' — ^Fourth mark, "Apostolic." — Meaning of this term. — A Church founded by the Apostles and continuing ever since. — Implies both orders and jurisdiction. — Where are the four marks found? — The "Protestant Epi.scopal Church" does not pos.sess them. — Is destituteof orders and jurisdiction 165 CONTEXT^. Vll L E T T K R \" I I The Aiif^liciin CIuutIi equally destitute nf thi^' iuui tu;nks oi' the Creed. — That Churth the ereature and slave of the State. — These marks all Ibuml in the eommuuion with the Pope as its head. — Anglicanism and Catholicity com})ared. — Testimony of Protestants as to the condition of England. — Spiritual Books written by Catholics acknowledged to he superior. — Catholics in communion with Christians of other countries. — Protestant Episcopalianism isolated and at war with all other ecclesiastical bodies. — The language of the ancient Fathers can only be adopted by those now in communion with the Pope. — All bound to submit to the true Church. — No other way of salvation. — The doctrine of the Creed concerning Bajitism. — Denied by Ei)isco- palians 106 LETTER V [ J I . Responses. Collects, &c., borrowed from Catholic Missal. — '■ Even- ing Pra\-er." — Magnificat discarded. — Athanasean Creed. — The Liturgy borrowed from the Catholics. — Various changes in it.' — Some of its petitions e.vamiued . — ' ' Heresy, ' ' how known. — Repetitious. — Collects, Epistles, and Crospels. — Ash-Wedncs- daj'. — Christmas. — Whitsunday .• — Saints' Days. — Communion Service. — The Decalogue and the nse of images. — Seventh day a Sabbath. — Doctrine of the Real Presence. — Ancient Liturgies contain Prayers for the Dead, &c. — Sacrifice always an essential part of worship.' — Predicted in the Old Testament. — Reserva- tion of consecrated elements. — The Baptismal Service. — Its doc- trine. — Use of the Cross. — The Catechism. — Its doctrine respect- ing the saci-amcnts. — Confirmation Service examined. — Its de- fective character. — Marriage Service. — Differs from the English book. — •Visitation of Sick. — Confession and Absolution pre- scribed. — Communion of tlie Sick. — Conimiuation Service. — The Psalter 21» LETT E R I X . The Thirty-Xiue Articles.— The Sixth Article E.^amined.— The Scriptures not the sole rnle of faith. — The Canonical Books. — Article contradicted by the Jlomilics. — The authenticity of cer- tain books discussed. — Testimony of Kuajip and Burnet. — The Eighteenth Article. — It a)iathematizcs Errorists. — Results of Schism. — The Nineteenth Article. — Its definition of the Visible Church false and absurd. — So vague and general as to suit all sects. — Adopted by the Methodists. — Twentieth Article. — It condemns the authors of Anglicanism. — Apostolic Traditions. — Admission of Knapp. — T\vent}--first Article. — Left out of the American book. — Authority of General Councils. — Church au- thority incompatible with private judgment.' — Twenty-third Article vague and ambiguous. — Its doctrines as to a lawful ministry. — Candid admission of Burnet. — Twenty-fourth Arti- cle. — The use of Latin in the public service. — Not forbidden in Scripture. — Its advantages. — Used by Anglicans in Ireland. — Certain cases. — English Praver-Book used ainonu' the Irish. 249 Vm C N T EX T S . LETTER X. Thirty-second Article Examined. — Celibacy of the Clergy discuss- ed. — Teachings of Scripture upon the sul)ject. — Examples of ~ the Apostles and first Ministers. — Ancient Canons. — Admis- sions of Burnet, Short and Hallem. — Thirty-third Article ex- amined. — Asserts the right of Excommunication. — Confirms the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church. — But practically vague and inoperative among Protestants. — Condemns the au- thors of the English Schism. — Thirty-fourth Article examined. — This also condemns Anglicans. — A National Church subordi- nate to the Church Catholic. — Thirty-fifth Article. — Homilies. — Their doctrines contrary to the Articles. — Thirty-sixth Article examined. — Differs from the English Prayer-Book. — Anglican ordinations. — Treated as null by the Catholic Church. — Princi- pal grounds of their denial. — Ordination Services borrowed in part from the Roman Pontifical. — Other Services. — English Book contains four additional Forms. — Gunpowder Plot. — The result of dire persecution.— Not chargeable to Catholic religion. — Protestant Gunpowder Plots.— Service for King Charles. — Two other Services for the Royal Family. — King's "Healing" Service 2'7'7 CONC'IA'SIOX 305 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. LETTER I. High estimate in which the Prayer-Book is held hy Episcopalians, althouoh some find fault with certain parts of it.— Compiled by Cranmer and others from the Scriptures, and Catholic sources, as the Missal, &c.— The Catholic Church older than the Bible, and her authority prior to it.— The Scriptures originally entrusted to her keeping and by her handed down to the present generation.— Catholic Liturgy us"ed in England until Henry VIH. who qua,rrelled with the Pope about a diyorce, rejected the authority of tlie Church, set up a Church for himself and laid the foundations of the Prayer- Book —The Prayer-Book more fully composed under Edward VI. — The Catholic Li"turgy abolished and the Book of Common Prayer imposed upon the Church by act of Parliament.— Its use enforced by penal laws.— The Prayer-Book reyised and altered repeatedly.— Inconsistencies of its authors. My Dear Friexd : I PROPOSE to offer you in a spirit of charity, a few plain reflections upon ' ' The Book of Common Prayer and Admin- istration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Protestant Epis- copal Church in the United States of America." Fully aware of the exalted estimation in which this book is held by Pro- testant Episcopalians, it is my wish to handle it with due deference to the religious feelings with which it is intimately associated in their minds. The feeling of veneration is un- fortunately too seldom evinced in the Protestant world, to be lightly treated, when it does happen to show itself; and under any circumstances, it is a feeling which should always be respected, even though it may be mingled with more or less of error. -r. i • i To the Protestant Episcopalian, his Prayer-Book is the book of his heart. He regards it with a fervent attachment. He esteems it more highly than any other human production. 2 8 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. In short, he venerates it next to the Bible itself. In addi- tion to the high appreciation which he has formed of it, from his own use of it in mature years, he has been accustomed from his childhood to hear it lauded in the highest terms of praise to be found in our language. From the pulpit, in books, in familiar conversation, it has been constantly extolled and held up for admiration, not only for the benefit of Epis- copalians, but for the advantage and allurement of Protestants of all denominations. Let it not be supposed that I have any wish to disparage a book so highly esteemed by many whose intelligence and piety I fi'eely acknowledge. It is far otherwise with me — I would rather unite with those good men in praising and magnifying it. But then I should praise it not as a whole, but only in some of its parts, and with certain exceptions. Much of it is worthy of all the panegyrics which learned and eloquent divines have pro- nounced upon it. And if, in uniting with them in the general chorus of praise, I am reluctantly compelled to ex- cept this or that part of it, I do no more than some of its own friends have done, although it may happen that some of them have regarded as beauties, what I regard as blem- ishes : and on the other hand, what I regard as beauties, some may regard as blemishes. I agree, then, with you my friend, that the Prayer-Book is for the most part worthy of all the praises which you have been accustomed to bestow upon it. And now, having admitted this much, will you candidly examine with me the important question : From u-liat source is the excellent matter contained in this hook derived? Is it of Protestant origin? Did it first see the light since the days of Luther and Henry VIII. ? or did it originate in those earlier and happier times, when England was united in faith and worship with the Church on the Continent and with the Holy Roman See ? It is a very common idea, I know, that the Prayer-Book is entirely the work of the " Reformers," — so-called — Cran- mer and his confederates. But this idea is very erroneous ; these men did indeed compile the Prayer-Book, but they did not originate the matter which it contains. Most of its contents were in existence long before these men were born, and all they did was to throw together its devotional matter as the collects, litanies, &c., with a few additions of their own, in the shape in which it now appears. In fact, the Prayer-Book was borrowed from the Catholic Church, in all LETTER I. 9 its parts, except here and there an element of Protestant origin. In the first pbice, the great mass of its contents are taken fi-om the Iloly Scriptures — as the CJospels, Epis- tles, the Psalter, &c., &c. — making altogether at least two- thirds of the book. And of course, all this portion is pre- eminently worthy of praise and veneration as the fruit of divine inspiration. But this admission does not conflict with my assertion that the Prayer-Book is derived from the Cath- olic Church. It is indeed derived, as to the greater part, from the Holy Scriptures — but whence do the Holy Scrip- tures come ? Do they not come from the Catholic Church ? Unquestionably they do. Where was the Bible before Lu- ther, and before Henry VIII. and CranmerV It was where it had been from the beginning — in the safe and holy keeping of the Catholic Church. It is a fact which Protestants strangely overlook, that the Catholic Church is older than the Bible. When our Saviour had organized His Church, "by selecting His Apostles and enduing them with authority and power for evangelizing the world, He sent them forth with this command : " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe aU things whatsoever I have commanded you : and lo ! I am with you alway even unto the end of the world." Observe the terms of this great commission — He commands them to ' ' teach all nations." He did not give them the Bible and tell them to publish it, and scatter it indiscriminately among men, so that every man might pick a religion out of it, as he should think best. But they were to "teach." And what were they to " teach V" They were to teach what He had " com- manded" them, that is, what they had learned from His sacred lips, and not what they had learned from the New Testament. The New Testament was not then in existence. No part of it had then been written. Nor was any part of it written for several years after that time. And indeed the New Testament in all its parts was not written for nearly a half century after that time. Consequently, the Church was established and propagated in various countries many years before the New Testament was in existence. Her authority, therefore, is prior to that of the New Testa- ment, and is of the same character with it. Whether the Apostles wrote, or taught by word of mouth, it was by the same divine authority, and that divine authority they trans- 10 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. mittecl to their successors. And hence to this day, the Catholic Church is a teaching Church, deriving from the Apostles the same great commission — ■' ' Co ye and teach all nations." The New Testament is comprised of nearly thirty separate and independent treatises, or tracts as I may call them, such as Gospels, Epistles, Histories, written by dif- ferent authors, in different countries, at different periods and for different peoples, and different objects. No one of these little tracts, (for such they would be were they separately produced, as originally,) professes to give a complete account of the doctrines and duties of the Christian religion. Nor do the whole of these tracts combined, profess to do any such thing. And in point of fact they were not intended to do that — for that was the office of the Church in connection with these divine tracts. It will not be pretended that when the Apostles had written Epistles for the use of this or that portion of the Church in their day, that they, the Apostles, then ceased to have authority over these portions of the Church. Certainly that authority continued unimpaired to the end of their lives, and when they died, the same authority descended to their successors in the ministry down to the present day. The Scriptures were thus written for the Church, and given to the Church, to be used then and ever afterwards in connection with the living authority of the Church. The Scriptures then, were entrusted to the keep- ing of the Church, and in every subsequent age she has been faithful to her trust. She first sifted the genuine writ- ings of the Apostles from those which were spurious, decid- ing for after times the great question, what was inspired and what not, and thus gathered the genuine tracts together, and made what is now called the New Testament. These have been carefully guarded from corruption and transmitted to our own times.* In every age before the invention of * To show the difficulty which attended this work, I have only to mention that besides the books of the New Testament, as now com- monl}' received, there were circulated in the early ages, and by some received as genuine, the "Gospel of the Birth of Mary," which was ascribed to St. Matthew; the "Protevangelion," which was ascribed to St. James; the "Gospel of Nicodemus," the "Epistles of Paul to Seneca;" the "Acts of Paul and Thecla," &c., &c. Had it not l)een for the Church, these and other spurious productions woidd continue to be received as the inspired word of God, and ]iroduce error and confusion. In this assertion I am sustained by high Protestant au- thority. Dr. Knapp says: "The Iiistory of the Canon of the Old LETTEll I. 11 printing, many of her pious cliiklren, particularly the much abused monks, spent their time in copying the Holy Scrip- tures for the use of their own generation, and to be handed down to us. Thus, the Sacred Scriptures have in every age been the property of the Church. They were given to her by their inspired authors, and she faithfully preserved them until the days of Luther and Cranmer, as well as since. And when Luther and Cranmer separated from her, they were com- pelled to take the Scriptures fi-om her. I might add much more upon this topic, but my limits do not allow of it. I trust what I have said will induce you to follow it up Avith further investigation. I must observe, however, that in this argument I am sustained by your Book of Common Prayer. The 20th article of lleligion expressly asserts that the Church is a " witness and keeper of Holy Writ." This is just what I maintain — the Church is the " keeper ' of the Scriptures. And when the so-called " Eeformers" left the Church, they received the Scriptures fi-om her. And therefore, my posi- tion is established, that the Praj-er-Book so far as it is made up of Scripture, is derived fi'om the Catholic Church.* The remaining part of the Prayer-Book, except small por- tions here and there, is derived likewise from the Catholic Church. This assertion can be proved in the most conclu- sive manner by an inquiry into the soun-e of the various prayers, collects, litanies, &c. which are so highly extolled for their piety and fervor. The Prayer-Book of the Epis- copal Church in this country, it is well known, is derived from the Church of England, and is the same as the Prayer Book of that Church, with the exception of certain altera- tions, omissions and additions, of which I shall hereafter speak. Before the American Revolution, it was precisely the same. The Episcopalians of this country were then Testament Scriptures is obscure, from the deficiency in ancient re- cords. * * * After all it must remain imperfect." Again, he saj-s : '• But respecting some particular books, it cannot he ascertained from historical records either tliat they belonged to the collection ori- ginally-, or at what time they were received as canonical. {Lectures on Christian Theologif, Art. I., g 4. This is a text-book in at least one Episcopalian Theological Seminary.) * It was taken from the Church also, because the same portions of Scripture had long been appropriated by the Church in her various services, particularly the Gospels, Epistles and Psalter. •)* 12 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. members of the Clmvcli of England, and, of course, used the same Prayer Book. Let us, then, see what was the origin of this Prayer-Book. Enghmd, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, when Henry VIII. ascended the throne, was united in faith and worship with the Church on the Con- tinent, and acknowledging the authority of the Pope, was a part of the Catholic Church. Of course, then, the Liturgy used in that country, was, in the main, the same as that used in other parts of the Catholic Church, and the same as is still vised by the Catholic Church in this country and else- where, and which is commonly called the Roman Liturgy, and may be found in what is called the Missal. This was the Prayer-Book of the Church in England, until the middle of the sixteenth century. But Henry YIII. quarrelled with the Pope because he was not allowed to divorce his wife, the foithful Catherine, with whom he had lived seventeen years in peace and happiness — because he was not allowed to put her away to make room for the 'young and beautiful Anne Boleyn. Previous to this affair, he was not only a devoted adherent of the Pope, but he even wrote a treatise on the " Seven Sacraments" in opposition to the vagaries of Martin Luther, a treatise which gained for him, from the Pope, the title of "Defender of the Faith," a title ever since strangely held by the Sovereigns of that country, in- cluding Her Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria. This wretched man (who afterwards divorced and put to death several wives,) because he was not allowed to follow his passions in opposition to the divine law, renounced the authority of the Pope, and compelled his people to do the same by means of legal enactments, fines and punishments. This was the be- ginning of the separation of England from Rome ; although the schism was healed underMary, it was renewed by Queen Elizabeth, whom the Pope refused to acknowledge as a legi- timate Sovereign, as she had not been born in lawful wed- lock. Henry having repudiated the authority of the Pope, put himself in the place of the Pope, and made Cranmer his Archbishop. The latter, as the pliant tool of the mon- arch, pronounced the divorce, and gave him Anne Boleyn to wife, and pronounced her his true and lawful wife, although at a subsequent period he divorced this same woman from Henry, and pronounced her marriage with the king null and void from the beginning. In this way poor Anne lost her kead, and another wife was taken — all with the aid and au- LKTTEH I. 13^ thority of the aceoiuinodatiug Cranmcr. But I cannot here detail the various stejis by which the separation of Enghmd fi'oiu Home was brought about. Let the candid Protestant examine any impartial history of these times, and he will find enough to disgust him both with the '' Iteformers" and their work.* Henry having got rid of the Pope, had every thing his own way. lie was absolute master of Church and State. Ilis will was law. Every man, no matter how high, had to obey his l>ehest or go to the stake. It was under the despotic sway of this beastly tyrant, that the foundations of the I'rayer-Book were laid. A book was published called " The Institution of a Christian Man," which contained the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Seven Sacraments, the Pater Nos^sr, Hail Mary, &.c. A few years afterwards, this book was revised, and published under the title of "A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man,"" containing Transubstantiation, Masses for the Dead, &c. In point of fact, but little change was made in the doctrines of the Church, during the reign of Henry VIII. All he de- sired was to get the Pope out of his way, that he might manage everj' thing for himself In Church and State. And this fact shews conclusively how little need, and how litle desire there was to reform the Church. Henry separated fi'om the Pope in 1530, and although he reigned seventeen years after that event, yet in all that time the doctrines held and taught by the authorities of both Church and State, were substantially the same as were held under the Pope, and the same as were held by Catholics everywhere. Henry was succeeded by Edward YI., a lad of nine years of age, who thenceforth became the head of Church and State, and under whom changes of a more important character were effected, particularly in the Liturgy of the Church. A Prayer-Book was set forth, very nearly resembling the one now used by the Church of England, but more in accordance with the Catholic ftiith and worship, as it contained prayers for the dead, the use of chrism, &c. To compile this book,. a committee of eighteen bishops, besides a number of inferior clerg}-, was appointed. But before the work was completed, most of the bi.shops withdrew from the undertaking, as they found it impossible to concur in the radical changes which *Soe William Cobbett's //is^ory of the Reformation, or "Waterwortli's Lectures on t/ie Reformation. 14 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. the dominant party were determined to make in the estah- lished doctrines of the Church. And when the work finally appeared, only four of the bishops out of eighteen, gave it. their sanction, although all the powerfid influences of tiie- Court were exerted in favor of the project. This fact shews, that even then, the Church, by a majority of its autho- rised rulers, was against the innovations of King Edward and his minions, in spite of the secular and despotic power which royalty had wielded over it in this and the preceding reign. This book was entitled, " The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Cere- monies of the Church, after the use of the Church of Eng- land." It was mainly compiled from the Roman Missal and! other books of prayer which had been used for centuries, bj the Catholics in England, down to that time.* This is an assertion which cannot be denied. Indeed it is expressly admitted by the most candid Protestant historians. Dr. Short, an English Pi'otestant Bishop, published a History of the Church of England, which has been republished in this^ country, and can easily be consulted by any reader. And what does he say upon this point ? He says : ' ' On the- whole, this book forms a connecting link between the Missal and the Prayer-Book. * * * Almost the whole of it was taken fi-om different Roman Catholic services, particu- larly those after the use of Salisbury, which were then gene- rally adopted in the South of England ; and the principle^ on which the compilers proceeded in the work, was to alter as little as possible what had been fiimiliar to the people. Thus, the Litany is nearly the same as that in the Salisbury Hours, excepting that one hundred and sixteen addresses tO' the Apostles, the Virgin, and different Saints, are left out. * * * The Collects, Epistles and Gospels were almost entirely the same as those in the Salisbury Hours ; and several ceremonies were retained which have been since- * Certain Episcopalian -n-riters have stated that their Prayer-Book is older than the Missal, and therefore not derived from it. To prove this, they assert that the Missal was drawn up by persons appointecJ by the Council of Trent in 1562. But this is a great mistake. The Missal can be traced back to Pope Gelasius, in the fifth century. Ad- ditions were made to it by Gregoiy the Great, in the seventh century. A revision of the book was made by the authority of the Council of Trent, and afterwards it received the sanction of Pius V., who then ordered it to be used more universally in the Church. L E T T K R I . IS- discarded." (§§ 743 aud 744.) This testimony from a " Church of England" Bishop is conclusive. Certain Epis- copalians do not like to admit that the most beautiful por- tions of their much lauded Prayer-Book are derived from Koman Catholic sources, and they try very hard to evade the disagreeable truth by laboring to shew that these devotions are taken fi-om more ancient sources. This is a miserable quibble, and un worth}' of a Christian or a scholar. The Catholic Church is ancient, and her liturgical and devotional services arc likewise ancient — and these services which she used in the sixteenth century, can be traced back to the sixth century, and even further. And the question is not, what were the original sources of these services, (although we maintain that they were Catholic from the very beginning) — but whether these services from which the Prayer-Book was compiled, were those used by the Catholic Church for cen- turies before Thomas Cranmer appeared. This is the only C[uestion — aud this can be answered only in the affirmative, as admitted by the learned historian just quoted. Dr. Short, who states that the Liturgy, Epistles, Gospels, aud Collects- are the same as found in the Salisbury Hours, a Catholic Prayer-Book then used, and one, as he intimates, pretty full of prayers to the Saints, just like a Catholic Prayer-Book of the present dixj. Cranmer and a few others of kindred spirit, having pre- pared the " Book of Common Prayer," young King Edward,, who, if we believe his panegyrists, was a prodigy of piety, took measures to have it introduced into public worship.. And what means do you think he adopted ? As a prepara- tion for the great change, he issued a proclamation prohibit- ing public preaching throughout the country I Only think of that I Every preacher in the country was instantly si- lenced by the mandate of this boy — the puppet of the Pro- tector, Cranmer, and others of the same clique. This act of tyranny over the ministers of religion was perpetrated in order, as the proclamation read, " to put an end to all con- troversies in religion." This was certainly an cfiectual way to put a stop to controversy and to bring about a uniformity of opinion. But however strange such means may seem to certain liberal Protestants of the present age, it was the favorite method of the abettors of the English ' ' Reforma- tion." Legal enactments, fines and punishments were the eflFectual arguments which brought about this great change. 16 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. Any preacher who dared to disobey this prochimation of Edward, was sent to prison ! The ancient Catholic worship •was summarily abolished by act of Parliament, and every clergyman in the land was commanded to use the ' ' 35ook of Common Prayer" now set forth, and no other forms of prayer in public worship whatsoever. And if any clergy- man should dare to violate this command of the State, he- was to forfeit one year's salary, and be imprisoned for six months. And if he should so offend a second time, he was to be imprisoned a whole year, and be deprived of his cure or parish. And for a third offence, he was to be imprisoned for life ! And these ruinous penalties were directed not only against the clergy who might refuse to use the Prayer- Book, or who might use any other book instead of it, but also- against any clergyman who should venture even to preach or speali against the said Prayer-Book. The poor clergyman, however conscientiously attached to the old worship, or how- ever conscientiously opposed to the new, was bound to con- form in silence or else forfeit his office and spend the re- mainder of his days in prison.* Such were the means by which the Prayer-Book was forced upon the Church, by Cranmer and other so-called " Reformers," who by the injus- tice and tyranny of Henry VIII. had got the control of affairs in their own hands. When Henry quarrelled with the Pope, he adopted similar, but still more cruel means to abolish the Papal authority in the land. In fact, the " Re- formation" and the establishment of the Prayer-Book, first tinder Henry, then under Edward, and finally under Eliza- beth, were effected entirely by penal enactments made by the sovereign and parliament, such as fines, imprisonments, and burning at the stake. Whatever ideas of religious liberty the Protestants of the present day, or of this country, may have, the first Protestants, named above, Henry, Edward, Eli- zabeth, Cranmer and their confederates, entertained no such sentiments. They set aside the authority of the Pope and of the Church, although sacred from the lapse of ages, and required every man, woman and child to receive and profess these oj)inious, or suffer punishment, even to death. Thej *This penal enactment included the laity too. It was ordered, that if any one spoke against the Prayer-Book, he was to be fined for the first and second offences ; and for the third, forfeit all his goods and be imprisoned for life. LETTERI. 17 cared nothing for religious liberty, they disregarded indivi- dual consciences, they repudiated private judgment, (except for themselves,) their principle was simply conform or sufibr. It was, indeed, " the koran or the sword" — " the Prayer-Book or the prison" — "Protestantism or temporal ruin." All this may be new to some of my readers. There are, I am sure, many Protestants who have never read these things before. And why ? Simply because they have read nothing upon the subject but what was written by interested men, by men whose object was merely to glorify the " Re- formation" and the "Reformers," concealing their cruelty and tyranny, their misdeeds and bloody persecutions. All such horrid things, they have been led to believe, were per- petrated only under "Bloody Mary" and other Catholic sovereigns. But impartial history tells a very different tale. The new religion and the new Prayer-Book were imposed upon the nation by means of fines and punishments. This is an important fact, and one that cannot be denied. The history of the Prayer-Book is a history of persecution. This is a disagreeable truth I know, to many a Protestant Epis- copalian, and one which some may be wholly unprepared, and very unwilling to receive. That Pi-ayer-Book is asso- ciated in their minds with all that is good, and holy, and charitable, but nevertheless, the fact stands forth in bold relief, that it originated in injustice, tyranny and cruelty. Let them think well 'of the Prayer-Book who have been so trained from their early days, but let them remember, with shame and sorrow, that their Protestant forefathers forced that book upon the poor Catholics by means of cruel and crushing penalties. I have said that these are facts which cannot be denied, and although they may be omitted in most Protestant accounts of the " Reformation," yet they will be found stated, at least in part, by a few Protestant histo- rians of a more impartial character. To one of these histo- rians I have already referred ; I mean Bishop Short. This author is compelled to state some of these facts, and while he seems to regret them, he yet ventures to justify them. And on what plea does he justify them 'i The only plea that can be urged — that of necessity and expediency. There was no other way of bringing about a change of religion than by the use of force — therefoi-e it was right and proper to use force. This is the abominable doctrine which Pro- testants falsely charge upon Catholics, that is, that "the 18 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. end justifies the means." They will perceive that this is their own doctrine, or at least was the doctrine, and practice too, of the first Protestants. This was the doctrine upon which they rode into power, and established themselves upon the ruins of the Catholic cause, although they may now find it convenient to disavow the principle, as it is no longer ne- cessary, the end having been accomplished. But let me quote a few passages from Bishop Short's His- tory in reference to the use of force in establishing the new worship. He says the great mass of the common people " neither understood nor rejoiced in the doctrines of the Re- formation against which their prejudices were excited. The upper classes had been bribed into acquiescence in these changes by the robberies committed on the Church property, in which they had been allowed to share." " Most of the clergy had complied with what had been done, from fear rather than from any approbation of it, and were ready to turn whenever an opportunity should occur." (§ 335.) Now, here is the whole history of the English Reformation and of the establishment of the Prayer-Book, in a nut-shell, and furnished too, by a Protestant bishop. The upper classes, that is, the nobility, were bribed by donations of property taken from the Church, and thus joined with the King in making penal statutes for forcing the clergy and the people to adopt the new religion. But let us hear Bishop Short again. After laboring hard to palliate the injustice of the Protestant authorities, he says in reference to forcing the Prayer-Book upon the people — "The only real hard- ship seems to consist in this, that these individuals who disapproved of it were not allowed any Christian liberty of absenting themselves from the churches and of seeking else- where a service better suited to their own opinions." (§ 388.) This was not the " only hardship " — but it was a hardship of the most cruel and iniquitous character. It was bad enough surely, to take their churches from them and turn them adrift to worship under the broad canopy of heaven, or in some miserable hovel or garret. But the " tender mer- cies" of Cranmor and his brother ' ' Reformers" did not allow them even that small privilege. These intolerant men not only set up the Protestant worship in every Catholic church, but they actually compelled Catholics to attend these church- es, and participate in that worship, thus making them wit- ness the desecration of their own churches, and forcinsr them I, E T T K 11 I 19 to take part in a service which they regarded as false and heretical ! They must join in the Protestant worship, smd they must not worship in any other way, nor any where else ! Was not this the very climax of intolerance and cruelty ? How can Protestants, after becoming acquainted with such facts, continue to acknowledge the authors of such iniquity as their founders ! Well did a distinguished Protestant, when he was beginning to learn the true character of these inno- vators, exclaim "A^erily, I hate the Reformers and the Refor- mation more and more." I shall take occasion before I have finished my remarks, to give a brief sketch of the character of the leaders in this rebellion against the Church, such as Henry VIII., Cranmer, Latimer, the Earl of Somerset, and others. I am persuaded that their flagitious conduct is but little known to many Protestants, who have been accustomed to read only the panegyrics of writers whose interests and whose sectarian feelings prompted them to present their heroes in an attractive light.* I have said that by act of Parliament, the Catholic wor- ship, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, was abolished, and all were required to worship in public according to the new Prayer-Book. And so rigidly Avas this law enforced, that the poor Catholic was not allowed the privilege of worshipping God according to the dictates of his conscience, even within the privacy of his own domicil ! Think of that, ye Protest- ants who boast of your love of religious liberty ! This pro- hibition was universal; no one, neither high nor low, was excepted from its cruel operation. Even the Princess Mary, a devout Catholic, and heiress presumptive to the throne, was ordered to ' ' conform immediately to the established form of worship." The pious w^oman refused to obey the unjust com- mand. She was consequently summoned before the Council, * How little liberty was allowed even the bishops and otlicr.s who -were appointed by royal command to compile the Praycr-Book may be seen from the following: passage from .Short :—" A committee of twelve persons was also appointed to prepare a new Ordination feer- vice one of whom was Heath, Bishop of ^Vorcester ; and upon his refusal to consent to the proposed alterations, he teas committed to the fleet prison^ (? 319.) , r^ ,., , ^i ■ Short well remarks w\>on this act of tyranny, '• So ht tie were the principles of liberty, of either conscience or person, then understood. The king and they'who governed in his name, the Protector and Cran- mer, were omnipotent. All were bound to conform to their wishes, or like Bishop Heoth, go to prison ! 3 20 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. when she boldly maintained her right to worship God ac- cording to her conscience. Her chaplains and domestics were sent to prison, and other means were used to harrass her into compliance. But she resolutely persisted in rejecting their new worship, declaring that she would rather die than adopt it. Seeing that their threats availed nothing, they next considered whether they should proceed to further extremities. But her uncle, the Emperor Charles X. of Spain, threatened them with war if they did not desist ; besides, the failing health of young Edward warned them of the danger which they in- curred, inasmuch as at his death Mary would become Queen — which, indeed, soon took place, and these barbarous men were compelled to taste of that severity which they had so unsparingly meted out to the Catholics. So they reluctantly allowed the Princess to use the old worship in her castle.* In the legislative act by which the new Prayer-Book was put forth and required to be used, it is expressly asserted that the said book was composed ' ' by the aid of the Holy Grhost with one uniform agreement," although of eighteen bishops, all but three or four abandoned the undertaking ; and eight of them were bold enough to vote against it in their place in the House of Lords. But if they considered it the work of the Holy Ghost at that time, some how or other they discovered after the lapse of a few years, that it was the result of error and passion ! For this latter discovery they were indebted to the accession of 3Iary to the throne. Truly do "circumstances alter cases." If the Holy Ghost aided them to compose it, is it not strange that the Holy Ghost did not aid them to stand up for it under Queen Mary ? When the Divine Spirit aided the Apostles to compose the Sacred Scriptures, that same Divine Sjiirit aided and enabled them to lay down their lives in defence of their teaching. But the Apostles of the "Reformation" were evidently of a very different character, and inspired by another spirit. ■■■■According to Protestant accounts the young king Avas bitterly opposed to his sister's continued use of the service of the Mass as an a-\vful sin ; (!) so much so, that it required all the casuistry of Cran- nier to induce him to tolerate it. After holding a long argument with him upon the subject, Cranmer, turning to his tutor, exclaimed, "Ah ! master Cheke, you may be glad all the days of your life that you have such a scliolar. He has more divinity iu his little finger than we have in our Avhole bodies." This may have been a compliment to the scholar, but a very poor one to the teacher. L E T T K II I . 21 They knew how to put others to death for not embracing their religion, but they were not willing to die for it them- selves ! If they were very ingenious in inventing a new religion, they were equally expert in returning to the old one when it became dangerous to adhere to the new one, as under Queen Mary. Even Cranmer, the great high priest of the new worship, recanted his Protestant errors again and again, and in the most solemn manner until within a few minutes of his death, and until he saw it would not avert his doom — a doom which he had brought upon himself, not by his religious errors merely, but by his treason, rebellion, and murderous persecutions.* We have already seen that this Prayer-Book was put forth in 1549, by the " Reforming" party " by the aid of the Holy Ghost, with one uniform agreement." But notwithstanding all that, only three years afterward, in 1552, these same men discovered that this book was mari'ed by very serious errors ! For this fact I shall cite our Protestant authority again. Bishop Short says : "Among the next objects which engaged the attention of the governors of the Church, were certain alterations in the Common Prayer-Book, the details of which are given in their proper place. They consisted chiefly in the omission of superstitious rites, whicli had been continued in the first Liturgy. The Ordination service too, was now added, and the whole, thus amended, difiers very little from the one at present in use." (§ 826.) Thus, by the ad- mission of a Protestant bishop, this Prayer-Book, put forth " by the aid of the Holy Ghost," contained " superstitious rites !" In another chapter, Dr. Short tells us what these *' superstitious rites" were. Among the changes introduced was the omission of the ' ' form of exorcism " in Baptism, chrism, the sign of the cross in Confirmation and Matrimony, * The forcing of the Prayer-Book upon the Church caused great commotions throughout the country. The people were so indignant at the change, that they broke out in open revolt. In Cornwall, their opposition took the form of a formidable insurrection. Ten thousand men banded together agaiust the tyranny of the government, and demanded by force of arms a restoration of the old doctrines and the old service. In Norfolk an army of twenty thousand men was or- ganized for the same purpose ; and so in other places. But the strong arm of power succeeded in subduing them. The regular troops, with hireling soldiers from Germany and elsewhere, caused many of them to "bite the dust," and forced the remainder to go to Church, and use the new Prayer-Book and nothing else. 22 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. directions to Confession, and last, but not least, prayers for the dead! (§ 745, note.) From the things then omitted, the reader can form a good idea of the Common Prayer- Book as it first came forth " by the aid of the Holy Ghost, with one uniform agreement" — it contained prayers for the dead, the use of chrism, an order for private Confession, and other ' ' superstitious rites !"* Now, these things are either serious errors, or they are not. If they are not, why are Catholics of the present day denounced on account of them. But if they are serious errors, how did it happen that these ' ' Reformers" retained them in their public liturgy with the aid of the Holy Ghost?" If they retained serious errors, it is evident that they could not have been aided by the Holy Ghost, and it is equally clear that they were utterly incom- petent for the task of reforming the Church. I suppose the Protestant will say that they had iiot yet got their eyes fully open. And so I should think, too, although nearly thirty years had elapsed since the commencement of the schism under Henry YIII. But if these men were still blind, or half blind, it only proves my assertion that they were unfit for the work which they had undertaken. Our Saviour says : "if the blind lead the blind, shall they not both fall into the ditch." And if these men were not qualified for the work in the long period of thirty years, I should like to know what is the length of time requisite for such a prepara- tion. They had the free use of the Bible, and in our day it is held that almost any one can learn the true religion by simply reading its sacred pages. But Archbishop Cran- mer, and his brother bishops, and other assistants, were unable to do this after thirty years prayer and study, and ••• For proof that they professed that the Prayer-Book was set forth ' ' with the aid of the Holy Ghost, ' ' T refer the reader to Strype' s Hc- clesiastical Memorials, or to Kipp's Douhle Witness, (p. 207,) where the passage asserting the fact is quoted from Str^ype. The f'ormer of these autliors was an Anglican Divine, the latter an American Episco- palian, now Bishop of California. Kipp also quotes Str^j-pe as saying that, in forming the first Prayer-Book, they had an ej^e " to the pure Christiaii Religion taught by the Holy Scriptures, and also to the usage of the Primitive Church." Of course Kipp does not tell his readers that this book contained Confession and Prayers for the Dead ! He also shows a want of candor in terming the changes made in the second l)ook "a few slight alterations.'' The testimony of Short, above given, will enable the I'cader to judge whether these were only " slight alterations." LETTER!. 23 even with the "aid of the Holy Ghost I" The fihu over their ej'cs must have been very thick ! Too thick, it would seem, for even the Holy Ghost to remove ! Although we learn fi-om the Acts of the Apostles that when the Holy Ghost came down upon Saul, the " scales" instantly fell from his eyes, and he was immediately transformed from a blind, persecuting Jew, into an enlightened Apostle of Christianity, fully prepared for the work of reforming a corrupt world. But the Holy Ghost did not thus operate vnth Cranmer and his co-laborers. The inference is, therefore, unavoidable, that these men made a slight mistake when they ascribed their erroneous production to the Divine and Infallible Spirit. But the (juestion arises — if these men were so incompetent, so blind, after studying the Scriptures for at least thirty years, u-hcn did they become competent, and icJien did they get their eyes fully opened V In the progress of this histo- rical inijuiry, I shall show that they afterwards made other important changes in the Common Prayer-Book ; at one time by additions ; at another time by omissions, and then again restoring what they had previously rejected. It is therefore very important to know irJien they became fully qualified for their task, so that it may be known which edition of their production is the correct and reliable one. But this question is more easily asked, than answered. If they were not qualified wlien they professed to act with so much unanim- ity, and with tlie aid of the Holy Ghost, it is difficult to tell at what other time they were qualified. It is evident their own assertion cannot be relied on, for this was falsified by their own subsequent admission in altering the book as I have shev>-n. And if their own assertion is not to be taken, whose testimony will avail for this purpose ? Certainly not that of their followers. It must be remembered that this boot was not only a book of devotion, but also a standard of doctrines. And it is evident that men who once showed themselves incompetent to set forth such a book, must neces- sarily be unworthy of confidence in all future time. We cannot take their own assertion for a proof of their compe- tency, and as there is no other proof, we can have no evidence upon the subject, and, consequently, cannot depend upon their guidance. It is a significant fact, that the changes introduced into the Prayer-Book at this time, were made with the co-operation of Lutherans and others from the continent. Speaking of 3* 24 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. the services of these men in England, Dr. Short says: '' To this source we owe the assistance which our Church derived from Bucer, Fagius, Peter Martyr and Ochin, who among many others partook of the bounty of the Archbishop, aiid became the ornaments and instructors of the two Universi- ties." (§ 324.) In another chapter we are told that while the Prayer-Book was undergoing revision, "two learned for- eigners, who were then in England, were consulted on the subject, and their opinions seem to have coincided with, or to have influenced the decisions of the English bishops ; for most of the points objected to by Bucer were subsequently amended, and the sentiments of Peter Martyr appear to have been very similar to those of Bucer." (§ 745.) It will thus be seen that Lutherans from^ the continent, men who did not recognize even Episcopacy, had a hand in forming the Common Prayer-Book. Cranmer who was the master- spirit in all the changes under Edward YI. , not only invited these men to England to teach theology (!) in the Re- formed Church, but availed himself also of the advice of Melancthon and Calvin, with whou] he carried on a diligent correspondence . * The Prayer-Book, thus amended by the omission of pray- ers for the dead, &c., commonly called the Second Prayer- Book of Edward VI., "differs very little," says Short, "from the one now in use," that is, he means from the one used in England, for we shall see after awhile that this book was subjected to very material changes in the hands of American " reformers." I might here descant at much length upon the many and direftil evils which flowed from this forced alteration of the public worship, and the ancient standards of faith ; but these * Inasmuch as Cranmer exerted a controlling influence in the forma- tion of the Prayer-Book, it is important that his opinions shoiild be well understood, more particularly since thej- throw much light upon the portions of the Praj-ei'-Book which are not derived from Catholic sources, viz : the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Ordination Ser- vice, &c. Upon this point the testimony of Dr. Short is conclusive. He says of him : "he seems to esteem the -whole of the clerical office as dependent entirely on the civil magistrate ; that thei-e was origi- nally no difference between a bishop and a priest ; that the prince or the people might make a priest for themselves, for -whom no consecra- tion was necessary." (§337.) This was Erastianism indeed ! These views were lax enough to suit the most radical sect of the present day. The "Three Orders" by means of "Apostolic Succession," was no part of the religion of this "reformer." A priest or bishop made by the king or by the people, was good enough for him ! L K T T E K I . 25 may be learned from any full and impartial history of the times. Suffice it to say that the minds of the people every- where were unsettled ; the principle of veneration for au- thority, and for things sacred, was undermined and destroyed ; and a laxity of opinion was followed by a relaxation of morals. The most radical notions in polities and religion Averc every- where introduced by means f>f the pulpit, and in every other way. The old land-marks having been removed, the appe- tite for novelty knew no bounds. The altars were removed from the Churches to give place to communion tables, and the jmlpits were abandoned in some instances to preach in the open fields. The chalices and other sacred vessels were seized upon and appropriated to private uses. Clerical robes were denounced as a rag of Popery. In short, so great were the disorders now prevalent, that Latimer, a I'rotestant bishop, was compelled, in a sermon before the king, to ac- knowledge and deplore a general laxit}- of opinions and morals. and to call for a restoration of the ancient discii)line. 1 have now shewn you, my friend, how the Prayer-Book was originally put fortli under the royal auspices of the boy, Ed- ward VI. I liave shewn you by the highest Protestant au- thority, that of Bishop Short, that this book was compiled chiefly from the lloman INIissal and other Catholic sources ; that the reforming, or rather revolutionary party, put it forth, as they alleged, '■ by tlie aid of the Holy (Ihost with one uniform agreement ;" and that this book, thus put forth, con- tained prayers for the dead, exorcism, extreme unction, &c.; that nevertheless, a few jears later, it was discovered that these things were errors, and a revision of the book was made, when these and other "Popish inventions" were omitted by the advice of foreign Lutherans ; and that this Prayer-Book, both before and after this revision, was set forth by act of Parliament, (carried by means of bribery and corruption,) and fvrci'd upon the clergy and laity by means of ruinous fines and imprisonments. All this I have shewn by the testimony of a Protestant historian, one who was greatly interested in making these things appear in the best light, and who, consequently, has not mentioned one fourth part of the ugly things which were done in that day, but who was compelled, by the nature of the case, to say enough for our purpose. In my next letter, I shall speak of the changes which took place under Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth. ^ A. B. LETTER II. Vain attempt of the Anglican party to set aside Queen Mary on account of her religion. — Laws enjoining the use of the Prayer-Book repeal- ed, and the Catholic Liturgy restored. — Parliament and Convocation acknowledge their errors and obtain absolution. — The severities of Mary's reign much exaggerated, and were mainly inflicted upon rebels and traitors. — Accession of Queen Elizabeth. — She conceals her sentiments at first, Imt soon begins to restore the Anglican wor- shijJ. — She is made supreme governor of the Church. — Her subjects required to renounce the authority of the Pope. — The Bishops refuse to sanction her changes and are driven from their sees. — Tlie Pi-ayer- Book is again revised aud altered. — It is once more forced upon the nation. — Its use again enforced by finesand imprisonments. — Bloody persecutions against the Catholics. — The Puritans appear and de- mand changes in the Prayer-Book. — They attain to power, and abolish the Prayer-Book and establish the Directory in its place. — Charles II. restored to the throne, and the Prayer-Book once more re-established. — Change demanded by the Non-Conformists. — A Conference is appointed and the Prayer-Book again revised. — Th& clergy refusing to use it are ejected from their livings. — Recapitula- tion of changes in the Prayer-Book. — Its fortunes ever dependent on the will of Parliament. — Its use compulsory. — It is once more re- vised by the American Convention for the use of the '' Pi-otestant Episcopal Church." — Great changes then made in it. My Dear Fkiexd : In the foregoing letter, I have shown yoti that the Prayer- Book, after undergoing various changes, finally took the form, towards the close of the reign of Edward, in which it is now found, at least in England. Unfortunately for Cran- mer and his co-laborers, the reign of that young king, (whose ' ' little finger contained more divinity than tlieir whole bodies,") was very brief, and terminated in 1553. The Protestants were consec^uently greatly agitated about the succession, as the Princess Mary, the legitimate heir t* the throne, was a devout Catholic. It was well known that the religion of the country depended upon that of the Sove- reign. The Protestants had acknowledged, and acted tipou^ this principle — first, under Hery VIII., and then under Edward ; and they naturally looked for its practical opera- tions under the successor of Edward. Should they have a (26) L E T T K K II. 2T Catholic for their Sovereign, their Protestant work would be overthrown and the Catholic faith and worship would be restored. This was, I admit, a great trial to their virtue, — and T regret to say they were not equal to the emergency. Mary was the legitimate heir to the throne, and by every principle of law, order and justice, the Protestants should have instantly acknowledged her sway. But instead of so doing, they set up Lady Jane Grey as Queen, who was a Protestant — thus committing an act of rebellion and treason for the sake of keeping their religion dominant. What I am stating is a hi.storieal fact, one that cannot be denied, how- ever it may be suppressed or glossed over inmost Protestant accounts of that period. In this, as in other things, I am sustained by the testimony of Bishop Short, who commences his history of the reign of Mary with this passage : ' ' The sentiments which Mary was known to entertain with regard to religion induced some persons to question, for a short time, her title to the succession, of the justice of which there could be no real doubt." (§ 351.) This is a sufficient admission, although caiitiously expressed, for the sake of his own cause. His assertion, in plainer terms, is, that they wished to set her aside on account of her religion, although there was no real doubt of her title to the throne. Here again we see the English Protestants of that day, acting upon the principle that " the end justifies the means," at the expense of law and justice. We find them, by the same act, seeking to perpetuate their own religion by setting aside the established and legitimate order of the civil government — a charge so often made in the present day against Catholics. It was for this act of treason, that many of the severe pun- ishments of Queen Mary were inflicted, and not from a mere spirit of persecution against Protestants, although it should be remembered that in the practice of persecution, Mary only followed the cruel example set her under the Protestant reigns of Henry and Edward. The unjust attempt to set up Lady Jane Grey for her Pro- testant opinions, was soon frustrated. As Short remarks, ' ' the good sense and loyalty of the nation quickly rendered her case desperate." (§ 352.) The Protestant preachers, especially Ridley, were everywhere zealous in advocating her claims, even from the pulpit, and in denouncing IMary and her religion ; and the nobles who had fattened upon the spoils of the churches and monasteries, were no less assidu- 28 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. ous in supporting her pretensions. But their violent appeals were in vain. The great mass of the people were still Cath- olic at heart, and recognizing the justice of Mary's claims, they very generally rallied to her support, and she was at once firmly established on the throne. Although the cruel persecutions to which Queen Mary had been subjected under her brother Edward, and the unjust opposition made by the Protestant party to her assumption of the crown, had naturally a tendency to awaken in her a spirit of revenge, yet she seems to have commenced her reign with a merciful and generous disposition. Her proclama- tions breathed a sjiirit of moderation and charity unknown during the two previous reigns. To the authorities of Lon- don she said ' ' that though her conscience was stayed in matters of religion, yet she meaneth graciously not to compel or strain other people's consciences, otherwise than God shall, as she trusteth, put in their hearts a persuasion of the truth." But these liberal sentiments were not appreciated in that age, and the Protestant party, so long accustomed to have things their own way, were still disposed to exalt their own religion, and not to tolerate any other. Advantage was taken of Mary's forbearance. And when an aged ecclesias- astic ventured to celebrate the Catholic worship at Smithfield, lie was insulted by the crowd and censured and imprisoned by the authorities ! At London, also, the same spirit of intol- erance was exhibited. When Bourn, a chaplain of the Bishop, preached at St. Paul's Cross, as the reformers had previously done, a great tumult was raised, in which Pro- testant clergymen were implicated, stones were thrown at the preacher, who narrowly escaped with his life, a dagger having been hurled at his head, which was afterwards found sticking in the pulpit. These turbulent proceedings on the part of the Protestants were not only unjust ; they were cal- culated to involve the whole country in disorder and civil war, as it was not to be expected that the Catholics would tamely submit to such outrages. It therefore became neces- sary for Mai-y to interpose her authority. And, following the example set her by the two last monarchs, she issued a proclamation forbidding all preaching in public without a li- cense, and commanding the people " to live together in quiet sort and Christian charity, and forbear those new-found devilish terms of Papist or heretic and such like." LETTER II. 29 It being known that the royal power was no longer em- ployed to enforce the use of the Protestant Prayer-Book and worship, the old Catholic ritual was spontaneously restored in a very large proportion of the churches. This foct proved that they had either outwardly conformed to the new liturgy from mere compulsion, or else that they had no convictions and no conscience in the matter, but merely complied in a spirit of indifiference with any and every form of religion which might be most agreeable to the sovereign for the time being. At the coronation of the queen, the ancient Catholic ceremonial was revived, and Mass was celebrated by Gardener, assisted by ten other bishops. As parliament under the previous reign had passed laws abolishing the Catholic worship, and enjoining the Protest- ant liturgy, and imposing fines and imprisonments upon all who should presume to disobey, it became necessary to repeal all such laws, which was accordingly done by act of Parliament. And thus the very same authority which had so recently set forth and established the Prayer-Book, we now see abolishing it, and restoring the ancient form of worship. In this restoration the great mass of the bishops and clergy evidently concurred, for at the meeting of the Convocation, (which was the synod of the Church) only six were found to oppose the restoration. By the same ecclesiastical council, the Protestant catechi.sm, which had been set forth under the previous I'eign, was repudiated as "the work of a few indi- viduals, which had been falsely palmed upon the public, as sanctioned by the authority of the clergy in Convocation." Here then, we see the Church authorities returning to the old mode of worship as soon as permitted to do so, and renounc- ing the new system of Cranmer as a fraud and imposture. What could show more clearly, than such facts, the real char- acter of the English "Reformation," so-called? But although the act of Parliament establishing the Pro- testant worship had been repealed, and the Catholic worship restored, the English Church was not yet fully admitted to Catholic unity. You will remember that an act had been passed under Henry AT^II. , prohibiting any recognition of the authority of the Pope. This act was still in force. But why was it not repealed ? There was a difficulty in the way. Many of the members of Parliament, and others of influence, had become possessed of a vast amount of Church property, which, you remember, Henry bestowed so lavishly upon 30 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. Limself and bis favorites, after getting the old Pope out of the way. These persons did not wish to see that authority revived in the land, as they knew the Pope would require them to make restitution, as strict justice dictates, in all such cases. However, after much delay and negotiation, the difficulty was removed by compromise, and inasmuch as the property thus held from the Church had in some instances been passed from hand to hand, the holders of it were assured that they should not be molested in their possessions. Matters being now arranged for an entire reconciliation with Rome, steps were at once taken for its consummation. The two houses of Parliament passed a resolution praying the King and Queen to intercede for them with the Pope's legate, so that the kingdom might be admitted within the pale of the Church. This resolution was passed almost unanimously, no one dissenting in the upper house, and only two in the lower, out of three hundred members. Their petition was couched in the following humble terms : ' ' That whereas they had been guilty of a most horrible defection and schism from the Apostolic See, they did now sincerely repent of it ; and in sign of their repentance, were ready to repeal all the laws made in prejudice of that See : therefore, since the king and queen had been no way defiled by their schism, they pray them to be intercessors with the legate to grant them absolution, and to receive them again into the bosom of the Church." The two houses repaired to the royal presence-chamber, where they knelt before the throne and presented their humble petition. Their }najesties prompt- ly complied with the petition, and forthwith the assembled members kneeled upon their knees, and received fi-om the legate absolution for themselves and the rest of the kingdom, by authority of Pope Julius, the Vicegerent of Christ. To the sentence of absolution the nobles and commons returned a hearty " amen," and then proceeded in a body to the royal chapel, and there chaunted a solemn " Te Deum" in thanks- giving for their restoration to the Unity of the Church. Thus you see, my friend, that the same legislative body which a few years before put forth and established the Book of Common-Prayer, "with one uniform agreement by the aid of the Holy Ghost," as they alleged, afterwards unani- mously repudiated that book and its prescribed worship, and humbly, upon their knees, sought and obtained absolution for the part they had taken in its establishment in the land ! LETT E K II 31 A similar act of ro-uiiioii took place with the clerical order. The bishops and clergy assembled in convocation, knelt down and received from the cardinal legate absolution for their " perjuries, schisms and heresies." Thus did the two highest bodies in the land, the civil and the ecclesiastical, concur with the sovereign in renouncing the work of their own hands. Thus did they join in pronouncing before God and the world a most emphatic condemnation upon that form of worship to Avhich their children have since returned. Surely you could not have a better proof that a work is wrong, than is furnished when its own authors, after due trial, publicly reject it. Thus did the English people, upon the accession of Queen Mary, solemnly renounce and abolish the Book of Common-Prayer, and re-establish the ancient wor- ship, and particularly the Hol)'^ Sacrifice of the Mass. Much has been written upon the cruel persecutions of this queen, who is commonly designated in Protestant histories as ' ' bloody Mary." It would be out of place here to attempt to justify, if so inclined, the severities of that period. But there arc several important facts connected with the subject which may be mentioned as entitled to much weight with every impartial mind. The first is, that the reign of Mary was not characterised by as much cruelty as were the two preceding Protestant reigns, nor by as much cruelty as marked the subsequent reign of the Protestant Queen Eliza- beth. This assertion may seem strange to such as have read only the Protestant version of these affairs, or the menda- cious production called " Fox's Book of Martyrs." But its truth cannot be questioned by any one fully informed upon the subject.* The second fact is, that there were extenuating circumstances connected with Mary's severities as compared with those of the Protestant sovereigns who preceded and followed her. In the first place, she had herself been the * There have been many histories of that period published by C;i- tholics, to wliich I nii^ht refer the reader — but in Waterworths His- torical Lectures may be found all the leadinfc facts of the "Reforma- tion"' given upon the authority of Protestant historians, suchasKStrype, Hume, Burnet, &c. Aiid to this work I beg to refer the reader who m.ay wish to find an impartial account of those times within a small compass. The number of victims under Mary, according to the state- ments of Protestant authors, viz., Huniet and Strypc. was about 280. And yet Queen Elizalieth put to death as many Catholic priests, be- sides a larsjre number of lavmen. 32 LETTEKS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. victim of Protestant cruelty under the reign of her brother Edward ; and her own mother, Queen Catharine, had been the first victim of Henry VIII. 's Protestantism, when she was so unjustly divorced fi-om the king by the decision of the Protestant Cranmer, and which had the efiect of brand- ing Mary herself as illegitimate. I do not say that these sufferings of Mary at the hands of Frotestnnts, justified the severities which she afterwards exercised — but I say they 2)rovohed them. Something must be allowed to the weak- ness of human nature : and human nature will not suffer, ordinarily, without retaliating when the opportunity occurs. It must be remembered too, that Mary only followed the examjile which was set her by her Protestant predecessors. The " fires of Smithfield," which have been so often pointed to as a proof of Catholic cruelty, were first kindled by Protestants themselves, and those so-called "Martyrs," Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley, only suffered the fate which they had inflicted r.pon others — a fact too little known among Protestants. As a third fact, it should be remembered that most of the victims under Mary's reign were punished, not for their religious opinions, as many seem to think, but for their crimes against the State. Thus, some suffered for their treason in setting up Lady Jane Grey instead of the legiti- mate sovereign — others, for their rebellious attempts to sub- vert the throne, on various subsequent occasions — while others again, for offences against good order and morality, — committed sometimes under the pretext of religion. In point of fact, almost the entire reign of Mary was character- ized by plots, seditions and insurrections, fomented by her religious opponents, which, while they deserved punishment on account of their treasonable character, at the same time were calculated to excite the fears of the queen for the stabi- lity of her throne and the safety of her person, and hence to prompt her to resort to harsher measures than would have been necessary or justifiable in different circumstances.* » Perhaps nothing serves to render Mary more cruel and "bloody" in the eyes of most Protestants, than her execution of Lady Jane Grey and her" husband. I still recollect the painful impression it made upon my own mind, in my younger days. And yet Mary was justified by reasons of State, in tliat severe measure. This is admitted by Bishop Short, who says, "nor can we venture to blame her for the execution of these young persons who had been guilty of treason." (§358.) That tiie Church is not justly chargeable with Mary's severities, is evident from the following remark of the same author: "Had she LKTTERII. 33 There remains yet anotber fact to be mentioned, and ■which appHes to most of the persecutions inflicted in Catholic coun- tries at different periods: that is, that if !!Mary punished men upon rehgious grounds, slic punished them fur departing from the faith and worship which had been consecrated by ages of use all the world over; while Henry YIIL, Edward, Cran- mer, Elizabeth and other Protestants persecuted and put to death their victims for refusing to deny the faith in which they had been brought up, the faith of their ancestors for many generations, the faith of the whole world, and for re- jecting the innovations of Protestantism. Let all the foregoing facts be duly considered, together with the many wise and beneficial acts of Queen Mary's reign, and it must be admitted that she will compare favora- bly with either her father, her brother, or her sister, or any other Protestant sovereign of that age. The fact is, that in that age, the right, and indeed the duty, to persecute, was universally recognized, by both Catholics and Protestants. Both parties did it when they had the power : so that the only question is, which was the more guilty of the two : and that question must be decided by the circumstances of each case. Much of the odium attached to Clary's name, in the estimation of Protestants, is doubtless owing to the execution of Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley, — the three great pillars of the new religion under Henry and Edward. In the course of these letters, I shall take occasion to delineate the real character of these men, and to show by Protestant authority, that they are by no means worthy of the canonization which they have received in the Protestant world. And therefore, for the present, I shall merely remark that two of these men, if not the third also, had been guilty of high treason against the queen, and on that ground had justly forfeited their lives — and that, say what you can of their merits, far better men were put to death for the Catholic fiiith, by Henry, Edward and Elizabeth.* followed the advice of Cardinal Pole, she would probabl^y have avoid- ed many of these enormities," &c. (§ 3T5.) And again, he says: "The cruelties of the late reign, (Mary's,) had gone far beyond the wishes of the more violent of the Roman Catholics." (? 401.) * There are many points of pleasing contrast between Mary and these Protestant sovereigns, challenging the admiration of every moralist — but one only I desire to mention in this note. While Eenry, Edward and Elizabeth seized upon houses and lands which had been dedicated 34 LETTERS TO A I? EPISCOPALIAN. I liave now shewn you how the Book of Common Prayer was originally compiled from Catholic sources — how it was afterwards materially changed again and again, to suit the changing views of the innovators, miscalled, "Reformers," until it assumed the shape in which it now appears ; and how, under Mary, it was abolished and rejntdiated by the highest authorities in Church and State, and the ancient Catholic worship re-established in all the churches of the land. But with the accession of Queen Elizabeth, came another revolution in religion ; and under her auspices, the Prayer- Book so recently repudiated, is again revived and forced upon the Church. I shall now proceed to relate the meas- ures and means by which this extraordinary change was eflFected. Elizabeth's education had been partly Catholic and partly Protestant. During her father's reign, her religion partook more of the former character — but under her brother Ed- ward, more of the latter. And when her sister Mary became queen, Elizabeth after being duly instructed, declared herself a convert to the old faith, and thenceforth accompanied her sister to Mass, and opened a chapel in her own house for its celebration. She seems to have continued in the Catholic profession throughout the reign of Mary, and at the time of her sister's death, when she was exhorted by her to persevere in the old religion, she is reported to have " prayed God that the earth might open and swallow her up alive, if she were not a true Roman Catholic." But notwithstanding this solemn protestation, she had hardly ascended the throne when she gave indications of an intention to favor the Protestant cause — and a scheme for this purpose was immediately form- ed, although it was kept secret for the present. But in the meanwhile, she did not hesitate to conform, outwardly, to the Catholic faith — for a month after her accession, she at- tended the funeral obsequies of her sister, performed accord- ing to the Catholic Ritual, — and ten days later, she ordered to religion, Mary, as far as she could, faithfully restored them, and employed her own revenues in founding charitable institutions. Upon this point, hear the testimony of Bishop Short — speaking of Mary, he says : " Her foundations were made out of the revenues of the crown, and instead of making a gain of godliness, as was the general plan of the Reformation, she offered not up unto the Lord, of that which cost her nothing." (I 375, note.) Here is an admission from a Protestant Bishop, not only as to Mary, but as to the "Reformation !" LKTTERII. 35 a Mass of requiem to be celebrated for the repose of the soul of Charles V., at which she was present, and received the cmnmnnion. But the bishops of the Church suspected her sincerity, and hence they unanimously refused to take any part in the religious ceremony of her coronation, as the Ca- tholic ritual provided for such cases, could not have been consistently used for any one not really a Catholic. But, after some delay, one of the bishops, Oglethorpe, was pre- vailed ixpou to perform the ceremony, and as usual Mass was said, and the ijueen received the communion, and took an oath to maintain the laws and privileges of the Chm-ch ! All this time she was evidently at heart a Protestant, al- though acting as a Catholic ! Whether her friendship for the new religion was the result of conviction, or the dictate of policy, has been much discussed — but many have ascribed it to the latter cause. As she was the illegitimate child of Henry, the Pope refused to sanction her assumption of the crown ; hence, both her inclinations and her interests prompt- ed her, as in the case of her father, to renounce the autho- rity and jurisdiction of the Pope. Here we see another proof tliat the great religious changes of these times, were generally brought about by the passions and interests or inclination of the reigning sovereign. Had the Pope ac- knowledged the right of Elizabeth to the crown, there is but little doubt that the Catholic religion would have continued to be the established religion of England, not only during her reign, but down to the present time. Elizabeth, as soon as firmly established on the throne, set about the work of again changing the faith and worship of the nation. She commenced by issuing a proclamation, for- bidding any one to preach in public without a special license from her — thus declaring that her own religious opinions were to be the standard to which all were in future to con- form. Soon afterwards she issued a second proclamation, to restrain over-zealous Protestants whom she considered too hasty in making changes in the mode of worship — but granting permission to use certain parts of the service in English. Like her father, she had a will of her own, and she was determined that both Catholics and Protestants should conform to it, — deeming herself, as he had done before, a better theologian than all the bishops in Christendom, with the Pope at their head ! You, my friend, must feel as con- scious of the inconsistency and absurdity of such asssump- 4* 36 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. tions on tlie part of any lay person, especially a female, as I do. And yet it is to such assumptions that you owe your Prayer-Book, and youi' present unhappy separation from the Catholic fold. As the old religion was protected by the laws of the land,, certain legislation became necessary before the queen could well carry out her designs. Measures were immediately taken to secure the return of such persons to Parliament aa- would favor the intended changes. At the opening of Par- liament, the queen assisted in state, at a solemn high Mass — but by a singular inconsistency, a sermon was preached by a Protestant. It may be mentioned as an evidence of the temper of the queen and her friends in Parliament, that the first bill passed was for the purpose of restoring to her use the revenues and abbey lands which Queen Mary had honestly and fi-eely surrendered to the Church ; thus, as bishop Short admits, "making a gain of godliness, as was the general plan of the Reformation." The next step was to abolish the authority of the Poj^e. For this purpose, Parliament passed an act reviving the statutes of Henry VIII. , making the sovereign, supreme governor in the realm, as u-ell in spiritual and ecclesiastical tilings as in temporal. And in order to give this act effect, it was required that an oath should be taken by all ecclesiastical persons, and by judges and other civil officers, abjuring all foreign ecclesiastical authority, and acknowledging the sole supremacy of Eliza- beth in Church as well as State. And it was further en- acted, that if any such person should refuse to take said oath, he should instantly forfeit his preferment or office.* Thus, it was only necessary to tender this oath to the Catho- lic, and he was at once compelled to give up either his office or his religion. But even this did not satisfy the intolerant spirit of the queen and her coadjutors. It was further en- acted that if any person should afterwards advocate, either in discourse or in writing, any foreign authority, (that is, the authority of the Pope,) he should forfeit all his goods and chattels, for the first offence; and for the third offence, he should incur the penalty of treason, which was to be hung by the neck, cut down, have the bowels torn out while alive, and then to be decapitated ! Such was the mild code of the maiden queen, so much extolled in modern times ! Such *See Hallam's Constitutional Ilistory of Englaml, vol. I. chap. 3. LETTER II. 37 was the cruel means by which Catholics were almost exter- minated in that land, and the old worship abolished and the new introduced in its place. This monstrous oath, an oath which struck at the very root of Catholic conscience and Catholic taith, an oath which hardly any Protestant of the present day would venture to take, (for who would acknow- ledge a female to be the supreme governor of the Church,) this oath was tendered to the bishops, but they all, with a solitary exce2)tion,* refused to take it, pi'eferring, in the spirit of the martyr, to brave the terrors of men, rather than to prove reci-eant to their God. As a consequence, they were forthwith ejected from their sees and sent to pri- son, where some of them sj^ent the remainder of their days in a lingering punishment, while a few were afterwards libe- rated, and either escaped to the continent, or sought a place of retirement at home. The removal of the bishops from their sees, is a vei-y important event in the history of the so- called " Kefin-mation." It shows clearly the origin and char- acter of that movement — it was a mere state affair — the queen and court willed it, and therefore it was done. Thus the second and last establishment of the new religion in England, like its first origin under Henry YIII., was effect- ed by the civil power, and against the convictions and pro- testations of the bishops, and spiritual authorities. The in- justice and unlawfulnes of a change thus made, must be ap- parent even to the most radical Protestant of the present day; but to you, my friend, who regard the bishops as the true and only lawful rulers of the Church, it must appear doubly wrong and iniquitous. Certainly it was not an Epis- copalian movement, as it was not /r>/% but against, the pre- lates. Elizabeth usurped the authority, not only of the Pope, but of the bishops too, and employed that authority in introducing and establishing the new worship. A change thus effected, cannot be called a "Reformation'' — it was a rehdlion — it was a sacrilegious usurpation, which cannot be justified by any num who has a particle of regard for Church authority. What would you say, if a similar change were carried out in your Church now. There is a large party * The unhappy man who yielded to his fears and his interests, was Kitchin, liishop of Llandaff, who, having again and again changed his religion at tiie bidding of the sovereign, was disposed to be equally accommodating towards Elizabeth. g[S: LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. among you who would like to see soiue things in the Prayer- Book altered. Now, imagine that some civil ruler were to arise, and driving your bishops away, proceed to change your form of worship, abolishing some doctrines and introducing others. What would you say to such a movement : would you not refuse to submit to it, and denounce it as rebellious and schismatical ? Unqestiouably you would. And does not consistency require you to pronounce the same judgment upon the religious change made by Elizabeth V That the change was efi'ected in opposition to the Church, is evident, not only from the refusal of the bishops to take the prescribed oath, but from the proceedings of the Convocation, which was the synod of the Church. This body, composed of bishops and clergy, assembled at the same time as Parliament, and proceeded to draw up a declaration of faith, in regard to certain points, at that time impugned by the civil power. In this declaration they declared their belief in Transubstan- tiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the authority of the Pope. This proves, indubitably, that the Church in Eng- land believed then, as it did before Henry VIII. 's time, — although the most violent measures had been employed for nearly thirty years to extirpate the old faith. It proves, indubitably, that the English " Keformation" as finally settled by Elizabeth, was not made by the Church, but by the State, and against the Church — made by brute force, and not by ecclesiastical authority, — in one word, it was a wicked rebellion against the bishops and pastors of the Church. And if the authority of the Church can be thus set aside by laymen or women, and essential changes intro- duced as their fancies may dictate, it is all folly to call upon men to "Hear the Church," "Revere the Church," or "Obey the Church," as some Episcoj^alians do. It is also, very inconsistent to censure the Presbyterians or the Methodists, or others, for separating from the Anglican Church, as they only followed the example of the authors of the " Reforma- tion." How can they who originated in schism, condemn others for this offence V The bishops having been driven from their sees, and the queen invested with supreme power in the Church, if it can now be called a Church, the dominant party proceeded to change the forms of public worship. A committee was ap- pointed by the civil autlinrity to review the Book of Com- mon Prayer. Of this book there were two editions, called L E T T E R 1 r . 3^ respectively, the First and Second Book of Edward VI., which have been ah-eady mentioned in a previous letter. The queen was in favor of adojtting the former, as it depart- ed less, in some points, from the ohJ religion, and retained certain ceremonies to which she was attached. But in com- pliance with the wishes of persons who desired greater changes, the Second Book of Edward was adopted. But this book, although originally set forth " by the aid of the Holy Ghost," and afterwards again and again revised and amended, was yet very imperfect in the estimation of the queen and her advisers. Certain alterations were therefore' made in it, before its use was authorised. These alterations were made in the lessons, in the litany and in the commu- nion service. In the litany of the Second Book of Edward, there was found a petition to be delivered from the ' ' tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities." But in the revision x;nder Elizabeth, this petition was stricken out. Whether this petition was originally inserted by the "aid of the Holy Ghost," or now omitted by that divine assistance, I shall leave to those more interested in such questions to determine. The alteration in the commu- nion s"irvice consisted in the addition of another sentence to be used by the minister in delivering the sacrament, as "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee," &c. They also expunged a rubric at the end of the service, by which it was declared that kneeling at the sacra- ment was not for the purpose of adoration. Some of these changes appear to have been made at the wish of the queen in order to conciliate the Catholics, that they might the more readily be beguiled into a compliance with her innovations. The book being now amended to suit the notions then prevalent, there was only one thing wanting to introduce it once more into the parish churches. Parliament must au- thorise it, — for every thing, you know, was then done by act of Parliament. That body seems to have been invested with a species of omnipotence in those days, by which it could make or unmake a religion, or alter or amend it at pleasure. Although it must be admitted that their contra- dictory changes did not give evidence of infallibility. Oa the 15th of February, a bill was introduced into Parliament, for the restoration of the P^nglish liturgy ; but the opposi- tion to the measure was so great that it was laid aside, until the 18th of April, when it was pushed through the Lower 40 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. House. But in the House of Lords it encountered determined opposition; the whole bench ofhisliops and several lay peers be- ing arrayed against it. But after a contest of ten days, it was passed only by a small majority, notwithstanding the irresist- ible influence of the throne was enlisted in its favor. By this act it was provided that the Book of Common Prayer should be used in all places of public worship, from and after the festival of St. John the Baptist, next ensuing. And this, remember, was not a regulation passed by some ecclesiastical body, to be followed or not as each clergyman might deem it his duty. It was an act of Parliament, the highest legislature in the land, and sanctioned by the queen. It was a positive and absolute law, as much so as the supreme authority of the State could make it. And such was not only its inten- tion, but such was its practical operation. I showed you in a former letter, how this book was forced upon the Churches by means of fines and penalties, under the reign of Edward VI. And I have now to set before you a repe- tition of this intolerant and iniquitous measure. The queen and her " reforming" clique were determined to abolish the ancient worship, which had been re-established under Mary, and to require the Book of Common-Prayer, and no other service, to be used throughout the land. For this purpose, the penal code of Edward VI. was revived. By this barba- rous legislation, it was enacted, that if any minister used any other service than that prescribed in said book, whether publicly or privately, he should, for the first offence, forfeit one year's income and be imprisoned six months ; for the second offence he was to be deprived of his benefice or parish, and imprisoned a whole year — and should he venture to lay aside the Prayer Book for some other service a third time, he was to go to prison and remain there the rest of his days ! Similar penalties were denounced against any cler- gyman who should even utter a word in disparagement of that book !* Such was the horrid means by which the book was forced a second time upon the Churches of the land — Catholic priests were compelled to use it in Catholic Chui'ch- es, or accept the dreadful alternative of spending their days in a loathsome prison. Churches built by Catholic contri- ■■■This outrageous "Act of Uniformity," as it is entitled, I find published in an English edition of the Prayer-Book, printed at Oxford in 1721. 1. K T T E H I I . 41 butions, and for the ancient worship, were thenceforth ap- propriated by arbitrary and despotic power, to the newly invented service. In order to carry out this tyrannical act, commissioners were sent forth by royal authority to visit every part of the country, and enforce the new order. If they found any clergyman officiating according to the ancient rites, he was immediately ordered to prison. Or, if they found any clergyman who was suspected, they at once ten- dered him the oath acknowledging the queen's supremacy over the Church — if he declined taking it, severer punish- ment still befell him I What proportion of the clergy yielded to the terrors of this ruthless treatment, it is difficult to tell, precisely — perhaps about one-half. But we know that all the bishops, with a solitary exception, steadfastly refused to bow down to the idol of the queen, as did also a large pro- portion of the higher ecclesiastics, — such as abbots, arch- deacons and prebendaries, — all of whom consequently incur- red the penalties of this wicked and cruel enactment. The courageous refusal of the bishops and superior clergy to use the Book of Common-Prayer, in spite of the dreadful alter- native awaiting them, is a very important fact in the history of that production. Certainly it is one that ought to have great weight with every Episcopalian, every individual who believes in the government of the Church by bishops. He is bound to admit, by his own principles, that to ojipose the bishops in a matter essentially afl'ecting the worship and order of the Church, is to commit an act of schism. Here, then, was such opposition to the bishops — and not merely opposition, but rebellion against their authority; a rebellion doubl}' aggravated by the removal of these prelates from their sees. Certainly, this was a most flagrant act of schism. And if there was schism in the change as originally made, there is necessarily schism in the per2)etuation of that change, involving all who have since adhered to it, and who now adhere to it.* * Episcopalian writers arguing: against Prcsbj-terians and others who reject the order of bishops, commonly appeal to the testimony of St. Ignatius, who, in his ejiistles, so strenuously exhorts to obedience and submission to them. Thus, they cite him as saying: ''.See that ye all follow your bi.shop as Jesus Christ the Father." Did the authors of the "Church of England'' do this? Not they. They followed the cjueen, and sent their bi.shoi>3 adrift ! In view of this fact, let them duly consider that other passage, from St. Ignatius, often quoted 42 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. But I have yet to notice another persecuting measure which was adopted in order to force the Prayer-Book upon the nation. It did not fully answer the purpose to compel the clergy to use this service and no other ; so long as the peo- ple were at liberty to absent themselves from the churches, its use was confined to the minister, whose voice was echoed by empty walls. Hence it became necessary to compel the people to attend the churches and join in the new service. For this purpose. Parliament passed an act requiring all persons diligently to resort to the parish church on Sundays and other holidays, and " there to abide orderly and soberly during the time of the common prayer, preaching, or other service of God, on pain of punishment by the censures of the Church, and also on pain of forfeiting for every such offence 12(:?." And if any refused to pay this fine for non- attendance, his goods were distressed. Behold, then, the means by which your Prayer-Book was brought into use and made to supplant that venerable service of antiquity still celebrated in our Catholic temples — fines and imprisonments, loss of property, loss of ofiice, loss of personal liberty. The poor clergyman had to use the Prayer-Book or lose his ofiice and go to prison ; the layman had to be present at its use or submit to a fine for every absence ! Such were the argu- ments employed by men whom you have been taught to vene- rate as the authors or restorers of a " purer faith !" Of toleration they knew nothing and allowed nothing. " Con- form or suffer, " was their language- to all. To the clergy it was, "the Prayer-Book or a prison;" to the layman it was, " the Prayer-Book or your property." Not the least regard was paid to any nian's conscientious scruples ; high and low, rich and poor, men and women, old and young, all were driven to the parish church like a flock of sheep, to have the Prayer-Book forced down their throats, however much it was loathed and abhorred. Many persons are accustomed to look upon that period as the dawn of light, and the rise of liberty. You see, my friend, in the facts which I have stated what sort of light and what sort of liberty it was which then fell to the lot of England. It was not light which drew the people to the by "writers on Episcopacy: "Be not deceived, brethren, if any one follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God." LKTTEK II. 43 parish churcli ; it ^Yas simply the strong arm of power. It was not liberty, but despotism of the most grinding charac- ter violating men's consciences, and compelling them, by fines and imprisonments, to take part in a service which they detested, and denying them the small privilege of worshipping God according to their consciences, even in their own domi- cils The ancient Catholic worship was not tolerated any where ; it was banished alike from the churches which had been erected for its celebrution, and from the domestic altar. Sir Edward Waldgrave and his lady were sent to prison tor havin*^ Mass said in their own house ! Many others who vcntur'ed to disobey the tyrant, were punished in the same ^ But this is not all : severer measures yet were adopted in regard to those Catholics, who continued faithful to their re- lir^on and who had been unable to flee from the country as m°ny'did. As the Queen and her advisers professed to have discovered the primitive truth, and to enjoy greater light and to possess a purer faith than the ' ' benighted pa- pists," we should naturally expect to see them, under this superior influence, progressing towards sentiments of charity and toleration. But on the contrary, we see quite the re- verse The cruel act by which priests and laymen were doomed to punishment unless they used the Book of Common Prayer was passed in 1559. After the lapse of several years, that is, in 15G3, an act was passed by which the pre- vious act was ffreatly enlarged and extended, so that the oath against the Pope might be tendered also to attorneys, teachers, and in fact to all who should disapprove of the established worship, or celebrate any private Mass, and such as refused to take it, were to be deprived of their goods and sent to prison, and if afterwards they refused it a second time, they were to be deemed guihy of high treason, and to be put to death I Subsequently other penal laws were passed, denouncing severe punishments against any one who should practice the Catholic religion, or teach it or be taught it, and denouncing death against any one who should ordain a priest, and death against any priest who should come into the coun- try from abroad, and death against any one who should har- bor such a priest ! What a bloody code was this ! AVho can think of it without a shudder ? And sanguinary as it was. it was literally carried out. Every means was resorted to for the purpose of finding out those who still adhered to 5 44 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. the old worship. An Inquisition was instituted, modelled after the Spanish Inquisition.* It was called the Court of High Commission, and was composed mainly of Protestant Bishops. They had the power to invade private houses, and drag before them Catholics, and to extort from them by the agonies of the rack, a confession of their belief. Under the operation of so sanguinary a system, the Catholics, priests and laymen, were almost exterminated by the end of Eliza- beth's reign. f Under subsequent reigns the same war of extermination was carried on more or less, for the penal laws against Catholics in England continued in force until quite a recent period ; and even now, the Catholics of the coun- try, are not allowed a civil equality with Protestants. No Catholic is eligible to the English crown, and were Queen Victoria to become a Catholic, after the example of many of her distinguished subjects in late years, she would be driv- en from her throne. But it is not my purpose to write the history of the bloody persecutions by which the old religion was abolished in those days. I have only to refer to them as far as they were the means of bringing the Prayer-Book into use, instead of the Catholic Missal. You see now, my friend, that it was done by the civil power, against the Bishops, and by means of ruinous fines, wasting imprisonments, and ignominious exe- cutions at the stake or at the gallows. * This fact may be new to some of my readers, but incredible as it may seem, it is unquestionably' true. If any wish to investigate the matter, I beg to refer them to those Protestant historians, Hallam, Mackintosh and Hume. The last named author says: "It was a real inquisition, attended Avith all the iniquities as well as cruelties, inseparable from that tribunal." {Hist, of England, chap, xli.) In Hallam, [Const. Uist. vol. I, chap. 3 and 4,) may be found a descrip- tion of the instruments of torture used by this Anglican Inquisition, such as racks, hoops, iron gauntlets, &c. &c. t An attempt was made to efface and prevent the very knowledge of the Catholic religion. For this purpose the freedom of the press, and the circulation of books were restrained. No one except the Queen's Printer was allowed to print a book without the permission of the Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, or Bishop of London. (See Hallam, Constit. Hist, of Eng., vol. I, chap. 4.) This same author adds, "It was penal to utter, or so much as to possess even the most learned works on the Catholic side." Ibid. Yet Protestants who profess to be such friends of religious liberty, eulogise that intolerant and sanguinary woman as " Good Queen Bess !" LKTTEllII. 45 The Book of Coniinon-Prayor had undergone, before the accession of James I., many changes, as we have already shown. But it was not yet perfect. It was destined, as we shall find, to be revised yet again and again. Indeed, in this respect, it may be regarded as an emblem of the unset- tled and ever-shifting character of l*rotestantism ; and its authors seem to fulfil, literally, the language of the Apostle: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." Queen Elizabeth and her co-laborers did all in their power to compel men to conform to their particular creed, but the eS'ort was vain. They who were led to cut loose from the moorings of the Catholic faith, were not all content to follow the royal interpretation of the Bible, and many of theiu clamored for greater deviations from the doctrines and ceremonies of the old religion, than was marked out in the Prayer-Book. These men were called Puritans, and under James I., rapidly increased in number, and soon became a powerful party, supported as they were by not a few eminent ecclesiastics of the Established Church. In consequence of the objections to the Prayer-Book, made by this party, another review of it was ordered by the king, A. D. 1604, and in the words of Short, "a few changes were introduced, with much judgment." (§ 747.) At a later period, we find the new party of " Eeformers" grown so numerous and powerful as to become predominant in Church and State. Then it was, my fi-iend, that the re- tributive justice of God was visibly and terribly manifested, " visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children." The bitter chalice which the Protestant Episcopalians had meted out to the poor Catholics under Edward and Elizabeth, was now returned to their own lips. The Puritans and Presbyterians having gained the upper hand, put to death King Charles, and the Protestant archbishop. Laud, as tyi'ants ; drove the bishops out of their sees, and abolished Episcopacy as a corruption ; set aside the Prayer-Book as full of Popish errors, and established the Directory or Pres- byterian Confession of Faith in its stead ! Was ever a par- allel more complete ? Was ever the judgment of God more clearly manifested ? And how, my friend, can you justify the fir.st set of innovators under Henry and Elizabetli, and condemn the second set under Cromwell ? They both acted upon the same principle of judging for themselves, as to what was the religion of the Bible and of the Apostles ; 46 LETTERS TO- AN EPISCOPALIAN. and if you condemn one set, you must condemn the other also. Once reject the authority of the Pope and the Catho- lic Church, and men are at liberty to follow whatever reli- gion they judge best ; and no man who rejects that authority can faii'ly or consistently condemn them — for it is only au- thority that can justly eondenm — but when authority has been discarded, no man can judge his fellow man. Hence, the Elizabethan Church was the fruitful source of all sorts of religious dissensions, opinions, schisms and sects. And that Church is justly chargeable with their existence, inas- much as they were the natural result of her example, and the jirinciple upon which she was originally set up, — the principle of private judgment, carried out, in her case, by the reigning sovereign, whom she followed. With the restoration of Charles II. came the re-establish- ment of the Elizabethan or Anglican Church, aud the resto- ration of the Prayer-Book. But the party opposed to the Prayer-Book, was still numerous, and clamored for further changes. They took the ground, not without reason, that the Prayer-Book was originally framed so as to conciliate the Catholics, and they desired that it should now assume a more Protestant character. In particular, they desired the disuse of the cross in baptism, the surplice, the ring in marriage, and kneeling at the communion — that the obser- vance of Lent and Saints' days should be left optional — that certain expressions in the baptismal and burial services should be altered — that the frequent use of the Lord's Prayer should be avoided, and the minister be allowed to omit portions of the service, and to introduce his own extem- porary prayers at discretion — and that no lessons should be read from the Apocrypha. These, and other like changes, which were demanded by the Puritan or Presbyterian party, would have made the Prayer-Book much more Protestant and more acceptable, no doubt, to a large body of its present friends, both in England and America. The Non-Conform- ists, as they were called, in demanding these changes, pro- fessed to be actuated by conscientious motives, and declared that they could not follow the Prayer-Book in these things, without committing sin — in this respect, also, following the •example of the first innovators, who refused to con- form to the Catholic worship. As the matter proved the cause of much dissension, it was determined to subject the book to another revision. Accordingly, a conferenee was LKTTERII. 47 held for the purpo.^e, composed of twenty-one of each party, friends of the Prayer-Book and its opponents. After a long debate, they were of course unable to agree, except as to a few unimportant alterations, and the conference was termi- nated. But as many continued to clamor for changes, another revision was undertaken subsequently by the Convo- cation, and certain alterations were made, although not enough to satisfy the discontented party. The alterations then introduced were quite numerous, and some of them were important. I cannot pause to specify them in detail. Let it suffice to say, that changes were made in the arrange- ment of certain jjortions, alterations in the language, as " congregation" for " Church," and new collects, rubrics, and even new services were added. But behold the inconsistency and intolerance of the "Church of England" authorities. When they were re- minded of their duty to the Catholic Church, they attempted to justify themselves on plea of conscience — they could not submit and conform to her — there were corruptions and er- rors in the Missal and they could not use it. But when a large and powerful portion of their own members, their own fellow-Protestants, set up the same plea against the Book of Common Prayer, their objections were set at naught, and severer measures were at once taken to force them to use it, their scruples of conscience notwithstanding I The persecut- ing measures thus taken are worthy of a passing notice, as illustrative of the spirit of the times and the history of the Prayer-Book. We have seen that an act of conformity had been passed under Elizabeth, compelling both priests and people to use the Book of Common Prayer, and nothing else, under pain of fines and imprisonment. This act was still in force, and was applicable to all non-conformists, whether Catholics or Puritans. But it was not sufficiently summary for the intolerant zeal of the thorough-going sticklers for the Prayer-Book, and other acts of Parliament were passed, di- rected partly against the Puritan party in the Establishment, and partly against the Catholics. An act was passed eject- ing all beneficed clergymen who neglected to use the Prayer- Book by the 24th of August, 1G62, and requiring further, that all persons holding ecclesiastical or academical prefer- ment should, before the same day, subscribe a declaration, "that he will conform to the liturgy," and "that it is unlawful to take arms against the king on any pretence 5* 48 LETT.ERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. whatsoever." (Shoi-fs Hist. , § 702.) Thus were they compel- led either to give up their livings or take the Prayer-Book, and with it monarchy, and the doctrine of passive obedience ! Men prate about Catholic persecution and Catholic enslave- ment. Where will they find a parallel to this in Catholic times ? Did the Catholic Church anywhere ever teach that tyrannical kings should not be resisted ' ' under any pretence whatsoever?" Certainly not. This monstrous absurdity was reserved for the " Church of England, as by law establish- ed." When the appointed day arrived for the act to take effect, it is said that two thousand ministers were ejected from their preferments, including many of the best men of the Establishment. Having thus ousted the non-conforming clergy, the next thing was to oust the same class of laymen, and to punish them afterwards too. Thus the corporation-act compelled every officer of a corporation not only to subscribe the doctrine of non-resistance, but to receive the Lord's Sup- per according to the rites of the Church of England. This act was directed also against Catholics, as it excluded from Parliament and offices of trust all who refused to make a declaration against Transubstantiation, &c. By another act, any person who resorted to a conventicle for worship was fined or imprisoned. By another act, a non-conformist was not allowed to teach a public school, upon pain of imprisonment. Such were the means employed to en- force the use of the Prayer-Book, first upon the Catho- lics, and afterwards also, upon Protestants who conscien- tiously believed it full of errors. And these severe measures, these bitter and destructive persecutions, begun by Henry YIII. continued for about two hundred years; so little idea had the followers of Craumer of religious toleration even after the lapse of several generations. And indeed the toleration which England allows even now is the dictate mainly of policy and necessity. In spite of her fines, imprisonments, and bloody executions, non-conformists. Catholics and Pro- testants, flourished and multiplied, so that England was com- pelled to let them alone.* I have now traced the history of the Prayer-Book down to the times of Charles II. , under whose reign it received its last revision in England. And what an extraordinary histo- * An Act of Toleration was passed in the reign of William and Mary, for the relief of Protestant dissenters, but Catholics were ex- pressly excluded from its benefits ! (Short, | 806.) L E T T E R I r . 49 ry it is I We find it making its first appearance under Henry Vin. as the "King's Prinjer ;" certainly a very appropriate name for it, and one which would have suited it equally as well in its subsequent enlargements. It next appears under Edward VT., considerably altered and enlarged, as the "Book of Common Prayer," and put forth in the act of Parliament " by the aid of the Holy Ghost, with one uniform agreement," containing Extreme Unction, Prayers for the Dead, &c. But the short reign of Edward has not elapsed before it is discovered that this godly and inspired book is full of errors, and sadly needs revising ; this discovery seems to have been made "by the aid" of Mart3"r, Bucer, and other TiUtherans from the continent. It accordingly under- goes another revision ; and after sundry omissions and altera- tions, it is again put forth by Parliament, and is known as the ' ' Second Book of Edward VI." After the death of Edward, a Catholic ascends the throne, and forthwith the whole thing is abolished and set aside by the same Parliament, as having been falsely and deceitfully imposed upon the country, and both Parliament and Convocation humbly seek pardon for the " horrible defection and schism" of which they had been guilty. But when Elizabeth ascended the throne, although she had professed herself a convert to the Catholic faith, everything relating to religion is again changed, and the Book of Common Prayer arises from the dead, and after un- dergoing another revision, is once more put forth by authori- ty of Parliament. Under the next sovereign, James I., still another revision of the Book was undertaken, and sundry changes were introduced. Again, under Charles I., it is revised and amended. But under Cromwell it is once more wholly abolished, as unfit for Christian use. With Charles II., it is again revised, but is subjected to yet another emendation.* Such were the repeated changes which it un- * The bishops and others were .«till far from satisfied with the Book as last amended under Charles II. Indeed, so great was the dissatis- faction, that in 1689, under William and Mary, a commission was is- sued to ''prepare alterations in the Liturgy and Canons."' And for this purpose, ten bishops and twenty divines were selected, but after meet- ing together, they were unable to accomplish anything in consequence of their dissensions. What an impressive fact is here. These chief pastors and doctors of the Church were convinced that the Prayer- Book needed altering and amending, but they could not agree as to what should be omitted nor what added i And, as it was then, so is 50 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. derwent from the times of Henry VIII. to those of Charles II. , covering a period of nearly a century and a half. And when we remember not only the number but the character of these changes, that they involved doctrine as well as wor- ship, and that sometimes they were in one direction and sometimes in another, now towards Rome, and now towards Geneva, we see how impossible it was for the established Church of England, during all that time to arrive at any clear and settled system of religion. Was it not a most palpa- ble fulfilment of the rebuke of the inspired Apostle—' ' Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth," — ever striving to obtain a consistent, harmonious, and satisfactory system of doctrine and worship, but never able to succeed. Certainly, the diflFerent phases which Church-of-Englandism has assumed in consequence of the changes which I have described, constitute a most remark- able feature in her history and character, and necessarily deprives her of all right to the submission and obedience of her children. How can they tell which of these phases is to be taken as her real character, or whether any of them can be so taken. Who knows but that she is yet to assume another phase, under the "reforming" process of which she has been so often the subject. That another revision was determined and vmdertaken, I have already shown. That a further revision was needed was not only then admitted, but " it has ever since been felt and admitted by leading members of that Church. And, in point of fact, another revision did actually take place, at which great changes were made, that is, at the time of the organization of the "Protestant Ejiisco- pal Church" in this country, of which I shall treat presently. Change is the characteristic of all sects, but is it not em- phatically, and in an extraordinary degree, the characteristic of Church-of-Englandism ? That system has certainly under- gone more changes than any other religious system under the sun, and there is every reason to believe that the " end is not yet." There are two other important facts which I have laid before you in the course of this historical sketch, and which must not be overlooked. The first is, that the Prayer-Eook it ll0^y, as every Episcopalian knows. All disapprove of it as it is, some of this part and some of that, but they are compelled to endure it as it is, because unable to agree as to what changes shall be made. I> K T T K R 1 1 . 51 was put forth by Parliament, and that it was alternately set up and abolished, according to the religious sentiments of the reigning sovereign. Thus. Parliament set it up under Edward, and Parliament abolished it under Mary. xVgain,. Parliament set it up under Elizabeth, and Parliament abol- ished it a second time under Cromwell, and sul)se(|uently set it up a third time, under Charles. The second fact is, that this l*rayer-Book was not only set forth by Parliament, but it was forced upon the people of England by the penal enactments of that body. Its adop- tion was compulsory. No choice was left to either clergy or laymen. However much opposed to it, they had to use it, or suffer the loss of office, and undergo ruinous fines and a degrading imprisonment. Thus, its history is a history of persecution, — bitter, unrelenting, protracted, and even mur- derous persecution. Its history, indeed, is written in blood. It is enough to make one's hair stand on end, enough to make the blood boil, to read of the cruel sufferings to which the poor Catholics were subjected, in order to compel them to adopt the Book of Common Prayer. And however much, my friend, you may esteem that book, you must condemn the cruel and arbitrary measures by which it was fastened upon the English peoj^le. And whether its merits be greater or less, you must perceive and admit that if it has, to some extent, supplanted the Catholic Missal, the change was brought about, not by a sense of the superior excellence of the Prayer-Book, but by arbitrary power, civil enactments, and cruel persecutions — in one word, by hrnte force. My historical notice of the Prayer-Book has thus far been confined to the changes which it underwent in England. I have now to say something concerning another revision, which it was subjected to in this country. Down to the period of our national independence, the Prayer-Book, as last amended under Charles II., was used by that body of religious persons, in this country, who acknowledged the au- thority of the Church of England. But when the colonies became separated fi-om the mother country, these persons considered themselves free, ecclesiastically, and immediately proceeded to establish an independent Church. One of their first cares, in the process of setting up for themselves, was to alter and amend the Book of Common Prayer, as they had received it from the old country. Accordingly, at a convention held in Philadelphia in 1785, the Prayer-Book 52 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. underwent a general review ; and among other great changes then made in it, the Nicene Creed was thrown out ! What think you of that, my friend ? Is it not a terrible argument against the spirit and the faith of the members composing that convention? The Prayer-Book, as then amended, was called " The Proposed Book." At a convention held in Wilmington, the following year, the subject was again taken up, and the Nioene Creed was restored, but the Athanasian Creed was left out ! And this latter Creed has been left out to this day, although still retained in the Prayer-Book of the Church of England ! The Prayer-Book, thus amended, was adopted and ratified in convention in 1789, with the exception, however, of the Thirty-Nine Articles which were the source of much controversy, and which were not adopted until the year 1801 ; and only then, rather because they found it impossible to agree upon any other set of doctrines than that they relish- ed the Thirty-Nine. But still the Prayer-Book was imper- fect. In 1792 the Ordinal was revised and altered. In 1795 a service was added for the consecration of a Church. In 1804 another office was inserted in it, for the institution of a minister — and at later periods, several instalments of hymns were added. Thus, it has already undergone, in this country, in a brief period, some half a dozen reviews and revisions, consisting of omissions, alterations and amend- ments, of more or less doctrinal importance, even to the setting aside, first, of one entire creed, then of another ; both of them, creeds which, from the fourth century, have been revered as the symbols of true orthodoxy ! But after all the revisions and amendments which the Prayer-Book has undergone, first in England, then in America, how ut- terly unsatisfactory has been the result. Further changes have been repeatedly called for, and are still desired, by many in both countries. High Churchmen are not satisfied with it, and Low Churchmen are even less satisfied with it. And, indeed, I doubt if a single Episcopalian can be found who is entirely satisfied with it. All parties in the Church would like to see changes introduced, but the great difficulty is, that they are unable to agree, like the conference under James II., as to what these changes shall be. High Churchmen would make the book more Catholic — Low Churchmen would make it more Protestant. Thus, what one would discard, another would wish to retain — and, on the LETTERir. 53 other hand, what one would retain, another would wish to discard. And, as these parties are nearly equally balanced in numbers and influence, they are both afraid to undertake a revision, lest the one should triumph at the expense of the other. Both parties prefer to bear with the imperfections which they now respectively deplore in it, rather than run the risk of the greater imperfections which might result from another revision. Hence, with a lively sense of this danger, they agree to let it alone, and even cry out for " the Prayer- Book as it is," preferring "to bear the ills they have, than fly to others that they know not of." In my next letter, I propose to inquire into the character and motives of the principal agents concerned in imposing the PrayerrBook upon the English nation. A. B. LETTER III. 'The Prayer-Book originally made on the plea of reforming the Litur- gy. — The character of its principal authors examined. — Henry VIII., Thomas Cromwell, Anne Boleyn, Edward VI,, The Duke of Somerset, The Duke of Northumberland, Ridley, Latimer, Cranmer, Queen Elizabeth, reviewed as a class. — Nearly all of them renounced Protestantism after embracing it. — All were intol- erant and sanguinary. — Most of them perished as felons. — Wei'e not "Reformers," and were not moved by "Church Corruptions." — The real causes of the English Schism set forth. My Dear Friend : I HAVE now set before you tlie origin of the Prayer-Book, together with a brief sketch of the many revisions and ' ' re- forms" which it has vmdergone. I have likewise shewn you how it was first set forth by the civil authority, and during several generations forced upon the English people by cruel persecutions. Let us now take a hasty glance at the per- sons who were most active in getting up this Book as a substitute for the Missal, and in forcing it upon the people of England. Nothing is more reasonable than to judge of a work by the character of the persons by whom it was begun and carried on. This course is especially so in a matter of this kind. It is alleged that the Catholic w^orship as pre- scribed in the Missal, was deformed by errors and corrup- tions, and that it needed reforming, and hence a new liturgy, that of the Prayer-Book, was devised. Thus it is claimed that it was a work of reform. If then it was a work of re- form, the persons engaged in it ought to have been eminently virtuous and pious, more so, at least, than the mass of the people, and especially more so than the friends of the old worship. Will the authors of the Prayer-Book bear such a scrutiny? We shall see. It has been customary to write and publish very fair biographies of at least some of these men, and to hold them up for veneration as saints and mar- tyrs. But it will not be difficult to show that such biogra- phies owe their fair proportions more to sectarian zeal and partiality than to the stern records of historical truth. It is (54) 1, K T T C R 1 1 1 . 55 not professions that make a character, it is not a mere belief in this or that form of faith — it is the life anil conduct. Men must be judged by their drcds both here and hereafter. By this rule let us try the men who have given us the Protest- ant Prayer-Book, as a substitute for the Catholic Missal. Let us try them fairly — not l)y tlie assertions of their ene- mies, but by notorious, indisputable facts, and by the testi- mony of the friends of the Prayer-Book. The first chief actor in the great religious change which gave the Book of Common-Prayer to England, was King Henr^' VIII. It was by that monarch, that the separation from the Holy See was first effected, and the Prayer-Book was the natural fruit of that separation. As I have stated in a previous letter, Henry quarrelled with the Pope because he was not allowed to divorce his faithful Avife, Catharine, in order to make room for a young beauty for whom he had conceived a violent and unlawful passion. Previous to that quarrel, Henry had been a zealous Catholic, and had even written a book against Luther, in vindication of the Seven Sacraments. But his criminal passion urged him to set at naught tlie authority of the Holy Father, and to require all his people to acknowledge himself as the supreme head of the Church, in place of the Pope. This was the beginning of the great schism that gave birth to the ' ■ Church of Eng- land as by law established," and to the Prayer-Book. Not a few Episcopalian writers, perceiving the odium of an origin in lust and crime, have labored hard to do away with the reproach. But the great fact stands out in bold relief upon the page of history, and cannot be expunged nor evaded, however much it may be disrelished and even reprobated. I have already had occasion to quote the Protestant bishop. Short, as more candid in regard to many of the great facts of those times, than Protestant historians generally, and I shall draw fin-ther from his pages. The fifth chapter of his History of the Church of England, opens witli this sentence : " The existence of the Church of England as a distinct body, and her final separation from Rome, may be dated from the period of the divorce." Here, then, is the great fact expressly admitted, by an authority which no Episcopa- lian will dispute. And what was that divorce but an act of lust and crime? Henry, then, was plainl}' the author of the Church of England, and as sucn the indirect author of the Prayer-Book. But his agency in the latter was still more 6 56 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. direct. He not only opened the way for the Prayer-Book, by his schism, but it was under his auspices that the changes in the liturgy were commenced, and the foundations of the Prayer-Book were laid. This is so indisputable, that proof seems superfluous — but I will quote a passage from a work written by an Episcopalian clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Kip, now "Bishop of California." In giving a history of the Prryer-Book, he says : " The first step was in the reign of Henry VHI., Avhen a committee, appointed for that purpose, translated certain portions of the service into English, which were published under the title of the ' Institution of a Christian Man.' It was known, also, by the na,me of the ' Bishop's Book.' Six years afterwards, this was revised and re-published under the title of ' A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man.' Again, in 1545, the ' King's Primer' was published. (^Double Witness of the CJinrch, p. 204.) Now, these little books were the foundations of the Prayer-Book, (which was more fully put forth under the next reign,) and they were set forth, not only with Henry's sanction but by his authority ; for Henry, as " head of the Church," allowed no changes to be made in religion, except such as accorded with his own views — and hence, the Seven Sacraments, including Transubstantia- tion, were held throughout the whole of his reign. Henry may, therefore, be correctly styled the father of the Church of England, and of the Pi-ayer-Book. Who and what, then, was Henry VIII.? — need I answer this question ? Has not almost every child heard of him as the inhuman and fierce monster that disgraced his country and his age — the bloody Blue-Beard that took off human heads with as little ceremony as he carved a chicken V Fot seventeen years, Henry had lived in harmony with his faithful wife, Catharine, without a scruple as to the law- fulness of his marriage, and b}' her had several children, including Queen Mary. But forming an unlawful attach- ment to Anne Boleyn, a beautiful damsel of his court, he determined to take her to wife ; and with this view, he ap- plied to the Pope for permission to divorce Catharine. The Pope refused. Henry continued to urge his request by every means in his power. But the Pope, faithful to his duty, steadfastly refused to sanction the iniquity. Unable to in- duce the Pontiff to consent, he renounced the Papal authority, made Cranmer his Archbishop ; and Cranmer, in return for LETTER III 57 this favor, pronounced the divorce of Henry and Catha- rine, — and his majesty felt himself at liberty to take to his bosom, the object of his passion, although it seems he had long since anticipated all such formalities.* This was the beginning, as Short says, of the " Church of England," and it was the beginning, too, of Henry's infemous career. One crime leads to another, and terrible was the series which fol- lowed from this first offence of the impetuous monarch. Anne Boleyn was a zealous friend of the religious changes of that period, finding the restraints of authority rather in- convenient, as did Henry himself, and many others. Her un- lawful connection, (for it was not a legitimate marriage) with the king, did not last long. Rumours affecting her, how- ever, were freely circulated about the court, and Henry's affection had been directed to a new beauty, Jane Seymour. By Henry's order, Anne was arrested and tried for adultery. Being found guilty, she was immediately executed, together with five gentlemen who were accused with her. On the day of her execution, Henry was pursuing the pleasures of the chase ; and the next day he was married to Jane Sey- mour, by his friend Cranmer. Jane had the good fortune to die a natural death ; and Henry next married Anne of Cleves. But not liking Anne, he set her aside, with the aid of Cranmer, and took, for his fifth wife, Catharine Howard. In a sliort time, she, too, was accused of adultery, and sent to the block, together with a number of guilty accomplices. Pretty deeds these I But all this time, the "Church of England" we are told, was emerging from darkness to light ; from corruption to purity I Henry soon consoled himself with a sixth wife, in the person of Cathai'ine Parr, who very narrowly escaped the fate of her predecessors. Thus did the miserable wretch, first break the heart of his faithful wife, Catharine, and afterwards successively marry five other women, three of whom he afterwards divorced, and two he put to death ! Of his mistresses I forbear to speak. Such was the author of the English schism. But this is not all. His lust and brutality were great, but his cruelty was not * The marriage M"ith Aiine took place, secretly, before the divorce was actually pronounced, but Cranmer afterwards, confirmed t lie mar- riage. While the divorce was pending, that is for several years, Anne had lived under the "protection" of the king, and certain symptoms caused the marriage ceremony to be hastened, divorce or no divorce, of which Elizabeth, afterwards queen, was the result. 58 LETTERS T0- AN E P I SC P A L I A Pf .. less so. This is shewu, not only by the summary and re- morseless execution of his wives, and their suspected para- mours, but by the sanguinary laws of his reign, and the bloody persecutions which he carried on to the end of his career, against all who ventured to follow any religion but the one he had established, whether Catholics or Protestants. Henry was, indeed, a blood-thirsty monster. His i3ersecu- tions were horrid butcheries. All who refused to acknow- ledge him as head of the Church, instead of the Pope were condemned to death. And of the horrid manner in which this death was inflicted, we have a specimen in the case of John Houghton, a prior of a monastery. This faithful Ca- tholic was first hung, then cut down ; and, while yet alive, his clothes were stripped off, his entrails were torn fi-om his body, and flung into a fi^re ; his head was cut off"; the body was divided into quarters, and parboiled ; and afterwards hung up in various parts of the city, as a warning to such as should persist in acknowledging the authority of the Holy See! Much has been written about Catholic persecution, but can you find any thing exceeding this, in cruelty and barbarity '? And yet, Henry was the founder of the Church of England, and the reformer of the liturgy ! Among the Catholics whom this monster put to death, were Sir Thomas More, Bishop Fisher, and the Countess of Salisbury, three of the most distinguished persons in Eng- land, at that time. Sir Thomas More was the Lord Chan- cellor of England. "His character," says Bishop Short, "was singularly splendid." And again: "The death of this wise and good man, leaves an indelible stain upon the character of Henry." (§ 168.) Short bears similar testi- mony in favor of Bishop Fisher. He says: "He was a learned and devout man," and relates his liberal acts towards the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, (§ 109.) The Countess of Salisbury, was the mother of Cardinal Pole, and a descendant of the Plantagenets, and a relative of the king. The Cardinal had rendered himself obnoxious to the royal tyrant, by opposing the divorce ; and the monster de- sired to be revenged. But as the Cardinal was on the Con- tinent, and beyond his reach, he determined to wreak his vengeance upon his connections. He accordingly executed two of the Cardinal's brothers, and then proceeded against his aged mother ! Without cause, he had her arrested and committed to prisou. After detaining her there for two LKXTKll III, 59 years, he sent her to the scaifold. Having reached the place of execution, the venerable woman, seventy years of age, when told to lay her head on the block, boldly replied, " No, my head never committed treason — if you will have it, you must take it as you can." She was held down by force, and while the executioner performed his office, she exclaimed, ' ' Blessed are they who suffer persecution for righteousness' sake." Such were the deeds of Henry VHI. It has been truly said that he never spared man in his anger, nor woman in his lust. Considering his professions, he was a greater monster than the pagan Nero. He burnt both Catholics and Protestants at the same stake. In regard to the number of executions Avhich he caused, I find the following statement in Short's history : " Two queens, one Cardinal, (in intention) dukes, marquises, earls, and earl's sons, ticeh-e ; barons and knights, eiqhteen ; abbots, priors, monks and priests, sccenty- sevcn ; of the more common sort, between one religion and another, Juigc multitudes.'''' (§ 227, note.) Such were the bloody deeds of Henry VIII., the founder of the Church of England I Certainly it is natural, that they Avho have had the misfortune to have been brought up in that system, of which he was the author and founder, should be ashamed to acknowledge him as their father.* Of a char- acter so black, it is scarcely necessary to say more ; or to his deeds of lust and murder, I might add his deeds of rapine and sacrilege. He robbed and plundered the Church and the poor. Pie confiscated the monasteries and Church lands, and expended the wealth and treasure thus obtained upon * Whatever inny he thought of Henry VIII.. by the present adhe- rents of Protestantism, it is certain that the early members and bish- ops of the Anglican schism, did not hesitate to acknowledge that man as their founder. In the Book of Homilies composed by Crannier, Latimer and Ridley, in the reign of Edward VI., and appointed to be read in Churches, I find the following passage : ''Honor be to God, who did put light in the heart of his faithful and true minister of most famous memory, King Henry the Eighth, and gave him the knowledge of his word, and an earnest attection to seek his glory, and to put away all such superstitions,'' &c. (P. 52 — Am. P^d.) Here this monster is bla,si)hemously termed ''God's faithful and true Minister." This is done by your three saints and Martyrs, Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley — j-ea, by the authority of the "Church of England" of that day ! Docs not this show, that they and Henry and all who joined in their work, were of one and the same stamp? The Homilies are cxpre.ssly ai)])roved and commended by your Prayer-Book, as you will see in Article 35. 6* 60 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. his favorites and his passions. His sacrileges were enor- mous. His rapacity was unbounded ; and whatever he de- sired, he took without hindrance or scruple. He thus impo- verished the Church and the nation too. In fact, Henry was a monster in crime of every sort, without a jjarallel, even in pagan times. To talk of the Almighty's employing such a monster to reform His Church, is but little short of blasphemy. No ! when the Church in any place needs reforming, God raises up holy priests and bishops for the purpose. Under the old law, when uuconsecrated hands were put forth to steady the Ark, His displeasure was terri- bly manifested. Can we, then, believe that He would have employed a man who was not merely uuconsecrated, but defiled by enormous vices and crimes, to reform His beloved S2)0use, the Church? This is assuming that there were cor- ruptions in the Church, which is false. There were, in one sense, corruptions— corrupt individuals in the Church, such as Henry and his fellow miscreants. Had the Church itself needed reforming, who would have been most likely to dis- cover and undertake it, the bad man or the good man ; Henry Vni., or those holy men who opposed him, Sir Thomas More, Bishop Fisher and others, who suffered death rather than renounce the ancient and Scriptural authority of the Pontiff. A corrupt man would naturally favor corruption in the Church. Instead of exposing and suppressing it, he would encourage and promote it. That Henry was a cor- rupt man, abominably corrupt, no one denies or even doubts. Our Lord has expressly said, that a "corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit." As Henry was corrupt, the work in which he engaged, was corrupt. He deformed the Church, not reformed it. What has been said of Henry, may be said of his co- workers in the ecclesiastical revolution of that period, mis- called the "Reformation." The prominent, leading actors in that schism, were bad men, very bad men. This I will prove by their misdeeds. Another prominent actor in the iniquities of these times, was Thomas Cromwell. This man was the principal adviser of Henry, and he is said to have been the first person that suggested to the king, that the Pope's authority was not ne- cessary for the divorce, and that it should be utterly abol- ished, and no other authority allowed in the land, but the king's, Cromwell was originally a soldier by profession. L E T T E R I r 1 . 61' but returning from the wars of Italy, liis shrewdness and audacity reconinionded hiui to high personages who might happen to be phiced in trying circumstances. Henry was pleased with his advice, and the unscrupulous Cromwell was forthwith made privy councillor. When the convocation of the Clergy met. the king gave his private signet to this man, who went and took his seat among the bishops, although but a layman, and proceeded to inform them of tlie king's inten- tion to make himself head of the Church in place of the Pope, and warned them of the consequences of resistance to the royal will ! Soon afterwards, he was appointed the " Royal Vicegerent and Vicar-General." With this title, he was empowered " to exercise all the spiritual authority belonging to the king, for the due administration of justice in all cases touching the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the godly reformation and redress of errors, heresies, and abuses in the said Church." From this language, you perceive the nature and extent of the power which the king claimed as •'head of the Church," and which he conferred upon his "Vicar-General," a mere layman like himself. Now, my ICpiscopalian friend, what do you think of this 'i You well know this is not the way the Episcopalians of the present day act. They do not allow a layman to take a seat at the head of the bishops in their General Convention ; and still less do they authorise a layman to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdic- tion over the whole Church, and reform abuses, &c. They well know that such a thing would be a virtual surrender of orders and Episcopacy. And yet, this was the process employed to bring about the change of religion in Eng- land ! This man, as the king's Vicegerent, set on foot a visitation of the monasteries, and employed as his assistants, some of the worst men in the country. Their object was to take possession of these monasteries — but in order to have some pretence, at least, for so iniquitous an act, men were sent out to visit them, who would be sure to bring back an evil report concerning their condition.* These hallowed in- stitutions were condemned upon the testimony of Cromwell and his minions, without any opportunity of self-defence. « This is admitted by several Protestant historians. Even Hume, the Intter enemy of the Catholic Church, says: "As it was known that the king's intention in this visitation, was to find a pretence for abolishing monasteries, we may naturally conclude that the reports of commissioners are very little to be relied on.'' {Hin. viii c. 31.) 62 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. The king then desired Parliament to pass an act sequestering them to his own use — and when that body hesitated to com- ply, the bloody tyrant exclaimed, " I will have it pass, or I will have some of your heads." The members knew that this was no idle threat, and they passed the bill, — by which 376 monasteries became the property of the king, — with all their lands, gold and silver ornaments, &c. &c. But this was only the beginning. Another act was afterwards passed by which all the remaining monasteries were given to the king and his assigns !* Many of these monasteries when visited by Cromwell's agents, were literally pillaged. The very chests and drawers of the monks and nuns were ran- sacked and rifled of their contents, and the altars overthrown and despoiled ! This immense wealth, obtained by robbery and sacrilege, was speedily absorbed by the king and his favorites, Cromwell himself getting the lion's share, — no less than thirty estates, besides a palace magnificently furnished with the spoils of God's altar. Thus was this man the principal agent in those enormous acts of robbery and sacrilege which constituted some of the blackest deeds of the monster- tyrant himself. I have not exaggerated the important part he took in the religious change of that day. Bishop Short himself, does not hesitate to speak of him as " One great instrument of the Keformation." (§ 220.) But like many other great villains, he soon incurred the retributive justice of God. Owing to one of his intrigues, he forfeited the approbation of his royal master, and his doom was instantly sealed. He who had stained his soul with wholesale robbe- ries and sacrileges, who had ruthlessly turned aged monks and defenceless nuns from their homes, experienced in turn the vengeance of the tyrant. He was suddenly arrested on the charge of high treason, and sent, as a prisoner, to the tower. He was so generally hated, that only one individual could be found to urge a petition in his favor,- — and that man was Thomas Cranmer, — who wrote an ambiguous letter to the king, praising Cromwell's diligence in the royal ser- *The total number of monasteries, hospitals, colleges and free chap- els taken by the king, was 3182; and 47,721 persons were thereby rendered homeless 1 See the full account, in that Protest^int author, Burns, Eccl. Law^ Art. Monanteries. Sir Henry Spelman, in his History of the Fate of Sacrilege, gives a list of all the peers of Parliament, at the time the act was passed confiscating the monasteries, and shews the calamities which befell them and their descendants. L E T T E R 1 1 1 . 63 vice, and adding " But if he was a traitor, he was ghid it was discovered. But he prayed tJod earnestly to send the king such a counsellor in his stead." And yet Craumer, afterwards, in the House of Lords, gave his vote in favor of the death of Cromwell, his friend, patron and associate! The bloody Cromwell had sent others to the block, while he was prime minister and all-powerful at court ; and now, he himself, was sentenced to the same fate. In view of the execution, craven-hearted as he was cruel, he begged for his life in the humblest terms: "Most gracious prince, I cry for mercy, mercy, mercy!" But he cried in vain. He was led to the scaffold. And what do you think he did, in view of death V Like others, in similar ciicumstances, he recanted his errors, and died in the Catholic faith I ''I have been seduced," he said. • but bear me witness, I die in the foith of the Catholic Church." Unhappy man ! he was willing to live, without that faith, and even to subvert it, while he could enjoy the royal ftivor, and secure unbounded wealth : but when death and judgment stared him in the face, he was anxious to take shelter behind that injured faith I And yet, according to Short, he was a "great instrument," and ac- cording to Fox, a " valiant soldier" in the English schisni ! No doubt of it. He and Henry were both very " valiant" in robberies, murders, and other revolting crimes — very '• valiant" until they were about to appear before the Eter- nal Judge. In this connection, I might Introduce the names of several ef Henry's wives, who were zealous abettors of the new worship and liturgy. But as they were only subordinate agents, I shall onl}' notice one or two of them, very briefly. We have seen that Anne Bolejn was executed for her con- jugal infidelity. Now, hear what Short says concerning this woman. •' The cause of the Reformation," says he, " met with a serious blow in the death of Anne Boleyn, who had uniformly exerted her influence in its favor, and was proba- bly very Instrumental in promoting a translation of the Bible now going forward." (§203.) You see, then, that this woman was an Important agent in this "godly" work, — the " Reformation," so called. And yet, what a life she led with the king, and with others I Short, after prais- ing her as one of the pillars of the new religion, Is naturally very loth to admit the truth of all the charges against her, and yet he Is forced to make this acknowledgment: "She 64 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. had undoubtedly been guilty of indiscretion in the intimacy which she had used towards some of her male attendants." {Ihid.) Anxious to protect her memory on account of her services to the new religion, Short could not well admit more, — but he has admitted too much for her honor. It is difficult to reconcile her "indiscretion," with virtue and purity — but there can be little doubt of her having been guilty of something worse ; otherwise, how could Cranmer have been justified in pronouncing judgment against her — and besides, unless the evidence against her had been very strong, it is scarcely probable that the king would have re- quired her execution. He loved another, it is true, but he could have set aside Anne Boleyn, as he afterwards did his fourth wife, Anne of Cleves, without sending her to the block ; disgracing with her his daughter Elizabeth, after- wards queen.* Howver, this is not the place to argue the question. It is enough for us, that she was tried, condemned, and executed by Protestants, for the heinous crime of adul- tery. Yet this woman was very zealous for the new reli- gion, and the Protestant Bible I She was an active oppo- nent of the " corruptions of Popery," and very anxious for a "reformation" of the Church I Certainly she was a wor- thy associate and co-laborer of Henry VIII. and Thomas Cromwell ! Let us now turn our attention to another prominent actor in the changes of those times, King Edward VI. At the death of King Henry, his son by Jane Seymour, succeeded to the throne, at the early age of nine years. He had, of course, been brought up in the new doctrines ; and according to Cranmer, although so young, he had more theology in his little finger, than he and his brother bishops had in their whole bodies ! I shall not dispute this assertion. His reign was an important period in the history of the Book of Com- mon-Prayer. It was during that reign, as we have seen, that the book was first put forth, in any thing like its pre- sent shape. His name is therefore intimately associated with * Her secret connection with the king, long before the divorce, is assumed as true, by Shakspcare, who lived much nearer those times, thus : " Last, that the Lady Anne, , ' ' Whom the king hath in secrecy long married, " This day was viewed in open, as his queen." King Henry VIII., Act 3. LETTEUIII. 65 it, ulthough his agency in the matter was more of a passive than active character. He is said to have been a pious and well-disposed youth. This may have been the case, although some of his acts do not exhibit him in an amiable aspect, — especially his harsh and uncharitable behavior towards his sister Mary, to whom he was unwilling to allow the rites of her religion, even in her own house, and whom he further wronged by trying to exclude her from the throne, although she was the legitimate heir to the crown — the latter act, however, was the result of "earnest persuasions and entreaties from his Protestant advisers. He was a mere boy — only fifteen when he died — and for the most part, he was nothing but a puppet in the hands of others — and in giving him a place among the prominent personages of those times, it is more on account of what was done by others, in his name, than on account of his own acts. Under Henry, the "Church of England" was severed from the Catholic Church, but it was under the boy-king that it became thoroughly Protestant. "During the short reign of Edward," says Short, it became entirely Protestant, and in point of doc- trine, assumed its present form. This step, however, was made rather by the decree of the government than by the conviction of the nation." (§811.) I beg the reader to mark well these two sentences from an Episcopalian histo- rian, especially the latter one. It shews the true origin of that Church, — a "decree of the government," under the administration of a boy ! Under the reign of Edward, the work of plundering the Church was renewed with fresh vigor, — and what the ra- pacity of Henry had spared, now fell before the equally greedy demands of his successor. Colleges, chapels, hospi- tals, chantries, &c., left untouched by Henry, were now seized for the use of Edward, together with the lands, tene- ments, rents, tithes, &c. belonging thereto. In addition to this, the gold and silver plate of the shrines and altars were also taken for the king's use, and the Churches were strip- ped of their images and ornaments. Here, again, were robbery and sacrilege, perpetrated on the most extensive scale. Viewed in thi.« light, the reign of Edward was not only an ignoble rei^a, but a wicked and pernicious reign. It was powerless to do good, but potent in mischief and de- struction. In the good old Catholic times, it was the honor of the monarch to build up, to erect monuments of charity. 66 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. learning and piety — but it was the disgrace of Henry, and his son Edward, to pull down and destroy, to sqander upon their passions and parasites, the munificent foundations of their pious ancestors. To such an extent was this robbery and pillage of the Church cari-ied, that even Protestant historians have not regretted that the reign of Edward was cut short by his early death. Thus says one of them : " Edward's death, I cannot reckon for an infelicity to the Church of England, for being ill-principled in himself, and easily inclined to em- brace such counsels as were offered to him, it is not to be thought, but that the rest of the bishopricks, before suffi- ciently impoverished, must have followed Durham, and the poor Church be left as destitute of lands and ornaments, as when she came into' the world in her natural nakedness." {Heylin, Ref. Pref. p. 4.) Thus does this writer assert that scarcely any thing would have been lelt to the Church, had Edward lived, — whom he does not hesitate to call, "ill- principled in himself!" I will now give you a brief sketch of another hero of those disastrous times. During the minority of Edward, a number of executors were appointed to assist the young king in his royal duties — of these, the leading-spirit was the Earl of Hertford. This man immediately became a most active par- tizan of the new worship, and was made Duke of Somerset. That he was the special patron of the "Godly Reformation," as it was impiously called, I shall prove by the following passage from Short's History : ' ' The fall of the Duke of Somerset, and his execution, produced no great effect on the Reformation ; he had proved, during his power, a firm and zealous patron of those who promoted it, and his advice and his example had co-operated to fix the love of pure and simple Christianity so strongly on his nephew's mind, that his loss in this particular was scarcely felt." (§328.) Yet this man was the most active agent in the dreadful sacrileges which disgraced that reign. He was virtually king, and the wholesale pillage which was carried on, was chiefly through and by him. He was foremost among the plunderers. He enriched himself with the spoils of the Church. Having thus accumulated enormous wealth, he resolved to build him- self a magnificent palace. As a site for the edifice, he se- lected a piece of land, on which stood three Episcopal houses and one parish Church — all of these buildings he razed to the groimd, and used the materals in constructing his palace ! LETTERIII. 67 He afterwards needed more materials, and pullod down ano- ther church and two chapels for stones and timber ! Thus did the " zealous patron" of the new worship jtull down the churches of the 31ost lli^h, in order to build a ])alace for himself I* What audacity and impiety! One shu.lders at the thought of such deeds ! And yet is it not c(jually shocking to the moral .sense, to see such a man applauded as the agent of a " godly work?" Bishop Short says of him, in connection with the passage above quoted, " His love for the Reformation had been constant and sincere ; but he gained far too great a portion of Church property to be deemed dis- interested in the share which he had in the destruction of ecclesiastical bodies." Is not this a most extraordinary pas- sage ? What a contradiction it involves I Somerset was "sincere," and yet he was not "disinterested." Bishop Short has acted wisely in saying nothing explicit about Som- erset's acts of Church demolition— such iniquity in a patron of the " Beformation," can only be referred to in such a general phrase as " destruction of ecclesiastical bodies." It must be manifest to the impartial reader, that in Somerset the love of the " Reformation" was only a love of the spoils of the Church. He made a "gain of godliness," as was the general plan of the Reformation in the language of Short. (§375, note.) The Duke of Somerset, a plunderer and destroyer of (Jod's temples, like another Cain, imbrued his hands in his bro- ther's blood. He had him condemned without a trial, and then signed the warrant under which he was executed ! But the Divine vengeance soon overtook him. His wealtli, power and misdeeds, had led to the formation of a party against liim, at the head of which was the Earl of Warwick, who were bent on his destruction. The plans succeeded ! The duke was arrested, sent to prison, and soon afterwards pub- licly executed as a felon — a fit end for such a miscreant. Another "zealous patron" of the new worship was this Earl of Warwick, the rival and successor of Somerset, in the office of " Protector" to the young king. Like his mi- serable predecessor, he was enriched with the spoils of the Church, and he was made Duke of Northumberland. Among other Church possessions which he held, was the bishopric of * See these siicrile.viious acts in th' "history t' h,' Re ormation," bj' Ilevlin, and that by Soames, both Protestants. 7 68 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. Durham. Under his auspices the work of piHage was eagerly carried on, until the Church was indeed nearly " as naked as she came into the world." The clergy who had not been executed or driven out of the country, were reduced to such poverty as that many of them were compelled to work as car- penters and masons, and sometimes as menial servants in gentlemen's houses ! Thus too, were they punished for their weakness in yielding to the schismatical innovations of the civil power. When the young king approached his end, the Duke of Northumberland, anxious for the " Godly Refor- mation," persuaded him to make a will, setting aside the Princess Mary, his legitin)ate successor to the throne, be- cause she was a Catholic ! This was done with the concur- rence of Cranmer, although that man had sworn to maintain the succession as established by Henry ! When the judges and crown-lawyers were called upon to prepare the legal papers for thus altering the succesi i m, they boldly declai-ed that it could not be done, that the succession had been fixed by statute, and could not be altered without treason. How- ever, their opposition was overcome by threats and promises, and the legal instrument was prepared and signed. But the attempt was in vain. For once justice prevailed over ini- quity, and Mary was acknowledged queen of the nation. Northumberland having been guilty of treason in his effort to set aside the lawful heir to the throne, he was arrested, and after due trial, condemned to be executed. His zeal for the Protestant cause immediately forsook him, and when about to la}' his head upon the block, he recanted his errors, and exhorted his hearers to return to the Catholic fiiith ! "I was led," said he, "by false teachers and preachers some time before King Henry's death, and I have been so ever since, which is a great part of this, my death. Therefore, beware, good people, lest ye be led and deceived by these seditious and lewd preachers, who have opened the book and know not how to shut it again, to turn home again to the true religion — to the Catholic faith, which hath been taught you of old." There are others upon whom I must bestow, at least a passing notice, in reviewing the characters of the chief ac- tors in the drama, or rather tragedy, of the "Reformation." Among these are Ridley, Latimer and Craniner. I greup them together, because their names are generally associated in the minds of Protestants, as the three principal " njartyrs" L E T T E R 1 1 r . 69 of thoir religion, who fell together under "bloody Mary." Many wlio have been accustomed to read only one-sided bio- graphies of these men, have been led to venerate them as models of every Christian virtue. I am sorry to say, that their conduct was not in reality such as to entitle them to the honors of saintship and martyrdom. This I propose to show by unquestionable proofs. Ridley was a Catholic priest when Henry commenced the English schism, and was soon foremost among those who complied with the changes of that cruel despot, and aided Cranmer in composing the Prayer- Book and Homilies. For his services, Henry made him Bishop of Rochester. He was, of course, very zealous in defending the prerogatives of his royal patron. He accord- ingly evinced his devotion by sending to the stake such Ca- tholics as refused to accept Henry for their Pope, as he himself had done ; at the same time he sent to the stake Pro- testants who rejected Transubstantiation. Thus we find him, at the very outset, stained with innocent blood, a cruel and murderous persecutor. After the accession of Edward, he followed in the wake of Cranmer, and then assisted in put- ting to death all such as did not conform to the new doctrinal standard then set up — the standard of Edward and Cranmer. For his services under this reign, he was made Bishop of London, in place of the Catholic Bishop Bonner, who had been deprived and sent to prison by these " Reformers." Lastly, Ridley was guilty of high treason. He was a sup- porter of Lady Jane Grey, whom, with other Protestants, he set up in opposition to the lawful Queen, Mary, solely be- cause the latter was a Catholic ! This man, like other " gos- pelers," prostituted the pulpit to their treasonable designs, and held forth at St. Paul's Cross in behalf of the claims of Jane, and inveighed against Mary, acting upon the principle so ftilsely ascribed to Catholics, that "the end justifies the means." But when he found that his treasonable project had foiled, he sought to propitiate the queen by making humble, and hypocritical apologies. But it was too late. He was arrested and committed to prison as a traitor. H v- ing been found guilty of rebellion and high treason, he w s sentenced to death according to the law of the land. But in view of death, he renounced his Protestantism, and con- formed to the ancient faith ! But as it availed him nothing, he relapsed again into Protestantism, and thus he perished for his treason and rebellion. Such was Ridley. How little 70 LETTERS TO AN. EPISCOPALIAN. does such a umn deserve the respect of posterity ! A pliant tool and sycliopbant of the monster Henry VIII., aiding that wretch, and afterwards Edward VI., in putting to death both Catholics and Protestants ; guilty of rebellion and treason under Queen Mary, and finally renouncing his Protestantism in A^iew of death and judgment ! Was not he a pretty saint and martyr '? A martyr indeed ! A man who renounces his faith at the prospect of death, a martyr ! The idea is absurd. Guilty of the blood of others, and guilty of treason, his fate was only what he deserved. Let us now take a glance at Latimer, another member of this trio of "Martyrs." We find that he was a fit associate for such comijany. He commenced his public career as a violent declaimer against Melancthon and the German "Re- formers." He next appeared as their defender and advocate. Then, again, at the instance of Cardinal Wolsey, he publicly renounced their opinions as false and pernicious. After the expiration of two years more, he again embraced their opinions : and for so doing was excommunicated by Arch- bishop Cranmer. He then made a second abjuration of these errors, and thus narrowly escaped the stake. For a third time he relapsed into the same errors, and when condemned by his ecclesiastical superior, he appealed to the king. But finding the royal heart unmoved, he again acknowledged and renounced his errors, begging pardon and promising amend- ment. Having powerful friends at court, one of whom was Anne Boleyn, the queen, by whom he was retained as chap- lain, ho was soon restored to favor; and the king being pleased with his violent invectives against the Pope, gave him the Bishopric of Worcester. Subsequently he opposed the "Six Articles" of the king, and was deprived of his Bishopric and sent to prison. On the death of Henry he was set at liberty, and became court preacher to Edward. Latimer had united with Ridley and others in sending to the stake both Protestants and Catholics ; the former for denying the doctrine of Transubstantiation, (which was held by the Church of England until the death of Henry) and the latter for holding the Pope's Supremacy. He was, in particular, one of the inquisitors under Edward, by whom were hunted down all who ventured to diifer from the doctrinal standard of the day, and by whom Joan of Kent, a half-witted Pro- testant woman was condemned, and afterwards burnt at the- stake ! But the chalice which he so barbarously adminis- LETTKR III 71 tered to others was soon returned to his own lips. Like Ridley and other leading Protestants of the time, he united politics with his religion, and at the close of P]d ward's life, preached against IMary, the lawful heir of the crown. For this treasonable conduct he was arrested, sent to prison, and subsequently burnt at the stake — thus suffering the punish- ment which he had inflicted upon others in the day of his power. Now look at this man's conduct and tell me, was he not a pretty ••reformer?" After embracing Protestantism, he renounced it three distinct times, and finally returned to it again, and died in its profession. It is therefore evident that he either did not know which was the true religion, or if he knew which it was, he had too little regard for it to adhere to it in times of danger. In either case he was unfit for the important office of enlightening and guiding others upon the subject. He was moreover, a ruthless persecutor, and a most inconsistent one ; for, destitute himself of any fixed religion, he put to death men and women for their doctrinal opinions, and indeed, for holding what he himself had once held, if he did not hold it at that very time! He was also as I have stated, guilty of rebellion and treason against the legitimate sovereign of the country. I think there are but few Episcopalians, who, when made acquainted with these facts, will not be ashamed to acknowledge him as one of their first bishops, one of their ''reformers" and founders, one of their martyrs.* Let us now turn to the third personage in this little "band of martyrs," as certain Protestant historians and lecturers sometimes call them ; I mean Thomas Cranmer, the first Protestant Ai'chbishop of Canterbury. It is well ivnown to all that this man was the leading spirit, after King Henry, in the ecclesiastical changes of that period. He did far more to promote those changes than any other ecclesiastic. He was in a certain sense the founder of the Churcli of Eng- land : above all he was more than any other man, the author of the ' Book of Common Prayer.' A brief sketch of his career is therefore necessary to our purpose. In presenting him to the reader, I would not hold him up as represented *For the facts above given in tlie career of Latimer, I refer to Lin- gard's History of Enyland, vol. vii., thivp. 3 — the most accurate his- torv of that counfrv ever written. 72 ' LETTERS TO^ AN EPTSCOP ALI A N . merely by his enemies — but simply as he appears in his owra life, in his acts and deeds, as recorded on the pages of im- partial history. Leaving it to his friends to paint him as a' saint, and to his enemies to paint him as a devil, I shall content myself with merely spreading before you some of his deeds — and by them ask you to judge whether he was wor- thy of your respect and veneration. In early manhood, Cranmer was a Fellow of Cambridge^ University. By a regulation of that institution — a regula- tion still continued — he was bound to lead a single life, and' had so promised. But becoming enamored with a young girl, he married her clandestinely. He then secretly viola- ted the condition on which he held his fellowship, and con- tinued to hold it until his marriage was discovered by the authorities of the institution, when he was dismissed for his duplicity and perfidy.* Certainly this was not a very pro- mising beginning for a young man. Had he first resigned his fellowship, and then married, as is now frequently done, he would have been free from our censure. But the baseness of the act consisted in his holding his fellowship while secretly violating the condition on which he received and held it. It was shocking duplicity. But Cranmer's public career commenced with Henry's^ eftbrts to obtain a divorce from his lawful wife, in order tO' marry one of her maids of honor with whom he was smitten . In Henry's perplexity, when the Pope would not permit such a crime, Cranmer was bold enough to suggest that the opin- ion of the Universities would answer instead of the Pope's^ authority. The king was pleased with the suggestion, and at once recognized Cranmer as the man for his purpose. He accordingly took him into his service, and his subsequent career shows that he was a faithful servant of that foul and bloody tyrant, to the end of his reign. This fact alone — his- continued attaeliment and subserviency to such a monster — tells terribly against the character of Cranmer. Whenever the king wanted to have the sanction of religion for any of his iniquities. Cranmer was the pliant tool made use of. No- matter how wicked the deed was, Cranmer was the man for his purpose. Having adopted his suggestion as to the di- vorce, he despatched him abroad to collect the opinions of the Universities as to the legality of the act. Among other *As Protestant authority for th .s fact, Watcrworth refers to Words- toorth's Ucc. Bioff., vol. iii., p. 432. LETTER III. 7^ countries Cranmcr visited Germany, but there the project met with but little favor even from the Protestants, Melanc- thon, Luther and others. But if he failed in the business of the king, he was not without success in his private aflFairs. In the first place, he imbibed Lutheran ideas more exten- sively : and in the second place, he was smitten with the charms of a niece of a Protestant divine, and forthwith took her to wife although he had left a wife behind him in Eng- land !* Thus was Thomas Cranmer, the bold opposer of the Pope, guilty of bigamy. This marriage was contracted also in violation of his promise of celibacy, to which as a priest he was bound by the canons ! He brought his wife to Eng- land, and there lived with her privately, although all the time professing to lead a single life, as the law then required of the clergy ! Subsequently, when it became apparent that the king would not tolerate marriage in the clergy, Cranmer sent his second wife back to Germany ; but what he did with the fii'st one I have not learned. The king finding Cranmer the right sort of a man for his designs, made him Archbishop of Canterbury, and thus Pri- mate of the Church of England. But there was a difficulty in the way of his induction into office. All the preceding Archbishops of Canterbury, from Augustine down, had been commissioned by the Pope, and had taken the vow of fidelity to him as head of the Church. But Cranmer, as well as the king, had virtuall}' rejected the authority of the Pope, and how could he consistently accept the office at his hands and make the usual vow of submission and obedience ? To evade this difficulty, it was determined to send a sub.stitute to Kome to take the oath of obedience to the Pope in the name of Cranmer I This was a cunning, but very dishonorable device. Qui facit per alium, facit per se, is an universally acknowledged maxim of the law. It was the same as if he had done the act himself, and the deception practiced only aggravated the offijnce. But the difficulty was not all over. When the huUs or necessary papers for Cranmer's consecra- tion had arrived, there was another obstacle in the way. A similar oath of obedience to the Pope as Chrisfs Vicar, was. in the consecration service. What now was to be done ? Another piece of chicanery was resorted to. AVhen the ser- vice was about to commence, Cranmer withdrew to a corner "" For this fact, see also Wordsworth, p. 443. 74 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAISr, of the Church, and in the presence of three or four persons made a formal protest that by the oath he was about to take, he did not intend to bind himself to anything contrary to the law of God, the rights of the king, &c. After this contemptible farce, he was consecrated like other Catholic- prelates, and swore " to be faithful and obedient to the Holy Apostolic Roman Church, and to Pope Clement VIII., and to his successors." Thus did Thomas Cranmer swear to be true and faithful to the Pope, while at the same moment, he had in heart and intention rejected his authority : he solemn- ly swore that he would do what he had already determined' not to do ; in short, he was guilty of perjury. Thus did he obtain, and enter upon the highest spiritual office in the land, with a perjured conscience, and also having a wife con- trary to the law of the Church at that time, as it always had been from the earliest times. One of the first acts of Cranmer after his perfidious con- seci'ation, was to pronounce for Henry his long-wished-for divorce from Catharine, which was a high-handed and most iniquitous proceeding, especially as it was well known to Cranmer that Henry's passion for Anne Boleyn was at the bottom of the movement. Thus the first act of the first Protestant Archbishop, was to separate those whom God had joined together, contrary to the Divine law. I have already called Cranmer the pliant tool of Henry. Such he empha- tically was, especially in the transaction of that beastly tyrant with the other sex. He afterwards, as I have related in another letter, divorced Henry from Anne Boleyn, and subsequently when the king wislicd to take a fourth wifo in Ann of Cleves, Cranmer was commissioned to enquire into the validity of an alledged impediment on her part, and which he pronounced not to exist, and they were married. But afterwards, when the king wished to set her aside for a new fiivorite, the obliging Ci'anmer was ready with his li- cense, and pronounced another divorce on the ground of that very impediment which he had previously decided not to ex- ist ! Thus did he aid and abet that filthy tyrant in all his adulteries, at the expense of his own truthfulness and honor. Henry as " supreme head" of the Church, published " six articles" of religion, affirming among other things Transub- stantiation. Auricular Confession, and Celibacy of the Priest- hood, and when these articles were first proposed, Cranmei^ argued against them with all his eloquence, as contrary to L K T T E n T 1 1 . tb his convictions of Y'\g}\t anil duty; but afterwards, when the king was determined to have them as the creed of his Church, and re»|uirod all to receive them on the severest penalties, Crannier was obliging enough to comply with the wishes of his royal master, having of course, at the same time, a due regard for his own safety. Bishop Short, who is very cautious in handling such delicate topics, tells us — "He (Cranmer) disliked several of the articles, and abhorred the severity of the act ; but his opinions were not now dia- metrically contrary to the first article, (Transubstantiation) and he complied. Latimer and Shaxton on the other hand, esteemed it contradictory to the word of God, and conscien- tiously resigned their sees." {Hist, of Ch. of Eng., § 218.) Here Short tells us that Cranmer ' ' disliked several of the articles." The term "disliked," is a very remarkable one to use in such a connection. He "disliked" Transubstan- tiation, celibacy, and confession, as rf these things were mere trifles to be received or rejected according to one's taste or convenience ! Such may indeed have been Cranmer's opin- ion of them, but surely such is not Bishop Short's. In the previous paragraph, Short, after describing the six articles, tells us, that "Cranmer argued against the admission of them with all the eloquence and force of which he was pos- sessed." This would seem to imply something more than mere "dislike." But whatever it was, it gave way before the overpowering will of the king. The articles were adopted, and severe punishment was denounced against all who should not comply v/ith them ; and Cranmer's "opin- ions," says Short, " were not now diametrically contrary to the first article," that is Transubstantiation; they had been, but were not now. The king was determined to have Tran- substantiation as an article in the creed of his newly -founded Church; so good, easy Cranmer "complied" and preserved the king's favor, and his own head. He had no idea of being burnt at the stake for the doctrine of Transubstantia- tion, so he "complied." As to the article requiring celi- bacy, however much he "disliked" it, he thought best to conform to it, and accordingly he packed his wife back to Germany : for, although he was somewhat uxorious, having had two wives at one time, yet after all he preferred his Bi.shopric to any such creature comforts. Others might " conscientiously resign their sees" about such trifling mat- ters as the six articles involved, but Thomas Cranmer had 76 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. more sense than to do such a silly thing ! He had no idea of sacrificing himself; not he. He could sacrifice ,his wife and even his conscience, but not the king's favor and his ecclesiastical dignities. It was thus that he managed to keep in the ascendancy throughout the reign of that mon- arch, by a niean, base, and cowardly subserviency to the royal will, in spirituals as in temporals. Cranmer, like Latimer and Ridley, was a cruel and re- morseless persecutor. He aided and abetted the bloody ty- rant, Henry, not only in his adulteries and wife-murders, but also in his numerous executions at the stake of both Catholics and Protestants. In all these misdeeds, Crannier was the principal agent, and performed a prominent part. He was the grand inquisitor before whom all heretics were summoned and tried, that is, all who did not conform to the half Catholic and half Protestant creed of that period, and they who did not retract were burnt at the stake without mercy. Thus perished in the fires of Smithfield, Lambert,- Forest, and others whom Cranmer had condemned, during the reign of Henry. Thus this man, as chief inquisitor of the king, tried and condemned to be burnt at the stake such as denied these A'ery six articles which he himself had oppos- ed Avith all "his eloquence and force" — condemned to be burnt such as denied the celibacy of the clergy, although he himself was a married man, contrary to the canons! What think you of this "? Was not his effrontery equal to his cruelty and intolerance ? After the death of Henry, Cranmer was as obsequious to the young Edward, or rather to his protector, Somerset, as he had been to the deceased tyrant. But Somerset was not so much of a theologian as Henry, and was quite willing to leave the spiritual affairs of the nation in the hands of the Archbishop, so long as he was allowed to enrich and aggran- dize himself with its temporalities. However, Cranmer still recognized the principle established under the late reign, that a Bishop's jurisdiction is derived from the king, and dependent upon his pleasure ; and hence upon the accession of Edward he applied for a new commission to execute his office, the old one having expired with the late king ! It must be admit- ted that this conduct was only consistent in a Church which derived its very being from the civil power, but it certainly does violence to all correct notions of the Divine authority and independence of the episcopate. Being now qualified,. L K T T K R III, by the royal connnission, to perform the office of a Bishop ■"(luring the king's pleasure," Craumer sot about the work of arranging Church matters to suit his own ideas. Among other measures taken, was the formation of a liturgy, new articles of belief, and a system of ecclesiastical law. Upou the last topic a work was prepared by Cranmer, entitled lufonntitio Legnm Ecdcsiadicorum . In this work the Arch- bishop put forth a body of laws for the government of the new Church, and although it never received the royal sanc- tion, yet it is important as an evidence of the opinions held at that time. 1'he first chapter in this compilation asserts the doctrine of the Trinity, and denounces the penalty of death, with confi.scation of goods, against such as should deny the Catho.ic faith. It further provided that persons accused of heresy, were to be tried in the ecclesiastical courts, and if found guilty and impenitent, they were to be deliv- ered over to the secular arm for puni.shraent. Such was the code of laws which Cranmer proposed for the moral govern- ment of the people. From this it will be seen that he was very far from holding the principles of religious toleration, as now understood, lie held nothing of the kind. He al- ii i wed no one to depart from his own standard of orthodoxy, variable as it was. He was intolerant, he was a remorseless ]);?rsecutor. He was persecutor, too, from conviction, from ])rinciple. He deliberately composed a code denouncing death to the heretic* It is sometimes alleged in defence of Protestant persecution, that it was carried on against their own principles. This plea cannot be set up for Cranmer. He persecuted because he believed it to be a right, and a ruty. He was strictly and truly a persecutor from principle, if ever man was such. That Craumer did not hesitate to jmt his intolerant principles in practice under the reign of flenry VIII., I have already shown you. That he contin- ued to do so under Edward, his sanguinary acts too well declare. To mention these various acts of cruelty, would occupy too much space ; I will relate one instance, however, from wliich the blooil-thirsty character of Cranmer is better nstr:ited than volumes of words could do. As I have •iV ■•'. y m-^ntioned Cranmer, as well as Latimer and Ridley, w's ,i' member of the commission appointed to try persons he rt: dcr \vi 1 find a biief account of this work in Short' t Hit- '.' f Rr . jJ 435 iind note. 78 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. charged with opinions contrary to the standard which he and his comrades had recently set up. Among other persons brought before this court of inquisition, was a half-witted female called Joan Becher, and sometimes Joan of Kent. This person had been very zealous in bringing over privately, from Germany, Lutheran books, for the use of the ladies of the court in Henry's reign, but in carrying out the principle of private judgment set up by the new religionists, she proceed- ed farther than some others and denied that Christ was truly incarnate of the Virgin. For this error she was arraigned before the Commission, that is the Inquisition, for such it was, in the presence of Cranmer, Latimer, and others of the same stamp. The unhappy woman persisted in her error, and Cranmer immediately pronounced upon her sentence of excommunication, and delivered her over to the secular pow- er to be burnt. But the young king, more merciful than the Archbishop, was unwilling to sign the warrant for her execution, his tender heart shuddering at the thought of the bloody deed. But the remorseless Cranmer, accustomed to such barbarous acts, was resolved on burning the poor wo- man. He set to work to overcome the scruples of the young monarch, entering upon a regular argument to convince him that it was right and just to extirpate such heretics. He argued from the law of Moses which required blasphemers to be stoned to death, that it was the duty of the king to punish impieties against the doctrines of the Apostle's Greed. And when he persisted in his importunities to get the war- rant signed, the young Edward exclaimed — "What, my lord, will you have me send her quick to the devil in her error !" But still the bloody Cranmer urged him to sign the warrant. The young king, overcome at length, set his hand to the document, and as he traced the fatal line, he said to the Archbishop, with tears in his eyes: " If I do wrong, since it was in submission to your authority, you must answer for it to God." Aye, and he did answer for it when the flames of the stake wrapped his own body in sheets ef consuming fire. When the poor won)an saw that she was condemned, she boldly tannted the fickle Cranmer with changes and murders — " It is a goodly matter to consider," said she, "your ignorance. It Avas not long affo since you burned Ann Ascue for a piece of bread, (for calling the sac- rament only bread) and yet came soon after to believe and profess the same doctrine for which you burned her; and I- K X T E K 1 1 I . 79 now forsooth, you will needs burn nie for a piece of flesh, (that is, for denying the flesh of Christ) and in the end you will come to believe this also, when you have read the Scrip- tures and understand tlieni." When led out to be bui*ned at the stake in Sniithfield, she exhibited the same determi- nation by her answer to one of Cranmer's agents who endea- vored to convert her, that he "lied like a rogue,"' and bade him "go read the Scriptures'' — thus using against the new religionists the very arguments which they had used against the "old Church ! What a revolting picture does Cranmer here present — burning at the stake, in spite of the tears and scruples of the young king, a poor deluded woman, who, after all, only acted on the principle of private judgment, which he him- self had acted on against the whole Church ! Here was one of the bloody deeds of the author of the Book of Common Prayer, and the father of Anglicanism, under his master, Henry VHI. Nor is it a solitary instance — it is one of many, and given as a specimen of the intolerance and truc- ulent character of him who is often extolled as the leader in that "little band of martyrs" who suffered in Sniithfield for the Protestant cause I How few Episcopalians of the present day know anything of such deeds of cruelty, perpe- trated by the founders of their Church, in order to carry out their selfish and rebellious projects. Nearly all their histo- ries of that period are silent about such deeds ; or, if they mention them at all, it is in such ambiguous terms as pre- vent the reader from seeing the matter in its true light. That these deeds were really perpetrated, cannot admit of the slightest doubt, since they can be proved by Pi-utestant authorities, such as Burnet, Fox and Strype, who were re- luctantly compelled to give some account of such things when writing of tho.se times. In regard to the jiarliiular fact just related, and Cranmer's agency therein, I shall simply quote the admission of IJishop Sliort. who, as I have bettn'O said, has evinced more candor than any other recent author on his side that I am actjuainted with, although not always free from prejudice and partialit}. Short, in speaking of the execution of Joan Boi.'her. says: " There was considerable difficulty in persuading Edward to consent to this .--cvcrity. and it was only on the strong remonstrances of Crannn^r that lie was induced to sign the warrant. The act was piM-formed by hint with tears in his eves, and with an appeal to the 8 80 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. Archbishop, that at the day of judgment he must answer for having procured his signature. This proceeding gave great and just ofi'ence to the world, and was used as an argument to justify the necessity of capital punishments in matters of faith, by the persecutors of the next reign, who, in the suf- ferings of the father (Cranmer) of our Reformation, have often traced the retribution of Divine justice on one who, in these instances, as well as those during the life of Henry, cannot be excused even by his friends." (.History of Ref., §315.) Thus you have this damning fact given in the words of your own historian. And what a fact! Here is your founder, " tlie fother of our Eeformation," actually forcing the young monarch, against his tears and remon- strances, to burn at the stake a deluded woman, solely on account of her doctrinal errors. This horrid deed was done about twenty years after his separation from the Catholic Church. This, with other similar deeds taken in connection with the code of laws which he composed, deliberately de- nouncing; death against heretics, shows that he was a ruthless, bloody persecutor, and that from conviction and principle. If his Bible studies had opened his eyes to see the errors and corruptions of Popery, as alleged by some, why did not these studies also open his eyes to the claims of justice and mercy ? Is it not evident that the Bible had nothing to do with his religion, except as he could pervert it to his own wicked and selfish purposes ? I think there are but few Epis- copalians of the present day who, when made acquainted witlz Cranmer's sanguinary deeds, will not feel ashamed to ac- knowledge him as the author of their Prayer-Book, and the founder of their Church. They have been led by the eulo- gies of interested partizans to regard Cranmer as a noble, self-sacrificing Reformer, as a saint and martyr ! But his deeds of iniquity and barbarity proclaim him to have been altogether a different character. No wonder that Mr. Fronde, an English Protestant, as he became acquainted with the true character of such men, exclaimed: "Truly I hate the Reformers and the Reformation more and more." Surely no impartial person can contemplate such deeds without being convinced that Cranmer and his associates were bad men, banded together in a bad cause. But let us pass on to another event in which Cranmer took a prominent part, and which serves to show that he was an unprincipled man. The brief life of the young Edward LETTER II. 81 was drawing to a close, and as Mary, a strict Catholic, was the Icffitiraate heir to the crown, the new religionists who had plundered the churches and perpetrated other deeds of wickedness, were anxious to retain the royal power on their own side, by setting aside Mary for some Protestant. How- ever unjust was this scheme, it was easy to persuade a feeble youth, upon a sick ])ed, that it was right and necessary. But wlien the judges, as I have already mentioned, were called in to draw up the legal documents for altering the succession in favor of Lady Jane Grey, they persisted in refusing to do so, until they were assured before-hand of a pardon for the part they took in the matter. And wdien Cranmer was re- quested to sign the document, as one of the privy counsel- lors, he replied : "I cannot .set my hand to this instrument without committing perjury — for I have already sworn to the succession of the Lady Mary, according to his late ma- jesty's testament." To subscribe the document then by his own confession, was to commit perjury and treason. And yet, incredible as it would be in any other man, Cranmer af- terwards put his signature to the document I And how was he brought to do such a deed ? Just as he had been induced to perpetrate other inii^uities under Henry — it was to comply with the royal will. That was enough for Cranmer. What the king desired, he was ever ready to perform, no matter how atrocious might be the act. His conscience, if we can sup- pose such a man to have had a conscience at all, was as pliant as a young willow ; it readily bent in any direction that the nod of the king should indicate. His subserviency in this matter is set forth by a Protestant historian, in these words: " The king did nse so many reasons to him, in behalf of re- ligion, and plyed him with such strong persuasions in pursu- ance of them, that at the last he suffered himself to be over- come by his importunities, and so subscribed it with the rest." ( Ilei/Jiu, Rcf. p. 153.) Here the foct is admitted with a lame and ridiculous apology. Cranmer, the Archbishop, the Re- former, the Hierophant of the new religion, is persuaded by a dying youth to commit an act of treason and perjury ! Can any one after this avoid the conviction that Cranmer could have been induced to do an}- iniquity under the sun ? Thus this man not only put to death such as did not conform to his standard, but also sought to set aside the royal succes.sion, against the law and against his own oath, upon the principle that the end justifies the means : for the interests of the new 82 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. religion required it ! Who with such deeds before him wilf not be forced to exckiiu with Mr. Froude, " Truly I hate the Reformers and tlie Reformation more and more." But let us hasten on to the closing period of this wicked man, for who can call him anything else, in view of his dreadful crimes against God and man. We shall find that his end was a fit termination for a life of iniquity. As he commenced his public career with deception and hypocrisy, lie finished it with acts of a similar character. As soon as Mary was established on the throne, Cranmer was arrested for his rebellion and treason, and sent to prison, where he was allowed a period of about two j^ears for reflection and repentance. At length judgment was pronounced upon his case, and he was excommunicated for heresy. The imhappy man, seeing that his case was becoming desperate, and that the just vengeance of heaven was about to overtake him for his past iniquities, professed himself ready to renounce his new opinions, and conform to the old religion, which was once more the faith of those in power. Yes, this man who had set himself up as a Reformer, and who is still venerated as such by many, actually endeavored to escape the death which he had so richly deserved, by renouncing the doctrines of the new religion, and embracing those which he had all along repudiated as false and corrupt ! Thinking to escape death by reluming to the Catholic faith, he actually made seven distinct recantations in writing, by which he professed to abjure his errors, and receive all the Catholic doctrines against which he had hitherto protested. In his first paper he was disposed to be ambiguous, and simply professed to submit to the authority of the Pope "so far as God's laws,, and the laws and customs of this realm will perm.it." Here was the same Thomas Cranmer practising duplicity just as he did when he took the oath of allegiance to the Pontiff, in order to be consecrated Arclibishsp of Canterbury I This paper was of course, rejected as a mere subterfuge. He then signed another paper, in which he professed to submit without reservation or condition to " the Catholic Ciiureh of Christ and unto the Pope, supreme head of the same Church." This was well enough as far as it went, and might have an- swered in any other case. But the Catholic authorities knew what sort of a man they had to deal with, and placed little faith in his asseverations. Cranmer's object was to obtain a pardon, but his crimes had been too great. The queen, es- LETTERIII. ' 83 pecially, could not forget his criminal agency in divorcing her unfortiniate mother, nor hisact of treason in endeavoring to sot up Lady Jane Grey. But still Cranmer entertained a hope that by means of thorough and complete expurgations he might escape his impending doom. Ho accordingly signed other and more explicit papers for that pui'pose. In the fifth document of the sort, he becomes quite explicit in his abjuration of the errors of his past life and in accepting all the teaching of the Catholic Church. He expressly re- nounces the "errors of Luther and Zuinglius," and asserts his belief in Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and whatever the " Church of Rome holdcth and teacheth." In this paper he also says, "and all such as have been deceived cither by mine example or doctrine, I require them by the blood of Jesus Christ that they will return to the Unity of the Church, that we may be all of one mind without schism or division." He thus abjured his followers to abandon the doctrines and practices in which he had led them. Would to God that his successors and followers of the present day would listen to these words of warning. I would like to copy this document entire, but it is too lengthy. I must, however, lay before you the concluding sentence, in which Crannicr calls God to witness his sincerity in making this solemn abjuration : "And God is my witness, that I have not done this lor favor, or fear of any person, but willingly and of my own mii^d, as well ta the discharge of mine own conscience as to the instruction of othgrs." This passage is important, because it refutes the plea sometimes set up by the apologists of Cranmer, that his recantation was extorted fi'om him by others under the pro- mise of pardon ; although, even had that been the case, it would imply a weakness and vacillation very ill befitting the character of a founder of a church, or of a saint or martyr. This clear and full recantation was accompanied by a letter to Cardinal Pole, praying that his execution might be delay- ed a few days, in order that he niight better prepare for his end, and give the world a proof of his repentance and refor- mation. The queen very cheerfully granted his request, and in the meantime, Cranmer produced a sixth paper, in which he declares his many sins against heaven, against the State, and against the Catholic Church ; acknowledging, that like Paul, he had persecuted the Church, and expresses the wish, like Paul, to make amends for his evil deeds, or like the penitent thief on the cross, obtain forgiveness in his lust moments ; 8* 84 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. he confesses himself the greatest sinner, that he had wronged Henry, and Catherine his wife, by divorcing them and thus bringing on all the evils that afflicted the Church and the realm, including the death of so many eminent and innocent men, and causing schism, heresies and destruction of souls ; he laments that he had been the great leader and teacher of heresy, and above all, that he had been guilty of blasphe- mies against the Holy Sacrament of the altar : he finally con- cludes by begging in the humblest and most penitent terms, pardon of the Pope, of his Sovereign, and of Almighty God. This document is more lengthy than the previous one, and bear his signature under date of March 18, 1555. The third day after this date, that is the 21st of March, was the day appointed for his execution. On the morning of the fatal day Garcia, his spiritual adviser, visited him in prison to prepare him for his dreadful doom. Having no suspicion of his sincerity, he showed him a paper which he advised him to copy and read to the people at the stake, as a public acknowledgment of his repentance. With this re- quest he readily complied, transcribed the document and signed it, giving one copy to Garcia, and retaining the other to read just before his execution, as was supposed. This document constituted his seventh recantation, and was sub- stantially the same as the one signed three days before, as to points of faijh. That Cranmer actually made the several recantations which I have mentioned, there cannot be a particle of doubt. They may be found entire in the old memoirs of those times com- posed by Strype, Fox, and other Church of England authors,, although most of the modern apologists of the English eccle- siastical revolution deem it most prudent to say but little upon the subject.* Even our oft quoted authority. Bishop Short, came very near ignoring the whole subject. He merely speaks of the fall of which Cranmer was ' ' guilty in signing the recantation," reserving for a foot-note, a more distinct allusjon to the matter. As this note is but brief, and furnishes all the evidence we need to establish the fiict of the several recantations, I shall copy it here entire. It reads thus: "The six confessions or recantations made l)y * See these recantations in S'n/pe's Ecclesiastical Memoirs, reign of Queen Mary, chap. 30. Si.\ of them are given in full by this Protest- ant author. LETTER III. 8& Cranmer are curious in pointing out the imperceptible step by which he was led on from one point to another, till he gave up and renounced almost all that he had ever taught, and assented directly to the errors of the Church of Rome. Five of these are in Sf)-i/j)(''s Ecc. 3fcnt., v. 302, &c., the other in Fox, iii., 559." ' {Short's Ilht. of Rcf., § 87U.) This is sufficient for our purpose. It proves the fact that Cranmer made six di.stinct recantations of his Protestant errors, and six distinct professions of the Catholic and Kon)an faith during his last days, beyond the possibility of a doubt or cavil. As to the seventh recantation, althougli unrjues- tionahly a fact, it is unnecessary to insist upon it, especially as it was only substantially the same as the sixtli. All admit he made six — and that was just six too many for his owu credit as a "reformer and martyr," and just six too many for his followers and apologists to have to excuse and defend. We find then, that Cannier, as he approached his end, ab- jured his Protestant doctrines and professed the Catholic faith,, again and again, in the most explicit and solemn manner, professing to do so only from conscientious motives, and call- ing God to witness his sincerity in so doing. It is important to observe too, that there were not only so many distinct acts of recantation, but that these several acts were performed at different times, covering a period of several months. Most Episcopalians have, perhaps, a vague idea that Cranmer made some sort of a recantation in view of death, and seem to think that it was but one act, and performed too, in a mo- ment of impulse, when terrified at the thought of the fiery furnace. But it is apparent that such a notion falls far short of the reality. These acts were several and distinct — six or seven in number — were executed in writing over his own sig- nature ; performed deliberately at different times, separated by weeks and months, and couched in language the most ex- plicit, positive and solemn.* Who can fail to recognize the hand of Providence in this affair V Cranmer was a principal agent in the English schism, and the author of the liturgy * The first two recantations are withont date, the third appears to have Vieen signed Pel). 14; the sixtli is dated Ahuch 18. There was, consequently, an interval of five weeks between the third and sixth recantations. So little room is there for the oi)iiiion thai his re- cantation was the result of a monientarij weakness in view of the stxike T It is thus evident, that for the last five weeks of his life at least, he was either a sincere Catholic or a base dissembler and hypociite. 86 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. and doctrinal standards of Anglicanism and Episcopalianism ; and, as if God would deter others from following his error, his recantations were so many and so distinct, and so well, authenticated, that no one in all future time might venture even to question them — and thus covering with shame both the schism and its author, together with all who knowingly persist in treading in his steps. But let us follow Cranmer to the end. I have already stated, that on the morning of his execution he signed a pa- per which he was to read, retracting his errors, and profess- ing the Catholic faitli. On his way to the stake, the proces- sion stopped at the Church in which the last soleum ceremon- ies were to be performed. As usual on such occasions, a sermon was preached : after which, Cranmer rose to read as ■was expected, the paper which had been prepared for the purpose. But, to the utter astonishment of the whole assem- bly, he read a very different paper, in which he actually re- tracted his previous recantations — re-asserted his Protestant errors, denounced the Pope as Christ's enemy and Anti- Christ, and with this avowal he was forthwith sent to the stake ! Now what are we to think of the six or seven recantations of Cranmer, professing re]3entance for his errors, his belief in the Catholic faith, and submission to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. We are forced to the conclusion that these solemn professions were all a sham ! These six or seven acts were only so many acts of deception and hypocrisy ! This is not an uncharitable judgment ; it is the just and ne- cessary conclusion to which we are forced by all the circum- stances of the case. A man nniy honestly change his mind on the controverted points in religion, again and again. By neglecting to correspond with the grace of God, he may in- volve himself in darkness and doubt, and mistaking the dis- torted views thus awakened for convictions, fall again into errors which he had once renounced. From this unhappy relapse he may again arise, when by the mercy of (iod his eyes are opened and the source of his error laid b; i-e to his understanding, and once more act up to the grace ,;'ivcn, and become a faitliful and honest professor and advocate of the truth. All this is freely admitted. But can such an argu- ment be truly employed in defence of Cranmer. In the first phice, if it could be, it would only .serve to shield liini from the charge of insincerity and hypocrisy. It would still be evident that, whatever extenuation of this sort might be L E T T K U 1 1 1 . 87" made, Craniiior was not such a one as wo have a right to expect in a true reformer and martyr, such as God raises up when the times require it. But truth will not allow us to use such an arvas adverse to the marriage of the clergy. (^ 468, note.) Apropos to the last jioiut. Of her own sole authority she suspend- ed Fletcher, Bishop of London, for marrying "a fine lady and a wi- dow ! " See IlallaDt s Const. Ilist.^ vol. i. chap. 4. note. fTliat Elizabeth professed herself a Catholic at the time of her ac- cession to the throne, and for a short time after, admits of no doubt. About a month after her accession she was present at the funeral obse- quies of her sister, celebrated with the Catholic ceremonies, and still later she had a Mass of requiem said for Charles V., and she attended Mass as usual, and received the H0I3' Sacrament. LETTER III. 91 liad her iustruments of torture, by which her victims were forced to confession. The number of Catholics who perished at her hands for not apostatizing as she had done, some in prison, some on tlie rack, some on the gibbet, and others at the stake, is enormous. Her reign was truly a bloody reign. It is said that as many as five hundred persons were put to death in a single year. Among the cruel and atrocious murders of which she was guilty, for such they were, was that of Mary, queen of Scots. This unhappy woman was a cousin of Elizabeth's, but notwithstanding their relationship, Klizabeth, prompted by envy and jealousy, put in practice against her every species of persecution. She fomented re- bellion among her subjects, had her imprisoned, and after many years of suHcring had her head cut off by the public executioner !"* Elizabeth was indeed a modern Jezebel. If Ilenrj' was the most sanguinary man, she was the most sanguinary woman that ever disgraced a throne. Elizabeth was a remor.seless despot, and reigned with ab- solute sway. She could at any time suspend the operation of law, and give the force of law to any proclamation she chose to make. Statutes of the most oppressive and bloody character were enacted at her dictation, and her will wa^* law. Her despotism was not confined to the State, but ex- tended also over the Church, of which she was the acknow- ledged head. The bishops were her own creatures, and she ruled them with a rod of iron, as they well deserved for their base servility. She made them and unmade them, at her sovereign pleasure. When Cox, oneof her bishops, ventured to resist some act of spoliation of Church property, which she had sanctioned, she wrote him the following brief, but charactoristic note : — •' Proud Puel.\tk. ' ' You know what you were before I made you what you are ; if you do not immediately comply with my request, by Cun] T will unfrock you." " Eliz.\betii." (Ilalku/i. Oms^t. /list., vol. i. chap. 4.) * This act aloue was sufficient to brand the character of Elizabeth with di?(^racc. The Rev. John Keblc, a distinguished clergyman of the Church of Phigland, dues not hesitate to pronounce the execution of Queen Mary '-a great national crime.'' See his I'reface to Hooker' f Workg, J). 3;!. 9 92 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. Elizabeth was a woman of haughty, irritable and imperi- ous temper. The slightest occasion of displeasure threw her into a towering passion, and at all times her language was freely sprinkled with oaths. Nor was her violence towards those around her confined to words. Her courtiers, and even her maids of honor were fi-equently made to feel the weight of her blows. Besides her public crimes, she was stained with private vices. She has been called, indeed by her eulogists, the Virgin Queen, but it is a title to which she had no just claim. But upon this subject I shall merely quote a passage from one of the most reliable historians of England : ' ' It was not long before her familiarity with Dudley pro- voked dishonorable reports. At first they gave her pain — but her feelings were soon blunted by passion ; in the face of the whole court she assigned to her supposed paramour an apartment contiguous to her own bed chamber — and by this indecent act proved that she was become regardless of her character, and callous to every sense of shame. But Dud- ley, though the most favored, was not considered as her only lover ; among his rivals were numbered Hatton and Raleigh, and Oxford and Blount, and Simier, and Anjou ; and it was afterwards believed that her licentious habits survived, even when the fires of wantoness had been quenched by the chill of age." (^Lingard''s Hist, of Eng., vol. viii. p. 424.) Such was Elizabeth, who restored and entailed upon her country the religious system of Cranmer, embodied in the Thirty Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer. Under the Protestant Edward, she is a Protestant, under the Catholic Mary, she becomes a Catholic ; succeeding to the throne herself, and finding the Pope unfavorable to her claims, she determines to renounce his authority, and with it the religion which she had embraced. Nevertheless, she conceals her intentions for a time, goes to Mass like a good Catholic, and receives her crown from a Catholic bishop with Catholic rites, taking the oath of allegiance to the Catholic Church. As soon as she is settled upon the throne, she throws off the mask, abolishes the Catholic liturgy, drives the Catholic prelates from their sees, appoints a new order of bishops, and forces the Book of Common Prayer once more upon the nation. She then conmiences a sanguinary perse- cution against the Catholics, putting to death hundreds of priests and laymen, because they refused to renounce the re- LKTTKRIII. 93 ligion of their ancestors, the very religion which she herself had so recently professed and sworn to maintain. "While her public life is rendered atrocious by duplicity, perjury, hy- pocrisy, sacrilege and murder, her private life is shamefully dishonored by guilty amours with her numerous favorites, making her court the scandal of the world. I have now given a brief sketch of the lives of the prin- cipal actors in that unfortunate religious change, by which England was made to relinquish the faith of antiquity, and of the Catholic world for the crude inventions of modern times. In doing so, I have not been guided by the un- friendly reports of their enemies, but confined myself to their deeds and acts as recorded upon the page of impartial history. I have .set before you Queen Elizabeth, Cranmer, Latimer, Kidley, Northumberland, Somerset, Cromwell and Henry VIII. These were the persons by whom Catholicity was abolished, and Protestantism, with its ever changing doc- trines, and its ever changing Book of Common Prayer, was imposed upon the English people by means of brute force. These were the persons by whose iustrimientality millions of men have been alienated from the religion of their ancestors, and involved in heresy and schism. And if wicked deeds prove the perpetrator to be wicked , surely these persons were pre-eminent in wickedness. If we were to ransack the pages of history from the beginning of the world, it would be hard to find the same number of persons engaged in any one un- dertaking, whose aggregate amount of crime and tui-pitude was equal to theirs. Their deeds of iniquity were not only the blackest that men can commit, but they were augmented by the most aggravating circum.stauces. There are several features characterising their public career, to which I desire to direct 3'our attention for a moment. They were the founders of Church-of-Englandism, from which has sprung the Epis- copalianism of this country. And 3-et it is a remarkable and most impressive fact, that nearly all of these persons renounced Protestantism after embracing it ! Ridley em- braced and renounced Protestantism, alternately, three dis- tinct times during his life. f]lizabeth, after being brought up a Protestant, renomiced Protestantism under Mary. La- timer and Cranmer, both renounced it when in prison for their treason. Cromwell and Northumberland both renounc- ed it on the scaffold, and died lamenting that they ever em- braced it, and exhorting their hearers not to be seduced, as 94 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. they had been. Thus, of these eight founders of Anglican- ism, six at least actually and solemnly abjured it during their lives.* This is surely a most significant fact, and one preg- nant with warning and instruction. If the very authors of Anglicanism renounced it, and some of them with their dying lips, how can others confide in that system ? This fact is as extraordinary as it is instructive. You may search the his- tory of all the religious sects and systems that have existed in the world, for any length of time, and you cannot find a parallel to it, — cannot find another instance in which that sect or system was renounced and abjured by its very found- ers. Surely nothing could have kept alive such a system, but the strong arm of the civil power, bolstering it up and exterminating its opposers. There is another feature about these persons, worthy of remark. They were all intolerant bigots, a'nd bloody perse- cutors, and put to torture and cruel deaths, not only Catho- lics for not apostatising as they had done, but Protestants also for going a little further in their own ppinciples. They were also guilty of putting to death, directly and indirectly, those who were connected with them by the ties of friend- ship and relationship. There is yet another feature about them. Nearly all of them, six out of eight, perished at the hands of the public executioner, as felons, traitors and rebels. Of the remaining two, the last moments of Henry are involved in obscurity and contradiction, although no one can doubt that he must have been racked by remorse, unless too hardened in his crimes — and Elizabeth, it is well known, in her last sick- ness, left her bed, and lay upon the ground four days and nights, refusing all sustenance and attendance, sullen and forlorn, ending her career in sighs and groans. Such were the persons who cast off the Catholic religion — as a class, characterised by revolting features, and as indivi- duals rendered infamous by crimes which make one shudder. To call such men "Reformers," is an outrage upon the English language, and upon decency. You might as well ,call the assassin a pious man. Surely no one would have ■-•■■ Perhaps I should be justified in saying seven, as Heniy VIII. is said to liave repented of bis schism in his Inst moments. It is certain that he had Mass said in his sick chamber, and left a large sura to have Masses said annually for his soul, after his death. I.ETTERIII. 95 ventured to do so, unless utterly ignorant of their misdeeds, or blinded by sectarian zeal. Protestants of the present day will not, I am eniifident, undertake to defend the wicked acts which these men committed, but condemn them as heartily as I do. And if I perform the unpleasant task of recounting them, it is not to re2)roach those of the present day who have become involved in their system by birth and education, or without duo knowledge and reflection. I do it simply to vindicate the truth and the Catholic cause. It has been alleged that these men were '• Keformcrs," and the instruments of ({od. I disprove the assertion by shewing that their wicked deeds prove that they were the slaves of the devil, and not the servants of God. If the Church was corrupt at that period, as is alleged, certainly these men were much more corrupt, and therefore were not the persons to undertake to reform others. But this charge of corruption in the Church was a mere pretext, as the whole history of the times shews. Was it ecclesiastical corruption that led Henry VIII. to throw off" the authority of the Pope ? We have seen that it was only his criminal passion for Anne Boleyn — that was the only kind of corruption that impelled him to action. And yet he was, from this very cause, the author of the schism. And we have seen that his schism was forced upon the bi.shops, clergy and people, by penal enactments, by fines, imprisonment and death. It was sim- ply brute force that brought about the change, first under Henry, then under Edward, and finally under Elizabeth. That it was not the corruption of the Church, is further evident, from the fact, that these so-called " Reformers," as well as the people generally, changed their I'eligion again and again, backwards and ftirwards, according to the standard of the sovereign for the time being. Under Henry they all became Protestants after Henry's stamp. Under Edward and his "protectors" they became Protestants of a more decided character. But when the Catholic Mary bears the sceptre, presto, the whole scene shifts, — they all repent of their Protestantism, fall upon their knees, and return as penitents to the Catholic fold, including Elizabeth herself I But after a little while, Elizabeth, seated upon the throne, has a per- sonal difi'erence with the Pope, likelier father, and forthwith, like him, she forsakes the ('atholic Church, and " sets up" a Church for herself, taking care to place her own dear self at the head of it, as her precious father had done for himself. 9* 96 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. And mark the result. The whole nation is gradually Pro- testantized again according to her stamp — with the aid of the rack, the gibbet, the stake, and other trifling appliances of that sort. At a later period, as we have seen, the. nation became Presbyterian under the rule of Oliver Cromwell. Afterwards, when an Episcopalian became monarch again, the nation became Episcopalian again. Looking at these facts, it is plain that Church corruption had nothing to do with, the matter. The only true explanation is this : the sovereign was absolute in those days, and whatever religion he adopted, he forced upon the people. They who refused to comply, were gradually exterminated, driven into exile, or put to death. Thus it was under Elizabeth, those remaining being forced to conform, and their children were afterwards brought up in the new doctrines, and taught especially to hate the Pojje and all his Catholic doctrines and practices. This is the way, my fiiend, you and I, and millions of others, happened to be brought up in schism. Had a Mahometan ascended the throne, instead of Elizabeth, or instead of Charles II., the same causes would probably have made us all true followers of the Prophet, and we should have been taught to hate Christ, as well as the Pope. The doctrines of the Church in England, at the time of the schism were precisely the same as those held by that Church from its earliest origin. This has been clearly es- tablished from the oldest historical records and documents, by Dr. Lingard, in his History of tlte Anglo Saxon Church, to which work I would refer any one who may desire to in- vestigate the subject. That there had been no recent doc- trinal change, all admit; and they who allege a change, are prudent enough to refer it to some remote, undefined period, or speak of it as a gi-adual, imperceptible operation, spread- ing through long ages, but occurring at no time in particular I This is a poor compliment, certainly, to our Christian fore- fathers, as if they were less careful of the integrity and purity of the faith, than their children, since Heniy VIII. It is a poor compliment to the Church of God, and would render her utterly unworthy to be our mother and guide — for if she has failed at one time, she may do so again. Besides, Eng- land was in communion with the whole Catholic world, and her doctrines were the same as those everywhere held. Consequently, if she was wrong, the whole Church was wrong. And if that was the case, that article in the Apos- L E T T K U I I I . 97 tie's Creed, which the Episcopalians have retained, could not be true — / hclicre in (he Holji Catholic l.'liurclt. I might proceed in this strain of remarks to shew the absurdity of the plea, that the Church in England was corrupt; but it is enough that it can be proved by tlie clearest historical evi- dence, that the deictrincs of that Church had undergone no substantial change, from the earliest period of her existence down to the fatal inojnent of her severance from Catholic unity. But it is not even necessary to prove that that cause did not exist, since it has been shown that in point of fact, the separation did not take place on that ground. It was the criminal passion of Henry A'lll., in the first place, and afterwards the circumstances, or temper, or belief of the reigning monarch, that brought into existence the liturgy and doctrine of Anglicanism. It is true that there were corrupt persons in the Church, as there always have been, not excepting the Apostolic age. But foremost among these corrupt persons, were the very individuals who are now dubbed " Ileformers." Who was more corrupt than Henry Vni., Cromwell, Cranmer and Elizabeth V I have shewn that these men, and their principal co-laborers, in changing the faith and worship of the nation, were all guilty of horrid crimes. Besides these, there were many others who rallied around them, impelled, some by fear, some by the love of j^lunder, and some from other human motives. These were the " corruptions" — the corrupt individuals of that period. I will venture the assertion, that in no other age of the Church, can j'ou find the same number of conspi- cuous persons, such as kings and prelates, who could match them in deeds of depravity and blood. The charge of error and corruption made against the Church is not a new one — it is as old almost as the Church. All the heresiarchs of ancient times and of every age have urged the same argument in defence of their separation from the Church. And indeed, the same argument has been used against Anglicanism by her own children, with terrible ef- fect. ^\ hy did the Presbyterians, and the Baptists, and the jMethodists, and the Quakers, and some fifty other sects se- parate from the Protestant Church of England? On the very ground upon which that Church is said to have separa- ted ft'om the Catholic Cliurch — error and corruption. Had the Church needed reforming, it belonged to the pre- lates and to councils to eflFect the work, and not to vicious 98 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. kings and queens. When a corruption of manners ensues, it is not the wicked who come forward, or should come for- ward to sweep away the moral filth. God raises up holy priests and bishops to do his work, and not such monsters as Henry VIII. But some persons, while acknowledging and condemning the wicked lives of these men, persist in regarding them ag the " instruments" of God in bringing about a good work. This is assuming, first, that the work which they efieeted was a good work — which is a false assumption. Their work was not good, but bad — if ecclesiastical rebellion and schism be a bad work, as the Scriptures unquestionably teach us. Bishop Short speaks of these men not merely as "in- struments," but necessary instruments. He considers, as do others, Henry A^III. as a necessary agent in the work of " Keformation" — that without him or some such man it could not have been effected. This is no doubt very true. But only consider what all this imjjlies. To say that such men were necessary to the work, is to say that their wicked deeds were necessary — for we cannot on this question separate them from their evil deeds. It was precisely their evil deeds that made them such men as they Avere. ^Vithout such deeds they wovxld have been difierent men, and the " glori- ous work of Reformation" would not have taken place. Their evil deeds were the means by which they succeeded ; and they were the only means by which they could have suc- ceeded. This is the Protestant argument, exjiressed in its true character. It may not be intended by this reasoning, to defend all the acts of these men in jmrtictda)-. But there are necessarily two things at least, to be defended by the supporters of that cause. In the first place, they must de- fend and justify the possession and exercise of absolute power and xinbounded despotism, on the part of the Pro- testant monarch. We have seen that Henry did assume this power, and it is evident that he could have done nothing without it. He either set at naught the laws of the land, or had new laws enacted at his own will and pleasure. • He lit- erally did what he pleased, to Church and State. Of course, the exercise of this despotic power was not acquiesced in by all. Consequently, persecution became necessary to enforce compliance. Accordingly, Sir Thomas More, Bishop Fisher and hundreds of others were cruelly put to death. Henry could not have carried out his work but by putting down all I, K T T K K III. 99 opposition and exterminating those who refused to comply with liis innovations. It becomes necessary, therefore, for the advocates of his schism to justify his tyranny and hig bloody persecutions. This conclusion is inevitable. You say these men were the instruments of God, and that they were raised up for this very purpose. Now there was but one way by which tliey could do their work, and that was by tyranny and blood. And if they diJ their work in the only possible way, you are bound to approve of that way, how- ever abhorrent it may be to your, sense of right and human- ity ; or else you must renounce their work altogether. But these men were not tlie instruments of God, except as Pharaoh, Nero, and other like scourges of the human race were His in.struments. The Almighty, in IJis inscrutable Providence, permitted them to oppress and destroy his people in the indulgence of their bad passions ; but to assert that He therefore approved of them or of their work, would be little short of blasphemy. No; these men were the instru- ments of the devil. Their bad passions prove that they were under wicked influence. And as their spirit, motives and means were bad, so likewise was their work bad. Our Sa- viour Himself, while warning us against unjust judgments, has taught us to judge of men by their works. " Beware of false prophets who come to j-ou in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves, ^y their fruits ye shall know them." The " corruptions of the Cliureh" before the schism of Henry VIII., and the ''immoralities of the Catholic cler- gy" then and at other times, are continually thrust forward by certain Protestant writers in their controversial discus- sions. Such accounts have originated with our enemies, and are either entirely false or greatly exaggerated. But what- ever may be thought of this assertion, the Anglican bishops and clergy were far fi'om being without reproach, long after what is falsely called the " Eefnrmation." This can be abundantly proved, not by the testimony of Catholics, but by that of Protestants. Hear what Hallani says of the bishops of the reign of Queen Elizabeth : " The bishops of this reign," says he, " do not appear, with some distinguish- ed exceptions, to have reflected so much honor on the Estab- lished Church as those who attach a superstitious reverence to the age of the Reformation are apt to conceive. In the 100 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. jylunder that went forirard they took good care of themselves.''^ (^Constit. Hist, of Eng., vol. i. chap. 4.) The same Protestant authority mentions a fact, which shows a state of morals in the clergy of the most revolting character. "In the diocese of Bangor," he says, " it was usual for the clergy, some years after Elizabeth's accession, to pay the bishop for a license to keep a concubine." (^Ibid, note. Refers to Strype's life of Parker, p. 203.) In the same author we have also the following passage in reference to the condition of the Anglican Church at that time : — "A disorderly state of the Church, arising partly from the want of any fixed rules of discipline, partly from the ne- gligence of some bishops, and simony of others, but above all from the rude state of manners and general ignorance of the clergy, is the common theme of complaint in this period, and aggravated the increasing disaffection towards the pre- lacy." (Ibid, vol. i. chap. 4.) The abuses prevalent in this Reformed Church were so flagrant, that even the power of Parliament was invoked to check them, and a bill was accordingly introduced for the purpose, A. D., 1571. Hear what Hallam says upon this subject : " Abuses in respect to benefices appear to have been a copious theme of scandal. The power of dispensation, which had occasioned so much clamor in former ages, instead of being abolished, or even reduced into bounds at the Refor- mation, had been transferred entire from the Pope to the King, and Archbishop. And after the Council of Trent had effected such considerable reforms in the Catholic discipline, it seemed a sort of reproach to the Protestant Church of England, that she retained all her dispensations, the exemp- tions, the pluralities, which had been deemed the peculiar corruptions of the worst times of Popery." (^Ihid.') Such my friend, was the condition of the Church of Eng- land, nearly a half of a century after its origin. According to this Protestant historian, it still retained scandalous abuses, which the Catholic Church had abolished. AVhich then was the ' ' Reforming " Church ? I have now set before you the real character of the men, and the means by which the old Catholic worship was abol- ished and a new liturgy imposed upon the people, and which has since been entailed upon their descendants. You, my friend, like many others, were taught to look upon that LETTKR III. 101 change as brought about by the gradual dawn of " Gospel light;" that this light penetrated tlie Church, causing it to cast oft' the rags of Popery in which she had been wrapped for centuries, and to put on the new garnieut of righteous- ness. This is a very pretty idea, and very captivating to the imagination, liut unfortunately for those who luiUl it, it has no foundation in fact, as I have abundantly proved. The plea of corruption was altogether an aftcrtliought. It was not set up until after the Reformation hud becu efl'ccted. The separation was made, as I have shown you, not at all upon tluit ground, but solely on account of the Pope's re- fusing to sanction Henry's divorce from his faitliful wife. The plea of corruption was invented afterwards, to justify what had been done upon a very different ground. It has ever since been found to be a convenient and powerfiil rally- ing-cry in defence of the change and against P.ome ; but it was and is only a pretext. The whole change was the dic- tate of passion or of policy, and was fffect(^d hy the civil power, by brute force , in ojiposition to the Church. This has been proved by an appeal to historical facts, and it is vain to attempt to deny it. It was begun by Henry, carried on by Edward, and consiunmatcd by Elizabeth — the bishops and priests being either made tools of or exterminated. It was conceived in sin, and brought forth iu iniquity. It was commenced by Henry in his lust, and it was consummated by Elizabeth, the illegitimate frviit of that lust. A. B. LET TEH IV. Title of the Prayer-Book. — Remarks on the Preface. — Ta)jle.s of Les- sons. — Festivals and Saints' Days. — In the Prayer-Book, but not observed. — "Apocryphar' Books of Scripture read. — The Calen- dar. — English and American compared. — Great clianges in the lat- ter. — Saints of the "Dark Ages" found in the English Calendar. — Festival of the Conception of the Virgin. — Only one Anglican Saint, King Charles. — Departure from Standards.' — Rogation and Ember Days. — The Festivals, &c., borrowed from the Catholic Church. — The "Morning Praj-er"' examined. — Confession and Absolution. — The Catholic and Protestant Doctrine of Forgiveness of Sins com- pared. — Priestly Absolution taught in various places. — Argumentg and Protestant admissions in its favor. — The Gloria in Excelsis. — The Te Deum. My Dear Friend : Having in my previous letters set before you the origin and history of the Book of Common Prayer, I beg your attention while I proceed to examine the doctrine which it inculcates. In the order which I propose to adopt, I shall commence at the beginning, and go regularly through the book, making such comments as the pature of each part may happen to suggest, using the American Prayer-Book, but pointing out the differences between it and the English Prayer-Book wherever these differences possess a doctrinal bearing. In opening the book, my attention is first arrested by the title-page, about which there is something suggestive, al- though I cannot linger on the threshold. It is called " The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacra- ments and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Protestant Egiscopal Church in the United States of America." The phrase " o^Ac/- rites and ceremo- nies," seems to imply that the ' ' Sacraments" belong to the same class, and consequently not of binding obligation. But that which appears most striking is the clause ' ' of the Church," " the Sacraments and other rites and ceremonies cf the. Church,'^ according to the use of the Protestant Epis- copal Church. Til is language evidently implies that tliere is ( 102 ) LKTTKU IV. 103 some great organization called " the Clmrch," besides the one for whose use the book is intended. If so, it is natural that the Episcopalian should desire to become accpiainted with it. In the English Prayer-Book the title is the same, except that it reads, " according to the use of the Oluirch of England." Passing over the " Table of Contents," we come to the "Preface," with which the American book has been fur- nished. This is important as showing the mind of those who were concerned in organizing the Protestant Episcopal Church, They trace their origin thus: "The Church of England, to which the Protestant Episcopal Church in the States is indebted, under (Jod, for her first foundation and a long continuance of nursing, care and protection," They proceed to justify themselves in making alterations in the book, on the ground that the Mother Chui-ch had made "different reviews and alterations" and would have made further alterations if she could. It says. " A connnission for a review was issued in 1689, But this great and good work miscarried at that time : and the civil authority has not since thought proper to revive it by any new commission." This is an important acknowledgment. A proposed change in the Praj^er-Book, after the many alterations it had already experienced, is called a " great and good work." Surely it must haA^e sadly needed reviewing, in the judgment of the founders of the Protestant Episcopal Church ; and that after it had been in use more than two centuries. This testimony here given, also confirms what I have set forth in my history of the book, viz : that it was the " civil authority" that made, altered and revised the book, according to the royal will and pleasure. The next passage in the " Preface," worthy of notice, is this : " But when, in the course of Divine Providence, these American States became independent with respect to civil government, their ecclesiastical independence was necessarily included ; and the different religious denominations of Chris- tians in these States were left at full and equal liberty to model and organize their respective cluirches and forms of worship and discipline in such manner as they might judge most convenient for their future prosperity," This is a most extraordinary opinion. It is thoroughly Erastian, It makes the Church dependent upon civil changes. Political inde- pendence involves ecclesiastical independence ! What inad- ecjuate ideas these men must have had concerning the Cljurfh 10 104 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. of God, its unity and authority. Before the Revolution they were under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London ; but as soon as they are freed from the dominion of the king, they are freed also from the jurisdiction of their bishop, and become independent. Such was their idea, and certainly it was only in keeping with what Cranmer and the other founders of the Church of England held and taught as to the right of the sovereign over his subjects in spirituals as well as temporals. Every one must perceive that this prin- ciple is destructive of the unity of the Church, and even of Episcopal authority. And the day may come, when it will be put in practice in this country to the disruption of the Protestant Episcopal Church. This passage is also remarkable, because it asserts that this liberty — the liberty to form an independent Church — was left equally to the ' ' different religious denominations of Christians in these States." Upon this they base their right to proceed to organize. They thus admitted that they were only one of " the different religious denominations." They had no idea of establishing an exclusive church — they did not consider themselves as " the Church," to the dispai'age- ment of other sects. They left such empty pretensions to their children of the present day. They placed themselves and others upon an equal footing. "The different reli- gious denominations of Christians were left," said they, " at full and equal liberty to model and organize their respec- tive churches" as they thought proper. According to this admission, Methodists, Presbyterians and other sects had ' ' full and equal liberty" to adopt their respective forms of church polity to the exclusion of Episcopacy. And yet Episcopalians of the present day attack these denomina- tions as if marred by fatal defects, and in a state of schism I The fact is, that the original founders of the Protestant Episcopal Church did not consider Episcopacy essential to tlie Church. Bishop White, one of their leading spirits, went so far as to write a pamphlet, to prove that bishops could be dispensed with under the pressure of circumstances I So that after all the controversies which Episcopalians have waged with other sects on the question of Episcopacy, their own denomination came very near being a ' ' church without a bishop."* •••• I mean even in form. In point of fact, it is a church without a bishop, since its bishops lack a valid consecration. But upon that point I shall have something to say at the proper time. L E T T E K IV. 105 But let US now advance to the "Tables of Lessons." These are arranged under the general title of " Tables of Lessons of Holy Scripture to be read at Morning and Even- ing Prayer throughout the year." We have, under this caption, a Table of Lessons for Sundays, another for " Holy Days," and others for each month. We find here, provision made for " Morning and Evening Prayer throughout the year." And yet not one Episcopalian Church in fifty is opened daily for the prescribed services. Their churches are all closed from Monday morning until Saturday night, ex- cept a few under the pastorship of Puseyite clergymen, and some others for an occasional service during the week. The daily service laid down in the Prayer-Books, is thus almost entirely unknown in practical Episcopalianism. Daily wor- ship is left for the Catholics. We find, as I have said, a table of lessons to be read on the "Holy Days." Among the "Holy Days" here enu- merated, we find those of St. Andrew and the other Apos- tles, Eplphanij of our Lord, the Purification and Annuncia- tion of the Virgin Mary, Ascension Day, Good Friday, St. 3fichael and AH Saints. A special service is appointed for all these days. And yet we sometimes meet with Episcopa- lians who ridicule Catholics for observing Saints' days ! A most extraordinary inconsistency. An Episcopalian, when finding fault with such things among Catholics, was re- minded that there were similar Saints' days in her Prayer- Book, she very naively replied, "Yes, but we don't keep them I" Li this she was correct. The great mass of Epis- copalians do not keep them. Except a few high churchmen here and there, they completely ignore them. There are three Episcopal churches, almost in sight of me at this mo- ment, which are never opened upon any one of the thirty-six days laid down in this table, except Good Friday. And what is more, if their pastors were to give notice of these days, and have the prescribed service on them, they would incur the displeasure of their flocks, and probably receive notice that their services were no longer re<|uired. There is one alteration in this table from the P]nglish Prayer-Book, which I must notice in passing. Among the festivals designated, is the "Annunciation of our Lady." This is a title which only Catholics give to that blessed woman, and which many Episcopalians would be quite shocked to hear applied to her. They vrould turn it into ri- 106 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. dicule. And yet there it is in the English Prayer-Book ta this day. It was " revised" out of the American Book: it sounded too Popish. It was changed into the " Annuncia- tion of the Virgin Mary." If however, we turn to the ser- vice appointed for this day, we find it headed, " The Annun- ciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary." It is well that the Mother of our Lord receives that honor in the Prayer-Book : although in practice, Episcopalians seldom call her even the " Blessed Virgin." By the great mass of them she is en- tirely lost sight of, or if perchance remembered or mentioned, it is only as an ordinary woman and mother. They seem to have entirely overlooked such passages of Scripture as these : "From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." And the words of Elizabeth, and of the Angel Gabriel, ad- dressed to her "Blessed art thou among women." (^St. Luke chap. 1.) In this, as in many other things, Episco- palians have become more anti-Catholic than the founders of their religion. Let it not then be forgotten, that in the English Prayer-Book, to this day, the Blessed Mother of our Lord, is called " our Lady," although I doubt not that that appellation would have been expunged, together with other things, if the "civil authority" had permitted that great and good work " (another revision) to have taken place. We have seen that the American revisers threw it out, es- teeming it too great an honor to bestow upon the Immacu- late Mother of our God. Ashamed were they to acknow- ledge her as " our Lady," to whom the Divine Jesus was " subject" for so many years, and whom, when dying upon the cross, he left as a Mother to St. John, and through him, to all Christians in these tender words, ' ' Behold thy Mother." (St. John xis. 27.) There is another remarkable feature about this ' ' Table of lessons for Holy Days." Among the lessons prescribed to be read in Church, are no less than fourteen from the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus ! Episcopalians will look in vain into their Bibles for these and several other books, unless they happen to possess a copy of the old folio Bible. Pro- testants have left these books out of the Bible printed for general circulation. They are omitted as uninspired and Apocryphal, contrary to the belief and jwaetice of the Ca- tholic Church. With a singular inconsistency Episcopalians refuse to receive them as divine and canonical, and yet read L E T T E Jl IV 107 them, like tlie other Scriptures, for the instruction of the people 1 Let us now advance to the tables of lessons for each month, that is, for that daily service, which is not performed, except in a very few parishes, where it is sustained by dint of special effort on the part of the pastors and a handful of people, and who receive for their pains the unpleasant nick- names of " Puseyites" and " Romanists." Along with these tables is a " calendar," an ecclesiastical calendar, in which are noted the principal festivals and Saints' days of the year, as in the Catholic 31is8al. The most noticeable feature about this calendar, is the sweeping change which has been made in it by the American revisers. As the eye runs down its length, it presents only a protracted blank, relieved here and there by such notes as "Epiphany" and "St. Mark." "Whereas, the Calendar of the English Prayer-Book is much more " Popish," in fact, is decidedly " Popish," thick with Catholic festivals and Saints. I find there noted the festivals of the " Holy Cross," and the " Invention of the Cross," and the " Name of Jesus," the " Nativity of the Virgin Mary," the " Visitation of the Virgin Mary," and even the " Conception of the Virgin Mary." Among the host of Saints therein com- memorated, who have lived long since the Apostles, I find SS. Cyprian and Crispin of the third century; SS. Benedict and Britius of the fourth century ; S. Remegius, Gregory and Au- gustine of the sixth; SS. Bede and Boniface of the eighth; SS. Edward and Dunstan of the tenth ; S. Alpheg of the elev- enth, and S. Hugh of the twelfth. I find in this catalogue of saints and martyrs, thus canonized by the English Prayer- Book, moi-e than fifty names which the American revisers have thrown out.* Let us look, for a moment, at some of these Saints. I have no doubt their very names are new to many Episcopalians, as well as the fact that they have a place in the English Calendar. St. Crispin is the patron Saint * As a copy of the English Prayer-Book is not often met with in this country, it may be well to g'ive the names of the Saints left out. They are as follows : Lucian, Hilary, Prisca, P'abian, Agnes, Vincent, Blasius, Agatha, Valentine, David. Chad, Perpetua, Gregory', P^d- ward, Benedict, Richard, Ambrose, Alpheg, George, Dunstan, Augus- tine, Bede, Nicomede, Boniface, Alban, Swithun, Margaret, Mary Magdalene, Anne, Lammas, Laui-euce, Augustine, (of Hi])j)o, ) Giles, Lambert, Gj-prian, Jerome, Remegius, Faith, Denys, Etheldreda, (,'ris- pin, Leonard, Martin, Britius, Machutus, Hugh, Edmund, Cecilia, Clement. Catharine, Nicolas. Lucy and Sylvester. 10* 108 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. of that useful class of men who make our shoes. St. Beue- diet is the father of the monastic institutions, and St. Bri- tius too, was a monk. St. Gregory was a Pope, and a stre- nuous asserter too, of all the rights and prerogatives of the Holy See. St. Augustine was the Missionary Bishop whom that same Pope Gregory sent over to convert the English, and who, acting by his authority, founded the see of Canter- bury. Of Bede, Boniface, Dunstan, Alpheg and Hugh, I shall only remark, that the}^ flourished in what are called the "dark ages," when Popery was everywhere rampant, and were among its most zealous advocates and propagators. Indeed, most of the Saints in this Calendar, lived long since the period which is assigned by Protestants for the rise of Popery; and like the rest of the Christian world, were thorough-going papists. In the Book of Homilies, composed by Cranmer and other founders of Anglicanism, and ap- pointed to be read in churches under Edward VI. and I]liza- beth, it is asserted that " whole Christendom," " clergy and laity, men, women, and children," had been "drowned in aboniinable idolatry" for the " space of eight hundred years and more." As these Homilies were set forth about the mid- dle of the sixteenth century, subtract " eight hundred years," and we get back to the middle of the eighth century, since which time all the Christian world had been drowned in idolatry. And yet among the Saints in the English Calen- dar, we find at least four who lived long after the universal drowning is said to have taken place, viz : Edward and Dunstan of the tenth century, Alpheg of the eleventh, and Hugh of the twelfth ! Here is a most palpable self-contradic- tion which I leave for the defenders of ' ' Mother Church of England" to explain if they can. If the -whole of Christen- dom was drowned in idolatry, where were these four Saints found ? Amid the general deluge, involving every man, wo- man and child, how did these four persons manage not only to live a Christian life, but to attain such a degree of piety and holiness, as to entitle them to a place in the ecclesias- tical Calendar ? But this is one of the many inconsisten- cies and absurdities which Cranmer and his crew have entailed upon their followers ; but which the latter are heartily asham- ed of, and of which they would gladly rid themselves if they could. Among the festivals in the English Calendar, I have al- ready mentioned that of the "Conception of the Virgin LETTER IV. 109 Mary." This festival was not instituted until a late period of the Church, and in the West was not observed until about the tenth century, and in England not until after that age. It may therefore be said to have sprung up, like some of the saints in the English Calendar, in the "dark ages of Popery," to make use of a fiivorite phrase of certain Protestant writers. This festival is set down in the Prayer-Book for December 8th, and is nothing less than the "Immaculate Conception" recently proclaimed as a dogma by the Holy See, and cele- brated by the Catholics througout the world, on that day. One of the strongest arguments used by Catholic theologi- ans, in support of that dogma, is the fact, that it is honored as a festival by the Church. They argue that what the Church celebrates in her holy rites, must necessarily be holy, and consequently, that the Conception of the Virgin, which is so honored, must be holy or immaculate. No doubt many Episcopalians who have been accustomed to regard this doctrine as something new and strange, will be quite sur- prised to find it in their own Prayer-Book, or at least in that of their "Mother Church" of England, and only recently expunged from their own. They must be driven to the con- clusion, either that these things are right, or that the Prayer- Book sadly needs yet another revision. It is worthy of remark, that all the saints and festivals in the English Calendar, arc of a date prior to the schism of Henry VIII. except two, — one saint and one festival. Al- though three centuries have elapsed since that direful event, England has been able to find for her Calendar but a solitary saint in all that time ! This implies a sad dearth of sanctity. She found at least four, while " Christendom was drowned in abominable idolatry." But these were Popish times. And some how or other Popery and Saints go together. Suppress the former, and you instantly stop the supply of the latter. This is clear, from the Prayer-Book. But who is that solitary saint, which England has produced since the schism ? Many will be surprised to learn that it is no other than his Majesty, King Charles I., who is honored with the title of " Martyr!" This is the only individual that Angli- canism has been able to produce that is deemed worthy to occupy a place among the saints and martyrs of Catholic times. And the only festival that she has placed in the Ca- lendar of her own invention, is that of the " Restoration of 110 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. King Charles II.* It must be admitted that Anglicanism is faithfnl and true to the royal line. It honors the king very devoutly. And this is surely appropriate, when we consider that it owes its very existence to the king, and that the sovereign for the time being is its supreme head on earth, although sometimes happening to be a woman. After the Calendar, we come to "Tables and Rules for the Movable and Immovable Feasts, together with the Days of Fasting and Abstinence throughout the whole year." The distinction here made between " Movable" and "Im- movable," seems to be altogether suj^erfluous : for in prac- tice they are nearly all reduced to one class, the morahh, or removahle. Among these " Tables," is "A Table of Feasts to be observed in this Church throughout the year." Under this head, amoiig the festivals enumerated, I find the " Cir- cumcision of our Lord," the " Conversion of St. Paul," the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, the "Annunciation of the " Blessed Virgin," " St. Michael and all Angels," &c., &c. Now my friend, I need not tell you that although these festivals are thus presented in your Prayer-Book, "to be observed throughout the year," they are not observed in any of your congregations, except a few of the class above men- tioned ! Is not this most extraordinary ? Does it not show how little authority your Church has over her members, both clergy and laity '? And why are they not observed 'I It is because they savor of Catholicism. Here again you depart from your own Praj-er-Book. You find that book still too " Popish," although revised by your Church only fifty years ago! Where and when will this "reforming," or rather denuding process, end? Can you tell me ? Every genera- tion recedes further and further from the Catholic Church, and from the standards of their Protestant fothers, and either alter these standards to suit their altered views, or treat them as a dead letter. I beg you to consider where will this degenerating practice end. Among these tables, I find also a " Table of Fasts," and under this head, I find laid down Asfc Wednesday and Good Friday. Besides these, I find "other days of fasting, on which the Church requires such a measure of abstinence as is more especially suited to extraordinary acts and exercises *The festival of King Charles, Martyr, is set down for Jan. 3. The Restoration of Charles II. is celebrated on the 29th of May. LETTER IV. Ill of devotion," as the forty days of Lent, the Ember Days, the Kogation Daj-s, and all the Fridays iu the year. I need not remind you, my friend, that although the " Church re- quires" all this, yet very few, either of clergy or laity pre- tend to comply with it. To nineteen-twentieths of your members it is all a dead letter. Many of them have never even heard of Rogation Days and Ember Days, much less observing them as a season of fasting I Here again your system bears testimony to the Catholic Church, which first prescribed these seasons, while in practice you condemn, them, and disobey your own Church. The next four or five pages are filled with tables for the computation of Easter, and other holy days, and contain nothing requiring notice. But I will take this occasion to observe, that this system of Feasts and Fasts, Saints' Days and Holy Days, &c., &c., did not originate with the authors of your Prayer-Book. It originated in the Catholic Church, from which your founders borrowed it. Your writers and preachers are accustomed to bestow much praise upon this system, the ecclesiastical year, beginning with the season of Advent, and bringing before the faithful as the weeks and months glide around the great events in the life of our Sa- viour, and the holy examples of Apostles and IMartyrs. They very justly commend it as mo.st beautiful and edifying. But they do not tell you that it is derived from the Catholic Church — that she devised it all for her children long before Henry VIII., or Thomas Cranmer, or the Book of Common Prayer, or Anglicanism had a being. Let them praise it, let them enjoy it ; we are glad that they have that much of Catholicity. But let them not forget its source. And let them know that she has other treasures yet, of which they may become partakers, by returning to her maternal bosom. Not a few of them have been attracted to the Episcopal Com- munion from other sects, by the excellencies of this very system. Let us hope that they may be led (as indeed some have been already) to advance on to the fountain head, and partake of the limpid stream as it first gushes forth, pure, refreshing and life-giving. Before I proceed to examine the " Morning Prayer," let me notice an omission which occurs here. In the English Prayer-Book, I find two directions or rubrics, before the Morning Prayer, which the American revisers have left out. The first of these prescribes the part of the Church in which 112 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. the Morning Prayer shall be used. The second, orders that "such ornaments" shall be used as were in use by the "authority of Parliament" in the reign of Edward VI. This order may be of no service to American Episcopalians, but it is of some service in the work I have on hand. It is a standing testimony on the part of the Prayer-Book itself, as to the unlimited ' ' authority of Parliament" over the Prayer-Book, and over the Anglican establishment. It con- firms what I have said, that Parliament did everything; made the Church, made the Prayer-Book, made the Bishops, made the people submit to it ; in short, did everything it re- quired. What a grand thing a Parliament must be ! The minister is required to begin the service of morning prayer, by reading one or more sentences of Scripture, for which purjiose about a dozen are provided. After this he is to read a sort of an exhortation to the congregation, urging them to confess their sins with a ' ' penitent and obedient heart," and then to rejieat after him, aloud, all kneeling, a form of general confession," in which they all say, "We have erred and strayed fi-om thy ways like lost sheep," " We have left undone those things which we ought to have done, and we have done those things which we ought not to have done," and other like phrases. All of this is vague, and "general" enough, siu-ely. The greatest sinner, and the least sinner, the most fastidious and the most reckless, can all take up these words without hesitation. I have nothing to say against this, in itself considered. It is well that men should acknowledge themselves sinners, and call upon God for mercy even in a general way. But the question arises, is that enough '? Is that coming up to the requirements of God's law, the necessities of the case, — and does it accord with the example of God's Saints ? As an acknowledgment of a most important truth, it is all very well, but it should not end there. When men sin, they sin by particular sins, some in this way, others in that — some lightly, others gre- viously. And I cannot believe that God himself can be satis- fied with a ' ' general confession," which fails to make an hum- ble and specific mention and acknowledgment of these parti- cular sins by which His law has been broken, and His name dishonored. An earthly father would not be satisfied with such a " general confession" on the part of a child that had been guilty of some act of disobedience. How much less can God be satisfied therewith ! The idea of introducing: LETTKR IV. 113 this feature iuto the service, appears to have been borrowed from a usage in the early Church, when Christians who had fallen into any scandalous sins, came forward and made a public confession of those sins. But it is a poor imitation. The primitive Christian did not indulge in general phrases — he acknowledged in plain and definite terms the particular sins Avhich he had committed, and received at once a suitable penance to be performed. But this public confession Avas afterwards disused, and private confession alone retained. A '' general confession" such as we have here, is entirely inadequate to the occasion, as it is made with a view to "absolution." It is followed bj- the following rubric: ' • The declaration of Absolution or Remission of Sins ; to be made by the Priest alone, standing, — the people still kneeling." This rubric has been altered in the American Pi'ayer-Book, by the insertion of the word "declaration." In the Engli.sh, it reads: " The Absolution or Bemission," &c. This was entirely too strong for the American i-e- visers — they have softened it considerably by the insertion of " declaration." You see, then, that the authors of the Prayer-Book were unwilling to throw aside the ancient practice of Confession, entirely — they felt bound to retain it in some sense, although, as I have shewn, it is rendered almost nugatoi-y by its "general" character. But they retained not only Confes- sion, but also priestly absolution. The Confessien is made with a view to absolution, and as soon as it is made, the "priest" stands up and pronounces absolution, according to a prescribed form, Avhich I deem it best to transcribe in full, as follows : " Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live : and hath given power and commandment to his ministers to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins — he pardoneth and absolveth all those who truly repent and unfeignedly believe his holy Gos- pel. Wherefore, let us beseech him to grant us true repen- tance, and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him which Ave do at present, and that the rest of our life hereaf- ter may be pure and holy, so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy, through Jesus Christ our Lord." 114 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. In this form, it is asserted in the most positive manner, that the minister is endowed with power or authority to de- clare forgiveness of sins — that Ahnighty God hath given him ' ' power and commandment to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Kemission of their sins." Here is something much like the Catholic doctrine of Absolution, — the " power" exercised by the Ca- tholic priest in the confessional. The Catholic priest simply pronounces absolution in the name, and by the authority of Almighty God ; and that only upon those who are ' ' penitent." This you may learn from any Catholic treatise on the sub- ject. Repentance or contrition is always a condition uj)on which absolution is granted. And this contrition implies something more than a mere sorrow for the past — it includes restitution when injury has been done, and a pm-pose of amendment in future. This shews that the idea prevalent among Protestants, in regard to this Catholic practice, is entirely erroneous. Many suppose that a man can commit the most grevious sins, and then get absolution instantly, without repentance or purpose of amendment, or any such condition. All this is a gross mistake. All the priests and bishops in the world, with the Pope added to them, cannot absolve a man without contrition ; that is, sorrow for the sin, restitution, purpose of amendment; and besides this, he has a penance to perform suitable to his sins. All these safeguards, the Catholic Church has thrown around the ex- ercise of this great power, to prevent abuses. So that con- fession, so far from encouraging sin, as some suppose, is the greatest check upon it — for besides all these conditions, a man is naturally deterred from doing what he must afterwards confess; not in a " general" way, but the specific act, with its modifying circumstances. Let this system be compared with the Protestant mode of obtaining absolution, and see which is best calculated to prevent sin. What is the Pro- testant mode? With the Episcopalian, supposing he con- forms truly to the Prayer-Book_, it is merely by making a ' ' general confession" of his sins in company with the whole congregation, at the same time "being penitent." What can be easier than this? But practically, he is not required to do this. It is the general belief of Protestants, shared in by most Episcopalians, that any man can obtain forgiveness of his sins simply by calling upon God for mercy in his pri- vate apartment with faith in Christ, and entirely without the LETTKR IV. 115 intervention of minister or cburch. Certainly this mode is €asy enough to satisfy the most lax and the most indolent. It must be apparent, at a glance, that both of these modes are not only much easier than the Catholic, but much less calculated to restrain the commission of sin. For supposing that they both imply sorrow for sin, yet they lack the conser- vative and restraining influence of a particular confession to the minister, purpose of amendment, restitution, and imposed penance. I might add that these modes are both liable to .serious objection, because exposing the sinner to the evils of error, presumption and despair. He is, in this system, his own judge, which is at once a fatal defect, vitiating the whole system. Every one acquainted with human nature, knows how impossible it is to judge impartially and correctly in any matter involving one's own interests, feelings and pas- sions. And yet, here a man has to judge, first, whether he has sinned at all ; secondfy, to what extent ; thirdly, whe- ther he has the requisite sorrow ; and fourthly, whether he has genuine faith. Under the operation of this sj'Stem, religion must be practically annihilated. A man inclined to any particular pleasure, can easily persuade himself, that it is either no sin at all, or at most a very trifling one, however pernicious and grievous it may be. Another man under the influence of erroneous impressions, may imagine a certain course of conduct to be correct, or even his duty, when it is C|uite the reverse. Another may flattei; himself that he is " penitent" when he is entirely destitute of every feeling of the sort. Still another, ardent and enthusiastic in his tem- perament, may fancy that he believes in Christ, and that that is enough, still going on in his sins, and presumptuously be- lieving himself "justified," and " one of the elect" — while a person of the opposite temperament, conceives himself in- capable of "believing" in order to "justification," and is overwhelmed with anguish and despair. All this shews that in the great matter of practical religion, man needs a coun- sellor and director, such as is found in the Catholic pastor, who, by a long course of study and training, is prepared to instriict and advise the members of his flock, according as each one may require. I have already called your attention to the fact, that the language of the Prayer-Book above quoted, fully asserts the doctrine of a declaratory absolution ; and so far, bears testimony in favor of the Catholic Church. But, it is a little remarkable, that while the power is asserted 11 116 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN, in the prescribed form, yet, iu fact, there is no actual exer- cise of this power, as you will perceive by reading it over attentively. The minister asserts that God has given this "power and commandment to his ministers." But what then ? You would expect him, after this declaration^ to pro- ceed to exercise the said power upon the people kneeling before hirh, and who have just made their " general confes- sion." You would expect him to say something like this: " Thei'efore, I absolve you from all your sins." But he says nothing of the sort. Instead of so doing, he merely tells them that God ' ' pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent," and exhorts them to call upon Him for " true repentance," &c., — all of which, any ordinary layman might tell them just as well. It is plain, then, that while the power to absolve is claimed for the ministers of God, yet by the words used, no such power is actually exercised. This -is a most extraordinary fact — although I suppose most Epis- copalians do not regard it as a serious defect, for it is well known that but few of them believe in priestly absolution, although every time they join in their church service, that power is expressly asserted ; but witli many, these words, like other portions of the service, are mere forms of expres- sion, to which their ears have become familiar, but which convey no particular meaning to their understanding and consciences. And one object which I propose in this letter, is to ask their attention to the true spirit and meaning of these forms, that they may comprehend them in all their import, and consider whether they hold them in their natural and genuine sense. But supposing the pious Episcopalian to believe in the doctrine of priestly absolution, as asserted in this form. What then? He goes to church, burdened with a sense of his many sins, committed during the week — being penitent, he unites with others in making the ' 'general confession" prescribed. The clergyman rises and tells him that God has given this power to his ministers ; but instead of exercising it for the benefit of the poor penitent before him, he only adds that God absolveth. So the penitent does not get absolution, but is only tantalized with an abstract declaration of the doctrine. It thus becomes an empty cere- mony and a mere mockery. Perhaps it will be said that I do not correctly represent the meaning of this form ; that it only means that the minister "pronounces" absolution, while God alone absolves. But LETTER lY. 117 this is a very nice distinction, to say the least. To absolve, and to pronounce absolution, are practically the same thing. The only foundation that can be reasonably alleged for such a distinction, is the fact that this power comes from God, and in a primary sense is exercised by Him, and by the minister only in a secondary sense ; that is, as His agent. All this the Catholic admits — but this does not conflict 'with the doctrine that the priest ab.solves, since he exercises this power only as the representative of Grod, and by His autho- rity. In the highest and absolute sense, God alone absolves. But this power he has given to His ministers, as your Prayer-Book declares, to be exercised according to certain rules and conditions ; and when so exercised, it is ratified by Him. It is a delegated power, and as such, it is necessarily subject to the approval of Him from whom it emanates. No Catholic asserts that it is exercised in any other way. And this is all that can be implied in the distinction between pro- nouncing absolution and giving absolution. Practically, one means as much as the other, if it means anything. When a minister pronounces absolution, he either gives absolution, that is, he absolves, or he does not. If he absolves, the point is proved. If he does not absolve, what does he do ? He does nothing, or worse than nothing — he is guilty of a solemn falsehood and mockery. Why "pronounce" absolu- tion, if no absolution is conveyed? Do you say it is an authoritative or official pronunciation ? I answer, as before, it either conveys ab.solution, or it d©es not. If it does, it amounts to the Catholic doctrine — if it does not, it is nothing but a solemn mockery. It may be added, that the words of the form imply a gift of authority. It is then said, that ' ' Almighty God hath given power and commandment to His ministers to declare and pronounce to his people, being- penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins." God hath given them power for this very purpose. This power must imply authority to absolve, or it means nothing at all : for, upon the theory that God alone absolves, without the agency of a minister, " all those who truly repent," there is no need of power on the part of the minister, in the pre- mises. Any man may say to another, " if you repent, you are absolved." But the question still remains : why does not the minister, after the penitent has made this " general confession," " de- clare and pronounce" him absolved, accordingto the very words 118 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. tlie form ? I confess this is a mystery, and I can only indulge in conjectures upon the subject. Perhaps it was because the authors of the book, while holding, in a general sense, to the doctrine of priestly absolution, yet were timid in regard to its exercise. Or, it may have been that while they claimed the power for the minister, they felt the absurdity of exer- cising it, upon an entire congregation, indiscriminately, and hence abstained from so doing. We are at a loss which of these explanations to adopt, and leave the point to those who have a personal interest in the matter. The American revisers have inserted, in addition to the form of absolution above given, a shorter one to be used instead of it, at the option of the minister. In this form, the minister after declaring that God has promised forgive- ness to the penitent, proceeds to say, (Grod) " have mercy upon you, pardon and deliver you from all your sins," &c. This is the form which is generally used. Compared with the other form, it certainly exhibits a great "falling oif," and shows that the American revisers thought there was room here for a little more "reformation." It is nothing more than an invocation of God's mercy in behalf of the people, implying no peculiar authority or power. We won- der they did not altogether omit the old form of absolution ; but there were some conservative men among them who resisted all doctrinal changes, and this new form was proba- bly inserted, as a sort of compromise — by this means, the Low Churchman was supplied with a form to his liking, as well as the High Churchman. It is well that the English form has been preserved, otherwise the American Prayer- Book would not have furnished such testimony in hehalf of the Catholic doctrine, of priestly absolution. While I have this subject before me, it may be well to cite another part of the English Prayer-Book, in which this doctrine is set forth in a still clearer manner. In the service for the " Visitation of the Sick," I find the following rubric and form : ' ' Then shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience trou- bled with any weighty matter. After which confession, the priest shall absolve him, (if he humbly and heartily desires it,) after this sort: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine oifences, and LETTER IV. 119 by His authority coniinitted to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of tlie Father, and of the Son, and of the TToly Ghost. Amen." Here you have " auricular confession," private and spe- cial, as in the Catholic Church. Here you have the doctrine of priestly and sacramental absolution, clearly and positively asserted ; and not merely asserted, but full provision made for its actual exercise. Here is language which no man can honestly evade or explain away. Here is language which fully equals that of the Catholic Church upon the subject, in any of her liturgical services, or dogmatical decrees. But you will search the American Prayer-Book in vain for this important portion of the " Visitation of the Sick." It has been altogether expunged and suppressed ; not even a shadow or intimation being left to show that it was once there! Is not this a most extraordinary omission? If this doctrine be true, and it is asserted in your Praycr-Book, it is one of the greatest practical importance. And yet you have thrown it out at the very time when it is most needed ; thus allowing the poor dying sinner, to go to his last account with all his sins upon his conscience ! Again : in the Communion Service of the English Prayer- Book, the minister, after saying to those present, that if there be any of you, who, by this means, (his own examina- tion, &c.,) cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but re- quest further comfort, or counsel, let him come to mo or some other discreet and learned minister of God's word, and open his grief; that by the ministry of God's holy word, he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly council and advice to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding all scruple and doubtfulness." Here also are recommended auricular confession and priest- ly absolution for the quieting of the conscience, and as a preparation for holy communion. This is just the Catholic practice; only with the Catholic, the rule is universal, and not merely special. For greater safety and peace, all good Catholics resort to some "discreet and learned" priest to obtain "ghostly counsel" and "absolution," before they venture to receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. Thus does the Catholic only carry out, in the most effectual manner, the recommendation of the English Prayer-Book. But in regard to this recommendation, I 11* 120 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. have to note another exercise of the pruning-knife of the American revisers. Although they have retained the general recommendation to resort to the minister for comisel, yet they have wholly omitted the words, " receive the benefit of absolution." The minister is consequently presented as a mere adviser, no allusion even being made to the power of absolution ! It seems as if they were determined that the ministers of their communion should never undertake to exercise the power of absolving sins, although they were compelled to retain a recognition of that power. These two omissions clearly exhibit the mind and theo- logical tendency of the American revisers. But, although disliking this doctrine, and desiring its suppression, yet they could not succeed in rooting it out altogether. I have shewn you that they were compelled to retain a recognition of it in the old form of absolution, contained in the Morning and Evening Prayer, although they went so far as to insert a substitute for it, to be used at the option of the minister. But this is not all ; the doctrine is clearly set forth in another service, which they durst not mutilate. I refer to the Ordi- nation Service, called the "Form and Manner of Ordering Priests." If you turn to it, you will see that when the bishop is about to ordain a priest, he lays his hands upon the head of the candidate and addresses him thus : ' ' Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands : Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained ; and be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of His Holy Sacraments, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." Here you see that when your bishop undertakes to ordain a minister, he first bestows upon him the Holy Ghost for the work ; he then confers upon him the power of absolving sins — "Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained." This language is as strong and decisive as language can be. Let this passage be connected with that in the form of absolution used at Morning Prayer, and every one will be compelled to admit that the power of forgiving sins is still ascribed to the clergy in your Prayer-Book, notwithstanding the pro- cess of elimination which it underwent at the hands of the LETTER IV. 121 American revisers.* Tlioy who consider themselves virtu- ally one Church with the Established Church of England, should also connect with tliese passages the form of absolu- tion which that Church still uses in the " Visitation of the Sick." But leaving that out of consideration here, your Prayer-Book is still found to contain and teach the doctrine of priestly absolution in all its breadth and depth, and with all its logical consequences. It will be observed that thus far I have not spoken of the practical belief of your clergy and people upon this subject. I have only endeavored to show what is taught by the Prayer-Book ; and surely no one will deny that if its lan- guage is to be interpreted according to its natural and gram- matical sense, the Prayer-Book maintains and sets forth this doctrine in the clearest and most solemn manner. And yet, strange to say, this doctrine is practically ignored among you, although it is so plainly affirmed in two of your ser- vices. Yet in none of the services is it actually put in ope- ration ; while the formula prescribed for its exercise in the "Visitation of the Sick," has been purposely omitted. Your bishop says to the minister, " Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven." The minister rises with the air of authority in the Morning and Evening Prayer, after the General Confession, and solemnly declares that "God hath given power and commandment to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins." But this is all he can do. The Prayer-Book gives him no opportunity to exercise that great "power." Supposing him to possess that power, this is certainly a grave defect. But this is not all. The doctrine is not believed in among your people. If I were to ask your members whether your ministers have the power to forgive sins, they would answer in the negative almost unanimously ; and not only so, they would repudiate the doctrine as odious and false, and as a corrupt invention of Popery. And I need not tell you that the same thing would be done by nine-tenths of your * This form of Ordination, like that of Absolution, was too strong for the American revisers; and, as in that case, they inserted another form under the words, "Or this," in which nothing is said al out/or- giving sins! Tn practice, the suhstitute is generally used in preference to the orieinal. 122 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. clergy.* Yes, your very ministers would disclaim that power if questioned upon the subject ; and if you remind them of the portions of the Prayer-Book which I have cited, they will give you long and labored explanations, the amount of which is, that all this strong and solemn language ut- tered before God in the sanctuary, means nothing at all ! Thus, the very man to whom the bishop has said — " Receive the Holy Ghost * * * whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven"- — the very man who rises in the Church every Sun- day and solemnly affirms that ' ' God has given to His minis- ters power and commandment to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins" — I say that very man, when privately interro- gated, will not hesitate to deny that he possesses any such power ! I forbear to comment upon this extraordinary fact ; but commend it to the reflection of all sincere members of your communion who love honesty and consistency. I have now shewn you that the practice of auricular con- fession and the doctrine of priestly or sacramental absolution, are both plainly and undeniably set forth in the Book of Common Prayer as now used in England. And if, my friend, you acknowledge the Anglican Church to be your mother Church, and a true and orthodox Church, how can you consistently reject these things, and with what propriety can you censure the Catholic for practising them ? But I have also shewn you that although the practice of auricular confession has been suppressed by the revisers of the American Prayer Book, yet the doctrine of priestly ab- solution is still retained therein ; and consequently, as an honest and consistent Episcopalian, you ai'e bound to believe it. When your bishop places his hands upon a man and ut- ters these solemn words — "Receive the Holy Ghost : whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven" — you must either believe that power of forgiving sins is then conferred upon him, or you must believe your bishop " lies to the Holy Ghost," and is guilty of awful mockery and blasphemy. You will hardly accept the latter alternative. But if you believe in priestly absolution, you must also believe in auric- *■ I say nine-tcfith-s ; for there is a small class of Episcopalians, cler- gymen and laymen, who endeavor to follow the Prayer-Book with strictness, and who profess to believe in this doctrine. Their attempt at consistency is commendable, but they are in a false position eccle- siastically, as many such have discovered. L E T T K R IV. 123 ular confession, and that not only because retained by the Anglican Church, which you acknowledge to be orthodox, but because the one implies and involves the other. If God has given this power to Ilis ministers, it must have been given to be exercised for the benefit of the penitent, unless we suppose the greatest absurdity. Indeed, this is expressly asserted in your Prayer-Book ; for your form of absolution not only says that God hath given "power," but also " commandment" to His ministers to declare absolution. This must mean that they are positively commanded by the Almighty to exercise this power. And yet, my friend, is it not an extraordinary thing that, although publicly acknow- ledging every Sunday that they are under such a " command- ment," your ministers never comply with that "command- ment" by actually exercising that power in behalf of the poor conscience-stricken sinner ? All opportunity of doing so, is taken from them by the alterations made in your services, un- less they venture to do so privately and upon their individual responsibility, as r\ feiv of your clei'gy have been known to do in recent times. But if this power is to be exercised, as it evidently must be, there must be auricular confession. The priest cannot forgive sins, unless these sins are laid before him by a specific confession. To forgive sins upon a mere "general confession," such as you make in your Morning Prayer, would be to act in the dark. It is a great and re- sponsible prerogative, and should be exercised intelligently and discreetly. One man may be guilty merely of some tri- fling offence, while another is guilty of the crime of robbery, adultery, or murder. Can both men be absolved on the same terms and with equal ease? Yet, no distinction can be made without a special confession. Besides, the minister is authorized also to "retain" sins — to withhold pardon, when necessary, from a want of true penitence or other cause. But this distinction he cannot exercise unless made acquainted with the particular sin committed. I may also add, that he is to judge of the character and degree of the sin upon which he is to act ; and this he cannot do without knowing what that sin is, and also the circum.stances under which it was committed. For these, and other reasons, the power of absolution necessarily involves the correlative duty of auricular confes.sion. After what has been set before you from your own doctri- nal standard, it ought not to be necessary to say anything 124 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. more in support of the Catholic practice of confession and absolution ; but I cannot leave the subject without adducing a few testimonies that ought to have weight with you, if you are not already thoroughly convinced of this duty. In the first place, the practice is founded upon the express Word of God. If you turn to the 18th verse of the _18th chapter of St. Matthew, you will find that our Lord said to His apostles : " Verily I say vmto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." And again, in St. John, chap, xx., vs. 22, 23, He said to them : " Re- ceive ye the Holy Ghost : Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted x;nto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained." Once more: turn to the Epistle of St. James, chap, v., V. 16, and j^ou will find him, when speaking of ministers and people, giving this direction: " Confess your faults one to another, and pray for one another, that ye may be healed." By these, and other similar passages, the Ca- tholic doctrine upon the subject, is clearly established from the Bible. It would be an easy matter to give you a long list of An- glican divines, who have testified in favor of the divine au- thority or utility of confession and absolution ; but that cannot be necessary, after the quotations which I have made from the English Prayer-Book. I shall, therefore, only adduce the testimony of two or three of your own clergy. The late Dr. Henshaw, formerly of Baltimore, afterwards Bishop of Rhode Island, published " Two Lectures in an- swer to the Inquiry, What is the true construction of the terms. Priest, Altar and Sacrifice, as used in the Offices of the Church?" In this pamphlet, I find him saying, "We deny not the priestly gift of absolution ; but it is declara- tive only, as is manifest fi-om the form employed by the Church." After quoting that form, he adds, " To all who truly repent and believe, this absolution is available ; and the declaration of it by God's minister and representative, should impart peace and consolation to their souls." (Pages 10, 11.) I have already shown that the distinction ground- ed upon the word "declarative," is a distinction without essential difi'erence. When the point is properly understood, absohrivg, and " declaring absolved" are practically the same thing. The Catholic Church does not teach that the priest forgives sin, in an absolute sense, that is, independently of I, K T T K K IV. 125 God, and without the condition of repentance or contrition. Her doctrine is, that (Jod himself forgives sin, by the agency of the priest, the requisite conditions being complied with on the part of the sinner. But Dr. Henshaw proceeds as follows : " We do not deny that the priest may remit or forgive sins, according to the tenor of the original commission from which his authority is derived. He cannot do it. however, absolutely and uncon- ditionall}', but only miin.stcn'dUi/ and cojulifiomdlij, by ad- ministering those sacraments, which, as signs and seals of the covenant of grace, nssitrc pardon and acceptance to the repenting and believing sinner." Considering absolution as one of the Sacraments, there is nothing in this passage inconsistent with the Catholic doctrine upon the subject. But even apart from that consideration, the only difference between us, is as to the mode by which the priest remits sins ; but after the thing itself is allowed, it is not worth while to dispute about the mode. Besides, every one must perceive that after conceding so much in regard to the power itself, it is unreasonable and inconsistent to make such lim- itations and subtle distinctions. I may also observe, that to most Episcopalians the doctrine of remission of sins through the Sacraments is as novel and as difficult as by priestly ab- solution. In citing Dr. Henshaw, it may be well to state that he did not belong to that extreme class of churchmen who have been called Puseyites ; but was only a ' ' moderate churchman." I will give you the testimony of one other clergyman of your denomination. I have before me a printed sermon on ■' Sacerdotal Absolution." It was preached before the Con- vention of the Diocese of North Carolina, in 1843, by the Rev. M. A. Curtis, of that diocese, and " published by re- c[uest." The text upon which the sermon is preached, is the passage of Scripture which I have quoted above — "Whoso- ever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whoso- ever sins ye retain, they are retained." This sermon is, from beginning to end, a regular exposition and defence of priestly absolution, and might have answered admirably for any Catholic pulpit. To this sermon the author has ap- pended a number of notes, from which I will quote the fol- lowing ' ' concluding remark :" — ^ ' ' The chief value of the Apostolic Succession appears to me to be derived from the truth of the doctrine of Absolu- 126 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. tioii, or the reality of the power of the keys. If the priest- hood has not authority actually to dispense the benefits which flow to us through the Church, what can be urged against a mere expediency in the constitution of the Church, or the assumption of the office of priest by any person who may choose to assume it." This author is as clear and logical as he is bold and fear- less. Planting himself upon the broad language of Holy Scripture, he asserts the doctrine in all its length and breadth, not daring to set limits where God has set none, and disdaining to make use of verbal distinctions and refine- ments, which either mean nothing at all, or entirely nullify the doctrine admitted to be true. In Staunton's "Church Dictionary," a high authority among you, I find admissions to the same purport. Under the word " Absolution," the author, who is a clergyman of your Church, says: "This existence of a power in the priesthood to minister absolution, is one of those things which the Church assumes as an incontestible fact, the warrant for which is drawn from those remarkable words of Christ : 'Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted,'" &c. Pie then proceeds to say that the Church, that is, the "Episcopal Church," asserts the possession of the authority in those forms which I have just cited from your Prayer-Book. He after- wards argues that his Church not only ' ' means something by absolution," but " regard this act as one of a very pecu- liar and solemn nature," for certain reasons, the first of which he gives as follows : " The Church, universally, and in all ages, has claimed the power of absolution as an integral part of the priestly office." Now, these admissions are all that a Catholic would ask. And yet, with singular inconsis- tency, this author afterwards makes such explanations and (|ualifications, as to involve himself in a palpable contradic- tion, all through fear of approaching too near to Rome ! But let his explanations avail with those who are willing to accept them. His admissions are clear and positive, particularly as to the fact, that " the Church in all ages has claimed the power of absolution." These testimonies, which might easily be multiplied, shew that whatever may be the short-comings of the great body of your clergy in reference to this doctrine, there have been some at least, who, rising above the jirejudices of education, have had the courage to conform their belief and teachings LKTTEK IV. 127 upon the subject to your Prayer-Book. To what extent these exceptional clergy men have persevered in this doctrine and especially in its practice, is another question. It is much to be feai'ed that the absence of any provision in your liturgy for the exercise of this power, and the intense dis- like of the doctrine on the part of your people generally, soon embarra.'^s and dishearten them. I have not undertaken to exhibit in full the great variety of arguments whicli may be urged in favor of the Catholic doctrine of confession in order to absolution — my limits and plans will not permit it. If what I have said be not suffi- cient to convince you of its obligation, let me advise you to consult some of the many excellent Catholic treatises in which this great truth is fully argued. I will merely add one or two remarks before I quit the subject. If Catholics practice this doctrine, it is solely because they regard it as of divine institution and obligatory upon all. It is a " commandment" resting upon them, which they dare not neglect or evade, however repugnant the duty may be to flesh and blood. The words of the Divine Author of Christianity', which I have already cited, lay them under this imperative obligation, and not mere custom or human precept. If this institution had not a divine origin, let its opposers say when and where it first arose in the world. Popes, bishops and priests, as well as kings and peasants, have all alike to resort to the confessional. It must be mani- fest that such an institution, binding upon all alike, the highest ecclesiastic and the humblest layman, could never have been imposed upon mankind by mere human authority. Besides, the antiquity of the institution is shewn by the fact that it exists also among the ancient oriental sects, such as the Nestorians and Eutychians, who separated from the Ca- tholic Church as long ago as the fifth century.* * The practice of coufession is now carried on in the law-established Church of England to a considerable extent. The Rev. Wm. Gres- ley, a prominent clergyman of that Church, recently published a let- ter upon the su])ject, in which, speaking from his own experience, he saj's : "He has known more sinners brought to repenUiuce by this means than by any other ;" that '' it is just -,vhat sinful, worldly men, awakened to their danger, need, in order to work in them a thorough conversion and amendment of life;' and that ''he scarcelj' ever knew a person relapsing into irreligious habits, who had conscientiously used confession.'' (See New York Churchman, Sep. IG, 1858.) Such 12 128 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. But it is now time to resume the thread of my observa- tions upon the Prayer-Book. After the minister has read the form of absolution, (but remember without absolving any one,) he then kneels and says the Lord's Prayer, the people repeating it after him. This prayer being taken from the Scriptures, and used still more frequently among the Catholics, it is one of those parts of your service which are worthy of consideration. It con- tains, however, two or three petitions, to which I ask youi' attention in passing. In the first place, what is the meaning of that request, ' ' Thy Kingdom come ?" What is that ' ' Kingdom ?" Is it not that One Church which He has es- tablished, and of which all must become members ? And when you pray that that Kingdom or Church may come, let me entreat you to put yourself in the way to receive it and submit to it, by cultivating that child-like docility which our Saviour declared to be necessary in all who become members of it. " Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not re- ceive the Kingdom of Heaven as a little child, shall in no wise enter therein." In the next place, let me ask you to consider the meaning of that petition — "Give us this day our daily bread?" Does it not refer to something more than the ordinary food for the body ? Does it not mean that Bread from Heaven which our Redeemer gave us, saying, " My flesh is meat in- deed, and My blood is drink indeed:" and again, "He that eateth of this bread, shall live for ever." And where, now, can you find that Divine Bread except upon the Catho- lic altar, to which St. Paul evidently alluded when he said, " We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat, who serve the tabernacles." After the Lord's Prayer, you make use of certain versicles and responses, including the Gloria Patri, which are all taken from the Catholic liturgy. Youthen " say or sing" the 95th Psalm, followed by the Psalter for the day. All these Scriptural forms of devotion were in use in the various is the testimony of an Anglican clergyman. And yet there is no Ca- tholic practice more vehemently assailed by Episcopalians than this. That private confession was practiced in the early Church, is ad- mitted by that standard writer of the Anglican Church, the "judi- cious Hooker," who says: "Were the Fathers, then, without use of private confession as long as public was in use? I affirm no such thing." (Eccles. Pol. B. VI., chap, iv., 1.) LETTER IV. 129 Catholic liturgies and services long before your Prayer- Book was thought of. After the Psalter or psalms for the day, you make use of the Gloria Patri, or Gloria in Excel- sis. Both of these doxologies are very ancient composi- tions — so ancient, that it is not exactly known when or by whom they were originally composed and introduced into use. They take their names from the first words of the original Latin, in which tongue they were employed by the Catholic Church, ages before Cranmer was born. The Gloria in Excelsis is frequently designated by Catholics as the " great doxology," to distinguish it from the the Gloria Patri. known as the " little doxology." It is called the An- gelic Hymn, because its first sentence consists of the ascrip- tion of praise used by the angels when they appeared to the shepherds at Bethlehem to announce the birth of the Mes- siah. Of course, this part of the composition is borrowed from the Scriptures, and is as old as the New Testament. When and by whom the remainder was added to it, is un- known. But we know that, from a very early period, this beautiful and glowing efiiasion of praise has been used in the service of the Mass, and is still used in that connection throughout the year — in imitation of which, it has been in- trdduced into the Communion Service of your Prayer-Book. I may also remark, that the use of the doxology after each psalm is a custom borrowed from the Catholic Church. After the Gloria in Excelsis, your minister reads a lesson or chapter from the Old Testnment, which is taken on cer- tain Holy Days, as I have before remarked, from books which your Church has excluded from the canonical Scrip- tures, such as Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, &c. Your next exer- cise is to say or sing that beautiful and sublime composition called the " Te Deum," beginning, " We prai.se Thee, O God." For this grand production you are indebted to the Catholic Church. It was composed by St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, in Italy, a zealous advocate of the authority and prerogatives of the Pope, and was used in Catholic worship ages before Cranmer existed. There are some passages in this sublime chaunt which, if attentively considered, must be felt to be out of place anywhere but in a Catholic temple. When you exclaim, " The noble army of martyrs praise Thee," what do you mean by these words? Who com- posed that "noble army of martyrs?" You do not refer to Angels, Prophets and Apostles, for they are previously mentioned as united in this chorus of praise to the Supreme 130 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. Being. It can mean notliing else than those myriads of Catholic martyrs who perished in the persecutions Avaged against the Church during the first five centuries after the Apostles. These were the martyrs which the Catholic Bishop of Milan had in his mind when he indited these words — martyrs who esteemed it their highest privilege and a mark of orthodoxy to be in communion with the Holy- See, that divinely appointed centre of Church unity and au- thority — martyrs whom the Catholic Church still honors by name in her liturgy, but whom you have ruthlessly displaced from your calendar and refused to recognize. I have ascribed the composition of the Te Denvi to St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, who died early in the fifth century ; such is the general testimony of antiquity. It can be clearly proved to have been in use in the Catholic Church since the sixth century. If any one following the conceit of some in regard to the bishops and fathers of that early period, sup- poses that Ambrose was not a Catholic, in the modern sense, he has only to read the life and writings of that saintly bish- op. Among the many works which he wrote, I find one " On Virginity," and another on the " Institution of a Vir- o'in." In the latter work he combats the error of those who denied the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God. He had a community of virgins under his charge in Milan, to whom " he gave the veil." Many miracles are said to have been wrought by him, the truth of which is admitted by Dr. Cave, an Anglican writer of great authority in such matters. Ambrose relates in one of his works, that when his brother Satyrus was shipwrecked and cast upon an island, and desi- ring to be baptized, he was careful to inquire whether the bishop there "agreed in faith with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church ;" and finding that he was not, refused to receive baptism there. These things are sufficient to show what sort of a Catholic Ambrose was. Archbishop Usher, Dr. Cave, and other Anglican divines have ascribed this composition to St. Nicetius, bishop of Triers, in France, who flourished about the year 535. This bishop was no less a Catholic than Ambrose. France has always been in communion with Home. Nicetius received his education in a monastery : from that circumstance, as well as from the later period at which he lived, he must have been deeply tinctured with the so-called ' ' errors of Popery," according to the Protestant theory that after the LETTER IV. 131 third or fuurtli century the Church gradually became more and more corrupt ; a most absurd theory, and one, by the by, which jMr. Isaac Taylor, an eminent Protestant writer, shows to be erroneous in his work on "Ancient Christi- anity." In the next verso of this hymn you represent the Church as taking part in this chorus of praise : " The Holy Church throughout all the world doth acknowledge thee." Consider what is the " Holy Church," here mentioned. You must admit that, in its true meaning it refers to the Catholic Church with the Pope at its head. St. Ambrose, as a mem- ber of that Church, could have meant nothing else, and while used in that Church during the long period of a thou- sand years, between Ambrose and Cranmer, it had no other meaning. And that which was its original meaning, and its meaning for a thousand years, must surely be its genuine, and present meaning. If, therefore, you use it in its true meaning, you do but bear testimony to the Catholic Church every time you join in its glorious strains. But if you do not use it in that sense, let me ask you to define the sense in which you do use it. I fear you will find this to be a diffi- cult matter. Like other portions of the Prayer-Book, to which you have long been accustomed, you probably use it in a vague and unmeaning manner. It would be well, if you would for once, bring yourself to a clear and exact defi- nition in regard to it. What, then, do you mean by the- "Holy Church throughout all the world?" You cannot mean your own Church, for that is not spread " throughout all the world," but confined to certain portions of the Unitedi States. You cannot mean the established Church of Eng- land, for that is limited to the dominions of Queen Victoria. You cannot mean to include in that term PJpiscopalians, An- glicans and Iloman Catholics, for these are separate and dis- tinct bodies, at variance with each other in essential doc- trines. If you meant them you would have to say " Church- es," and not "Church," for they are not one. but several. Besides, if you include the Catholics, you admit them to constitute at least a part of the "Holy Church" of God. And if you admit that, what becomes of your oft-repeated charges against that Church, of corruption, superstition and idolatry! Such abominations cannot exist in a /A-/// Church. But if you do not join in these charges, and admit her to be " holy," why are you separated from her, and why do 12* 132 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. you continue to use a Prayer-Book which in its " Articles of Religion " makes these charges. Ah, my friend, you are evidently involved in an unhappy dilemma. These words, " the Holy Church throughout all the world," can mean only what their saintly atithor intended, and what they have always meant; that is, the Catholic Church, with the Pope as its chief bishop and supreme head on earth. This is the only Church now existing, that is spread "throughout all the world." You find it not only in the United States and in England, but in South America, in Europe, Asia and Africa; in fact, "throughout all the world." She is the only Church that can claim universality ; and therefore, she, and she only, is "the Holy Church throughout all the world." And if you do not refer to her, when you "say or sing" the Te JJemn, there is no other Church to which you can refer, and you use these words without meaning. Thus, my friend, in the use of this sublime composition of a Catholic bishop and saint, more particularly in those two sentences, "the noble army of martyrs praise Thee, the Holy Church throughout all the world doth acknowledge Thee," your Book of Common-Prayer bears testimony to the Catholic Church, and plainly points you to her bosom as the source of life and salvation. How can you join in these sentences every Sunday morning, and yet refuse those mar- tyrs a place in your calendar ? And how can you remain separated from that "Holy Church?" Surely, divine Pro- vidence in permitting this sublime hymn to be retained in your service, designed thereby to give you and others a standing memorial of his true Church, and a perpetual call to its ever open portals. May you not be guilty of closing your eyes to the way-marks which He has thus given you, at the very time, too, when you utter these solemn words, " We believe that thou shalt come to be our Judge." A. B. LETTER V. Remarks on tho Ikncdicite. — Invocation of Saints and Angels. — Ru- bric before the Apostles' Creed. — The Atlianasian Creed. — Left out of the American Priyer-Book. — Remarks on the Apostles' Creed. — The Niceue Creed. — Additions made to those ancient symbols. — The Descent into Hell. — Communion of Saints. — The Consubstan- tiality of Christ. — Articles of the Creeds cannoi, be proved from the Scriptures alone. — The Incarnation. My Dear Friexd : After the Te Dcum, I find in your Praycr-Book, a Canti- cle, which is allowed to be used instead of that hymn, at the option of the minister ; a privilege which is seldom exer- cised. This Canticle is the " Benedicite," so called from the first word in the Latin version of the composition. There are two or three verses in it which possibly you have never noticed, or attentively considered. Li the second verse, you say, "0, ye Angels of the Lord, bless ye the Lord ; praise Him and magnify Him for ever." Here you invoke the Angels of God, although you condemn Catholics for that practice. When we call upon them, you allege that they cannot hear us. How is it that they can hear you, when you call upon them to bless the Lord ? In another verse, towards the end, you say: " ye spirits and souls of the righteous, bless ye the Lord." Here you advance a step further, and actually invoke the souls of the departed ; al- though you profess to reject the Catholic practice of the invocation of saints ! Probably you are not aware of the source of this Canticle, found in your service. Let me inform you, then, that it is the Canticle or song which the " three children" sang when they were thrown into the fiery furnace by order of King Nebuchadnezzer. You will find it in the third chapter of the Book of Daniel, of the Catholic Bible ; but you will look in vain in your own Bible for it. It has been wholly omitted as Apocryphal, and yet by a strange inconsistency it has a place in your Prayer-Book. You displace it from the Holy Bible as spurious ; and yet, you give it a place in your pub- (133) 134 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN, lie worship, just as you do other portions of Scripture ! As this Canticle is found in the most ancient Greek and Latin versions of the Bible, besides having been received as canon- ical by the Church from the early times, there can be no reasonable doubt that it constitutes a portion of the genuine Scriptures ; and consequently its rejection involves a sin of great magnitude. But whether you assent to this or not, you cannot but be struck with the gross inconsistency of ex- cluding it from the canonical Scriptures, and at the same time retaining it in the public liturgy. I have also to point out to you a discrepancy between the English and the American Prayer-Books in regard to this Canticle. In the former I find, at the close, the following verse: "O Ananias, Azarius, and Misael, bless ye the Lord; praise Him, and magnify Him forever." This verse forms a part of that beautiful Canticle as it ap- pears in the Catholic Bible, as well as in the English Prayer- Book ; but in the American Prayer-Book it has been wholly omitted ! Now why this omission ? It was evidently be- cause there was an unwillingness to call upon these holy men, long since departed to their reward in heaven. It would have been an " invocation of saints." It is true this is done in the verse in which ' ' the souls of the righteous " are in- voked : but the act becomes more palpable, and more difficult to explain away, when those departed souls are called on by name — "0 Ananias, Azarius, and Misael." How, my friend, can you justify this omission? You cannot do so, without condemning the original compilers of your Prayer- Book, and the founders of your mother Church. If they were right in retaining it, your own Church is wrong in rejecting it. In this Canticle, your Prayer-Book again bears testimony to the Catholic Church : to the doctrine and practice of in- voking departed saints. Every one must perceive that there is no material difference between saying " ye Angels of the Lord bless ye the Lord," or "0 ye spirits and souls of the righteous bless ye the Lord," and saying, as the Ca- tholic does, " ye Saints and Angels, pray for me." How then can you do the one, and yet refuse to do the other? But it is not only in this Canticle that you invoke the Angels ; you do the same in the psalm called Benedic, anima mea, appointed to be said or sung in your Evening Prayer, after the second lesson. The verse to which I refer. L E T T E H V . 135 reads thus : "0 praise the Lord, ye Angels of His, ye that excel in strength," &c. And let me remind you that this is not merely the language of the compilers of your Prayer- Book : it is a portion of the inspired word of God, as you may see by turning to psalm 103 of the Protestant Bible. And this is not the only instance in which we have Scriptu- ral authority for invoking the Angels. In Psalm 148 you will find a similnr prayer : " Praise yc Him all Ilis Angels ; praise ye Him all Jlis hosts." This practice of invoking saints and angels is not only very ancient, but conformable to both reason and Scripture. That these hajjpy denizens of another world, at least the angels, aid and succor God's people upon earth, is admitted by many Protestants. And this opinion is sustained not only by that portion of the Prayer-Book just cited, but more expressly in your collect or prayer for St. Michael's Day, in which you pray God to "grant that as thy holy angels always do thee service in heaven ; so bij thy appointment, they may succor and defend us on earth." Here is plainly taught the doctrine of the guardianship of angels. It is also set foi'th in one of your hymns, the 171st, thus: •'Lord keep us safe this night, Secure from all our fears ; Mat/ angels guard us while ice sleep, Till morning light appears." Thus in the solemn services of your Church, and in your evening song, you alike pray that the angels may " guard," " succor and defend" you. You must therefore admit this doctrine. You cannot be ignorant of the many passages of Scripture in which it is plainly taught, such as that in the Epistle to the Hebi-ews, when speaking of the angels, it is said, "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation ?" (Chap, i., v. 14.) As to the ministry and guardianship of angels, then, Pro- testants and Catholics may be said to be agreed. And yet this truth contains the germ of the entire doctrine and prac- tice of the Catholic Church in the matter. This truth being admitted, there remains nothing worth disputing about. The chief Protestant objection to our practice is that gene- rally couched in this interrogation : " How can the saints or angels hear you ?" And yet this objection vanishes the mo- 136 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. nient we admit the guardianship of angels. The angels cannot guard us without being present, and cognizant of the circumstances in which we are placed. And if thus present and cognizant, it is absurd to ask, " how can they hear us'V Again : if the angels guard us, they must have power to "succor and defend us," as your collect expresses it : and if they are present and know all about us, and have power to succor us, it is alike the dictate of reason and piety to call on them for assistance. The truth is, my friend, if I may be allowed to speak plainly, you Protestants do not really believe in the guardianship of angels. You may admit it in theory, and in your public formularies, hut j^i'^tcticalli/ you do not realize it. No one can truly believe the doctrine, without reducing it to practice ; but you not only fail to re- duce it to practice, but even condemn the practice. If you are in need or danger, you instantly call upon the friend who happens to be near for assistance. This, you say, is right and natural. But you tell me you have a guardian angel at your side, who is able to " succor and defend" you, and yet you refuse to ask that angel's assistance ! Whence arises this marked difference in your conduct towards your friend and towards your guardian angel ? It must be be- cause you believe the former is present to help, and the latter is not. If the angel be really present to help, there can be no more impropriety in imploring his assistance, than there can be in asking the assistance of your earthly friend — but, on the contrary, it is plainly reasonable and natural to do so. Now, my friend, if you will permit me to say it, the differ- ence between you and the Catholic, upon this and some other points discussed in these letters is simply this : you assent in theory to certain abstract truths, but in rather a vague and indefinite sense ; whereas, the Catholic fully be- lieves them, with a clear and perfect faith, and cordially receives and practices all that can be fairly and logically deduced from them. I need not say whose conduct is most consonant with reason and fitness ; but I would simply remind you of the utter inconsistency and of the unsatis- factoriness of only a half-way belief in the great and pre- cious truths of religion. What peace and comfort can you derive from these truths when held in this imper- fect manner? Take the doctrine of priestly absolution. Church authority, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, or the guardianship of angels : of what use are these things LETTER V. 1S7 when held only as theoretical, cold, vague and abstract truths ? If I ask you for a clear statement of your belief, in one of them, your answer is either so vague and incom- prehensible, that I can make nothing of it ; or you pro- ceed to make so many qualifying and attenuating explana- tions, that the doctrine "dissolves into thin air." How much more consistent, more logical, more manly, more no- ble it is to receive these truths in all their fulness, and in all their practical consequences and developments. Within the range of Christian science, there is hardly a truth so beautiful and so rich in practical comfort and peace, as that of the guardianship of angels. And yet I am sure I do you no injustice, when I express the opinion that you rarely, if ever realize that truth in your daily life, or derive from it a particle of consolation I See, my friend, how you defraud yourself in this truth, as in others^ which you only j^artially believe. The fact is, these truths are not in harmony with the rest of your doctrinal system, nor with your isolated position ; and hence, instead of becoming strong and fruit- yielding plants, they barely exist, like half-withered cuttings, nearly hidden by weeds, in an uncongenial soil. Perhaps you will say that if the guardianship of angels involves the invocation of angels, it does not justify the invo- cation of departed saints, inasmuch as they are two distinct classes of beings. That the one fully proves the other, I do not assert. But the invocation of angels necessarily re- futes the principal objections urged against the invocation of saints, viz : that it is of an idolatrous character. If it be not idolatrous to invoke your guardian angel, who is a cre- ated being, it cannot be idolatrous to invoke St. Mary or St. Paul, also created beings. Besides, the canticle of the three Hebrew martyrs, as used in your Prayer-Book, justifies the invocation of saints as well as angeb. You there invoke the "spirits and souls of the righteous;" and in the English Prayer-Book, these three martyrs are invoked by name, " Ananias, Azarius and Misael." The practice is justified also by the Apostles' Creed, which you profess to believe every Sunday. When you profess your faith in the " Com- munion of Saints," you can mean nothing less than that there is a fellowship, a community of interests between God's people upon earth and in heaven, that they all constitute one family, and feel and care for each other. But how can all this be, unless in some way or other they are cognizant of us 138 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. and of our afiairs. And if thus cognizant, tliey must be in a position to receive our invocations, as the angels are. This idea is plainly advanced in several hymns of your Prayer- Book. Thus, in the 212th :— " Lo, ■what a cloud of Avitnesses Encompass us around, Men once like us with suffering tried, But now with glory crowned." Also, in the 26th :— " Angels, and living saints and dead. But one communion make ; All join in Christ, their vital Head, And of His love partake." Again : in the 5th hymn you carry out this idea by actu- ally invoking the saints above : — ■ ' ' Let every listening saint above Wake all the tunef^ul soul of love, And touch the sweetest string." Thus, in your songs of praise and devotional anthems, the pious instincts of the heart break through the barriers of a cold and rigid system, and place you in sweet communion with saints of former ages. But if it be right to call upon the saints in verse, surely you will not say it is wrong to call upon them in prose. Nor will you attempt, I trust, to ex- plain it all away as figurative language or poetical license. Hymns of praise adopted by the Church, and authorized to be used in public worship, ought not to contain the least sanction of error in doctrine or practice. It must therefore be presumed, that the sentiments they contain, no matter by what figures expressed, must be in accordance with sound theology. To suppose the contrary, would be a serious re- flection upon the wisdom and prudence of your ecclesiastical authorities. I am satisfied that the objection to this doctrine, on the part of many, arises fi"om misconception. Let me therefore state what the Catholic Church teaches upon the subject. By the Council of Trent, she speaks thus : ' ' The Saints reigning with Christ, oiFer up their prayers to God for men ; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, help and assistance, to ob- tain favors from God, through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who is alone our Redeemer and Saviour." (Sess. 25 LETTER V. 139 >de Invoc.) Observe how moderate, reasonable and Scriptu- ral is this declaration. You may be struck with the words, •'the saints rc!(jnhHj nith Christ." This is, perhaps, a more exalted idea of their position than you have been led to form. And yet it is fully justified by the language of Scrip- ture in many places. To cite only a few of them. Our Sa- viour said to his Apostles : " Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matth. xix. 28. ) And again, in the Book of Eevclation, we have this truth expressly stated when our Lord sajs, " To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne." (Rev. iii. 21.) From those and other like passages, it is evident the saints do reign with Christ, as declared by the Fathers of Trent. This fact is important, because constituting the ground of the power ascribed to the saints, and they who profess to be guided by Scripture, cannnot refuse their assent to it. Jacob's name was changed into Israel, because he had power with God, and prevailed in his importunate request. But if he, while yet in the flesh, had such power, how much greater must be the power of those holy beings, who, after conquering the world, non: .^it icith Christ iqwii his throne. Can any one doubt their power with God to obtain for us ' ' help and assistance V"' And if they are able to help us by their prayers, they must be equally iriJJing to do so, as they still form with us " one communion" and one family. But I wish you to notice another feature of this doctrine, as set forth by the Council of Trent. It is, that the saints obtain favors for us, " through Jesus Christ our Lord, who is alone our Redeemer and Saviour." Thus we invoke them, not as gods, who can dispense fiivors by their own inherent right and power, but simply as highly exalted fj-eatures, possessing great influence with the Supreme Being. All spiritual favors come from God only, in a strict and absolute sense. But he is pleased to bestow them upon us, through the intercession of His saints, and for the sake of Jesus Christ. This is the Catholic doctrine upon the subject. You will perceive that this doctrine does not derogate from the merits of Christ, since we receive all through Ilim. Nor does it trench on the mediatorial office of Christ, for the same reason; and also, because that office consists chiefly in the work of Redemption performed by Christ alone, on Calvary. And although Christ is also our Intercessor in heaven, yet it is in the capacity of 13 140 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. Kedeemev. But whether this exphination be satisfactory or not, there is yet another answer which is sufficient by itself. Intercession of the saints means nothing more than the prayers of the saints in our behalf. AU^ Christians think it right to ask the prayers of their ministers, and the prayers of each other. Does this interfere with the office of Christ, as Mediator and Intercessor ? Certainly not. How then can it intei-fere with that office, to ask the prayers of the saints, who sit with Christ upon his throne ? I might easily defend this doctrine from the Scriptures at great length ; but as I am only noticing it incidentally, I must content myself with one or two references. In the Book of Revelation, the prayers of God's people are repre- sented as oiFered up by heavenly beings : ' ' And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints." (Rev. v. 8 ; see also chap, viii., 3, 4.) By the term "saints," is here meant the holy ones of Grod upon earth, for such was its ordinary use in the Apostolic age ; hence, St. Paul, in one of his epistles, speaks of his converts as '• called to be saints." In the other passage to which I have referred, an angel with a golden censor and in- cense, is represented as offering the prayers of the saints to Grod. Here, then, is an agency performed by the spirits above, similar to that which is implied in the invocation of saints as now practiced among Catholics. It would be easy to shew that the invocation of saints has been taught and practiced by the Church in every age since the Apostles. Episcopalians appeal to the "ancient fa- thers" in behalf of Episcopacy or the ' ' three orders." By a similar appeal, the doctrine of the invocation of saints may be much more clearly established. I could cite many pages of testimony from the standard writers of the second, third, fourth and fifth centuries, including the very men to whom you appeal in behalf of Episcopacy, shewing that they both taught and practiced the invocation of saints precisely as do Catholics at the present day. Among these writers are sev- eral who occupy a place in the Calendar of the English Pi*ayer-Book, such as Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Grego- ry, Bede, &c., &c. To make such quotations, would swell these letters to an unreasonable size. I must therefore refer L K T T K n V . 141 you to works ■vrliich treat upon this ami other Catholic doc- trines fully.* But it is time to resume our examination of your ' ' 3Iorn- ing Prayer." After the second lesson, which is taken from the New Testament, according to the calendar, you say or sing either the JuhiJate Deo. which is taken from the lOOth psalm of the Bible, or the Bened ictus, which is taken from the first chapter of St. Luke, and may be called the Canticle of Zacharias. More than half of the latter, however, has been loppod off by your American revisers. The next act in your service is to recite the " Apostles' Creed," which is said aloud by the "minister and people standing," as the rubric directs. In regard to the use of this creed, I find, in the first place, three points of difference between the English and the American Prayer-Book . First, in the former the creed is allowed to be " sung," as in the Catholic Church ; secondly, in the former this creed is set aside on "such days as the Creed of St. Athanasius is ap- pointed to be read," whereas in the American Prayer-Book the Creed of St. Athanasius has been wholly left out, and no allusion ever made to it I Thirdly, the rubric in the Ameri- can Prayer-Book says ' ' any church may omit the words He di^scended into hell, or may, instead of them, use the words, He went into the place of departed spirits, which are consid- ered words of the same meaning in the creed ;" whereas in the English Prayer-Book no such liberty is permitted. These diflbrences are very curious, and at the same time, quite important. We find the "mother Church" prescribing a creed which the daughter has altogether discarded ! Again, we find the young daughter, hardly yet got to housekeeping, grown more bold and presumptuous than her somewhat ven- erable mother, and daring to alter or set aside a whole article of the creed which she received. The daughter thus rejects one ci'eed entire, while she alters or omits a part of another! And yet both mother and daughter are sometimes represented as one in doctrine I The permission given in ' ' the Ameri- can Rubric" to omit the article specified, frequently occasions a discordant profession of faith in the public congregations. When the minister says, He descended into hell, a part of the * The reader will find these quotations given at length in a work entitled "Faith of Catholics," which may be had at any Catholic bookstore. 142 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. congregation will follow him, while others will say "He' went into the place of departed spirits," and a third party will keep their mouths closed and say nothing. On the other hand, when the minister says He icent into the j^^ftce of de- parted sjnrits, some of the congregation will be heard to say, He descended into hcU, while others will remain silent. Sui-e- ly this is not glorifying God, with "one mouth" and in " unity of faith," as the Scriptures command. I have said that the rubric in the English Prayer-Book requires the Apostles' Creed to be used, " except only such days as the creed of St. Athanasius is appointed to be read." Turning over a few pages in that book, I find the latter creed placed between the Evening Prayer and the Litany, and headed by a rubric specifying the festivals and Saints' Days upon which ' ' this confession of our Christian fiiith , conuuonly called the Creed of St. Athanasius," shall be used. Now, as " this confession of our Christian faith," as it is there called, has been left out of your American Prayer-Book entirely, you have utterly discarded and repudiated it. Your " faith," therefore, cannot be said to be the same as that of your mother Church. In consequence of this omission, this creed is almost entirely unknown to the Episcopalians of this coun- try ; and it may be well to take this opportunity to bring it before them. It is too lengthy, however, for me to introduce it here ; I shall therefore only cite such portions of it as seem most appropriate. The creed opens with this strong declara- tion : — "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is neces- sary that he should hold the Catholic faith. Which faith, ex- cept every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." It then proceeds to define what this Catholic faith is, set- ting forth the Unity and Trinity of the Godhead, the peculiar qualities or attributes of each of the three persons, together with the mode of their being, the Incarnation of Christ, and how He is both God and Man, and yet one. After stating these and some other points in the most precise terms, it con- cludes with this emphatic declaration : — ' ' This is the Catholic faith ; which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved." Here you see your mother Church declaring the ' ' Catho- lic faith" absolutely necessary to salvation, including in that faith an exact and faithful belief in the mysteries of the Trin- LETTER V 143 ity and luearuatiou ; and yet the authorities of your Church have expressly rejected this confession of faith ! This doc- trinal discrepancy between the mother and the daughter, is rendered the more striking by a reference to the ' ' Articles of Religion" contained in the Prayer-Book. The eighth arti- cle, as held in the English Church, says, " The three creeds, Nice Creed, Athanasius Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed." Now if you turn to the eighth article in your American Prayer-Book, you will find no mention made of the AtJi((n((,'>' to he heliead. The rubric of the Morning and Evening ]*rayer says it need not be ))elieved : " any churches may omit it." Will you do me the favor to reconcile these contradictory assertions Y When your Ameri- can revisers inserted this permission in the rubric, they must have lost sight of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. Or rather, when the articles were finally adopted in 1801, they seem to have overlooked the permission which they had given in the rubric. But in whatever way the discrepancy oc- curred, the rubric and the article are at variance with each other. The question therefore arises, which shall give way to the other ? As the articles were adopted at a later period, we presume they are to have most weight, as an older law gives place to one of a more recent date. As, then, the doctrine that Christ descendrd into hell "is to be believed," let me ask you what is meant by that doc- trine as professed by the members of your Church ? The rubric already referred to, says it means that lie went into the place of deported spirits. This throws some light upon the subject, although it does not render it perfectly clear, nor does it exactly square with the declaration of the article, that " He went dovm into hell." However, my desire is not to put an interpretation of my own upon this doctrine, but sim- ply to understand what is meant by it in your Church. In order to arrive at this point, the proper course is to inquire how it is expounded by the .standard divines of your Church. Let us then refer to two or three wlu» have written upon the 150 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. subject, and whose authority in such matters is recognized both in the Anglican and your own Chm-ch — I mean Bishops Pearson and Burnet. The former of these eminent authors, after examining the subject at great length, concludes from the Scriptures and from the fathers of the Church — " That the soul of Christ, really separated from His body by death, did truly pass into the j^laces below, where the souls of men departed were." Again : "And being He died in the simili- tude of a sinner. His soul went to the place where the souls of men are kept who die for their sins, and so did wholly im- dergo the law of death." (Expos, of Creed, Art. V.) The ex- planation of Burnet is similar : ' ' But that His soul was really removed out of His body, and carried to those unseen re- gions of departed spirits, among whom it continued until His resurrection." {Expos, of Thirty-Nine ArtieJes, Art. IH.) It will be seen that these expositions are, by no means, very clear ; and indeed, amount to little more than the words allowed by the Kubric, to be used in place of those in the creed. We are merely told that the soul of Christ icent into the plciee of departed spirits. The nature of that place, or the character of its inhabitants, are matters left wholly unex- plained. But both of these divines agree, that this "place of departed spirits" was not "hell" in the ordinary sense of the term, that is, the abode of the damned. Nor do these writers pretend that that place was Heaven, nor does any one so far as I know, so assert ; for such a notion is wholly incon- sistent with the language of the creed, deseendit ad inferna OY ad inferos, ''^e descended inio hell." Whatever mean- ing may be correctly applied to the term "Hell," the word descended, cannot possibly refer to our Lord's passage into heaven. The language of your third article is similar — "He icent doicn. into Hell," ad inferos descendisse. This equally precludes the idea of heaven. Besides, our Lord's ascension into heaven is afterwards affirmed in a subsecjuent part of the creed, thus, "the third day he arose from the dead ; He ascended into heaven." The creed first declares his burial, then his descent into hell, and next his resurrec- tion, and lastly his ascension into heaven. His descent into hell is distinct from his burial, and also from his ascension into heaven, it is therefore a separate occurrence, and refers to a distinct place. If, then, the soul of Christ, between his burial and his ascension — went to some other place, and if that place was neither the abode of the lost spirits, nor the " LETTEU V. 151 ubode of the just in heaven, it necessarily follows that there must be an intermediate place. And if there be an interme- diate place, we have in that place a foundation for the Catho- lic doctrine of a purgatory, where the souls of the redeemed are detained until purged from the last stain of sin, and fitted to enter the Divine presence, a doctrine conformable to rea- son, to Scripture, and to the ancient fathers. Before I quit this point, I must make one other observa- tion. The doctrine of the descent into heJl was evidently a disagreeable one to the American revisers of your Prayer- Book, and even to this day it is a source of considerable an- noyance to not a few of your members. For this reason you are allowed to substitute other words for it, and even to omit it altogether at your option. And yet this is a doctrine of the Holy Scriptures. It is admitted to be such by your own divines and theologians. Bishop Pearson, in his work just cited, not only admits it to be such, but quotes various pas- sages from the Bible to prove it. He says : ' ' Now several places of Scripture have been produced by the ancients as de- livering this truth, of which some without question prove it not; hut three there are ichich have heen alicai/s thought of greatest validiti/ to confirm this coiicle." (^Expos. of Creed, p. 336.) The bishop then proceeds to cite several passages in proof of this doctrine, such as Eph. iv. 9, and Acts ii. 25-31. And yet this article, deduced by your own divines from the Bible, your Prayer-Book allows "any chmx-he.s"' to ignore and suppress I Surely, this is not taking the Bible for your rule of faitb. Let us now pass to another article of your belief, as con- tained in the Apostles' Creed, vir: the Communion of Saints. In a preceding portion of these remarks, I dwelt at some length upon this interesting doctrine, and the truths to be de- duced from it. I shall, therefore, do but little more here than cite two or three of your own divines in confirmation of the views which I have there advanced. Bishop Pearson, in his able work on the creed, already referred to, after showing that all who are called and baptized in the Church were termed " saints" in the language of the New Testament, proceeds to expound this article as follows : " Lastly, the Saints of God living in the Church of Christ, are in communion with all the saints departed out of this life, and admitted to the presence of God. * * * Indeed, the Communion of Saints in the Church of Christ, with those U 152 LETTERS 'to AN EPISCOPALIAN. which are departed, is demonstrated by their communion with the saints alive. For if I have communion with a Saint of God, as such, while he liveth here, I must still have commu- nion with him when he is departed hence ; because the foun- dation of that communion cannot be removed by death." (Ejc2ms. of Creed, p. 517.) Mr. Staunton, in his Dictionary of the Church, advances similar sentiments in the following language : » ' ' Shall we say there is no spiritual union between us and those who have finished their course ? Is the Communion of Saints limited to the borders of this lonely planet V Is there no ladder of communication, by which (like the angels in the patriarch's dream) we may ascend to the regions of triumph- ant immortality ? Is the body of Christ divided, and are the conquerors above separated from the valiant soldier below, by a barrier impenetrable to the eye of faith ? Is the silken cord snapped asunder which binds the Church in glory to the Church in probation? No! but the family of God is one, indivisable — extending to both worlds. Death is powerless to separate what God has joined together. * * * And if the dissolution of the body produce any change in the relation of the spirits of the living to those of the dead, we see not how it can be, but by the enlarging and strengthening of for- mer intercourse." (See " Com. of ASaintsJ') Hence, it is clear from the statements of your own standard writers, that when yovi profess to believe in the " Communion of the Saints," you mean by that article that there is a fellow- ship and intercourse kept up between the members of the Church on earth, and the departed saints in heaven. But this doctrine, as I have shewn elsewhere, is but the foundation of the Catholic practice of the invocation of saints. The one is only a practical development of the other. Hence, to receive one and reject the other, is a palpable inconsistency. In fact, one is necessarily implied in the other. The terms " communion," " fellowship," " intercourse," have ajrracticcd meaning. If there be any thing of the sort, it is not an abstract idea, but an actual, real, practical thing. To believe in the "Communion of Saints," and yet to have no such communion or fellowship or intercourse, is merely to admit an abstract theory. If truly and correctly believed, the doctrine must be realized, must be reduced to practice. Among Ca- tholics it is thus realized, by the invocation of saints and by the propitiatory sacrifice of the altar. This is the ' ' ladder of LETTER V. 153 communication," like Jacob's, by which constant intercourse is kept up between the saints above, and the faithful on earth. But this " ladder" you refuse to make use of, and hence you do not, and cannot realize the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. If recognized among you at all, it is only in theory, only as a cold, abstract truth. Indeed, as to the mass of your members, it is scarcely even that — and the article in the creed is a vague, unmeaning declaration. The truth is professed as a mere form by the lips, but it is not felt by the heart, nor realized in the devotions of daily life. How dififer- ent was the conduct of those ancient Christians of the early ages, whom you profess to follow. They, like the Catholic of the present day, not only professed this doctrine, but re- duced it to practice. They regarded the communion or inter- course of saints as a real, actual thing. They felt it to be such, and made it such, by calling upon departed saints to aid them by their prayers. See this exemplified in the lan- guage of St. C}'prian, a bishop and martyr of the third cen- tury, and one who has a place in the calendar of the English Prayer-Book. " Let us be mindful," says he, addressing St. CorneHus in exile, " of one another in our prayers; with one mind and with one heart, in this world and in the next, let us always pray, with mutual charity, relieving our sufferings and afflictions. And may the charity of him, who, by the divine favor, shall first depart hence still persevere before the Lord ; may his prayer for our brethren and sisters, not cease." (Epist. h-ii.) Hear, too, what this venerable martyr says in his exhortation to the Virqinx. the nuns of his day: "En- dm'e bravely, advance spiritually, arrive happily : then re- member us, when the single state which you haA-e embraced, shall begin to be rewarded." (Be Hahifu Vii''cfest against the Catholic Church for doing the same thing. You cannot defend your creed except upon the authority of the Catholic Church. You must, consequentlj^ either relinquish the creed, or submit to the authority of the Church. Which will you do ? Let me direct your attention for a moment to another arti- cle of the creed — that which asserts the Incarnation of Christ. LETTER V. 159 These are the words — "And was Incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary." In the Apostles' Creed, the same doc- trine is declared in a simpler form, thus — " Born of the Vir- gin 3Iary." Now, that you believe this doctrine, in a certain way, I have no doubt. But I feel quite confident that you do not believe and realize it, in all its breadth and consequen- ces. This doctrine, fully carried out, necessarily involves the honors and prerogatives which the Cathohc Church has always ascribed to the Blessed Virgin. If God the Son became in- carnate in her chaste womb, and was "born of her," she is the "Mother of God." This Divine Infant was nursed at her bosom, and was .'iubject to her authority, for many years. That humanity which He received from her. He carried with Him mto heaven, and it will forever remain united indisso- lubly with His divinity. By virtue of it He is, and ever will be the Man-God. And since the natural relation between mother and son must necessarily exist as long as the parties have a being, so must the relation between the Blessed Vir- gin and her Divine Son remain unaltered as long as they ex- ist, which will be forever. She is still, therefore, the Mother of God, and will ever retain that glorious attribute and title. Now, I ask you, whether it is possible for any created being to enjoy a higher dignity or prerogative, than is implied in this title. Possessing this honor, she is elevated above angels and archangels, cherabim and seraphim. In an earthly mon- archy, the mother of the king ranks next after the king him- self, and receives special honor. Her influence is necessarily great, and much sought after. So also it is with the Blessed Vu'gin, as the Mother of the Divine King. Hence, the de- votions which pious Catholics have always been accustomed to pay to her, while, however, they never forget that she is a creature and not to be worshipped equally with her Divine Son. They believe as the creed teaches us, that she is His Mother. And this belief is a real and practical belief. If she is His Mother, it is natural and logical to infer that she possesses great influence with Him, and hence they arc ever anxious to secure her intercessions. In this they are justified too, by the gospel history. It was at her request that our Lord wrought His first mii-acle, although His " hour was not yet come," when He changed the water into wine at the wed- ding feast in Cana. Can we suppose that her influence with Him is less now? As her Son, can He ever cease to love and honor her ? 160 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. It is in this way, iny friend, that the dignity and power of the Blessed Virgin grow necessarily out of the Incarnation, affirmed in the creed. And when I hear Protestants con- demning the honors paid to her by Catholics, I cannot avoid doubting whether they truly believe that Jesus was God. If their belief upon this pomt were closely scrutinized, I am sure many of them would be found to hold the heresy of Nestori- us, condemned by the third Gleneral Council. This man was bishop of the great See of Constantinople. He ventured to deny that Mary was the " Mother of God," that is, that she was as the Greek word expresses it, Theotocos. Previous to his time, she had always been honored with this exalted title. This fact is admitted by yoiu- own writers, particularly by Hammond in his Definitions of Faith, who says in a note upon this term that, "it is to be met with in many of the most eminent Fathers of the Church, who lived before the time of the Council of Ephesus, as Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssene, Eusebius, Alexander of Alex- andria, Dionysius of Alexandria, Chrysostom, and others." But this writer, although approving of the term Theotocos, because confirmed by a General Council, is yet so inconsistent as to oppose the use of the expression " IMother of God." He says it has been used ' ' to exalt the privileges of the Blessed Virgin beyond those bounds within which they ought to be confined." For this reason, he argues, and also because it is " likely to give offence," it should be avoided, and " the original word Theotocos should be retained, or some such rendering as that of, " The bringer forth of God, be adopted in its stead." Here, my friend, you have another specimen of the inconsistency of your divines. No matter how sound or correct a principle may be, they are ready to abandon it, or make absurd distinctions concerning it lest they should be thought to agree with the Catholic ! Observe the ridiculous distinction to which this learned author resorts. He says you must not call Mary, "Mother of God" — but simply "The bringer forth of God !" If this is not a ' ' distinction without a difterence," I should like to know what is one. When a woman "brings forth" a child, she is invariably called the "mother" of that child. But, although it is admitted the Blessed Virgin bi'ought forth, or was the "bringer forth of God," yet she must not be called the "Mother of God!" Was ever a distinction more groundless, or more preposter- ous ? I do not consider it worth while to notice the criticism LETTER V . 161 -of this writer upon the translation of this Greek word into Latin. He admits that the term, Thcotocos. means, as every Greek scholar knows, the " bringer forth of God." This is enough. With every unsophisticated mind, " bringer forth" and "mother" are synonymous terms. Hence it is just as correct to call the Virgin, Mot ha' of God, as Thcotocos — the former being a true translation of the latter. The truth is I suspect that this writer, and most Protestants, would dis- card both epithets, if they could. They know full well that if Christ is God, and Mary was His Mother, that Mary must be "Mother of God."' And yet, they shrink from giving her that title, because they clearly perceive that it gives her great and glorious prerogatives, and justifies the veneration which Catholics pay to her. There is another point connected with this subject, to which I must advert for a moment. In the article under consider- ation, Mary is called " The Virgin Mary" — " Was Inccirnatc hij the Uoly Ghost of the Virgin Mary.'''' In the Apostles' Creed, also, we find the same expression — '•Born of the Virgin 3hrg." Now, this language has always been under- stood in the Church as teaching, that Mary was not only a Virgin at the time of her conception, but also at the period of her maternity, and ever afterwards. She was emphati- cally, the Virgin — the Virgin Mother. It was her sole privi- lege to be both a mother and a virgin. But this is not all. She was also Semper Virgo, always a virgin. This has been the tradition of the Church in every age, and certainly it is a most reasonable and pious one. Who, that reflects for a moment upon the great dignity conferred upon that holy wo- man when she was chosen to be the Mother of God, can fail to be shocked at the idea of her afterwards yielding to con- cupiscence, and giving birth to a sinful mortal V And yet I have heard members of your Church maintain this idea, and attempt to prove it from Scripture. That it is entirely erro- iieous, I can show from your own divines. Let me (juote one of them as a specimen. Bishop Pearson makes the follow- ing remarks upon the point — "Yet the peculiar eminency and unparalleled privilege of that Mother, the special honor and reverence due unto that Son, and ever paid by her, the regard of that Holy Ghost who came upon her. and power of the Highest who overshadowed her, the singular goodness and piety of Joseph, to whom she was espoused, liacc per- sitadcd the Church of God in cdl ages to lieJiere that she stilf 162 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. continued in the same Virginiti/, and therefore is to he ac- hnoioleclged the Uver-Virgin 3Iary.^' (^Expos. of the Creed. Art. iii.) Here, then, the Catholic tradition upon the point is fully sustained, by one of your highest authorities. Hence, I may observe, that the prevalence of the contrary opinion among your people, is only another evidence of the utter ab- sence of any thing lilfe a sound and consistent belief among you as to the truths of religion. Every man and every wo- man believe as they please, no matter what may be the teach- ing of the bishops and clergy, or even of the Prayer-Book. A. B. LETTER YI. Eem.irks on the artit-le conceruing the Church. — Singuhir Omission. — The Chiuth of the Creed, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. — Meaning: of the term "Church." — The Church One, and not Several. — In Avhat sense One. — One in Org^anization and not various "Inde- pendent Branches."' — Protestant Acknowledgments. — "Branches," mere Divisions. — The Church is "Holy.'' — 'This Mark Incompatible with Branches or Divisions. — The Church is "Catholic' — Meaning of this Term. — IIow Understood by the Fathers. — Fourth Mark, "Apostolic.'' — Meaning of this Term. — A Church Founded by the Apostles and continuing ever since. — Implies both Order and Juris- diction. — Where are the four Marks found ? — The "Protestant Epis- copal Church"' does not possess them. — Is destitute of Orders and Jurisdiction . My Dear Friend : Permit me in this letter, to ask your attention to a few re- flections upon another article in your Constantinopolitan Creed. After declaring your belief concerning the Holy Ghost, you say — And Ihdieve One CatlwUc and Apostolic Church. In the first place, let me point out to you the enlargement which this article, as well as other portions of the creed, has undergone. In the Apostles' Creed, you profess your belief simply in the Holy Catholic Church. But here it is One Catholic and Apostolic Chnrch. You have thus added two words, viz : " OwP and '•'Apostolic,'" in order to designate the true character of the Church. There should also be yet another word here, which your authorities have very strange- ly omitted, that is, the term "holy." As this term is ap- plied to the Church in your Apostles' Creed, and as it formed a part of the creed when first drawn up at Constantinople, and still forms a part of it as used in the Catholic Church, I cannot imagine upon what ground it has been omitted by you.* I find it is omitted, also, in the English Prayer- Book. Whether the omission was designed or accidental, I *In Hammond's ^^Definitions of Fnith'^ see this creed, and you will find the article in question given thus — '-One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church f corresponding with the Latin form of the Catho- lic Church — TJnam Sanctam Catholicam et Apostolicam . 15 (1G3) 164 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. am not able to say, but it is quite a serious matter, for it is nothing less than a mutilation of the creed. If not design- ed, but a mere accidental error, it shows a most culpable negligence on the part of the guardians of the faith among you. There is no reason to believe that your Church would hesitate to alter the creed, by omitting this word lyurposely, for we have seen that she deliberately altered the Apostles' Creed in the article concerning the " descent into hell," and even discarded the creed of Athanasius altogether. But I do not accuse her of designedly leaving out the word now in question, because she has retained the very same word in the Apostles' Creed, in which you say "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church." The Church then, in which you profess to believe, is " holy." Although, then, the article we are now considering does not read correctly in your Prayer-Book, yet, inasmuch as the defect is made up in your other creed, your belief in this respect is precisely the same as the Catholic professes, who following the creed as it has always read, says "^Ihelieve in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.''^ This, then, is your profession upon the subject of the Church. Now, my friend, let me ask you, have you ever duly considered the import of this profession ? You not only profess to believe in the Church, but you delineate the nature or character of the Church in which you believe, by applying to her four distinct marks or characteristics, viz : — One, Holy, Catliolic and Ajwstolic. Have you ever considered the meaning of these terms, separately or combined ? These four epithets have always been considered as desig- nating the four marks, or characteristics, of the Church of Christ. They are not all found, as you have noticed in the Apostles' Creed — but only two of them, viz : Holy and Catho- lic. And even these two did not exist in the most ancient forms of that creed, which simply declared, I believe in the Holy Church. But the other three epithets, or marks, were added at later periods (but all prior to the close of the fourth century) in order to designate the Church with more preci- sion, and to distinguish her from the spurious Churches, or sects, which sprung up around her, and sought to seduce the faithful from their allegiance. Upon the same principle an- other term has been sometimes used in more recent times, to distinguish the true Church — I mean the term "Roman/' as in the phrase, the "Holy, Catholic^ Apostolic and Roman LETTER VI. 165 Church^'' or more briefly, the "Roman Catholic Church.^' Although this term was not wholly unused even in ancient times, as we have seen in the case of the brother of St. Am- brose, mentioned in a previous letter. The term has never been inserted in the Creed, but it may often be usefully em- ployed to distinguish the true Catholic Church, which has its seat and centre of authority in the "Eternal City." To treat fully of the Church, and its attributes or charac- teristics, as set forth in the Creed, would require more time and space than I have to devote to the subject. I must, therefore, confine the remarks I shall make to a few of the leading and most obvious truths connected with the subject. You declare your faith in these terms : I believe in One, Holy, CatJiolic and Aj)osfolic Chnreh. This is one of the most pregnant sentences to bo found in the language. Every word of it is full of meaning, and in- deed, expresses a great truth. This is more particularly the case with that little final word of one syllable — Church. Upon the meaning of this term whole volumes have been written, and many and diverse expositions have been put forth, varying with the preconceived notions and prejudices of the wi'iters. It is not in my power, within the narrow limits to which I must restrict myself, to engage in an ela- borate discussion of this topic, nor indeed is it necessary, here, for the true character of tlie Church referred to in the Creed, is to be sought rather in the terms by which she is designated — One. Hohj, Catholic and Apostolic. The sense in which the word Church is ordinarily used, will be suffi- cient for our purpose here, even though it may fall short of the strict and full meaning of the word. What then is the ordinary or popular meaning of the word Church f It sim- ply means a body of Christians, united under one govern- ment, having its ministers and sacraments, its assemblies and worship, acknowledging one set of doctrines, and one supreme authority vested in a chief officer, or legislative council. This is the ordinary meaning of the word Church : and hence people speak of the Methodist Church, the Presby- terian Church, the Episcopal Church, the Catholic Church, &c., &.C., understanding in every instance a distinct body of Christians, such as I have descrilDed. In this general sense, these distinct bodies present the same idea, and may all be admitted to be Churches. But the great practical question is, which of them is the true Church — which of them is the 166 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. Church founded by our Saviour and his Apostles V They cannot all be such — for they ai-e distinct bodies, and differ from each other in doctrines and rites, and also deny the claims of each other. As the one professes to be the Chui'ch of Christ to the exclusion of the other, it is a vitally import- ant question — which is the true and genuine Church ? Now, my friend, you have the answer to this question in the Creed which you have retained in your Book of Common Prayer. The articl(7^ concei-uing the Church was constructed at Con- stantinople, nearly fifteen hundred years ago, for the very purpose of answering this question ; for the very purpose of enabling all sincere inquirers to distinguish between the true Church and the false ones. Here is a rule provided for you by a Council, whose authority you acknowledge; a rule which you yourself have adopted, by which you can try your own Church, and every other Church, and by which you can clearly discover which is the true Church, and which is not. You will not deny that the Church of the fourth century, whicli was represented first at the Council of Nice, and after- wards at the Council of Constantinople, was the true Church of Christ in that age. Yet, in that early age, and indeed much earlier, there were several bodies of professing Chris- tians, just as there are now, each claiming to be the true Scriptural Church — such as the Donatists, Arians, Novatians, Macedonians, Photenians, Marcianites, Massilians and others. Several of these sects were large and influential communi- ties, particularly the Arians and the Donatists, and spread over extensive territory. The Donatists had the ' ' Three Orders," the "Succession," and had as many as four hundred bishops in Africa alone, they also received the Creeds which you re- ceive ; yet they were in schism, and rejected the authority of the Catholic Church as represented at Constantinople, and govei-ned by the Pope, and were in turn condemned by the Catholic Church, which they charged, just as you do now, with having fallen into error and corruption. This sect pre- sented a much more imposing body than does your Church, or any Protestant Church at this time, because it had genu- ine orders, a lai'ger number of bishops, and was not confined to one country. And yet the Christians of that day had to distinguish between the true Church and the Donatists, and other powerful sects. And how did they do it ? They did it as I have said, by the four marks laid down in the Creed composed at Constantinople — I believe in One, Hohj, Catlw- LETTER VI. 167 lie and Apostolic Church. Now, as you admit that the Chiircli which hiid down these marks was the true Church of that age, you must admit that these marks wore then the characteristics of the Church — and as the Church must al- ways be the same, slie must always possess the same charac- teristics. Consecjuently, the true Church, now as then, must possess these four marks. But no argument of this sort can be necessary, since your Ci'eed recjuires you to believe in the Church which has tliese marks. The rule, then, being admit- ted, it is only necessary for us to apply it. The Church in which we believe, must be One, Iloh/, Catholic and Ajwsfolic. Let us consider what is implied in these marks . First, the Church is One. She is one, organized, visible body, and not several or many. Oneness necessarily excludes plurality. No person pretends that our Lord founded more than one Church. " On this rock," He said, alluding to Peter, " I will build Mi/ Church.^' Observe that our Lord here uses the singular number. My Church, and not Ml/ Chvrchea — shewing that He meant but one. The same idea pervades the Ncav Testament. Wherever the Church is spoken of, it is as one Church. Thus: " There shall be one fold and one shepherd." It is true we some- times read of chnrches ; but these are loccd churches, the churches of different cities, all of which were but portions of the one general visible body of Christians, who were united together under the Apostles, and under other ministers ap- pointed by the Apostles. That these various local chm-ches wei'e united under the government of the Apostles, is plain from the fact that tlie Apostles are described in the Book of Acts as journeying from city to city, instructing, confirm- ing, correcting, &c., as circumstances required; and also by the fact that their ej^tistles, especially those of St. Paul and St. Peter, were addressed to these various churches, shewing that their members were still under the Apostles' jurisdic- tion. In their epistles, as well as in their sermons and other oral instructions, they prescribed for all these converts a sys- tem of doctrine and discipline. To this system all true Christians were obliged to submit. "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism," was their rule. And again : "A man that is a heretic, reject." " Obey them that have the rule over you, for they watch for your souls." These and many similar passages, all iuiply the existence of authorized min- isters, and a system of doctrine and discipline. The oneness 15* 168 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. of the Cliurcli is shewn also in the types or figures used in Scripture in reference to Christians. Thus : " Ye are God's building." " Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spirit- ual house." Thus they constituted a "house" a "build- ing." And again — ' ' He is the head of the body, the Church." Thus, the Church is the Body of Christ. All these figures, as well as the use of the singular number, im- ply only one Church. The Apostles took pains, too, to pre- serve this unity of the Church, by the admonitions which they gave against dissension and schism. They were espe- cially careful to warn them against the seductions of false teachers. Thus, says St. Peter — "There were false pro- phets also among the people, even as there shall he false teach- ers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways." (2 Peter, ii. 12.) St. John speaks of these false teachers as already come — " They went out from us, but these were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would, no doubt, have continued with us." St. Jude, speak- ing of this same class, says : " These be they which separate themselves sensual, having not the spirit." Thus we find the One Church in the days of the Apostles — rand we find false teachers rising up in that One Church, going out of it, or being cast out of it, and forming sects or spui-ious churches. In this respect that age was not unlike the present, nor un- like every other age of the Church. This One Church, sur- rounded by opposing sects, we trace down to the Gleneral Council of Constantinople, when the article under consider- ation was inserted in the Creed, although it had all along previously formed a part of the earlier forms of faith — as, "I believe in the Holy Church," or "the Holy Catholic Church" — which phrases imjjly but one Church. Now, when the fathers of that council inserted this article in the Creed, what Church did they mean by it? Of course they meant the Church of which they were members. That was the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" in which they believed, and of which they were the rej)resentatives. They had assembled to condemn the heresies of the Arians, the Sabellians, the Macedonians, the Montanists and other sects, and to set forth a brief summary of the true and ortho- dox faith upon those points which were, at that time, assailed; and having done this, they deemed it necessary to lay down LKTTKU VI . 1(30 the marhs by which the Church of God, the authorized guide of the faithful, might be easily distinguished from the sects around. Ileuee the declaration, "I believe One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." That council also laid down a rule for receiving into their communion the con- verted members of the sects which I have named, rc<|uiring them first to make a " written renunciation of their errors, and to anathematize every heresy which does not agree in opinion with the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of God." (Can. vii.) Thus did they maintain the unity and authority of their Church, by treating all outside of her pale, no matter how numerous or powerful, as mere separatists and schismatics, and forming no part of the "household of God." The sects were many, and some of them were al- most orthodox, and had genuine orders, but the Chiu-ch held no fellowshij) or communion with them, and scarcely deigned to notice their existence except to condemn their errors and warn the foithful against them. The One Chiu'ch, then, to which they referred in this ar- ticle, was their own Church, in contradistinction from the many sects and pretended chui'ches which had gradually sprung up in different countries, just as we have seen them do since the sixteenth century. I know of nothing better calculated to show the nature of this unity, than we have in the convocation and acts of this council itself. Although composed of many parts, scattered over the world, yet it must have constituted oile organized body, just as much so as a commonwealth or a kingdom, or any religious denomi- nation of the present day. Unless it had been such, it could not have held its representative council, composed of a hun- dred and fifty bishops, whose decrees concerning both faith and discipline, were instantly accepted as authoritative by east and west, by all orthodox Christians throughout the world. Such was the One Church which framed the Creed at Constantinople, and such must be the One Church at the present day. The Chmx-h is like her Divine Founder, un- changeable. The oneness of the Church necessarily implies sameneSvS or identity, in every age. If this were not the case, we should have several distinct churches — a church for this age, and a chm'ch for that age — differing in natm-e, doc- trine and practice. We often meet with this false idea in the loose language of popular Protestantism, and sometimes even in High Church writers. Thus they speak of the 170 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. "Primitive Church," and the "Mediaeval Church," and the "present Church," as if they were so many dififerent churches. Such language may be admissable when we wish rather to designate a certain age of the Church ; but it is al- together erroneous if used to imply, as sometimes is done, a diversity or plurality of churches. The Church is emphati- cally scmjier cadem. one and the same in every age, although it may present a dilFerent external appearance in this or that age, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the times, now propitious, now adverse. It cannot be necessary to argue this point at length, since it is so apparent, and since also it is admitted by your own divines, particularly by that emi- nent writer, whom I have so often cited, Bishoj) Pearson. This divine, in giving a summary of the meaning of the ar- ticle in the Creed concerning the Catholic Church, says : "I am assured that there was, hath been hitherto, and now is, and liereafter shall he, so long as the sun and moon endure, a Church of Christ, one and the same.^' (Escpos. of Creed, p. 508.) This is clear and positive ; and as it is important to my argument, I trust it will be borne in mind throughout this discussion upon the character of the true Church. If, then, the Church be " one and the same" in every age, her oneness or unity now must be such as it was in the fourth century. Her unity, then was such as to admit of a representative council, acting in the name of the whole and recognized by all. Her unity now must be the same. And this is the unity which you affirm of her when you recite this Creed which she dictated — a visible organic unity — such as that of a republic, or kingdom, or empire. This was not an ideal or imaginary unity, such as some persons now speak of, when they say the One Church consists of all true Chris- tians, no matter of what nation or of what denomination, or that it consists of certain branches, as the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church and the Roman Church, &c. It was a real, actual, subjective unity, shewing itself in the com- bined and harmonious action of the various component parts meeting in general council, asserting the Apostolic fjiith, con- demning heresies and sects, and making laws for the Church of the whole world — doing all this as with one mind and voice. Does the imaginary Church of the High Churchman, or Pu- seyite, or Evangelical, acccording to their respective theories, do anything of that sort ? It never did, and never can. Con- secjuently it is not the unity of the Church of the Constantino- LETTKR VI. 171 politan age, nor the unity of the creed. It is a mere theory, a mere fiction of the imagination, vainly devised to conceal or to supply the want of that genuine imity •nhicli thoy know o?^^/i-' to exist. It is impossible for the various "branches," so called, of the High Churchmen to constitute the One Church of Christ, because they are at variance in regard to articles of faith. I have already pointed out the diversity in this respect, between even the Episcopal Church and her mother ' ' Chiu'ch of England ;" the former having discarded a whole creed, which the latter retains, and declares "ought to be thoroughly received and believed." Besides, the Anglican Chm-ch acknowledges as her supreme head on earth, the sovereign of the country, who is always a lay person, and sometimes a woman or a mere boy — nor is there any visible tie connecting the two together ; no common living authority which both Churches recognise and submit to, one being entirely independent of the other. And if these Churches cannot be one with each other, much less can they be one with the Greek or Roman Church ; since they difier from these much more Avidely than from each other : and not only difier, but denounce and refuse to recognise each other. There is, indeed, a deadly feud existing between them. The idea of calling all these dissenting communions the "One Church," seems almost too preposterous to be entertained by a reflecting mind. Certainly you might as well speak of England and Russia as being one nation in the midst of that terrible strug- gle so long waged at Sebastojjol : or you might as well speak of England and America as forming one nation after the war of 1776, as well as before. The separation of England from Rome, in the sixteenth century, destroyed the unity of the two, just as efiectually as did that war make two of England and America ; and as nothing has since been done to reunite them, no one but a mere dreamer can regard them as integral parts or " branches" of the One Church. ^= * To show that I do not misrepresent your recognized divines, when I say that they hold the theory, that the One Universal Church is made up of distinct Jiranches, including the Church of Rome, I will quote a passage or two from a work by Bishop Kip — after mentioning the Greek Churcli, as a part of the Universal Church, he proceeds : "We acknowledge, too, as Catholics, the members of the Church of Rome, within the bounds of her own proper jurisdiction, and when she does not put forth claims which conflict with those of other branches of the Church." {Double Witness, p. 314, 315.) In a foot note, he adds, 172 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. The notion that the One Church is made up of several distinct branches, one here and another there, and so on throughout the world, may seem plausible and satisfactory to those who do not wish to give themselves the trouble of look- ing thoroughly into the matter. A little thought would cer- tainly be sufficient to dissipate the illusion in any candid mind. What sort of a Church is that which is made up of " branches." The figure of a tree, which is here used, im- plies the existence of a trunk. And if we apply this figure to the Church — if we compare the Church to a tree, the Church must have a trunk as well as branches. Where then is the trunk upon which these "branches" rest, and from which they derive sap and vigor. The advocates of this ' ' branch" theory can point to nothing of the sort now exist- ing. They say the "branches" ai'e independent of each other : of course, then, they do not depend upon any trunk. It is evident that the vei'y idea involves a self-contradiction. In the living tree the branches rest upon the trunk. Cut them off from the trunk, make them "independent," and they instantly wither. So it must be with the "branches" of the Church. The moment they become "independent" they lose all their vitality, and cease to be parts of the One Churcli. We cannot, therefore, conceive of "independent branches," except as mere withered branches, deprived of sap and life. If these so-called branches constitute the One Church, why have they not met in General Council, as did the ancient Church first at Nice, then at Constantinople, then at Ephesus, then at Chalcedon, (A. D. 461,) and so on at later periods, to provide for the general welfare ? In those early ages, the least symptom of doctrinal discord, awakened the solicitude of the bishops throughout the world , and caused them to take prompt measures to coD-ect the evil ])y asP':>mbling in General Council, to compare their doctriites, and to preserve the inte- grity and unity of the i'ailh. But how different with these .so-called ' ' branches !" For three hundred years they have "We have followed on this point the great body of English Divines." He then cites Hooker, as asserting the same thing, and then says: '•This was the view of Land, Hammond, Bramhall, Andrewes, Chil- lingworth, Tilletson, Burnet, &c. It is asserted, also, most clearly, in the formularies of the English Church." After adducing proofs from these "formularies," he adds, "Leading modern writers gener- ally take the same view. It will be found expressed in the works of Palmer, Bishcp Whittingham, Dr. Hook, G. S. Faber, and others." LETTKU VI. 173 been at variauce, contradicting each other upon points of faith, and denouncing each other as corrupt and heretical, and yet they have never assembled together in order to settle these disputed points, and bring about harmony and imity. This fact shows conclasively, that there is something wrong — shows conclusively, that these so-called ''branches" cannot constitute the One Church, such as that One Church existed during the fii'st five hundred years of her existence.* It must be evident, from the foregoing remarks, that tliese so-called "branches' are, after all, with but one exception, only so many "divisions;'' indeed, this is apparent to the most superficial observer, and an argument to prove it seems almost superfluous. I may also add, that the fact is some- times reluctantly admitted even by the class of Protestant dix-ines who, more or less, clmg to the "branch" theory. Looking at Christendom as it natm'ally presents itself to their eyes, they feel impelled to speak of the Chm-ch as " distract- ed," "divided," "rent in pieces," &c. Thus, the Eev. Mr. Hammond, of the Anglican Church, speaking of the defini- tions and decrees of the early councils, says : ' ' which come to us with the authority of the Universal Church, whilst it was still outwardly one and undivided." (I)(f. of Faith, ■^. 5.) Here this divine plainly admits the unity of the Church iu the sense for which I have contended, as organic and visible, in the early ages ; while, at the same tune, his language necessarily iiuplies that that unity no longer exists. To say, "whilst the Chmxh" ivaa still "one and midivided," of course implies that she is not now "one and undivided," but divided and rent in pieces. The same opinion is expressed by Arch- deacon Manning, another able divine of the Anglican com- munion , who after writing a treatise on the ' ' Unity of the Church," its natm-e, divine institution, and binding obliga- tion upon all Christians, is compelled to conclude the work with this lamentable confession : ' 'Although for our sins the Church be now miserably divided, it may yet be once more united. Let us only believe, that it still retains the powers "■Persons who hold this ''branch"' theory, sometimes profess their readiness to submit to a future General Council. Let us suppose, then, such a council were now convened. As the Greek and Roman branch- es far out-number the Protestant portions, they would necessarily pre- ponderate in the council, and every question would be decided accord- ing to their belief. Consequently, Anglicans and Episcopalians would have to adopt many doctrines which they now reject ! 174 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. of recovery ; we are divided because we have so little faith in the grace of Unity. Let vis steadfastly trust that our long lost heir-loom, will once more be found," &c.* (Unity of the Cliurch, pp. 304, 305.) So, also, another eminent writer and clergyman of the same communion, Mr. Palmer, who says : ' 'And while we lament the disunion oi^ the Christian Church," &c. (Ecd. Hist., p. 227.) Yom- own divines on this side of the Atlantic, indulge in the same melancholy strain. Thus, says Bishop Southgate, "May we not with brighter confidence, look forward to the day when strifes shall be healed, and when the mystical body of our Blessed Saviour, now rent, distracted, torn, shall be again united in all its parts." (Visit to the Syrian Church, pp. 9, 10.) These writers all belong to the same High Church school, and hold to the " branch" theory. But see what wretched and suicidal admissions they make — the smn of which is — the Church was once One, but she is now miserably divided. Thus, they confirm what I have maintained concerning the existence of a visible unity in the Church in the early ages, and at the same time by admitting that that unity is now lost, and the Church now rent and divided, they virtually confess that their branch theory does not correspond with the ancient Church. This latter admission, I say, is suicidal and self-condemnatory, for it necessarily implies that their "One Church" (made up of independent branches) does not answer to the One Church of antiquity, the One Church of the Creed. This is enough to convince every impartial mind, that their theories upon the subject are erroneous, for the "One Church" of Christ must always remain one and the same. Observe, too, the miserable condition to which the Church is reduced, according to these admissions. She is "now rent, distracted, torn," "disunited, divided." Why, this places the whole Church in a state of schism. Her disjecta memhra may be seen scattei'ed over the face of the earth, kicking against each other. The One Church is, conse- quently, defunct — " the gates of hell have prevailed against *I am happy to add that this distinguished Protestant ecclesiastic, has already found the "long-lost heir-loom," but in a way he did not anticipate when he wrote his book : he found it where only it can be found, in the Catholic and Roman Church, of which he is now a zeal ous and useful priest. Thus, like many others, he acknowledged his inability to reconcile his theories and his position with the true doc- trine of the Unity or oneness of the Church. LETTKR Vr. 170 her." In her phice, we have nothing hut a number of "wretched sects, or eccleshistieal factions, disputinfr and wrang- linfj amon<; themselves. Thus the Church and tlie sects arc reduced to a common level. She who should have attracted and assimilated the sects to herself in the one body, has fallen into the same- distracted condition as themselves, and instead of reducing the number of sects she has only inci'eased them, by falling into pieces herself. Can any one believe this who has a proper conception of the Church of Christ? Credat Judaeus ApcUa : non ego. It would amount to a virtual failure of the Church, contrary to Christ's express declara- tion. The Church of the Scriptures is not only "one body," she is a teaching and authoritative body. Go ye. said her Divine Founder, and teach all nations. Teach what ? ^Vhat- soever I hare commanded you. But in order to teach what Christ commanded, she must teach only one set of doctrines, unless we suppose that He delivered diftercnt sets of doctrines, which is impossible. But does the Church, divided into opposing branches, teach one set of doctrines V It does not, and cannot, consequently she cannot teach, and therefore she has failed. She is, also, represented in the Scriptures as the pillar and g round of the truth. How can she be the pillar of the truth, when she can no longer tell us what the truth is? How can she be a pillar, when she has herself crumbled into fragments ? I might proceed in this way, to prove from other portions of tlie Scriptures, that the notion of a Church divided into distinct branches is at variance with the truth, were it deemed necessary. But, why labor to dis- prove that which is so palpably folse from the very self-con- tradiction which it involves. A man must be sadly blinded by prejudice or theory, who does not at once perceive that the Church cannot, at the same time, be one, and yet "di- vided ;" cannot be the One Church, and yet separate and opposing sects. It can scarcely be necessary to say any thing further upon this point, and yet I must make one more observation before I leave it. In the Creed, we profess to believe in the " One Church." Now, how can you heliece in the One Church, if that Church be rent, as you say it is, into distinct divisions. These divisions, or branches as you call them, oppose, contra- dict, and denounce each other.* You cannot believe in all «• Thus, while the Roman Catholic Cluirch, as well as the Russian Church, teaches the doctrine of invocation of saints, purgatory. &c., 16 170 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. of them. And if you believe one division, you must disbe- lieve the other. You believe in your own division of this imaginary Church perhaps, but as the other divisions teach the very opposite doctrines, you cannot believe also in them. The consequence is, that you cannot believe in the Church, but only in a jjor^ of it ! But to believe in a part of the Chiu-ch, is not to believe in the Chui'ch, according to the Creed which requires you to believe in the Chm'ch as one, whole and undivided. I may fairly push this argument fur- ther. I may truly assert that you cannot believe even in one part, not even in your own branch, or rather division ; for this last is the most corx-ect term, since you admit the Church to be "divided." To believe in the Chm'ch, or a part of the Church, is to receive her teaching with a firm persuasion of its truth. Now, since all the divisions of the Church must possess equal authority, you cannot be firmly persuaded of the truth of what is taught by your own division, when its teaching is contradicted by other divisions. These divisions are precisely like several witnesses of equal authority and credibility. If they contradict each other in their testimony, you cannot believe any of them. Hence, it is evident, that whatever may be your partiality for youi- own division, you cannot helieve in it, because it is contradicted by other divi- sions of equal authority. The argument may be more strong- ly put, for the other divisions are in fact of greater authority than yours, for the Greek or Russian Church, as well as the "Roman Church," (to adopt your phraseology) is either of them not only five times as old, but twenty or thirty times as large as yours. But these divisions are not only larger and older : they agree together in teaching the very doctrines which you reject as false, such as invocation of saints, pur- gatory, mass for the dead, &c. Can you then believe your own division, when it is contradicted by the combined testi- mony of all the other divisions, including the Armenians, Nestorians, and other oriental sects, which agree with the Russian and Roman communions on these points ? Certain- ly yoii cannot : unless you believe the less in preference to the greater : unless you believe the testimony of one, in pre- your Cliurcli, and the Anglican Church, in the Tliirty-Nine Articles, denounce these doctrines as " vainly invented, and repugnant to the woi'd of God," and pronounce the sacrifice of masses "blaspliemous follies and dangerous deceits.'' {See Art. 22 and 31.) LKTTKii vr. 177 ference to the united testimouy of half a dozen more compe- tent witnesses.* But, it is time to lini.sli the discussion of this point. I have now shown you that the " One Church" of tlie Creed, cannot be divided into distinct and " independent branches," and that if it were so divided it would be impossible to be- lieve in it, or in any part of it, and much less in the very small and very recent division of it to which you belong. What then is the deduction from this reasoning? It is this, that since the One Church of the Creed cannot be found in an ideal union of all these various di\nsions of Christendom, inasmuch as they are not, and cannot be, one, it must be sought in some one single communion of these so-called "branches or divisions." The question then arises, which of these communions is the true fold, the One Church, the one body of Christ. This fjuestion may be better consider- ed when we shall have examined the other marks of the Church laid down in the Creed, viz: "Holy, Catholic and Apostolic," for the true Church must possess them all. But what I have said upon the first mark is sufiicient to prove, that the one only Church is either your own division or some other communion, to the utter exclusion of every other ecclesiastical denomination. And this, my friend, is enough, if you will alloAv me to say it, to overthrow your claims en- tirely, since you do not allege, or even pretend, that your division is the one only Church of God upon earth. It is either the whole or nothing. You admit it is not the whole. Therefore, it is nothing. But, let us now briefly examine the other marks of the Church, and see where they belong. The Church is not only One, but she is Uohi. It is not necessary to give a *5Ianj High Churchmen imagine thej find support for their peculiar theory and position in the condition of these oriental sects. A few years ago, an Anglican Clergyman of this class, under this impression visited the East, exi)ecting to find there the sympathj- he so much needed. But he was sadly disappointed. He afterwards published the results in a book, in the Preface to which, he says : "My hope in the then state of my belief, was, that I should there find support for the '"High Church" ' ^^ews in the religious state of the East. Never was there a more signal mistake." [Jonrnal of a Tour in Egyjit^ Pa- lestine, (jr. By .1. L. Patterson, M. A.) In the same connection, as well as in an Appendix, he states that these ancient sects deny the claims and the orders of Anglicanism. This author, subsequently, became a Catholic. 178 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOrALIAX. • lengthened exposition of the meaning of this term. There is no diiference upon this point, I beheve, between your own writers and Catholics. They all agree that the Church is called " holy," because her teaching is holy, and because she is separate from a wicked world, and calls her members to a holy state, and is the means of rendering them holy, and also because she is the divine spouse of our Most Holy Re- deemer, to whom she is inseparably united.* Now let me ask you where is this "holy" Church, in which you profess to believe ? Can the Church universal, such as she is described by your writers, be holy — a Church distracted and torn by divisions, sjilit into several opposing and contending sects V Schism is represented in the Scrip- tures as a deadly sin, as your own clergy generally admit and teach. And yet, if your theory of the universal Church be true, then the whole Church is involved in this deadly sin; for the whole Church, (if we can call that "whole" which is broken into pieces,) instead of maintaining unity, is rent and divided — is in a state of schism ! Thus, this sin, which she has been accusing the sects of, lies at her own door ! Certainly, a Church thus involved in deadly sin, can- not be "holy." It follows, therefore, that such a Church is not the One, Holy Church of the Creed. This argument might be greatly strengthened by a more specific appeal to the Scriptures. You remember how severely St. Paul re- bukes the Corinthian Christians on account of their divisions or factions. He calls them "carnal," and not spiritual. ' ' For ye are yet carnal : for whereas there is among you en- vying and strife and divisions, are ye not carnal and walk as men T If mere divisions or parties in a congregation be so worthy of censure, how much more so must be divisions which rend into sects the universal Church, involving the members of every section in animosity and strife, and excit- ing the contempt and derision of that world to which it was to be a light and guide ! ••■■That the Chvu-ch may be called "holj-," it is not requisite that all the members be holj-. Our Lord predicted that there should be "tares amono: the wheat Avhich should grow together until harvest." This is maintained by your own standard divine, Bishop Pearson : — "With- in, therefore, the notion of the Church, are comprehended good and bad, being both externally called, and both professing the same faith.'' {Expos, of Creed. Art. ix.) LETTEK VI. 179 The Cbiirch is also tailed "holy," because her teachiug, moral and doctrinal, is holy. But the teaching of a Church divided into independent branches, cannot be holy. These branches, as we have seen, teach contradictory doctrines. Where there is contradiction of doctrine, there must be false- hood ; and falsehood cannot consist with holiness. Conse- quently, your branch ('hurch cannot be " holy." Therefore your branch (Church is not the Church of the Creed. While treating on this point, I cannot forbear to call your attention to the inconsistency of this theory, with your ordi- nary denunciation of what you call the " lloman Church." According to this theory the Roman Church is a part, a "branch." of the universal Church: this your divines, as we have seen, expressly admit. Yet you are in the habit of denouncing the Koman Church as false, corrupt, idolatrous, &c. How can these things agree together? If the Church, in the aggregate, be holy, the various parts or branches must be holy too. This must necessarily be the case upon your theory. No portion of the Church can be an " independent branch" of the Church, without possessing all the attributes of the Church. IJut sanctity is one of the attributes and marks of the Church ; consequently, sanctity must be pos- sessed bj^ every branch And if sanctity be possessed by every branch, it must be possessed by the Koman branch. And if the Koman branch be holy, are you not guilty of the grossest inconsistency and cakunny in calling her corrupt and folse ? Ah, my friend, your Church theory and theology and ecclesiastical vocabulary are sadly out of joint, and no better than a confused jargon. Let us now proceed to consider the third attribute or mark of the Church of the Creed. I believe in One, Holy, Ca- tholic and Apostolic Church. The Church of the Creed, then, is " Catholic." I need not tell you that the word ' ' Catholic" is derived from the Greek language (in which this creed was originally composed) and signifies unicerml. It is used to designate the diifusive and expansive character of the Church, as spread or spreading over the whole earth. This idea is more clearly expressed in these words of the Te Deum, upon which I have already commented — ' ' The Holy Church throughont all the. vorld." The Catholic Church is the Church throughout all the uorld. Like the other marks of the Church, this serves to distinguish it from the sects. The 16* 180 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. sects are invariably local, coufinecl to one country, or to one portion of the globe ; whereas the true Church is not thus confined, but extends over all nations and countries on the face of the whole earth. That this is the true definition of the term, can be proved from your own authorities. Thus, Bishojj Pearson, discoursing upon the term, says: "Al- though this seems the first intention of those which gave the name Catholic to the Church, to signify thereby nothing else but the whole or universal Church. * * * At first they called the whole Church Catholic, meaning no more than the universal Church ; but having used the term some space of time, they considered how the nature of the Church was to be universal, and in what that universality did consist. * * * The most obvious and most general notion of this Catholic- ism consistetli in the difl'usiveness of the Church, grounded upon the commission given to the builders of it, " CrO teach all nations," whereby they and their successors were autho- rized and empowered to gather congregations of believers, and so to extend the borders of the Church unto the utmost parts of the earth." (Expos, of Creed, pp. 504, 505.) In a foot-note, Pearson adds : "I conceive, at first, there was no other meaning in the word Ka^oA/x-/;, (Catholic) than what the Grreek language did signify thereby, that is, tota or imiversa," and proceeds to give examples of its use from St. Augustin, and from the Apostolic Fathers, SS. Ignatius, Clemens and Polycarp, who lived in the days of the Apos- tles, and of course, received their ideas of the Church from the very fountain head.* It would be easy to adduce simi- ® In the interi^retation of ancient documents, there is no better method than to inquire how their terms were understood by contempo- rary writers. Let me therefore, cjuote a few passages from the fathers of the fourth century, in regard to the term "Catholic." St. Cyril says, ' ' The Church is called Catholic because it is diffused over the whole earth." St. Augustine, arguing against the schismatic Dona- tists, says — "This Church is one, denominated by our ancestors Ca- tholic, to denote, bj' the very name, that it is everywhere diffused.^' St. Optatus, opposing the same sect, says : ' • We prove to you that the Catholic Church is that which is diffused through the whole earth." From these and other similar passages, which might be c^uoted, it is clear that the term "Catholic" means w«w'e;-saZ, diffused over the earth. The use of the term in this sense, can be traced to the very age of the Apostles. In the epistle of the Church of Smyrna, it is said that St. Polycarp, Avho was the disciple of St. John, the Apostle, offered up his prayers for the members of the "Avhole Catholic Church diffused throughout the world." This is one of the passages cited by Bishop Pearson . LETTER VI. 181 lav testimony from other standard divines of your commu- nion in proof of the correctness of this definition, but it cannot be necessary. It is true this word has also its deri- vative meanings, which arc noticed by Pearson in pretty much the same way as they are given by our own theolo- gians. Thus, the Church is called Catholic, because it teaches the whole truth, all that a Christian should know — because it enjoins universal obedience — and also because it confers all the spiritual virtues and graces. But these arc but secondary meanings. Its primary and principal mean- ing in the Creed is, as I have shewn, universal, diffused generally over the earth. It is evident, then, that the Church in which you profess to believe according to the Creed, must be spread generally over the earth, and not limited to any one nation or country. Which is that Church ? It cannot be j'our own little de- nomination, which is confined to this small portion of the globe. You do not even profess that it is. Where, then, do you find it? You profess, perhaps, to find it in the va- rious '' branches" of which I have been speaking. But this notion is utterly untenable. These " branches," or rather divisions, (for I have shewn they are nothing else,) may in- deed be found in the various parts of the earth — one here, and another there ; but so also may those denominations which you admit to be sects and nothing more. These various branches or divisions of your theoretical Church, may be found all over the earth, but they cannot be the Catholic Church of the Creed, for this reason — they lack the first at- tribute of the Church of the Creed, which is Unity. I be- lieve One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Here are foui* attributes laid down. The true Church must possess them all, and not merely one or two. Your imaginary branches may be universal, as they are found in every quar- ter of the globe ; but inasmuch as they are not one, but many, they cannot be the Catholic Church of the Creed, which is one, and one only. But I shall have something further to say respecting the application of these marks, after I shall have considered them all. Let us now take a brief view of the fourth and last mark of the Church, which is Apostolicity. "I believe One, Holy, Catholic and AjMstolic Church." The fourth mark is implied in the epithet " Apostolic." Wliat then is the meaning of this term '! I heed not tell you the word is 182 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. derived from the name given to the first ministers and found- ers of the Church ; that is, Ajwstles. And it is in this deri- vation that we are to seek its true import. You remember that these Apostles began the formation of the Church at Jerusalem, by the preaching of St. Peter. Of this event, we read as follows : ' ' Then they that gladly received his word were baptised ; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stead- fastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellou-shij)." (Acts ii, 41, 42.) Here was the newly-foimded Church. It was the Apostles^ fellowship, that is, communion or Church, begun by St. Peter. The first and true Church, then, was the Church of the Apostles ; and the term Apostolic is used to designate that Church — the Chui'ch founded by them ; the Church which they instructed and governed while they re- mained on earth. But how was it when they " fell asleep" and departed to their eternal reward. They had previously taken care to provide other teachers and governors for the infant Chiu'ch ; such as Timothy, Titus, Linus and many others, who succeeded them in office and jurisdiction. This Church, governed by those appointed by the Ajiostles, con- tinued afterwards to be the Apostles' Church, became the same " fellowship," communion and Church, which they had originally established. This was the same Chui-ch rep- resented by the Cleneral Council of Constantinople, which composed the Creed ; and this was, of course, the Chui'ch to which they referred, when they used the term, the Apostolic Church, meaning the Chiirch of the Apostles, founded by the Apostles, and descending down to their own day. And as the Church is the same in every age, and as the Creed must be used in the sense intended by its original authors, the Apostolic Church of the present day must be the Church of the Apostles, the Church founded by the Apostles, and descended uninterruptedly and continuously, from their age down to the present day. I say it must be the very same Church — the identical Church established by the Apostles. It is not enough that it be a similar Church. Identity and similarity are very different things. One person may be very much like another, so much so that you cannot tell them apart, yet they are not one and the same person, but two distinct and independent beings. Two oak trees may also be very similar to each other, differing as to external appear- ance only in point of size and vigor, yet no one would think LETTER VI 183 of calling tliciu one and the same tree. This figure of a tree may be very well employed to make this point plain to the humblest capacity, because our Divine Saviour himself sanctioned its use for this purpose, when he compared his kingdom to a tree. Wo have all seen or read of venerable oaks, which although still green and flourishing, date their origin many hundred years ago. Lot us imagine one such oak to have been planted by our Lord and his Apostles, and let us suppose this tree to have been the depository of some peculiar healing virtue, and to have continued in existence, growing and flourishing in every succeeding age, down to the present moment. Such a tree would be the tree of the Apos- tles, the Apostolic tree. True, you might find other trees similar to it in general appearance, but none of them would be the same tree as that, nor any part of it. Such a tree is a correct emblem of the Church. Like it, the Church of the Apostles was not only planted by the Apostles, but it has had a continuous and individual existence in every subse- quent age, from their day down to ours, — an existence plain, palpable and iiumistakeable, so that 3^ou can point to it as living and acting, and exerting an influence on the world around, not only in the first, second and third centuries, but in every intervening century down to the nineteenth. Such is, such must be the Church of the Apostles, or the Apostolic Church. Individuals may secede or be exscinded from it, and form another independent communion, very much resem- bling the old Church, but it is not the same body, and no part of it ; like as a branch cut ofi" from the tree, ceases henceforth to be a part of that tree. The Church is a body corporate, having its laws and offi- cers, for the purpose of government and administration of its affairs. Its charter, or tii-st commission, was given by Jesus Christ when upon earth, who thus addressed His first minis- ters : "As my Father sent me, even so send I you;" '"I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father appointed unto me." These first ministers commissioned others to succeed them in the government of this one body, and assigned each one to his sphere of labor or pastoral charge. The persons thus commissioned by the Apostles, in their turn commissioned others, and also designated their fields of ministerial labor, and so on down to the present time. In this manner, a regu- lar succession of officers has been kept up in the One, Holy, Catholic Church, down to this day. This regular succession 184 LETTERS TO AN E PISCOP ALI AN . _ is called the Apostolical succession, because derived from the Apostles, and constitutes the very back-bone of the ecclesias- tical body. The Chui-ch cannot be Apostolic, without autho- rity from the Apostles ; and it is manifest that no such autho- rity can now be possessed, unless received by uninterrupted succession, such as I have pointed out. And this succession truly possessed, renders the Church Apostolic, because con- necting her by descent with the Apostles, making her heir to the same communion and authority, and proving her to be one and the same Church. But I wish you to observe particularly, that this succession is not merely a succession of orders, but also of jurisdiction. Your own writers strenu- ously maintain the doctrine of " Apostolical Succession," so far as ordination is concerned ; but they generally have little or nothing to say upon the subject of jurisdiction, although the latter is just as necessary as the former. A bishop may have valid ordination or consecration ; but that is not enough — he must have also a certain prescribed territory, called a dio- cess, in which to exercise his episcopal functions. Such was plainly the case in the Apostolic age. Thus, when Timothy was made bishop, he was assigned to Ephesus — and to Titus also was assigned the jurisdiction of Crete. And so it has been in every succeeding age. A bishop was never allowed to roam at large, or wherever he pleased ; perchance invading other bishops' fields of labor, and thus introducing discord and confusion. But if not thus to roam as he pleases, he must have a particular territory assigned him, like Timothy and Titus, and this territory must be assigned him by the Church, and this assignment is called mission or jurisdiction. We now understand, then, what is meant when the Church is called "Apostolic:" that she is the identical Church established by the Apostles, continuing in being in every subsequent age, by an uninterrupted succession of bishops, pastors, and governors, each and every one of whom received his orders and jurisdiction from those preceding him, and thus from the Apostles and fi-om Christ himself. I have now set before you, a brief explanation of the four leading attributes, or characteristics of the Church, as found in the Creed, viz : — Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity and Apos- tolicity. These are the four marks set by the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople, in the fourth century, to en- able the sincere followers of Christ to distinguish the true Church from the heretical and schismatical societies around. And fi-om that day down to the present time, every true LETTKK VI. 185 Chiu'chmau Las ajjpealed to those marks in seasons of doubt or difficulty, and they have proved to be a " huup ter- sons who have been baptized come forward and renew their Ba^^tismal engagements, and at the same time receive the blessing of the chief minister. I trust you will pardon me if I tell you plainly, that this is not genuine Confirmation — it is not primitive, Scriptural and Apostolic Confirmation. True Confirmation is a Sacrament in which the Holy Ghost is given to the baptized, by the laying on of the bishop's hands, accompanied with the application of holy chrism. Your clergy maintain that Confirmation is a divine institu- tion, and they appeal to the Scriptures to prove that it was practised by the Apostles. But, if you will examine care- fully the passages to which they refer, you will find that the practice therein set forth, was something more than such a Confirmation as you have. Thus, in the Acts of the Apos- tles, we read of St. Peter and St. John confirming the Sa- maritans. The account says, " They prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost." And afterwards, that "They laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." (Chap. viii. 15, 17.) We find St. Paul doing the same thing at Ephesus. After he had baptized them, it is said, ^' And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them." (Ch. xix. 6.) Now, these and other .similar passages, in which Confirmation is evidently referred to, show conclusively that that rite, as practised by the Apos- tles, was the means of conveying the Holy Ghost. But since your bishops do not pretend to confer the Holy Ghost by the ceremony which they practice, it is clear that that ceremony is not Confirmation of the true and Apostolic stamp. Besides, Confirmation when rightly administered, is ac- companied with the use of chrism or the holy anointing. In the Catholic Church, this chrism is a compound of oil of olives and balm of Gilead, solemnly consecrated by the bishop for the purpose, and is symbolical of the graces conferred by this Sacrament. It is applied to the forehead of each candidate, in the form of the cross. That it was used by the primitive Churclf, can be abundantly proved from the writ- ings of the Fathers and other ancient documents. Let me give you a few specimens. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, L E T T K II VIII. 243 who lived in the second century, says : ' ' We are called Christians because we are anointed with the oil of God." St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, a little later, says : " It is necessary that he who has been baptised, be anointed like- wise ; that having received the chrism, that is the unction, he may be the anointed of God, and may have in himself the grace of Christ." {Epist. Ixx. ad Januar.^) The same fact is proved from the Canons of Ancient Councils. To give a single instance : among the Canons of the Council of Laodi- cea, held in the fourth century, I find this : " Those who are enlightened, must, after baptism, be anointed with the hea- venly chrism, and partake of the kingdom of God." (Canon XLVni.) These extracts, shew, too, that this anointing was looked upon, not as an indifferent ceremony, but as something important and necessary. But your, so-called "Reformers," rejected it, although it had been used in the Chm'ch for fifteen centuries. f I have thus shewn, tliat the service which you call Con- fii'uiation, is not the Confirmation of the Scriptures, nor of "•■■ Another Epistle of this celebrated Father, who by the way is sometimes much applauded by your divines, contains a passage which shews that, in his day. Confirmation was regarded as conferring the Holy Ghost. Speaking of Peter and John, in Samaria, as related ia Acts, he says: "That alone which was wanting, was supplied by Peter and John, that by prayer and the imposition of hands, they might receive the Holy Ghost. The same thing is now done by us, when they who have been baptised in the Church are presented to the bishops, that bj- our jirayer and the imposition of hands, they may receive the Divine Spirit, and be perfected by the seal of the Lord." — (i}). Ixxiii. ad Jub.) t The use of oil in the religious ceremonies of the Primitive Church is admitted by Bishop Burnet in his Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Arti- cles. He says : " We do not deny but that the Christians liegan very early to use oil in holy functions. The climate they lived in making- it necessary to use oil much for stopping the perspiration, that might dispose them the more to use oil in their sacred rites. It is not to be denied, but that both Theophilus and TertuUian in the end of the second, and the beginning of the third century, do mention it." — {^Art. 25.) Burnet's explanation about the "climate," is alike ima- ginary and ridiculous. The use of chrism, in Confirmation, in the early Church, is admitted by another of your writers, Henry, in his Christian Antiquities, in which I read as follows : "The first ceremony of Confirmation was the unction or chrism. The origin of this custom is obscure. Bishop Pear- son thinks it came into the Church shortly after the times of the Apostles." (§153.) 244 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. the Primitive Church. It is only in the Catholic Church that Scriptural and Apostolic Confii-mation is administered, and there you .should seek it, if you believe it to be of divine institution and obligation. In the evidence I have set before you upon the subject, you see again that it is not your Church, but the Catholic Church that follows the Bible and the Primitive Church.* The next service in your Prayer-Book is a " Form of Solemnization of Matrimony." This service I find has been much altered from the English original. In the latter, there is a Rubric requiring the banns to be " published in the Church, three several Sundays." This ancient and salutary custom is in your book, left to the laws of the State, and consequently it is wholly disused. In the exhortation, also, great changes have been made. Indeed, nearly all of it has been omitted. The middle, or body of the exhortation, in which are clearly set forth the nature and ends of matrimony, is entirely suppressed, and the two ends are joined together. In one of the sentences left out, I find these words : ' ' that such persons as have not the gift of continency, might mar- ry." From these words, you see that the members of your mother Church of England still believe, or still profess to believe, in the "gift of continency." Having suppressed the public recognition of this "gift," among you, I cannot say whether or not your members have lost all faith in it ; but fi-om the manner in which many of them are accustomed to speak of those members of the Catholic Church who devote themselves to the service of God in a single state, I fear the idea of such a ' ' gift" is almost entirely obliterated from your minds. It would be well for such persons, as they still pro- fess to follow the Bible, to consider these words of our Lord, " There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it," (^Matth. xix. 12,) and also, these of St. Paul : " He that giveth her in marriage doeth well, but he * The Confirmation Service contained in the Prayer-Book, as it ori- ginally appeared, was much more like the Catholic service, from which it was copied. It not only included a prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the candidates, but the bishop had to sign them with the cross. In support of this statement, and all similar ones, I refer the reader to the worlv by Dr. Card well already mentioned. L K T T E 11 N' 1 1 r •245 that giveth lier not in maniage doctli better." (1 Cvr. vii. 38.)* I notice that your American revisers have suppressed the word ''priest,'' and substituted that of "minister'' through- out the whole of this service. They have, also, suppressed the second part of the follow- ing sentence, "With this ring I thee wed, with my boihj I thee worship :' Now, why have you left out the words in italics ? Whatever may have been your motive, their suppres- sion serves to show that in your Jlothcr Church the ' ' leorship" of created Icings is practiced, at least at every nuptial cele- bration ! And yet, you Episcopalians are dreadfully shocked at the devotion paid by Catholics to the Blessed Virgin— the pui-est and most exalted of all creatures. It is not usua.1 among us to designate that devotion by the term ' ' worship :" but even if we were to do so, we should not thereby be charge- able with idolatry, unless those who follow the English Prayer- Book are also chargeable with it. You have, also, omitted sundry psalms, prayers, exhorta- tions, and Scripture readings, thus abridging the service fully one-half. In a prayer thus omitted, it is said that God has taught ' ' that it should never be lawful to put asunder those whom Thou by matrimony hast made one." It is hardly to be supposed, that this prayer emanated from Cranmer, who did not scruple to divorce King Henry VIII. from his wives, whenever that monster desired such an indulgence. But whatever was its source, it bears testimony in favor of the Catholic doctrine of the absolute indissolubility of marriage. « In one of your Homilies, also, the Catholic doctrine of the Excel- leucv of Continence is expressly admitted. Thus— " Finally, all such as feel in themselves a sufficiency and ability, through the ^vorklng of God's spirit, to lead a sole and continent life, let them praise God for his gift and seek all means possible to maintain the same ; as by read- ing of Holy Scriptures, by godly meditations, by continual prayers, and such other virtuous exercises." ( Third part of the Sermon against Adultery.) „ , ,. . • • * I would add here, that the Catholic custom of dedicating virgins to God in tlie religious state, is acknowledged by one of the most cele- brated Anglican writers, the "judicious'' Hooker, to have existed in primitive and Apostolic times : "The custom of the Primitive Church, says he, " of consecrating holy virgins and widows mi to the service of God and his Church, is a thing not obscure, but easy to be known, both by that which St. Paul himself concerning them hath, (1 Cor. vii 25^1 Tim. v. 9.) and by the later consonant evidence ot other men's 'writings.'' (Eccl. PolUy, B. vii. chap. vi. 2.) 246 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. Your American revisers suppressed the recognition of this truth, just as they suppressed many other truths which were too rigid for their lax notions, or which were likely to prove unpopular. The result is seen in the loose ideas entertained by most of yoiu- own people upon this question, and in the frightful increase of cases of divorce in nearly all the States of the Union. Lastly : there is a rubric at the end of the service in the English book, declaring it fit " that the new married persons should receive the Holy Communion at the time of their mar- riage." This is a good old Catholic custom; but, in your American book, all reference to it is suppressed. I come now to notice the ' ' Order for the Visitation of the Sick." It is no doubt a well-arranged and pious office, but I believe it is very rarely, if ever, used by your ministers as prescribed, that is, whole and entire. In this service, as elsewhere, the ruthless hand of your American revisers is plainly visible. They have entirely expunged the following rubric found in the English book : Here shall the sick person he moved to make a special con- fession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After ichich confession the 2>''icst shall ah- solve him, (;if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort: ' ' Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences : and by His authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." AH of the above, rubric and absolution, has been omitted by your American reformers, who seem to have thought that they were better judges in such questions than their Mother Church of England, from whose fold they had so recently been severed by the political independence of our country. Having already discussed the subject of confession in connec- tion with your morning service, it is not necessary to say any thing more respecting it. I have only again to remind you, that in what I have just quoted from the English book, you have priestly absolution in the very words used by the Catho- lic priest; and that, in the " special confession of his sins," to which the sick man is to be moved, you have "auricular confession" in all its fulness, such as Catholics are accustomed LETTER Y 1 1 I . 247 to practice. How then can yon censitrc this ]n-actice among Catholics, while it is sanctioned by yonr Mother Chnrch of Enghuid. Yon believe that Chnrch to be a gennino Chnrch, and sonnd and pnre. And yet, it expressly favors and en- joins what you consider one of the most objectionable features of the Catholic Church. If the sanction of this ancient \»rac- tice, by the Chnrch of England, does not lead you to approve of it, perhaps it will at least teach you to moderate your zeal and animosity against those who conform to it, solely, from a sense of duty to God. In your service for the ' ' Communion of the Sick," there is, also, a rubric which declares that in case the sick person is too weak to receive the Connuunion, he is to be told that if he ' ' truly believes in Christ, he doth eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ to his soul's health, althongli he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth." This is a very extraordinary opinion. It sliows that after all the strong language elsewhere used in your Prayer-Book upon this sub- ject, nothing more is meant than that the Body and Blood of Christ are received in a sort of figure or m3-stical way. But I shall not attempt to solve the difficulties, and reconcile the contradictions in which this question is involved in the vari- ous services of your Prayer-Book. If you are able, my friend, to gather therefrom any clear and consistent notion of the subject, I must pronounce you a very lucky Episcopalian, and the sooner you impart the light with which you are fa- vored to your brethren, especially your bishops and clergy, who are for ever at loggerheads upon the subject, the better it will be for the peace and unity of your communion. I pass over the services for the Burial of the Dead, and the Chui-cJiiiif/ of Vi'omcn, as not requiring any special obser- vation, although I notice in them variations from the Eng- lish standard, particularly in the substitution of the word " minister" for " priest." I cannot forbear remarking, how- ever, that the office for Cliurcliiiuj of Women is one which very few of your people have ever seen performed. Like the Saints' Days, it lies hidden among the leaves of the Prayer-Book, and almost unknown. Your book contains an office for the Visitation of Prison- ers, which I do not find in the English. On the other hand, the English book contains one which is not found in yours. I mean the one entitled, A Commination, or denouncing of God''s anger and judgment against sinners. This service i» 22 248 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. used iu tlie Anglican Church on the first day of Lent, and at such other times as may be appointed by the ordinary. The principal feature of it consists in the minister's pronouncing a solemn curse upon sundry wicked characters, who are suc- cessively named, thus — Min. — " Cursed is he that smiteth his neighbor secretly." Ans. — " Amen." In this manner, ten distinct curses are fulminated by the Prayer-Book, against the various classes of evil-doers. All of this, as I have already said, has been left out of your American book — which omission is another censure upon your Anglican mother. Poor old dame, "Young America" has treated you with very little deference or respect. The next portion of your Prayer-Book is called the Psal- ter. It is made up of the Psalms of the Old Testament, arranged for each day of the month — the idea of which is borrowed from the constant use of these Psalms in the devo- tional services of the Catholic Chm-ch. I notice but one point here requiring special observation, and that is a singu- lar discrepancy between one of these Psalms as it occurs iu your Psalter, and as it is found in yom* Protestant Bible. The Psalm which I refer to is the 14th. If you will turn to it, and compare your Prayer-Book with your Bible, you will find that the Psalter contains three verses which are not found in your Bible, viz : — the 5th, 6th and 7th. Now, my friend, which is correct here ? Has your Prayer-Book added three verses to the sacred Scriptures, or has your Protestant Bible left out three which ought to be in it ? This is a ques- tion involving the integrity of your Bible — a question of great moment to those who profess to follow the ' ' Bible only." If you will examine the matter, you will discover that your Protestant Bible is at fault here. The verses in question are quoted by St. Paul, {Rom. ch. iii.) from the Old Testament, in his day, and, consequently, they are a portion of the word of God. Yet, your Bible does not con- tain them ! A. B. LETTER IX. The Thirty-Niue Articles. — The Sixth Article examined. — The Scrip- tures not the sole rule of Faith. — The Canonical books. — This article contradicted by the Homilies. — The authenticity of certain books discussed. — Testimony of Knapp and Hurnet. — The Eighteenth Ar- ticle examined. — It anatliematizes crrorists. — Results of Schism. — The Nineteenth Article examined. — Its defmitiou of the Msible Church false and absurd. — So vague and general as to suit all sects. — Adopted by the Methodists. — Twentieth Article examined. — It condemns the Authors of Anglicanism. — Apostolic Traditions. — Admission of Knapp. — Twenty-first Article examined. — Left out of the American book. — Authority of General Councils. — Church au- thority incompatible with private judgment. — Twenty-third Article examined. — Ambiguous and vague. — Its doctrine as to a lawful min- istry. — Candid admission of Burnet. — Twenty-fourth Article exam- ined. — Use of Latin in the public service. — Not forbidden in the Scriptures. — Its advantages. — Used by Anglicans in certain cases. — English Prayer-Book used among the Irish. My Deau Friend: We have now advanced as far as the Thirty- Nine Articles of religion, in which the doctrines of your Church arc more fidly and formally set forth. To examine them in detail, and discuss the many points which they involve, would alone fill a large volume. And having already' extended these let- ters far beyond the limits I at first proposed to myself, I must confine myself to a few brief remarks upon such of the Arti- cles as present subjects of most interest at this time. In a previous letter, I had occasion to speak of the various changes which the Articles have undergone, between the period of their original formation, and that of their adoption in this country. They were originally compiled by Cranmer, and were set forth as the doctrines of Anglicanism in the year 1552. They were not borrowed fi-om Catholic sources like your Liturgy, but in a great measure, from the continental system of Protestantism as embodied in the Augsburg Con- fession. Like everything else connected with the establish- ment of Anglicanism, they seem to have owed their authority originally to " a royal proclamation alone," as Bishop Short (249) 'IbO LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. admits, and it seems doubtful whether they were submitted to the Convocation in the reign of Edward VI., when they were first put forth. At first they were forty-two in number. Under Queen Elizabeth, ten years later, they were revised, and several of them were suppressed, others were altered, and some new ones were introduced. The number was then reduced to thirty-eight. In the various changes introduced at that time, the Wirtemberg Confession was the model followed. After the lapse of nine or ten years more, another revision was made, in which article twenty-nine was restored, making the whole number thirty-nine, as now.* At a more recent period, when they were finally adopted by your Church in 1801, after a protracted discussion and much opposition, I may say they were again reduced to thirty-eight, for article twenty-one is omitted although the number is retained. Such, in brief, were the changes through which these Arti- cles have passed ; such were the difficulties experienced first by your Anglican mother, and then by your own denomina- tion, in agreeing upon a set of doctrines. And, after all, what is the result ? According to two high authorities among you. Short and Burnet, " several of the articles are so fram- ed, that conscientious persons, holding difierent sentiments, may safely subscribe to them!" (Shorfs History, § 325.) Thus, their language, instead of being clear and precise, is purposely vague and ambiguous ! ' This is, indeed, a severe thrust. Certain rotten political parties in our own country, have been known to adopt ' ' platforms" ambiguously worded in order to embrace a larger number of voters, but when a body of men, calling themselves a Church of Christ, descends to so unprincipled a measure, we are at a loss for words to express our astonishment and disgust. But if numbers have been gained by this ambiguity, jjeace and unity have been sacrificed forever. Divisions, parties, and fierce doctrinal controversies have, consequently, been the constant heritage of Anglicanism, and also of her American daughter. But the force of this observation will be seen in the course of the brief examination, which I am now about to give them.^ It will not be necessary to call up each of the articles seria- tim : for some of them, I freely admit, to be sound and or- *For these facts in the history of the Thirty-Nine Articles, see j'our own authority, Short's Hist, of Ch. of England, "Appendix C to chap. X." LETTER I X 251 thodox. No denomination of professing Christians has ever fallen so low, as not to preserve in its doctrinal system, some of the great truths of religion. The first five of your arti- cles relate to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and the three Persons of the Godhead, and seem to be correct as far as they go. But the sixth article is, at once, an extraordinary specimen of unsoundness and ambiguity. It reads as follows: " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salva- tion : so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requi- site or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." This is followed by a list of the books of the Old Testa- ment, as found in your Pi-otestant Bible. To show the unsoundness of this doctrine on geuerat grounds, would require too lengthy a discussion. But, I beg you to remember what has been said in a previous letter bearing upon this question. First, that the Church existed long before the Bible, and during all that time, was the only guide of the faithful in matters of salvation. Secondly, that the New Testament did not appear all at once entire and complete, but only by piece-meal — a part at one time, and a part at another, first one of the Gospels, then another, after- wards an Epistle, then the Acts, then another Epistle ; each of these different books, or tracts, having been composed in reference to some special pui-pose, or some actual occxirrence, and for the u.se of the Christians in some particular city or district of country. Thirdly, that these tracts of Scripture were confined pretty much to certain localities, and read by comparatively few, as they existed only in manuscript form, the art of printing being then unknown. Fourthly, that for three hundred years these Scriptures existed in this limited and scattered condition, along with others of a spurious char- acter, until finally collected and approved by the Church. Now, if you will carefully consider all these facts, especially that the Church existed long before the Bible, and that the books of the New Testament were put forth one by one, and rather as aids to the living authority of the Church, you can- not but perceive that it is at least a matter of great doubt whether these Scriptures contain ' ' all things necessary to 90* 252 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. salvation." Had our Lord and his Apostles intended to give their followers a vrritten system of doctrines for their sole guidance, it is morally certain that it would have been delib- erately composed and put forth as one complete treatise. But such was not the case. Our Lord neither left any writing of the sort, nor commanded his Apostles to compose any such writing. And what the Apostles wrote, they wrote as indi- viduals, and not as a body of inspired teachers, aiming at the full instruction of Christians in all future time. Only half of the Apostles were concerned in the production of the books of the New Testament, and those of them who did write, wrote as I have said, rather to expose some particular error of the day, or to meet the religious wants of some particular congregation . In this respect, their writings rather resembled the pastoral letters of a bishop, called forth by the exigency of the times or local circumstances. Under these circumstances, it is utterly improbable that these books contained every neces- sary doctrine and principle of the Christian i-eligion. In the face of this improbability, nothing less than a clear and ex- press declaration of divine authority could establish the alleg- ed fact. Have you any such declaration ? Has Almighty God assured you, that the books of the New Testament con- tain "all things necessary to salvation?" Certainly, there is no such assurance given in any one of these books. And if not in these books, it cannot exist at all, for you do not profess to have received any other revelation from Him. Ob- serve that what you need is precisely what I say — a clear and positive assurance. Inferences, surmises, or even probabili- ties, will not answer. You must have a divine assurance, unmistakably conveyed. But that you have not. Conse- quently, you cannot know that "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation." Consequently, this decla- ration of your sixth article is a mere assertion, and one that cannot possibly be proved. Having thus shown that the assertion cannot be proved, it follows that the conclusion drawn by your article, is equally uncertain, viz: that "Whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith" — for unless it be proved that Scripture contains all that is necessary, there may be something not contained therein which ought to be believed. This is sufficient. But I can show you to a de- monstration, that the conclusion of your article is false. I LETTER IX. 253 will prove it by your own Prayer-Book. In fact, I have al- ready done tlii.s in a previous letter. AVhen treating of the Creeds, I showed you that there were several points contained in them, which could not be proved by Holy Scripture. And yet, these points you retjuire to be believed as articles of faith. Consequently, your sixth article is disproved. Your Church has contradicted herself. If you receive the sixth article, you must reject the Creeds. On the other hand, if you re- ceive the Creeds, you must reject the sixth article. But I also pronounced this article to be ambiguous. In so doing, I had reference to the last clause, which says — " In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand these Ca- nonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose au- thority icas never any doubt in the Church." Now, what is meant by these words, " was never any doubt in the Church." We must either 2:)ronounce them ambiguous or absurd. Taken in their literal sense, the article is involved in self-contra- diction. Every one conversant with the subject, knows very well that several of the books of Scripture received by this article as canonical, were in doubt in the Church, that is by persons in the Church for a long time. Among the books enumerated by this article as composing the Old Testament is the Book of Esther. But hear what Home, a high au- thority among 3'ou in such matters, says, "Its authenticity was questioned by some of the fathers, in consequence of the name of God being omitted throughout." (^Introduction to the Crit. Studi/ of the Scriptiii-es. Vol. 4, p. GO.) Hear, also, what another high authority and eminent com- mentator among you. Dr. Bloomfield, says of the second and third Epistles of St. John: — "Of the authenticity of this and the third Epistle of St. John, doubts were at first enter- tained, but after due examination they were at an early period received as canonical," &c. (Greek Testament, Sec. Ejnst. of St. John.) Of the second Epistle of St. Peter the same author says, " Of this second Epistle the authenticity was at first called in question." He makes the same statement con- cerning the Epistle of St. Jude. Here, then, are five of the books of Scriptui'c received by your Church, concerning all of which there was doubt in the early times, according to the admission of your own divines and commentators. I could easily show you that other books were also in doubt for a considerable time, in some parts of the Church. But these five are enough for our purpose : and even a smaller 254 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. number would answer. It thus appears, that while your Prayer-Book professes to receive as Scripture only those books of which there never was a doubt in the Church, it nevertheless, does actually receive at least five books which were for some time in doubt. Here is a gross self-contra- diction. But your sixth article, after enumerating the books of the Old Testament admitted into the Canon, proceeds in these words: — "And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of man- ners : but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doc- trine." Then follows a list of these books, which includes five that are received by the Catholic Church as parts of the Bible, viz: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the first and second Maccabees. These books your Church has displaced from the Canonical Scriptures, and reckoned them among the Apocrypha. That she has griev- ously erred by so doing, can be most clearly proved. In the first place, let me remind you that these books constituted a portion of the Bible when the English schism first commenced under Henry VIII., and further, that they had been so re- cognized for at least a thousand years previous to that period ; and, also, that they are now so recognized by at least three- fourths of Christendom. These are undeniable facts. And these facts ought to be conclusive. Very few persons have the ability and opportunity to examine the historical eviden- ces upon which the inspiration of these books depend. What then are the mass of Christians to do ? How are they to decide whether they are divine or not? Is the testimony of Anglicanism or of your own little sect, born only yesterday, to outweigh the testimony of the entire Christian world for many ages, and of at least three-fourths of it at the present time ? The idea is perfectly preposterous. Every intelligent mind must instantly perceive that the prima facie evidence in the case, vastly preponderates in fiivor of these books, that is, in favor of the Catholic Bible. Your Church does not even claim to be infallible. Consequently, she may err in this matter. If so, how can you depend upon her word, especially against that of the rest of the Christian world. But, while your Church denies that these books form a part of the Scriptures, she again contradicts herself, by quot- ing them as divine and inspired in her Book of Homilies. This I will prove to you by a few specimens. Thus, in the L K T T E « IX. 255 Homily on Swearing, (first part) the Book of Ecclesiasticus is thus cited : "And Ahnighty God by the wise man saith, That man which sweareth much shaJl he full of sin, and the scourge of God shall not depart from his house." In the margin, the reference to this passage is Ecclus. 23, 11. Here, then, the Ahuiglity is recognized as speaking through this book, which of course is inspiration. In the Homily on Obedience, (first part) after quoting a passage from the book of AVisdom as to the authority of kings, it is said : " Let us learn also here, by the infallible and un- deceivahle uord of God, that kings," &c. Here the inspira- tion of the Book of Wisdom is plainly recognized. In an- other i^lacc, when about to cite the Book of Tobit, it is said: ' ' The same lesson doth the Holy G host also teach in sundry places of the Scripture, saying ;" then follows the passage, to which the margin gives the reference, " Tobit, 4, 10." In these and other portions of the Homilies to which I might easily point you, the divine inspiration of these books is ex- pressly admitted.* And yet, your sixth article refuses these books a place among the Canonical Scriptures, and says that " the Church doth not apply them to establish any doctrine." Here is another gross .self-contradiction. I have shown you then, that these books are endorsed by your Homilies, and your Homilies are endorsed by the Prayer-Book, and, conse- quently, the Catholic Canon of Scripture is confirmed by your Church in one place, although rejected in another. Here I might safely rest the question, having brought the testimony of the rest of Christendom, at present and for ages past, together with the testimony of your own Church in the Homilies, against the assertion of your own Church in the sixth article. In such a ca.se, no thoughtful, prudent and impartial person can hesitate which side to take. But still it may be well to notice briefly the evidence for and against these books. The chief arguments employed by your winters against them, is, that they were not written in Hebrew like the other Scriptures, and that they were not admitted into the Canon by the Jews. The former objection is easily refuted. When these books were composed, Hebrew had ceased to be the vernacular language of the Jews; and, of course, they wrote in the language then used by them, that is, the Greek. The Apostles of our Lord were Jew.s — and yet they did not * Remember your 25th article endorses the Homilies as "instruc- tive,"' "godly'" and "■wholesome." 256 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. compose their epistles in Hebrew, but in Greek. And as you do not deny the inspiration of their writings on that account, why should you deny the inspiration of the books in question on that ground ? Could not the Divine Spirit speak through the medium of Greek as well before the days of Pontius Pi- late as after ? The other objection — that they were not sanctioned by the Jews — is no reason for rejecting them. Did the Jews ever sanction the Greek Testament written by the Apostles ? But this objection rests upon an opinion which does not seem to be well established. The Jews may not have for- mally received these books into the Sacred Canon ; but I be- lieve it is not true that they rejected them entirely. The principal evidence upon which our opponents rely, is the as- sertion of Josephus upon the subject. But that assertion is by no means conclusive. Hear what Knapp, a high au- thority among you, says about Josephus' testimony: "But there is some obscurity attending the passage, Contra Ajiio- nem, i. 8, in which this catalogue is contained. We cannot be certain, from this passage, that Josephus intended to in- clude the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, Esther and Nehemiah, in his catalogue." (Christian Theology, p. 84.) It ap- pears, then, that Josephus' testimony, to which so much im- portance has been given by certain Protestant controvei'sialists, is, after all, a two-edged sword, cutting both ways. If it makes against the disputed books, it makes also against several that you admit to be canonical. But an examination of this cele- brated passage in Josephus, will show that it is by no means decisive against the books in question ; but on the contrary, rather in their favor. The passage is given at length in Home's Introduction, and the following sentence from it fully justifies what I have said: " Our history, indeed, has been written, since Artaxerxes, very particularly; but it has not been esteemed of equal authority with the former by our forefathers, because there had not been an exact succession of prophets since that time." Now, the first part of this sentence merely declares that the later history was not con- sidered of " equal authority with the former." There is no mention made of the books in question ; and the closing part of the sentence evidently implies that there had been same prophets among them since tlie period referred to. The books in question are contained in the ancient Septua- gint Greek version of the Old Testament. And since that LETTER IX. 257 •was the Bible used by the Apostles and early Christians, tlii.s fact is a pretty conclusive argument in fiivor of the divine au- thority of these books. But admitting that these books were not universally ac- knowledged for some time, that is not a sxifficient reason for rejecting them. I have shown you that the same was true of several of the books of the New Testament. If the former be rejected , the latter must be rejected also. The truth is, the whole question must rest upon the authority of the Church. Very few persons have a sufficient acquaintance with ancient ecclesiastical records to be competent to decide the question for themselves ; and of these few, not a moiety of them would be able, after an investigation, to come to the same conclusion, so many difficulties surrounding the subject. The reader, who has not investigated the matter, will be convinced of the truth of my remark by the admis.sion of Knapp, cited in my first letter. Speaking of the Scriptures as received by the Protestants, he says : " Can it be shown, by historical evidence, that all the books which now stand in this collection, belonged to it originally? Of most of these books, this can be satisfactorily shown. But respect- ing some particidar books, it cannot be ascertained from his- torical records, either that they belonged to the collection originally, or at -what time they were received as canonical. For no complete list of all our canonical books can be gath- ered from the works of the oldest Jewish w^riters." {Chris- tian Theoloyy, Vol. I. p. 84.) Here is the admission of a learned Protestant theologian — one of high authority in your Church. It ought to satisfy j-ou of the impossibility of any one's settling this question for himself at this late day : it ought also to convince you of the absurdity of pretending to follow the " Bible only," when you are unable to find out for youi-self what the Bible is. It is plainly a matter in which you need the guidance of the Church, and of an infal- lihle Church, for we need certainly here, and nothing but an infallible Church can guide us with certainty. In the writings of the ancient fathers of the Church, the books in question are quoted as divine, along with the other books of Scripture. I know that Home, and other Protest- ant authors, wiU tell you that in the lists of sacred books given by this or that ancient historian or father, the books in question are not included. But if your writers told you the whole truth about the matter, they would tell you that these 258 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. lists also leave out certain books which are received in your catalogue ; so that like the much vaunted testimony of Jose- phus, it tells as much against you as it does against us.* But it is the Church that is to decide this question. How has she spoken in her councils ? The first council, that of Laodieea, by which a catalogue was drawn up, was a small one composed of only a few bishops. This Council included Baruch but omitted the Apocalypse, but the genuineness of the canon in which this catalogue is found, has been disputed. At the third council of Carthage-, at which the great father, St. Au- gustine, was present, a catalogue was set forth which included all these works except Baruch. At a council held at Con- stantinople in 692, Baruch was included in the Sacred Canon, and thus it was completed, as it is now i-eccived in the Ca- tholic Church. If all that has been said does not convince you of the in- spired character of these books, it must at least make you feel very doubtful, whether in consequence of the omission of these books, your Bible is riot a mutilated one. If you still have your doubts whether these books should be in the Canon, you cannot but have very great doubt whether they should be left out. And what a wretched state of uncertainty for one to be in, who follows the "Bible only!" If the guidance of the Church be necessary as to the books of the Old Testament, it is still more necessary as to the books of the New Testament. I have already shown you from Pro- testant authorities, that several of these books were not re- ceived as genuine Scripture by some of the early Christians, and much more might be said under this head. Besides this difficulty, there is another growing out of the fact that certain other books, not in the Canon of the New Testament, were for a long time, regarded as Apostolic and inspired. f In * I regret to have to state that your authors, such as Home and Burnet, in their anxiety to prove the Protestant Canon from ancient documents, do not always adhere to the truth. To give an instance. Burnet says : — '' The Council of Laodieea, by an express Canon deliv- ers the catalogue of the Canonical books as we do." This is not coi'- rect. The catalogue of that council includes Baruch, and leaves out Revelation. In proof of mj^ statement, I refer the reader to that Pro- testant collection of ancient Canons, which I have all along made use of, that is Hammond's. See Cations of Laodieea, Canon 60, p. 185 Am. Edit. f Knapp, speaking of the importance of an early collection of the genuine books of Scripture, says : "This was the more necessary, a« L K T T E U I X . 259 rogaril to tho foriuor point, let nie add a fow testimonies. Your article quotes Hicrome as to the Canon of the Old Tes- tament. One of your own authorities shall tell you what that early father says, as to one of the books of the New Testament. Thus — "So Hieronymus, when speaking of the Book of Jude, says, that it had indeed been doubted and rejected by some." (^Knapp, Ch. Theol., Vol. I. p. 91.) Yet, your sixth article receives this book into the Canon, al- though professing to receive only such books as were never doubted ! Origen, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and other early fathers of the Church, in their catalogues of the books of the Xew Testament, leave out several books now received, as I could easily show you by an appeal to their writ- ings ; but in accordance with the general plan of these letters, I prefer to establish my historical facts by the admis- sions of your own authorities. Bishop Burnet, a high au- thority in the Anglican and your own commmiion, speaking of the books of the Xew Testament is compelled to admit, " That some question was made touching some of them, be- cause there was not that clear and general knowledge concern- ing them that there was concerning the others." (Expos, of Thirt)j-Xine Articles.^ A strange admission, while he is in the act of expounding an article which professes to receive only those books of which ' ' there never was any doubt in the Church I" On the same page, this great champion of Anglicanism gives us the names of the doubted books : ' ' Some question was made of the Epistle of St. James, the second of St. Peter, the second and third of St. John and St. Jude's Epistle." On the next page, he adds the book of Revelation to this list of books tliat were questioned. Burnet's object was to present this subject in its most favorable light, and to prove the Canon of the Scriptures, like a true Protestant, with- out the authority of the Church, hence his admission as to the doubts entertained in regard to some of the books is cau- tiously expressed, and does not by any means convey a full many spurious writing which were ascribed to the Apostles, were in circulation, and even publicly read and used in the Churches.' ( Ch. Theol. , Vol. I, p. 88.) 23 260 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN. idea of tlie difficulty, as every one knows who is familiar with the subject — but still it answers my purpose.* From the admissions of your own authorities, I have shown you, that some half dozen books of the New Testament were in doubt for a long time after the Apostles ; some of them having been omitted in the catalogues of the Fathers and Pro- vincial Councils, even as late as the fourth century. If, then, the records of the " Primitive Church," or the Church of the first three centuries, do not furnish you with evidence upon which to determine the Canon of Scriptm-e, you are utterly unable to determine it. Rejecting the ever-living author- ity of the Infallible Church, you cannot have any adequate security against error in this important matter. Hence, not a few Protestants v/lio have given attention to this question, have been led to doubt whether the present Canon is reliable. This fact is expressly stated by Knapp, who says : " Luther considered it allowable to call in cjuestion the authenticity of the Apocalypse, and the Epistle of James ; and he was fol- lowed in this opinion by many theologians of the sixteenth century. And other Protestant theologians have doubted respecting other books." (CA. Thecil., Vol. I. p. 92.) I trust the foregoing observations, confirmed by authorities which you acknowledge, will suffice to demonstrate the ab- surdity of your sixth article, when it professes to receive " in the name of the Holy Scriptures," those books of " vv^hose authority there never was any doubt in the Church." If this rule be made to exclude certain books of the Old Testament, which was evidently the aim of the framers of the Arti- cle, it must also exclude some six or eight books of the New Testament, books now received universally. It is, conse- quently, suicidal in its operation. My remarks also show, how inconsistent it is for men to profess to follow the ' ' Bible only," when they are utterly unable to determine with any certainty v/hat books should compose the Bible. In the third place, my remarks show the necessity of an infollible guide in this matter, such as we have in the Catholic Church. You *I cannot but notice here an instance of Burnet's >Yant of consis- tency and fiiirness. He gives as autliorities for the New Testament, the catalogues of Origen, Atbanasius, and the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage. But he does not tell you that Origen includes the two Maccahees, and Athanasius Includes Barucb, and the Canon of Laodicea includes Baruch and excludes Revelation ; and lastly, that the Council of Carthage included all those books now contained in the Catholic Bible. LETTER IX. 261 cauuot in this matter rely upon Anglicanism, nor upon your own Chm'ch : for this article places both Anglicanism and yoiu" own Church at variance with the rest of Christendom, upon this point. Xo sensible man can take the testimony of 30ur little denomination on this question, against that of the " Church throughout all the world," for at least twelve hun- dred years. Ivemendier, the old and true Church of Eng- land, fi'om the time of its foundation by Augustine down to the period of its overthrow by Henry VIII., received all the books of Scripture which Catholics now receive. Will you reject her testimony, extending through nearl}" a thousand years, and receive that of Anglicanism, which was conceived in schism, brought forth in rebellion, and nom-ished and sup- ported by royal despots ? ]3ut even if this difficulty were not in the way, how can you receive her testimon}', when, as I have shown, she ha.s contradicted herself by quoting these books as inspired in her Homilies! I pass over several of your articles, which being Luth- eran or Calvinistic, contain matter for animadversion. The doctrines of some of them have been already noticed in the previous letters, while those of the rest do not appear suitable to occupy the little remaining space that I am able to devote to the subject, I therefore advance to the eighteenth article. This article declares: " They are also to be had accursed, that jjresume to say that every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which ho professeth." I cite this ai'ticle. first, because it shows that your Church does not hesitate to pronounce an anathema upon errorists, when it suits her to do so.* And, secondl}-, because the error herein denounced prevails not oidy very generally among Protestants, but also among 3'our own members. You know very well that it is a very common opinion among you, that it matters but little what " sect" a man belongs to, provided his conduct be upright. It is true, the article may have spe- cial reference to "sects," without Christianity. But then the question arises, what is Christianity '! Is every man to be admitted to the fellowship of Christianity, who merely professes himself a Christian V In other words, is every de- nomination or " sect" of professing Christians to be held as *In the Latin text the anathema here prouounceil is more literal. ThviS — Sunt (t illi Anathematizanih. <ened, and such as might still happen. They who drew it, had the state of the severed Chwches be- fore their eyes that had been differently refcn'ined ; and al- though their own had been less forced to go out of the beaten path than any other, yet they knew that cdl things among tliemselves had not gone according to those rides that ought to he sacred in regular times." {Eocpos. Art. 23.) This is LETTER IX. •273 certainly very candid, boUi as to the ambiguity of the arti- cle and as to the motives which led to it. I beg the reader to note particularly the portion which I have placed in ihthcs. 'Burnet wrote the lUxtoru of the lirfonnatwn in England, and he was well acquainted with the secret springs and vul- nerable points of that rebellious inovement. He candidly acknowledges that this article was .«o framed as not to deny the claims'of the Presbyterian or Calvinistic Churches of the continent of Europe; and not merely out of regard for them, but because things had not gone according to rule with Anglicanism itself. This fully confirms not only what I have just observed in regard to the ambiguity of the article, but also what I have maintained in my previous letters in re- gard to the disorderly and schismatical character of the so- called " English Reformation." Your next article, the 24th, is directed against the use of the Latin language in the service of the Church. It is as " It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people." r^ ^ ^■ Let us consider, first, how far the practice of the Catholic Church, in this respect, falls within the meaning of these terms. That practice is simply to use the Latin tongue in the service of the Mass, and in administering the Sacraments. In "public prayer," it is not used, but the vernacular lan- guage of the people. If you enter a Catholic Church, you will hear public prayer, and the various litanies and other devotions said in the language spoken by the people. But although the Latin is used in the Mass and m the Sacraments, yet it ?s not liable to the objection made, in its full sense. In the first place, these services are not the acts of the peo- ple but of the priest. It belongs to the priesthood only to offer the Holy Sacrifice, and to administer the Sacraments ; and it is sufficient, if he understands the language which he alone is to use. But secondly, while the Latin is not only used in this limited extent, it can scarcely be called a ' ' tongue not understanded of the people," in the obsolete language ot the article. For many of the people understand the Latin toncue and those who do not understand it, have prayer- books containing the Mass and other services in English 274 LETTERS TO AN EPISCOPALIAN as well as Latin, arranged in parallel columns. In this man- ner, even persons who have never learned Latin grammati- cally, become so familiar with so much of it as is ordinarily used in the Church, as to understand it quite well. These remarks serve to show that the objection to the use of Latin, possesses little or no force, so far as the advantage of the people is concerned. But your article declares, "it is re- pugnant to the word of God, and the custom of the primitive Church." As to the " word of God," your writers, Burnet and others, refer to but one portion of the Scriptures, which they allege to relate to the point, and that they misinterj)ret. It is the 14th Chapter of St. Paul's First Epistle to the Co- rinthians. If you will read that Chapter, you will find in it nothing pertinent to the question. The Apostle is there treating of the superiority of the gift of prophesying, over that of tongues, because more edifying to the hearer. Those who spoke with tongues, spoke as inspired at the moment, and in a language utterly unintelligible to the assembly. But even that, St. Paul does not prohibit, but advises such per- sons to interpret what they utter, so that others may be edi- fied by the Divine, communication. Thus, he says not a word about the administration of the Sacraments, nor about the ordinary public service, as performed by the minister or priest, but only the extemporaneous and unintelligible effu- sions uttered by private individuals. This portion of Scrip- ture, therefore, has no bearing upon the question. Your article further alleges that this Catholic practice is repugnant to the "custom of the primative Church." This appeal, every now and then, to the "primitive Church," is quite ridiculous. I have already shewn, in my previous letters, how little real regard the founders of Anglicanism had for the early Church. They were very bold in professing to appeal to her, but when the appeal came to be made, they shrunk from the test, as Keble admits, with a " vagxie suspicion of interpolation." But it is not true, that this practice is repugnant to ancient custom. It can be proved by the clearest evidence, that the service of the altar and other offices of the Church, were said in Latin, in various countries in which that language was not understood by the people. This was particularly the ease in England, after the sixth centin-y, if not before. And the Latin continued to be used in the litany, in that country, until the schism of Henry L K T T E R IX. 275 VIII. The usage of the English Church, for nearly a thou- sand years, ought to have more weight than any mere modern declaration of your Thirty-Nine Articles. This custom is not peculiar to the Catholic Church. Thet)riental sects, for which some of your divines profess so much regard, such as the Armenians, Syrians, Nestorians, perform their liturgical services in the ancient Greek, and not in the modern tongues of the people. The Russians do the same. It may do well enough for your Church, which is only of 3'csterday, and which has little to do with any other people than those who speak Engli.>