6 
 
 3 
 2 
 
 7 
 8 
 
 
 > W '^^' WW WWW- 
 
 
 
 i^i^^Ks^^. 
 
 ■r<^*j^^ 
 
 K^^^^ 
 
 ,^fe^#Vp^ 
 
 
 1^3 
 
 
 jm^ 
 
 v->*^ 
 
 iVTT^ 
 
 IB V^^ 
 
 hM 
 
 I
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 / 
 
 /. 
 
 //
 
 'fiffe^ 
 
 Doctrme of the Holy Catholic Church. 
 
 We praise Thee, O God ! we acknowledge Thee to he our 
 
 Lord ! Thee, the Holy Church throughout the whole 
 
 icorld doth confess, the FATHER OF 
 
 INFINITE MAJESTY. 
 
 Published by Ambrose Cuddon, 62, Paternoster-row.
 
 /^ 
 
 
 /
 
 #.?••
 
 /" 
 
 ' "-V 
 
 Si -^fre^ 
 
 DEFENCK ^;>2'^^on w^\-^,^. 
 
 CHRISTIAN RELIGION, &c. 
 
 OF THE 
 
 IN A SERIES OF LETTERS 
 
 ADDRESSED 
 
 TO CHARLES ABEL MOYSEY, D. D. 
 
 BY THE RIGHT REV. P. A. RAINES, D. D. 
 
 NEW EDITION, 
 
 Revised and Corrected by the Author, and embellished with Engravings, 
 drawn on the Wood by W. M. Craig, Esq. 
 
 HontJon: 
 
 Printed and Published 
 By AMBROSE CUDDON, 62, Pater-Noster Row. 
 
 And Sold by all Booksellers in the United Kingdora. 
 1825.
 
 , ■ I-
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 /r, ««* 
 
 LETTER THE FIRST. 
 
 SECTION 1.— ;jag-c9. 
 
 The Archdeacon's attack — Explanation and defence of the Catholic doctrine, on the 
 worship of God and veneration of the Saints — Latreia and Douleia — Doctrine of 
 the Catechism — The nsages of the Catholic Relif;ion compared with those of civil 
 life — The idolatry of the Pagans contrasted with the worship of Christians — Ca- 
 tholic and Protestant excommunications. 
 
 SECTION 2— ]ja^el9. 
 
 Refntation of calumnies respecting breach of faith — Decisions of foreign Universi- 
 ties — Of the British Parliament — The oaths of Catholics — The blue books — 
 What evils did the Catholic religion entail in England ? — Penal laws — liberty — 
 toleration, and conclusion. 
 
 SECTION 3.— pog-cSS. 
 To the Bath Public, and to the Reader in general. 
 
 LETTER THE SECOND. 
 
 SECTION 1.— pag-e36. 
 Remarks on the former Letter. 
 
 SECTION 2.— ]>«g-e4l. 
 
 Statement. — Dr. Moysey not required by his religion to make this attack — Doc- 
 trine of the thirty-nine articles and book of Homilies — Change of doctrine in the 
 Church of England— Doctrine of the Catholic Church and of the Church of Eng- 
 land at the present day, on the subject of Images, not materially different- 
 Customs abroad often misunderstood by English Travellers, 
 
 SECTION 3.— pag-e 54. 
 
 First AND Second Commandments, Differently explained by Dr. Moysey and 
 his two friends — Their explanations refuted — Catholic explanation — Import o 
 external acts uncertain — Definition of the words adoration, tcorship, Latreia, 
 Douleia, idolatry, Sfc. — Necessity of attending to the meaning of these words 
 — Catholic Church does not violate the commandments. 
 
 SECTION 4.— page 67. 
 History of Christian Images. — How far used in the first three centuries — In- 
 troduoed along with architecture. — Common in the fourth century ; general in tho 
 sixth. — History of the Iconoclast Council at Constantinople. — The second coun- 
 cil of Nice misrepresented by Vindex. — Its decree. 
 
 48041-8
 
 VI. CONTENTS. 
 
 SECTION 5,— page 92. 
 
 Refutation of dlfTcrent charges from St. Thomas Aquinas, and other Theologians. — 
 Council of Trent totally misreiiresented by Vindex — Its decree — Bossuet's Ex- 
 position de la foi. 
 
 SECTION 6.~page 102, 
 
 Objections from Catholic observances answered — Ceremony and office of Good 
 Friday — Kissing of Crosses, &c, — Devotions to the blessed Virgin Mary, &c. — 
 St. Scholastica — The gunpowder treason — Want of candour iu Vindex. 
 
 SECTION 7.— page 116. 
 
 Invocation of Angels and Saints. — How far admitted by the Church of Eng- 
 land — Explanation and defence of the Catholic doctrine — Objections of Vindex 
 answered — Justification of the Catholic doctrine by eminent Protestants — Injus- 
 tice and illiberality of modern attaclis injurious to the Established Church, and 
 to Christianity in general — Account of Christianity according to Dr. Moysey and 
 his friends. 
 
 SECTION 8.— page 133. 
 
 Abuses existing in the Catholic Religion, not idolatry — Superstition and credulity, 
 common to Catholics and Protestants, though difl'erent in form — Advice to tra- 
 vellers. 
 
 SECTION 9.— page 138. 
 
 Breach of Faith — Accusation by Dr. Moysey and Vindex stated and refuted — Coun- 
 cil of Constance and John Huss — Dispensations of Catholics and Protestants 
 compared — Council of Lateran — Sir John Cox Hippesley, &c. 
 
 SECTION 10.— page 159. 
 
 Remarks on the Charge of Misrepresentation, pointed at by Vindex — Examination 
 of his Reasons for Opposing Catholic Emancipation — Explanation of the name of 
 Roman Catholic — Concluding Reraarlis. 
 
 Appendix to the Second Letter. 
 
 Page 169. 
 
 An Exposition of the Controverted Doctrines of the Catholic Church, by Bossuet, 
 with preliminary Observations and notes — Oc the Invocation of the Saints— On 
 Images~-On Relics. 
 
 LETTER THE THIRD. 
 
 Page 179. 
 
 A Remonstrance, addressed to the Archdeacon of Bath, on the renewal of his 
 former attacks upon the Catholics, in his lale Charge to the Clergy of the Dean- 
 ery of Bedminster, July 29th, 1824. 
 
 Contents of Wood Eiujravlnc/s, see p^f/c 210.
 
 CfRCULM-MG KBR^V : 
 
 OF THE 
 
 LETTER THE FIRST. 
 
 §1 
 
 The Archdeacon s attack — Explanation and defence of the 
 Catholic doctrine, on the worship of God and veneration 
 of the Saints — Latreia and Douleia — Doctrnne of the 
 Catechism — The iisar/es of the Catholic Religion compared 
 with those of civil life — The idolatry of the Pagans con- 
 trasted with the worship of Christians — Catholic and 
 Protestant excommunications. 
 
 Very Reverend Sir, 
 
 IT is some time ago since I heard, that in a charge to your 
 Clergy, you had made an attack upon the CathoUcs. This I 
 could readily believe, but I did not expect you would think 
 proper to publish ; nor was it till four days ago that your 
 printed charge accidentally fell into my hands. Great was my 
 surprise at reading this extraordinary production. In the eight 
 short pages which you devote to the subject of Catholicity, you 
 represent the religion of the Catholic world as a system of 
 gross idolatry, similar to and as incapable of being defended as 
 paganism itself. You assert it to be a tenet of the Catholic 
 religion, to which many Catholics, particularly clergy, adhere, 
 that faith may not be kept with persons of other religious per- 
 suasions. You insinuate that no dependance can be placed 
 upon the most solemn assurances of Catholic laymen, because 
 they are domineered over by their priests, and that these priests 
 are the " sworn and devoted servants of a foreign jurisdic- 
 tion," who cannot refuse to act upon the above infamous prin-
 
 10 A Defence of the [Let. 1. 
 
 ciples, if the good of their church, which, you say, "is a con- 
 sideration paramount with them," require them to do it. In 
 short, you inform your clergy and readers, with great affecta- 
 tion of orthodox piety, and great assumption of superior light, 
 that the preservation of the souls of your flocks, the safety of 
 your persons, your liberties and even of the government itself, 
 require, that you declare a holy war against your Catholic 
 brethren : and, you remind your clergy, that their ordination 
 vow, as well as the above important considerations, impera- 
 tively oblige them to join you in this new crusade. In the 
 wonder of the moment I could not help saying to myself, " what 
 have the Catholics been doing to Dr. Moysey ?" The whole 
 country is at peace ; not even an election is preparing ; the 
 Catholic Bill is thrown out of parliament and we are doomed 
 to wear our chains a season longer. The Established Church, 
 happy in her triumph, celebrates our defeat with prayers, with 
 dinners, and with toasts, whilst we, "weeping, are turned 
 away." Why, then, has Dr. Moysey cruelly chosen the pre- 
 sent moment for making this severe and unprovoked attack ? 
 But why make these vain enquiries l The attack is made. 
 He hints to us that it is dictated by the Spirit of God, and the 
 Spirit, we all know, breathe th " where and when it pleases 
 Him." 
 
 Now, Sir, if some young man, not famed either for the ex- 
 tent of his learning, or the depth of his genius, but who, from 
 the nature of his situation, is compelled, in spite of nature, to 
 preach : if such a young man, anxious to interest his hearers 
 in the best way he could, should, without malice prepense, in 
 some great exigency of the moment, select for the subject of 
 his oratory, that never failing topic of interest to the old la- 
 dies and nursery-maids of England, the abu.se of the Catholic 
 religion ;* though, perhaps, his philippic was uttered beneath 
 the venerable vaults of some magnificent temple, erected by 
 the zeal, the piety and the wisdom of his Catholic forefathers ; 
 and though it was, perhaps, from the same source that all the 
 little share of significancy he posesses was originally derived ; 
 I could listen to such a man without any other feelings than 
 those of pity, or, at most, of contempt. As much wisdom 
 would not be expected from such a person, no one would at- 
 tach much consequence to what he might say, and therefore, 
 no great harm would result from his attacks. But when a man 
 of your consequence appears armed against the Catholic reli- 
 
 * " Hkc plaouit semcl, ha>c decies repetita placebit."
 
 Sec. 1.] Christian Relif/ion. 11 
 
 gion ; when, not satisfied with incessantly cautioning your own 
 flock, from tlie pulpit, against the alarming dangers of popery, 
 you address a charge, containing a violent and unprovoked at- 
 tack against your Catholic brethren, to a respectable and 
 learned body of men, the clergy of the Establishment under 
 your jurisdiction ; and, when, not satisfied with addressing 
 such a charge to your reverend brethren, you give this charge 
 to the press for the instruction of the country at large ; under 
 such circumstances to suffer you to pass unnoticed would be 
 imprudent. How many persons, when they hear you accus- 
 ing the Catholics among whom they live, of sinning against 
 God by habitual idolatry, and against their neighbours by a 
 licensed breach of faith, will not turn back to the' title-page of 
 the pamphlet, and, seeing that it is written by Charles Abel 
 MoYSEY, D. D. Archdeacon of Bath, will not say " surely 
 then all this must be true i Surely a D. D. and an Archdea- 
 con would not slander and calumniate any one, particularly so 
 numerous and respectable a body of men as the Catholics of 
 this and all other countries. Still less can it be thought that 
 Dr. Moysey, of all men, that dignitary who is so desirous that 
 his reverend brethren should, ' display in themselves the beau- 
 ty of holiness ;' that ecclesiastical superior whom it is so difficult 
 a task even for his own clergy to satisfy ; that zealous pastor 
 who gives for the edification of his flock and the public at large, 
 so many productions of his genius and his piety ; surely, surely, 
 he is too learned not to know the truth of what he says ; too 
 elevated in station to expose his character to the imputation of 
 falsehood ; and too pious, even if he could slander with im- 
 punity, to do so." Such, Sir, must be the reasoning of many 
 well-meaning persons who will read your charge, and the con- 
 sequence will naturally be, that the next time they meet me, 
 or any of their Catholic acquaintance, they Avill think of the 
 odious and disgusting picture you have drawn of our religion 
 and its members, and applying it to ourselves, shun us with 
 suspicion, or fly from us with fear. It is, therefore, neces- 
 sary to stand forward in our own defence, and, however pain- 
 ful the task may be, repel the accusations you have made 
 against us, leaving your prudence, your zeal, and your piety 
 to provide for themselves as they can. 
 
 In the few remarks which I shall make upon your Charge, 
 I shall confine myself to refuting the false accusations you have 
 made against the Catholic religion. It is not my object to at- 
 tack the Established Church, or its ministers, for many of 
 whom I entertain a high regard, but to defend the religion T
 
 12 A Defence of the [Lei. 1. 
 
 profess against the unprovoked attacks of Dr. Moysey. Should 
 he ever compel me to go farther, I shall regret the circum- 
 stance ; but confident of the goodness of my cause, and satis- 
 fied that I have nothhig to fear, either from the talents or the 
 learnhig of my opponent, I shall not expect to add any new 
 laurels to his brows, or aflbrd any new triumph to the cause he 
 espouses. 
 
 You open your attack in the followuig words. " I need 
 not detain you any longer, my reverend brethren, than in no- 
 ticing and giving humble and hearty thanks to the Giver of 
 all good, for the deliverance which the Protestant religion has 
 lately received, in the rejection of the proposal for admitting 
 those of the Roman Catholic persuasion to power in this 
 land. Far be it from me, far be it from any minister of the 
 most mild and tolerant church in Christendom, to wish that 
 unnecessary restraint should be imposed on our brethren. But 
 the preservation of the souls of those over whom the Holy 
 Ghost has made us overseers, requures, imperatively enjoins 
 us to drive away, as our ordination vow has^ bound us to do, 
 all erroneous and strange doctrines : and, if idolatry be not 
 such, where shall we find the doctrine which is strange to pure 
 religion?" You add in a note, "The nice distinction of 
 Douleia from Latreia, on which those of the Romish Church 
 defend their adoration of the Virgin Mary and the saints, is 
 too subtle for the simplicity of the word of God. God's own 
 second commandment forbids us altogether to worship or how 
 down in prayer to any other than himself; and forbids also, not 
 less explicitly, any representation of himself and the worship of 
 any such." You go on " The wiser among the heathens never 
 imagined that the image which they worshipped could help 
 them, but used it to awaken their devotion to him whom it 
 represented. Yet such was the origin of all idolatry. Can 
 the Church of Rome make any better plea for itself ?" 
 
 You really then would have it believed that Catholics are 
 idolaters, as stupid and as guilty as the Pagans themselves. 
 That is you would have it believed that an immense majority 
 of the Christian world is at this moment, and has for ages past 
 been living in a state of damnation. This is rather a harsh de- 
 cision to come from " a minister of the most mild and tolerant 
 church in Christendom !" And what reason do you assign for 
 this sweeping anathema, more severe and more damnatory by 
 far than all the anathemas put together that were ever pro- 
 nounced by the Catholic Church? It is briefly this: "The 
 nice distinction of Douleia from Latreia, on which those of
 
 Sec. 1.] Clirisl'uui Reliyion. 13^ 
 
 the Romish Church defend their adoration of the Virgin Mary 
 and the saints, is too subtle for the simplicit\ of the word of 
 God !" May I ask why you employ the word adoration to ex- 
 press the respect which Catholics pay to the saints I What 
 authority have you for asserting that Catholics adore the saints 
 at all in the proper and ordinary meaning- of the word ?* Your 
 mention of the words Doideia and Latreia is a proof that you 
 know that we do not profess to adore, that is to pay divine 
 honour to the Saints. But the " distinction between Doideia 
 from Latreia is too nice and subtle for the simplicity of the 
 word of God." I am surprised to hear you make this asser- 
 tion ; first, because I cannot discover any thing nice or subtle 
 in the distinction, and secondly, because the distinction, what- 
 ever its character, is just as necessary for the defence of the 
 Protestant as it is for that of the Catholic doctrine. Latreia 
 signifies an act of adoration, properly so called, by which we 
 acknowledge our absolute dependence on God, as our Creator 
 and Sovereign Lord. Doideia is any act by which we shew 
 respect to a creature, without acknowledging it for a God. 
 Thus, offering sacrifice, or bowing down, with an acknowledge- 
 ment implied or expressed that the Being to whom we exhibit 
 these acts is our Creator and Sovereign Lord, is Latreia, and, 
 if exhibited to any but the one true and living God, is an act 
 of idolatry. But if I bow my head to a man Avhom I respect 
 for his virtue, or take off" my hat when I enter a church, out 
 of respect to the sanctity of the place, but without any inten- 
 tion of adoring either the man or the church, these acts are 
 Doideia, and may be exhibited to creatures without the guilt 
 of idolatry, or any other guilt. Now, Sir, it does appear to 
 me that nothing can be more easy or simple than this distinc- 
 tion, or more clearly and completely justify the doctrine and 
 practice of the Catholic Church. We reserve Latreia for 
 God alone ; we pay Doideia, and merely Doideia, to any of 
 his creatures. In other words we adore God alone ; but with 
 regard to his creatures, Avhether they be the Virgin Mother of 
 Christ, or any of the saints ; or they be places or things con- 
 secrated to the service of God ; or they be pictures, statues, 
 or other representations of holy things, we acknowledge it 
 would be idolatry to consider them as gods, and honour them 
 as such ; and therefore, whether we bow to them, or kneel be- 
 fore them, or whatever other external act we employ to signify 
 our respect for these things, it is always with a perfect know- 
 
 * Adoration.— 1st. The external homage paid to the Divinity. — Hooker. 2. 
 Homage paid to persons in high rank or esteem. — Shakspearc. Johnsun's Dicliunary.
 
 14 A Defence of Ihe [Let. 1. 
 
 ledge that they are not gods, and with a full determmatiou ol" 
 mind not to acknowledge or honour them as such. Now I ap- 
 peal to common sense, whether a man can be guilty of the 
 crime of idolatry without intending it ; nay, with a determina- 
 tion of mind on no account to commit it .' 
 
 But if the respect which we call Douleia is idolatry, then 
 the Protestants themselves are guilty of this crime. They are 
 guilty of it when they bow to the name of Jesus : they are 
 guilty of it when they kneel before the sacramental species : 
 they are guilty of it when, in the daily pastime of taking oaths, 
 they reverently kiss the book of the gospel : they were notori- 
 ously guilty of it on the day of the coronation, when the whole 
 Protestant hierarchy bowed their right reverend heads and even 
 bent their knees before an earthly monarch ; a ceremony which 
 it is thought Dr. Moysey himself would have had no objection 
 to perform: nay, they are still more guilty of it, when, in the 
 absence of the king, all the bishops and peers of the land bow 
 down, or as Dr. Moysey would express it, adore the empty 
 throne. 
 
 But you say " God's own commandment forbids us to 
 how down in prayer to any but himself." According to the 
 Protestant translation of the Bible, God's own commandment 
 forbids us to how down to any but himself, but it says nothing 
 of liowing down in j)rayer. The Catholic translation of this 
 passage forbids us to adore any but one God, which is cer- 
 tainly the true meaning of the original text, and which, had 
 the Protestant translators preserved, you would not have 
 needed to add the Avords '' in prayer' to " God's own com- 
 mandment." Your addition of these Avords is a proof that 
 you acknowledge merely to bow down, without some addition, 
 does not necessarily constitute an idolatrous act. But if an 
 addition to " God's own commandment" was necessary to ex- 
 plain its meaning, why not adopt the words which the most 
 ancient and approved versions of the scripture suggested to 
 you, and say " bow down in adoration" rather than " in 
 prayer r'* May I say what I cannot help thinking was your 
 reason I You had undertaken to prove that your Catholic 
 bi ethren were idolators, and you knew that adding the words 
 " in adoration' would not make them such ; but you hoped 
 that by slipping in the words " in jirayer,"" some of your 
 readers not noticing this addition to " God's own command- 
 
 * Septuagint — Ov ir^oax-vvYiijua aoi /x>! Xarpivt^na- «lto«7. 
 Vulgate — Non adorabis ca iieqiie colt-.';.
 
 Sec. 1.] Cliristiaii Relicjion. 1.) 
 
 ment," or taking it upon your authority as a legitimate ex- 
 planation, might suppose that Catholics are idolaters, because 
 they pray for the mtercession of the saints, and bow to their 
 pictures or statues. But does even hawing down in prayer 
 necessarily imply an act of idolatry '. Should I be guilty of 
 idolatry if I bowed dowTi to the king and prayed for emanci- 
 pation from the persecution inflicted on me by the " most mild 
 and tolerant church in clu-istendom ;" or from the calumnies and 
 insults of some of its ministers I or is Dr. Moysey guilty of 
 idolatry when he bows and prays to any man, though not of 
 regal dignity, that will sign his name to an anti-catholic pe- 
 tition i It appears to me that neither you nor I can defend 
 the practices of our respective churches, nor our own without 
 the distinction of " Douleia from Latreia," which, therefore, 
 I trust is not either too nice or too subtle for the simplicity of 
 the word of God. 
 
 When I speak, however, of the necessity of distinguishing 
 Douleia frojn Latreia for elucidating our doctrines, I speak 
 of the meaning of these words, not of the words themselves. 
 God forbid that any one should imagine that we cannot ex- 
 plain our doctrines, without teaching the people Greek. I 
 have been in the habit for many years of teaching persons of 
 every age, condition and capacity, what is the Catholic doc- 
 trine on these subjects, and I have never found any difficulty 
 in making myself perfectly understood, without ever once 
 mentioning such formidable words as Latreia and Douleia. 
 Indeed, it strikes me that the common catechism, which in 
 England we teach to all Catholic children, contains a full ex- 
 planation and justification of our practices. As you do not 
 appear to have seen this, or any other authorized work on our 
 religion, I shall present you with the following extract, as 
 well as with a copy of the whole work when I send you this 
 letter. 
 
 Question. AYhat are we commanded by the first command- 
 ment I 
 
 Answer. To believe, hope in, love, and serve, one true and 
 living God, and no more. 
 
 Q. What is forbidden by this commandment i 
 
 A. To worship false gods or idols, or give any thing else 
 the honour which belongs to God. 
 
 Q. What else is forbidden by this commandment ? 
 
 A. All false religion ; all dealings with the devil, and en- 
 quiring after things to come, or other secret things, by fortune- 
 tellers, or superstitious practices.
 
 IG A Defence of the [Let. 1. 
 
 Q. What else ? 
 
 A. All charms, spells, and heathenish observations of omens, 
 dreams, and such like fooleries. 
 
 Q. Does this commandment forbid the making- of images I 
 
 A. It forbids the making- of them so as to adore and serve 
 them ; that is, it forbids making- them our g-ods. 
 
 Q. Does this commandment forbid all honour and venera- 
 tion to the saints and angels ? 
 
 A. No : we are to honour them as God's special friends and 
 servants, but not with the honour which belongs to God. 
 
 Q. Is it allowable to honour relics, crucifixes, and holy 
 pictures ? 
 
 A. Yes ; with an inferior and relative honour, as they re- 
 late to Christ and his saints, and are memorials of them. 
 
 Q. May we then pray to relics or images ? 
 
 A. No; by no means; for they have no life nor sense to 
 hear or help us." 
 
 The same in substance are the decrees of the general Coun- 
 cil of Trent, of the catechism addressed by that Council to 
 the pastors of the Church in every part of tbe world, and of 
 every other approved explanation of the Catholic doctrine.* 
 
 Thus it appears that the Catholic Church teaches, as a pri- 
 mary article of her fiiith, that there is but one God, and that 
 he alone is to be honoured as such. She teaches that to ac- 
 knowledge as God, and honour as such, any creature, how- 
 ever exalted in dignity, would be the heinous crime of idolatry. 
 Therefore, should any person maintain that it is lawful to pay 
 such honour to the Virgin Mary, or any of the saints, much 
 more to their images and pictures, he would err against the 
 faith of the Church, and cease to be a Catholic. With regard 
 to the kind of honour which is paid to the saints, the Catholic 
 Church teaches us that it must be the same in quality as we 
 would pay to living persons of great virtue, or superior sta- 
 tion ; and that the veneration paid to statues or pictures of the 
 saints must be the same as is paid to the pictures or statues 
 of departed relations or friends. If, therefore, Protestants may 
 innocently honour the memory of a virtuous king, a successful 
 warrior, or a wise statesman ; if they may erect statues to their 
 memory, or celebrate the anniversary of their triumphs by 
 public rejoicings, ringing of bells, walking in procession, &c. 
 
 * See the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, Session 25, Catechismus 
 ad Parachos in primum Decalogi prasceptura, Bossuet's Exposition de la foi Gatb. 
 chap. 4. Roman Catholic principles in relation to God and the King. Section 3. 
 Nos. 12, 13, 14, &c. &c.
 
 Sec. 1.] Christian Religion. 17 
 
 why may not Catholics honour the virtues, the triumpiis, and 
 the wisdom of the eminent servants of God in a sunilar man- 
 ner ? If a Protestant may bow his head at the sound of the 
 name of Jesus, why may not a Catholic bow his head, in like 
 "manner, at a representation on canvas or in marble of the same 
 Divine Being I The former is a representation to the ear, 
 the latter to the eye : and should a Protestant or a Catholic, 
 in either case, intend to perform an act of adoration, it would 
 not be the empty sound, or inanimate form, they woidd con- 
 sider themselves as adoring, but Jesus Christ, of whom that 
 sound or form reminded them. 
 
 But you say " the wiser among the heathens- never imagined 
 that the image which they worshipped could help them, but 
 used it to awaken their devotion to him whom it i-epresented. 
 Yet such was the origin of all idolatry. Can the Church of 
 Rome make any better plea for itself I " 
 
 I presume it cannot be necessary to inform Dr. Moysey, 
 that the term idolatry, which, according to its derivation, 
 means the worship of images, has also another meaning in our 
 language, viz. the worship of false gods, whether through the 
 medium of an image or otherwise. Now the difference be- 
 tween the ancient pagans and the christians in communion 
 with the Church of Rome, is simply this : The former com- 
 mitted idolatry both by paying divine homage to images, and 
 by paying it to false gods. The latter do neither one nor the 
 othei. No Catholic ever thinks of paying divine homage to 
 any image whatever ; and he believes it in the highest degree 
 criminal to adore any but the one only true and living God. 
 Jf therefore, any among the heathens, wiser than the rest, 
 neither worshipped images nor any false gods, which it is to be 
 hoped may have been the case, they were not idolaters. Does 
 Dr. Moysey require us to believe that all the heathens as well 
 as all Catholics are damned for idolatry '. This is a mild doc- 
 trine to which the Catholic Church will never subscribe. 
 
 You say that certain passages of scripture, Avhich you quote, 
 forbid the " intercession of the saints and other mediators be- 
 sides the Lord Jesus." Here again you add to the sacred 
 text, and would have your own additions pass for the word of 
 God. The passages you refer to teach us indeed that Christ 
 is our only Mediator of redemption, but they say nothino- of 
 the intercession of saints. If intercessors of every kind are 
 forbidden by scripture, then does the Archdeacon himself vio- 
 late the scripture, when, in the conclusion of his charo-e, he 
 so piously intercedes for his Reverend Brethren.
 
 18 A Defence of the [Let. 1. 
 
 You seem horrified at the Catholic practiee of anathema- 
 tizing- hereticks, which you call " cursing those of your faith." 
 After your own wide- spreading- anathemas against the Chris- 
 tian and heathen world, I should have thought, you would not 
 have ventured to name the comparatively trifling anathemas of 
 the Catholic Church. But can you. Sir, really be so ignorant 
 of Catholic tenets and practices, as not to know that our ana- 
 themas against hereticks, however expressed, are never in- 
 tended to fall upon any person, whatever his faith, but such 
 as is culpabli) and obstinately in error? And, Sir, did it 
 never happen to you, in the course of your extensive theolo- 
 gical researches, to cast your eyes on the canons which stand 
 at the end of your own folio Common Prayer Book J If so, 
 I am persuaded that your mild and tolerating disposition must 
 have been greatly shocked ; for I am much mistaken if either 
 the bull in C«na Domini (which I think you have not read), 
 or all the bulls that ever roared from the Vatican, were half 
 so noisy or unsparing as your own canons, which not only 
 thunder out anathemas against the whole Cjitholic Avorld, but 
 are aimed with cruel and unnatural severity at all the dis- 
 senting children of your OAvn church ; that is, at the great 
 mass of the population of Great Britain itself! 
 
 est injusta noverca.
 
 Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 19 
 
 §2 
 
 Refutation of calumnies respecting breach of faith — Decisions 
 of foreign Universities — Of the British Parliament — The 
 oaths of Catholics — The blue books — What evils did the 
 Catholic religion entail in England^ — Penal laws — liberty 
 — toleration, and conclusion. 
 
 Your charg-es of breach of faith, &c. are expressed in the 
 following- words : " And even that odious sentence, that faith 
 is not to be kept with heretics, though I fully admit that it is 
 disclaimed and abhorred by most of the laity and many of the 
 priesthood, in that communion, yet will they not repeal it by 
 authority, but even yet it stands as a decree of authority in 
 the words of Innocent III." You add, " and so long as in- 
 fallibility in doctrine be asserted as an attribute of the Pope, 
 I do not see how they can repeal it, nor how they can refuse 
 to act upon it, if the good of their church, Avhich is a consider- 
 ation paramount with them, shall ever be declared by such in- 
 fallible authority to require it." These, Sir, are indeed most 
 serious charges : and I readily agree with you, not only that 
 it would be just to exclude persons holding such doctrines from 
 power in the state, but that it would be proper to expel them 
 from the country, as beings unworthy of the blessings of civil 
 society, and to expose them as monsters to the general execra- 
 tion of mankind. But if these charges are not true, is it the 
 part of a Christian to make them against his " christian bre- 
 thren V Does it become a minister of a relio-ion which teaches 
 " peace and good- will to men" to become the propagator of 
 slanders tending to destroy the peace of society, aud separate 
 man from his fellow-man I Is it consistent with the chai-acter 
 of a dignitary of the " most mild and tolerant church in 
 Christendom," falsely to accuse a large portion of his fellow 
 subjects of holding principles which would justify the severest 
 persecution I Now, I assert, most positively, that the odious 
 charges made against the Catholic religion, in the above pas- 
 sage, are notoriously contrary to truth. It is untrue that 
 it is, or ever was, the doctrine of the Catholic church, that 
 " faith might not be kept with heretics." It is untrue that the 
 Catholic church ever refused to repeal (he decree which esta- 
 blishes this doctrine, for no such decree ever existed. It is 
 untrue that this doctrine "stands as a decree of authority in 
 the words of Innocent the third," and if it did, you ought, as
 
 20 A Defence of the [Let. I. 
 
 a divine, to know, that it could not, consistently with the doc- 
 trines of the Catholic church, lawfully be received or obeyed. 
 It is untrue, that infallibility in the Pope is an article of Ca- 
 tholic doctrine; and it is worse than untrue that "either the 
 good of the church, or the commands of the Pope, or any 
 other consideration whatever, could, by the doctrines of the 
 Catholic church, justify any Catholic in the slightest deviation 
 from moral, religious, or civil duty.* Having thus pleaded 
 not guilty to your indictment, I might justly call on you for 
 your evidence, and if you could not substantiate your charges, 
 claim my acquittal, and denounce you, as a man in such cases 
 usually is denounced. But, as you would, perhaps, not con- 
 descend to prove your accusations ; and, as many well mean- 
 ing persons may be in the habit of considering your assertions 
 as so many certain, if not infallible truths, I shall submit, for 
 their instruction, the following proofs in our favour. 
 
 In the year 1788, when the English Catholics were treating 
 with Mr. Pitt respecting a repeal of the penal laws, this minis- 
 ter, aware of the charges usually brought against the Catholics 
 in this country, and wishing to have it in his poAver success- 
 fully to repel them, requested to be furnished with authentic 
 evidence of the doctrine maintained on certain points, by the 
 Catholic clergy and universities abroad. Three questions 
 were accordingly framed and sent, at the same time, to the 
 universities of Paris, Louvain, Alcala, Douay, Salamanca, 
 and Valladolid, for their opinions. The third of these ques- 
 tions and the answer to it from each of the universities was as 
 follows : 
 
 Third Query. 
 
 " Is there any principle in the tenets of the Cath€|lic faith,, 
 by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with here- 
 tics, or other persons differing from them m religious opinions, 
 in any transactions either of a public or private nature .'" 
 
 University of Louvain. 
 
 " Proceeding to the third question, the said faculty of divi- 
 nity (in perfect wonder that such a question should be pro- 
 posed to her) most positively and unequivocally answers, that 
 there is not, and that there never has been, among CathoUcs, 
 
 * See tlie principles of Catholics with relation to God and the king, the Catholic 
 path of allegiance, or any authorized Catholic course of divinity in existence.
 
 Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 21 
 
 or iu the doctriues of the Church of Rome, any law or princi- 
 ple, which makes it lawful for Catholics to break their faith 
 with heretics, or others of a different persuasion from them- 
 selves, in matters of religion, either in public or in private 
 concerns. 
 
 The faculty declares the doctrine of the Catholics to be, that 
 the divine and natural law, which makes it a duty to keep 
 faith and promises is the same, and is neither shaken nor dimi- 
 nished, if those with whom the eugas^ement is made hold erro- 
 neous opinions in matters of religion. 
 
 The said faculty strongly protests against the imputation, 
 that the Catholic church has, at any time, held a contrary doc- 
 trine. This, she asserts^ is a calumny invented and endea- 
 voured to be forced upon Catholics by the worst of men : who, 
 knowing their charges against Catholics were destitute of truth, 
 determined to make falsehood supply its place, and thereby 
 render the Catholics odious to princes and nations." 
 
 Given at Louvain, in an assembly extrordinary, this 
 W>th of November, 1788. 
 
 Here follow the seal and signatures. 
 
 University of Douay. 
 
 " To the third question the sacred faculty answers, that 
 there is no principle of the Catholic faith, by which Catholics 
 are justified in not keeping faith with heretics who differ from 
 them in religious opinion. On the contrary, it is the unani- 
 mous doctrine of Catholics, that the respect due to the name 
 of God, so called to witness, requires that the oath be inviola- 
 bly kept, to whomsoever it is pledged, whether Catholic, 
 Heretic, or Infidel," &c. 
 
 Signed and sealed in due form, January 12, 1789. 
 
 University of Paris, 
 
 " The tenet that it is lawful to break faith with heretics, is 
 so repugnant to common honesty and the opinions of Catholics, 
 that there is nothing of Avhich those who have defended the 
 Catholic faith against Protestants, have complained more 
 heavily, than the malice and calumny of their adversaries, in 
 imputing this tenet to them," &c. 
 
 University of Alcala. 
 
 " So persuaded is the university, that a doctrine which 
 would exempt Catholics from the obligation of keeping faith
 
 22 A Defence of the [Let. 1. 
 
 with heretics, or any other persons who may dissent from them 
 in matters of religion, instead of being- an article of the Catho- 
 lic faith, is entirely repugnant to its tenets, that she could not 
 have believed it possible there should exist any person who 
 would dare to impute to Catholics any thing so iniquitous, had 
 she not learnt from the things that are written in the sacred 
 Scriptures for our instruction, that the same pharisees who 
 had heard our Lord openly deliver this injunction, " Render 
 to Caesar the things that are Caesars," afterwards laid this 
 crime to his charge, " We have found this man perverting 
 our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar." But 
 the devil who had put this into their hearts and moved their 
 tongues to the uttering of such falsehoods, as could induce the 
 Jewish multitude, who considered Christ as a prophet, to cry 
 in a loud voice, " Crucify him. Crucify him," has never since 
 desisted from perverting others in like manner. 
 
 These are the unanimous decisions of this University, after a 
 mature deliheration, in a full assembly of the Doctors, the 
 17th day of March, in the year of our Lord, 1789. 
 
 Signed and sealed iu due form. 
 
 University of Valladolid. 
 
 " Among the articles of the Catholic faith, there is none 
 which teaches that Catholics may lawfully break their faith 
 with heretics, or any persons whatever who dissent from them 
 in matters of religion. The obligation of keeping faith is 
 grounded on the natural law which binds all men equally, with- 
 out regard to their religious opinions ; and with respect to Ca- 
 tholics, it has still greater force, being confirmed by the pre- 
 cepts of the Catholic religion." 
 
 This is the decision of the University of Valladolid, signed 
 by all and each of the jyrofessors, on the 17th day of Feb. 
 in the year of our Lord, 1789. 
 
 Signed and sealed in due form. 
 
 University of Salamanca. 
 
 ** So far are we from admitting as an article of our religious 
 creed, any tenet which authorizes breach of faith to persons of 
 a different persuasion, that we know that we are frequently 
 admonished by St. Paul, as much as it is possible, to have 
 peace and charity with all men. The natural rights of men
 
 Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 2§ 
 
 were not intended to be abridged by tlie law and doctrine of 
 Christ, but to be confirmed and illustrated. Now nothing- is 
 more clearly engraven on the minds of men, by the law of 
 nature, than this principle, that, all men, however discordant 
 their religious tenets, are to every intent and purpose, in a 
 state of equality with respect to negotiations, alliances, and 
 compacts, &c. 
 
 Signed in the name of the ivhole University, hy the Rector 
 and the six deputed Members. 1789. 
 
 The above documents were laid before both houses of par- 
 liament, and were instrumental in procuring for the Catholics 
 the relief obtained in 1791. They have been referred to in 
 almost every succeeding discussion on the Catholic claims, and 
 the most violent of our opponents have expressed themselves 
 satisfied with them. " I have heard allusions made this night," 
 said Lord Liverpool, in the debate of 1810, " to doctrines 
 which I do hope no man now believes the Catholics to enter- 
 tain ; nor is there any ground for an opinion that the question 
 is opposed under any such pretence." 
 
 In the discussion of the present year, when the most deter- 
 mined efforts were made in both houses to oppose our claims, I 
 do not recollect that even any of our Right Reverend opponents 
 thought proper to bring forward this antiquated charge, which, 
 had it been founded on truth, would have been decisive of the 
 question. Dr. Moysey will, perhaps, have the honor of being- 
 the last man in the kingdom to surrender the dear and cherished 
 slander. 
 
 The odious doctrine in question, had before been solemnly 
 abjured by the Catholics of this country, in the oath of alle- 
 giance prepared for them by the act of 1788. " I do swear that 
 I do reject and detest that unchristian and impious principle, 
 that no faith is to be kept with heretics :" and the same solemn 
 abjuration continues to this day to be made by all the Catholics 
 of the empire, whenever required, with the express consent of 
 all the bishops, and the approbation of the Pope. 
 
 The above mentioned decisions of the foreign universities 
 have been published to the world in the parliamentary debates 
 of the period, and subsequently in a great variety of forms. 
 Amongst the rest they were published about a year ago in one 
 of the Bath papers. The oath is in the hands of almost every 
 magistrate, and, I should suppose, of almost every clergyman 
 in the kingdom. It is, therefore, hard to conceive how they
 
 24 A Defence of the [Let. I . 
 
 can have escaped the deep researches of Dr. Moysey. But, 
 if he had not felt satisfied with such authorities, ought he not 
 to have made some farther search into the truth, before he ac- 
 cused his Catholic brethren of holding- one of the most odious 
 and mischievous tenets that can be held t Might he not, for 
 instance, have asked some of the many Catholic children at 
 their charity schools in this city, if such were the doctrines 
 taught them, and seen the astonishment they would have ex- 
 pressed at his credulity ? His neglect to take such precautions, 
 certainly entitles him to the full extent of the compliments 
 paid by the foreign universities to the holders and retailers of 
 such unwarrantable unputatious. 
 
 " His saltern accumulem donis et fungar inani 
 
 Munere " 
 
 But, I must not forget the important discovery which you 
 have made in " a book, now become extremely scarce, with 
 the perusal of which you have been favored by a friend. It is 
 commonly known to the Roman Catholics," you say, " by the 
 name of the blue book, and this blue book," you add, " con- 
 tains an account of endeavours that were mSde by the Roman 
 Catholics of England, in a body, in the year 1789, to conci- 
 liate and concede some of the most dangerous tenets of their 
 persuasion." Here again I am really sorry to disturb the 
 pleasure which this important discovery of the blue book seems 
 to give you. In the first place then, I must inform you that 
 there is not any particular book called by Roman Catholics 
 the bine book: but a series of pamphlets which happened to be 
 stitched up in blue covers, Avere by some persons called the 
 blue books. The reason of these blue books having become 
 extremely scarce, is no other than that which will make Dr. 
 Moysey's charge, or this pamphlet, extremely scarce thirty 
 years hence, namely, because no body will, in all probability, 
 think it worth his wliile to reprint them. These blue books do 
 not contain an account of endeavours of the Roman Catholics 
 of England to concede any part of their religious tenets ; for 
 no such endeavours were ever made ; but they give some 
 account of a public disavowal that was made by the Catholics 
 of England, clergy as well as laity, of certain odious and in- 
 famous doctrines, such as, that faith was not to be kept with 
 heretics, which the archdeacons and archfabricators of those 
 and former times, had falsely and calumniously laid to their 
 charge. They also treat of a dispute which took place amongst 
 the Catholics themselves, not about the doctrines which were 
 to be disavowed, but about the wording of an oath in which
 
 Sec. 2.] Christian Rdiyion. 25 
 
 this disavowal was proposed to be made. With great inge- 
 nuity, you attempt to deduce that the words of Catholic lay- 
 men are not to be trusted, because they are tyrannized over by 
 their priests; " with such an instance," you say, "of the abso- 
 lute supremacy of their priests, of what value are the assur- 
 ances of laymen!" I Avill not retort your reasoning upon the 
 laymen of your own communion, but, I must assure you, 
 that if I, or any other Catholic priest, or even bishop, were to 
 attempt such an exercise of authority over our flocks or infe- 
 riors, as it is said, truly or untruly, that the Archdeacon of 
 Bath does exercise over his, I do not think we should be quite 
 so successful in our attempt. Of this I am quite sure, that if 
 any Catholic archdeacon should venture to deliver such a spe- 
 cimen of theology, canon law, and logic, to an assembly of 
 Catholic clergymen, as your clergy have requested you to 
 publish, he would, ere this, have been denounced to his bishop 
 or the Pope, and a public retraction, if not dismissal to college 
 to go through another course of these studies, would be the 
 inevitable consequence. 
 
 The following- animated appeal must not pass unnoticed. 
 " Who," you exclaim, " does not know the evils that arose 
 from the prevalence of that persuasion (the Catholic religion) 
 in old time I They are what no man can deny." This, Sir, is 
 a bold and powerful figure of rhetoric. A man who was less 
 an orator, and had rather less assurance than Dr. Moysey, 
 would have asked his hearers if they were aware that the 
 Catholic religion had been attended with great evils to the 
 country in former times ; and, if he had found them ignorant, 
 would have pointed out the evils to which he alluded. But it 
 is much more eloquent and expressive, as well as much easier, 
 to ask, as Dr. Moysey asks, " Who does not know?" and then 
 to answer, that every body does know. I will venture, how- 
 ever, even at the risk of being thought very ignorant, to ask 
 what those evils were which the Catholic religion formerly 
 brought on this kingdom I Not having had the advantage of 
 studying theology in an English university, where this subject 
 appears to be so particularly attended to, nor having ever had 
 the happiness of attending Dr. Moysey's pastoral instructions, 
 which I have been told gives the fullest information on the 
 errors, dangers, and evils of Catholicity, I may, I hope, be 
 excused for making this question. In fact, I have always 
 been taught to believe that the Catholic religion, which was 
 the only Christianity in these kingdoms for about a thousand 
 years before Henry the Eighth began his reform, had really 
 
 D
 
 26 A Defence of the [Let. 1. 
 
 been a blessing to the country. It grieves me to think that 
 none of my unfortunate ancestors were blessed with a true 
 religion before the end of the fifteenth century. It is still 
 more afflicting to think that the religion of my country, pre- 
 viously to that happy era, was not only vmattended with 
 benefit, but was productive of evils to the land. ,But what 
 were the evils which the Catholic religion entailed on these 
 kingdoms I Were they of a temporal or spiritual nature I Did 
 it render our warriors less brave or less successful at the battles 
 of Cressy, Poictiers, or Agincourt ? Did it prevent the barons 
 of England from wresting our liberties from the hands of a 
 tyrant, and transmitting them, as a precious inheritance, to an 
 ungrateful posterity? Were the people of England less re- 
 spected abroad or less happy at home because they were Ca- 
 tholics I Was the country divided, as at present, into an end- 
 less variety of jarring sects, condemning and often hating each 
 other on account of religion, which ought to bind hearts to- 
 gether in unity and brotherly love J Did the established religion 
 of those days comprise only about one-fourth of the whole po- 
 pulation of the empire, whilst the clergy of that establishment 
 were paid for instructing and assisting all I Were the riches 
 which the Catholic clergy anciently possessed, and which their 
 successors, not finding any idolatry in them, have wisely re- 
 tained, less usefully employed in relieving the country from 
 the burden of poor-rates, than they are at present in providing 
 for the wives and families of modern churchmen? Or were the 
 spiritual wants of the people less zealously and effectually sup- 
 plied by the Catholic clergy, because, owing to their ignorance 
 of the true meaning of St. Paul, they could not carry about 
 with them a " sister, a wife,^' as a helpmate?* Was the priest 
 of the old religion less ready to rise from his solitary bed, to 
 carry the consolations of religion to the dying, or less fearless 
 in exposing his life for the same purpose to the infection of 
 contagious disorders? Was less zeal displayed in the erection 
 and ornamenting of churches to accommodate the wants of the 
 people, or were the doors of these sacred edifices less fre- 
 quently open to receive the fervent adorer, the penitent sinner, 
 or the broken-hearted child of affliction ? Or did, perhaps, a 
 greater number of old ladies catch their deaths of cold by en- 
 countering the chills and damps of a comfortless old church, 
 the air of which is never breathed but one day in the week ? 
 
 * uOiX^riv yvvocvMita,, — I Cor. c. 9. 
 Catholic translation, " Have we not power to lead about a woman, a sister?'' 
 Protestant translation, " Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife ?"
 
 Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 27 
 
 Were the bishops less celebrated for then- theological decisions 
 iti parliament,* or the whole body of the clergy less respected 
 or beloved I In line, were the morals of the people in general 
 at a lower ebb, than they have been since the charge of pro- 
 moting them has been committed to other hands I 
 
 " But some say," you add, " that the religion of the Romish 
 Church is changed. What proof can be shewn that such is 
 the case I For the proof lies on them." Indeed, Sir, we are 
 not at all anxious to prove that our religion is changed. Im- 
 mutability in the doctrines of faith and morality, we consider 
 as the inseperable character of truth, and therefore we should 
 feel little obliged to any man, who should prove to us that, 
 like other modern religions, ours had also changed. But we 
 have no objection that the moral conduct of our people should 
 always continue to change for the better, and we do not think 
 that the Catholics, either of this or other countries, have be- 
 nefited less by the improving state of learning and civilization 
 than their reformed brethren. 
 
 You conclude your philippic with a stretch of good nature, 
 which must, I am sure, have delighted and edified both your 
 hearers and your readers. You say, " I trust, however, that 
 nothing which I have noAV said will be considered as hostile, in 
 the slightest degree, to the liberties or persons of the indivi- 
 duals of that communion. Individual excellence in moral 
 conduct may be found, without doubt, in very many instances, 
 and in all persuasions; and it were an unjustifiable and an 
 unchristian thing unnecessarily to abridge the liberty of action, 
 and still more of conscience, in any of our brethren. But 
 power, not liberty, is the thing which they seek to acquire : for 
 liberty they have in the exemption from all pains and penalties, 
 which once were, I think unduly, inflicted on account of their 
 religious tenets," Many, very many thanks, mild and tolerant 
 Sir, for your great kindness. Though we are idolators then 
 and faith-breakers, and men upon whose words no confidence 
 can be placed, you would kindly •' leave our persons at liberty, 
 nor would you unnecessarily abridge our liberty of action. 
 That is to say, you would no longer compel us, under fine and 
 imprisonment, to leave the religion of our ancestors and go to 
 Walcot Church : you would no longer draw, hang, and quarter 
 us, as traitors, for saying our prayers in our own way ; you 
 would no longer punish a Catholic parent for educating his own 
 child, nor disinherit the child for having been so educated. You 
 
 * See some late Episcopal decisions on matrimonial contracts and the impeccabi- 
 lily of Che king.
 
 28 A Defence of the [Let. i. 
 
 would allow the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Shrew.sbury, or 
 any other Catholic peer to ride a horse, value more than five 
 pounds, and to go more than five miles from home.* You 
 thhik that even formerly these and many other severe pains 
 and penalties were unduly inflicted upon us, on account of 
 our religious tenets. This is again very kind, very mild and 
 very tolerant. But alas! is it to be supposed, that we shall 
 meet with the same indulgence from others, who may not have 
 advanced so far in the march of liberality as Dr. Moysey ? 
 May not some enthusiast of these days, emulating the zeal of 
 the early fathers of the reformation, reason diiferently on the 
 premises you have laid down, and act very differently on the 
 conclusions he shall draw I May not some modern Knox deem 
 it a godly work " to exterminate all idolators from the land," 
 (whom Dr. Moysey has proved to be such)? Or may not 
 another Lord George Gordon, on similar pretexts, again burn 
 our houses and our churches about our ears? Much then as we 
 value your kind indulgence to our imputed errors, we should 
 be much more gratified, if you could make one stretch of libe- 
 rality fartlier, and not accuse us of errors whicli we do not hold, 
 nor of crimes of which we are not guilty. 
 
 There is one thing in your reasoning on this subject, which 
 particularly surprises me. You say we enjoy perfect liberty, 
 and ought to be quite satisfied, though we are debarred from 
 almost all public offices ol" trust, honour, or emolument, which 
 things you denominate power. There must be " some nice 
 distinction" in your own mind on which you ground your con- 
 clusions, too subtle for ordinary intellects, which the more sur- 
 prises me, as you expressed a difficulty in understanding the 
 distinction between Douleia and Latreia, that is between mov- 
 ing my hat to my neighbour and offering sacrifice to God. To 
 me it seems quite clear that if I cannot sit in Parliament 
 because I am a Catholic, nor even vote for a substitute at an 
 election, my liberties are not quite unabridged, and that these 
 restraints and prohibitions are really penalties to me. Would 
 not Dr. Moysey think his liberties and rights abridged, should 
 an act of parliament pass forbidding any man to be archdeacon 
 or a bishop, who would not swear that it was idolatry to wear 
 a clerical hat or a surplice, or that it is superstitious to believe 
 that the Church of England is " the most mild and tolerant 
 church in Christendom." If Dr. Moysey felt in his conscience 
 that he could not take such oaths, would he not think it a 
 
 * See the statement of the penal laws against Papists and popish recusants. 
 Paassiui.
 
 Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 29 
 
 severe penalty to be shut out on that account from the honour- 
 able objects of his ambition.* 
 
 To conclude, in the charge before me you have made a vio- 
 lent and unprovoked attack on the religion and characters of 
 your Catholic fellow subjects. In doing this, ignorance, or 
 something worse, has betrayed you into many false statements 
 respecting our religion, and into some unwarrantable accusa- 
 tions against ourselves. Nor is this the first time you have 
 distinguished yourself by the violence of your conduct against 
 us. You have long been observed to press forward amongst 
 the foremost of those, who in their love for liberty and zeal 
 for pure religion, collect together chairmen, if not chairwomen, 
 to petition against the liberties of their fellow subjects, and 
 their christian brethren. What your real motives for such a 
 conduct may be, heaven knows. I will not put upon it the 
 construction which many of your own persuasion do put, and 
 which appearances might perhaps justify ; but neither can I 
 bring myself to believe that it is altogether that pure zeal for 
 religion, that anxiety for the souls of your flock, that extreme 
 ** love of the beauty of holiness," in short that deep and sin- 
 cere conviction of the " great and vital importance" of your 
 exertions, that stimulate your ardent hostility. But whatever 
 may be your real motives, I am surprized that one fact, with 
 which you profess yourself acquainted, does not operate dif- 
 ferently on your mind. You say, " while Protestant dissent 
 is regarded as dangerous, as it too certainly is, to that which 
 we esteem the best form of Christianity, let us not forget that 
 the faith of the Romish Church is pregnant with far greater 
 dangers. That church is not like the others, an irregular 
 though a large force : threatening every where, but acting with 
 united energy on no one point : it has the principle of strength, 
 which is concentration in itself, and that to a very high degree : 
 and were its hands once untied in this kingdom, to get power 
 within its grasp, we might expect to be convinced of it, though 
 too late, ^o our cost." 
 
 As far as regards the numbers, the power, and concentration 
 of the Catholic body in the united kingdom, I trust you are 
 not mistaken. We are indeed a great and powerful body in 
 the state, comprising, at least, one fourth, perhaps one third 
 of the population, and daily increasing in numbers and in 
 
 * A Catholic cannot even be an excise otlicer unless he will swear that " he 
 does believe that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saints, 
 and the sacrifice of the mass, as they are now used in the church of Rome are sa- 
 perstitious and idolatrous .'" Declaration against Popery.
 
 •30 A Defence of the [Let. 1. 
 
 streng^tii. But, it is not from the Catholics that the Established 
 Church has cause of apprehension. Whilst there is a consti- 
 tution to support, the Catholics, who founded it, will be among-st 
 the first and mast zealous to support it, and as such will be the 
 truest friends to the Established Church, which is founded 
 on the constitution. The real dangers which threaten you are 
 of a far different description. The enormous accumulation of 
 our national debt ; the gradual diminution of our internal and 
 external resources ; the increasing distress and consequent 
 disaffection of the lower classes to the government ; the conti- 
 nued increase of what you, by some ingenious distinction, de- 
 nominate sectaries, an appalling fact which you admit ; and 
 the determined and settled hostility of every class of the latter 
 to the Established Church ; these. Sir, are the dangers you 
 have to fear. Heaven grant you may not see the day, when, 
 struggling amidst the ruins of a falling state, and opposed by 
 a force much stronger than your own, you may be too glad of 
 the aid which the Catholic body might then afibrd you. You 
 would be anxious, no doubt, in those moments " to untie our 
 hands," and if duty to our country required it, I have no 
 doubt we should have principle enough to give you our best 
 assistance. But the hands that have been long shackled may 
 be cramped, and the hearts that should move them may not 
 feel that enthusiasm of gratitude which might be wanted to 
 give success in such a contest, and which they would have felt 
 had liberty been granted under other circumstances. He is a 
 good slave who will do his best, when set free, only to encoun- 
 ter danger for a hard master, but he is a miraculous slave who 
 will feel and fight in those moments as if his master had been 
 kind. Should a trial like this ever take place, and will any 
 one say it is improbable, the Church of England may have few 
 rewards to bestow, and as little inclination to bestow them on 
 the preachers of charges, the printers of pamphlets, and the 
 collectors of signatures, against the religion, the characters, 
 and the liberties of Catholics. 
 
 I shall only add, that, if I have said any thing in the fore- 
 going pages that may sound harsh or severe I am sorry for it. 
 But it is not for you to complain. Remember that you have 
 been the aggressor; and that i^ you deem it necessary for " the 
 preservation of the souls of those whom the Holy Ghest has 
 committed to your care," to prefer false and cruel accusations 
 against your Catholic brethren, it is equally necessary, that J, 
 to whose care a portion of the latter is committed by as high 
 an authority, should stand forward in their defence, and hurl
 
 Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 81 
 
 back the charges at him who makes tliem. I have no feelings 
 of enmity against you, and, had you confined yourself to the 
 quiet duties of your station, I should have been the last person 
 to interrupt or molest you. But, M'hen you descend from the 
 peaceful office of the christian pastor, to become the propa- 
 gator of mis-statements, and the sower of suspicions, jealou- 
 sies, and aversions, among those who would be friends, I think 
 it right to express publicly my disapprobation of your conduct, 
 and to use my best endeavours to counteract its effects. 
 
 I remain. 
 
 Sir, &c. 
 
 Bath, August 9, 1821. P. BAINES. 
 
 " When I unite myself to the general society, the grand 
 community of Christians, the most ancient, the most numerous 
 body, that to ichich ovr ancestors helonged, which is spread 
 over the ivhole glohe ; which, whatever its enemies may say, has 
 ever remained one and the same ; ichich has sprnng from no 
 others, hut from ichich all others have gone out, am I to be 
 considered as guilty of an impardonable crime ? To be a Ca- 
 tholic, my beloved Friends, is not to be superstitious : it is 
 simply to be a Christian, a member of the society of the faith- 
 ful, united under the same head, p)rofessing the same fcnth, 
 and following the same worship throughout the world: that 
 society, which, wherever you roam, gives you to meet friends, 
 and brothers, proffers to you every ichere the same creed, 
 the same ride of life, the same charitable helps in all your 
 wants and troubles." 
 
 Letter of M. Charles Louis De Haller, Member of the 
 Supreme Council of Berne, to his Family, to apprize them of 
 his Conversion to the Catholic Church, 1821,
 
 32 A Defence of t/ie . [Sec. 3. 
 
 §3. 
 
 Remarlcs on First Letter. 
 
 TO TMIE BATH FUIBILIC^ 
 
 AND 
 
 'STo tjc l^eaKcr in General. 
 
 " Men loved darkness rathei- than light, because their deeds were evil. 
 For every one that doeth evil hateth tlie light, neither cometii to the light, 
 lest his deeds should be reproved." — John iii. 19, 20. 
 
 It will be recollected by many, that in iiine last Dr. Moy- 
 sey, Archdeacon of Bath, preached, printed, and published a 
 Charge, in which, without any provocation given or cause as- 
 signed, he asserted that Catholics are idolaters, and that their 
 religion allows them to break faith with heretics. He, at the 
 same time, very consistently returned " humble and hearty 
 thanks to the Giver of all good," that the government had not 
 yet " untied the hands" of such a wicked and dangerous body 
 of men. As a pastor of the Catholics of Bath, I conceived 
 myself called upon to protest against the injustice done to my 
 flock and myself; and this I did shortly after in a Letter to 
 the Archdeacon, It required no great skill to repel an attack 
 so rash and unguarded, and I believe it was generally felt, 
 that the assailant had met with the fate he merited. The Arch- 
 deacon was put upon his defence, and a reply was loudly called 
 for by his friends. Some months however passed, and nothing 
 was heard from Dr. Moysey, when, after various advertise- 
 ments, an anonymous pamphlet of sixteen pages, entitled 
 " Catholicism sifted,'' and containing much more abuse against 
 the Catholic religion, made its appearance. It disappointed 
 all parties, particularly those whose cause it espoused, who 
 continued to cry out more loudly than ever for a defence of 
 the Archdeacon's Charge. After another delay of some months, 
 a second publication was announced, entitled, " A Letter to 
 the Rev. P. Baines, in reply to one lately addressed hy him
 
 Sec. 1.] Christian Religion. 33 
 
 to the Rev. Dr. Mot/sey, Archdeacon of Bath.'' The writer 
 stated, that " it was not his inteution to have obtruded his 
 sentiments upon the public, but as no adequate reply had yet 
 been made to the Rev. P. Baines's Letter to the Archdeacon 
 of Bath, he hoped he might be excused, though late, to answer 
 the statements made in that letter, which mujht otherivise be 
 deemed unanswerable." This work also was anonymous ; and 
 one reason which the writer assigned for its being so was, be- 
 cause it subjected him to less reserve : in other words, because 
 it allowed him greater liberty of misrepresentation and abuse. 
 " As I have thought proper," says he, " to send you a letter 
 without a name, so I have taken the liberty to deliver my sen- 
 timents without reserve." ' This letter was signed Vindex. 
 
 Vindex not only renewed the Archdeacon's charge of idol- 
 atri/ against the Catholics of the present day, bnt extended it 
 to the Christian Church in general, during the last thirteen cen- 
 turies, and moreover endeavoured to prove, that the doctrine 
 of the Established Church required him to do so. He also 
 repeated, in still stronger terms, the accusation of breach of 
 faith, asserting, and endeavouring to prove, that consistently 
 with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, " it is lawful to vio- 
 late the most solemn engagements when made with heretics." 
 
 To me it appeared evident, from the variety of style ob- 
 servable in different parts of this pamphlet, that it was written 
 by more hands than one ; and such appears to be the common 
 opinion. The materials of which it was composed being either 
 inaccessible to the generality of readers, or in languages which 
 they could not understand, were calculated to impress the unin- 
 formed with an idea of deep research, and lead them to conclude 
 that there must be demonstration, though not evident to their 
 minds. There is a pride in man which will often induce liim 
 to acknowledge the force of an argument, rather than confess 
 that he does not understand it. In this manner was the pam- 
 phlet calculated, and I rather suppose, intended to operate. 
 It was probably also thought, that the multitude of unsup- 
 ported assertions which it contained, as well as the crowds of 
 quotations from books difficult of access, would render it im- 
 possible to reply to it in any reasonable compass, and would 
 probably deter any one from making the attempt. Had the 
 task, however, been more difficult, it would have been under- 
 taken ; for I deem it a duty which I owe to my flock, and to 
 religion in general, not to suffer a publication, calculated to 
 injure both, to pass unnoticed. I regret that I have not been 
 able to compress my work into a smaller form, but when it is 
 
 E
 
 34 A Defence of the [Xef. 1. 
 
 recollected, that more assertions may be advanced by a daring 
 writer in one page, tlian can be answered by another in twenty, 
 no one wall wonder that I have been obliged to run into con- 
 siderable length. 
 
 I could indeed have given an answer that would have ex- 
 culpated the Catholic religion in a much smaller sj)ace ; but I 
 was anxious to convince the public, particularly the well in- 
 formed, to what unworthy arts the enemies of Catholics can 
 descend, and to what gross misrepresentations the adherents of 
 the ancient religion have been sacrificed, by certain men who 
 have become rich and great at their expence. I have inter- 
 woven into the present work, a review of the whole of Vin- 
 dex's letter, and I now submit my answer to the judgment of 
 the public. I shrink from no inquiry. I only request, should 
 this work be answered, that I may have the satisfaction of 
 knowing my antagonist. It is unfair that I should be exposed 
 to the arrows of enemies who lurk in darkness, and who can 
 receive no injury themselves, whatever unfair or unhandsome 
 means they employ against me. And surely an Archdeacon 
 of the Established Church, with such a host of learned and 
 zealous clergymen at his back, cannot find it necessary to em- 
 ploy any artifice against a single Catholic priest, who has nei- 
 ther power, wealth, nor title to support him. 
 
 I hope also, that the question will not be shifted, but that 
 the accusation of K/o/a#r_j/ and breach of faith will either be 
 fairly defended or candidly surrendered. Not that I shall de- 
 cline the contests on other points. If a respectable antagonist, 
 with a name, thinks it will answer the purpose of the Esta- 
 blished Church, to bring any other doctrine of our religion 
 into discussion, I shall not shrink from a contest in which / can 
 fear nothing. I have no inducement to espouse the Catholic 
 religion, but a conviction of its truth ? and every inducement 
 to abandon it, if its falsehood can be proved. But I will not 
 engage myself to stand any longer merely on the defensive. I 
 will, if I deem it necessary, carry the war into the enemy's 
 country ; and I shall fully expect in this case, to find as much 
 occupation for my assailants, as they have given to me. 
 
 I shall only add at present, that if, upon perusing this work, 
 it shall appear evident, that the Catholic religion has been 
 grievously misrepresented by a clergyman of high respecta- 
 bility, and by two anonymous writers, the public Avill be con- 
 vinced that not every thing which they hear, even from the pul- 
 pit, much less from the press, must be considered as gospel ; and 
 that when thev next meet with similar grievous accusations
 
 Sec.'S.] Christian Religion. 35 
 
 ag-ainst the Catholics (and I am told there are other pulpits in 
 this city which love to make tliem), they will do us the justice 
 not to condemn us unheard, but either refuse their assent to 
 the charg-es, or make further inquiry from our books or our- 
 selves. This is a proceeding which common prudence dictates 
 to avoid the sin of rash judg-ment. I can only say, that I shall 
 always be ready to afford any assistance, to the candid in- 
 quirer, that is in my power. To the reader I recommend the 
 following works:* — The First, or Douay Catechism; The 
 Poor Man's Catechism ; The Catechism of the Council of 
 Trent : In controversy — The Grounds of the Old Religion ; 
 Gother's Sincere Christian's Guide in the Choice of Relig-ion ; 
 Fletcher's Catholic's Manual and Sermons ; Milner's Letters to 
 a Prebendary, and End of a Religious Controversy ; Lingard's 
 Tracts. In morality — The Imitation of Christ, by Thomas a 
 Kempis ; The Spiritual Combat ; The Introduction to a De- 
 vout Life, by St. Francis de Sales. 
 
 These books will give a much more correct knowledge of 
 the Catholic Religion than Archdeacons' Charges and anony- 
 mous Pamphlets. 
 
 • Sold by the publisher hereof. 
 
 BOSWELL — " What do yon think of the Idolatry of the Mass ?" 
 
 Johnson — " Sir, there is no idolatry. They believe God to be there, and adore 
 him." 
 
 BnswELL — " The Invocation of Saints ?" 
 
 Johnson — " They do not worship the Sainls ; they invoke them ; they only ask 
 their prayers." 
 
 BosiceU's Life of Johnson, vol. i. page 561. 2d edit, 
 
 " Is it possible that any man can be found bold enough to say of three-fourths of 
 the inhabitants of civilized Europe, that they are not to be believed upon their oath. 
 The existence of any such inaxim supposes gross ignorance and barbarism in the 
 people among whom it prevails. Every enlightened mind, every man who wishes 
 well to bis country, must treat it with scorn and indignation." 
 
 Speecli of Mr. Fox on the Catholic Petition, 1805.
 
 36 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 LETTER THE SECOND. 
 
 §1- 
 Remarks on former Letter. 
 
 Very Reverend Sir, 
 
 IT was with great reluctance that I addressed 
 to you my former letter and it is with still greater that I 
 address this. The laborious duties of my profession leave me 
 little time for writing pamphlets, and if I had ever so much 
 leisure, religious controversy is not the subject on which I should 
 wish to employ it. To the public in general, no subject is more 
 uninteresting ; to a person in my situation none is more un- 
 propitious. Those persons who are indifter-ent about religion 
 (and the number of such is not small) look upon the disputes of 
 theologians as something very much beneath their notice ; the en- 
 /i^A^e/ierf part of the religious community think all contention 
 about the difference of creeds the effect of bigotry or narrow- 
 ness of mind and the great majority of those who in this coun- 
 try interest themselves about the differences of religious belief, 
 are strongly prejudiced against the system which it is my lot 
 to defend. In such a contest, therefore, I anticipate little 
 personal advantage and much personal loss. I expect to be 
 denominated a trifler by some, a bigot by others, and perhaps 
 by many a lover of dispute, while few will properly appreciate 
 either my labours or my motives. Of all this I was fully aware 
 before I addressed to you my first letter, and I was fully pre- 
 pared for any reflections which persons of different intellects or 
 different prejudices might think proper to cast upon me. 
 
 Oiie thing, however, has fallen to my lot which I did not 
 anticipate. I have been charged with having made upon Dr. 
 Moysey a personal attack, and of treating my adversary with 
 too great severity. Now, I distinctly stated in my former 
 letter, and the fact has not been denied, that it was Dr. Moy- 
 sey, not I, who made the attack, and that I acted merely on 
 the defensive, repelling some of the most violent, most mis- 
 chievous, and most odious charges that ever were preferred. 
 This attack of Dr. Moysey was directed against Catholics in 
 general, but might be expected to operate particularly against
 
 Sec. 1.] Chris/ian Religion. 37 
 
 the Catholics of" Bath, who)a it stigmatized as idolaters, as 
 persons who are tyrannized over by their priests, and who thought 
 themselves at liberty, consistently with the tenets of their re- 
 ligion, to violate every engagement which they might enter 
 into with persons of other religious persuasions, that is, with 
 the generality of those with whom they have dealings. Nor 
 was this all. Throughout the whole of his dissertation, the 
 Archdeacon studiously endeavoured to throw a particular 
 odium on the Catholic Priesthood, as if he feared that some of 
 his readers might not conceive for ns that special abhorrence, 
 to which, as teachers of the above doctrines, we were by infe- 
 rence entitled.*^ As far as I was personally concerned, I could 
 have treated the imputations with the same dignified contempt 
 I am often obliged to feel for the circulators of religious tracts 
 and the anoaymous retailers of anti-Catholic slander. But I 
 could not suffer any man, however high or however low, to injure 
 with impunity a respectable, and, to my knowledge, virtuous 
 body of men, who were committed to my care and who had a 
 right to look to me for protection. I, therefore, undertook 
 their defence. In doing this, I endeavoured, as much as pos- 
 sible, to confine the substance of my reply to the person of my 
 agrressor, and to restrain myself, whenever I could do it, to 
 the argumentum ad hominem. I did not wish to give offence 
 to Protestants in general, among whom I am happy to have 
 many valued friends, both clergymen and laymen. I did not 
 consider it fair to repel the attack of an individual by turning 
 my arms against the whole body to which he happened to be- 
 long. I did not consider his fault as that of his religion. I 
 attributed it to his particular turn of mind, or to the particular 
 situation in which he was placed, Avhich under any system of 
 religious belief, would probably have led him to a similar con- 
 duct. In short, I did not consider Dr. Moysey as the autho- 
 rized champion of the Established Church. I rather considered 
 him a venturesome and thoughtless combatant, who, mistaking 
 prejudice for truth or promotion for skill, stepped forward from 
 his ranks to offer single combat, if not contrary to the orders, 
 at least without the sanction of his commanding officers. In- 
 deed, I cannot think that the head of his Church, our gracious 
 and beloved sovereign, would wish any of his clergy to annoy 
 and insult his Catholic subjects, at a time when he is endea- 
 vouring, with a condescension equally gracious, conciliatory, 
 and wise, to soothe their feelings and alleviate their sufferings. 
 
 * Dr. Moyseji's Charge passim.
 
 38 A Defence of the [Let. 1- 
 
 I admit, therefore, that my letter was personal. It was in 
 answer to a personal attack. But I again repeat that it was 
 not an attack. I confined myself to the refutation or denial 
 of the false accusations advanced against my flock and myself. 
 Dr. Moysey had accused us of idolatry and breach of faith. 
 I stated, as a divine, the doctrines of our church, referring for 
 proof of the accuracy of my statement, to the catechisms we 
 teach, to the acknowledged decrees of our general councils, to 
 the recent decisions of our foreign universities, to the public 
 and repeated acquittal of the great council of the nation, and 
 to the solemn oaths approved by the Pope and taken by the 
 whole Catholic body in this kingdom. There is nothing either 
 in the substance or style of mj letter of which I can repent. 
 My statements were true, my language was not ungentleman- 
 like, and it could not, I conceive, be too severe. I am aware 
 that my letter was not written in the style in which the con- 
 troversial works of Catholics have, of late years, usually been 
 composed. It required some time for the Catholic body to 
 shake olf that timidity which a long period of savage persecu- 
 tion had made natural to them. The slave, inured to long 
 subjection and fear, retains vestiges of his servility even after 
 he is set free. From the reign of Elizabeth, till the early part 
 of his late Majesty's reign, the Catholics of tliis country were 
 a proscribed and degraded race, whose property, liberty, and 
 lives, constantly lay at the mercy of every enemy who might 
 chuse to enforce against them the rigour of the penal laws. 
 When a man is thankful that he is allowed to breathe, he will 
 think little of slander or abuse. Hence, in those times, if Ca- 
 tholicks dared to make any reply to the attacks which the fa- 
 voured race thought proper to make upon them, it was usually 
 with that diffidence and fear which a dependant uses towards a 
 tyrannical master who has in his hands the power of life and 
 death. Had tliis state of things continued till the present day, 
 I should probably have thought as little of being called an 
 idolater, or a perjurer, as Dr. Moysey thinks of calling me 
 such. But thanks to the mercy of a kind Providence, and the 
 humanity of a virtuous king, those days of grief and terror 
 have passed away, and though we still wear some badges of 
 our foriner slavery, though " our hands," as Dr. Moysey ex- 
 presses it, are not yet " untied,"^ Ave are at least allowed to 
 breathe the common atmosphere, we may speak with freedom, 
 and write if we can.f We moreover behold in the resistless 
 
 * Charge, page 18. 
 
 t I omit the word chains, as Vindex objects to it, and will einploj Dr. Moysey 's
 
 Sec. 1.] Christian Religion. 39 
 
 change of public opinion in our favour, and in the spreading 
 antipathy of all parties to religious persecution, as well as in 
 the daily increase of our own strength and importance, con- 
 trasted with the daily defection from the ranks of our enemies, 
 how impossible it is that we can again be enslaved, and how 
 certain it is, in spite of every pang felt and every effort made 
 bv the patrons of intolerance, that we must, ere long, be per- 
 fectly free. Such are my feelings and convictions, and when 
 I write I must write accordingly. I can no more divest my- 
 self of the feelings of pity or contempt for the man who slanders 
 my religion, than I can of my conviction of its truth. 
 
 I say of pity or contempt : for many of those who slander 
 the Catholic religion in these days, ought to be pitied, not 
 despised. The unlettered field preacher, who mistakes the 
 cravings of hunger for the calls of heaven ; and the aged of 
 both sexes, whose minds were fashioned under a former sys- 
 tem, and are become too rigid to enlarge with the times, may 
 justly excite our commiseration, when they rave against the 
 errors of popery, or caution the rising generation against the 
 children of Anti-christ. But when a gentleman of academical 
 education, Avhen a theologian in the highest degree of the pro- 
 fession, when a dignitary of the Established Church of Eng- 
 land, puts on the rusty armour of antiquated bigotry, and 
 offers himself the leader to vulgar intolerance, a Catholic cler- 
 gyman may surely be excused if he feel indignant, and ex- 
 press in forcible language his dissatisfaction and regret. Against 
 Dr. Moysey personally, I again repeat it, I have no enmity. 
 There are many reasons which would make me respect him, 
 and wish to be on amicable terms with him. I venerate his 
 activity in the discharge of his pastoral duties ; I respect the 
 zeal he shows in defending the religion he professes. Religious 
 indifference is inconsistent with a conviction of religious truth, 
 and incompatible with charity, the leading virtue of the chris- 
 tian profession. I only regret, that for defending his own re- 
 ligion, or for any other motive, he should violate the sacred 
 virtue of truth, and grossly misrepresent the religion of his 
 neighbours. The man who will let himself down to injurious 
 misrepresentation, can have no right to complain of uncere- 
 monious treatment. This is my view of the subject ; this is 
 my excuse, if excuse be necessary, for any strong language I 
 may have used in my former letter, or may use in this. 
 
 On the present occasion I conceive I have additional cause 
 
 idea of handcuffs instead ; unless I should, hereafter, show cause why I prefer the 
 more classical figure of chains.
 
 40 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 cause to complain. Had Dr. Moysey thoiig-ht himself able to 
 substantiate his charges and answer my letter, why did he not 
 do it openly, and in his own name i Or, if he thought the 
 work beneath his personal notice, why did he not request some 
 of the clergymen Avho heard his charge, who approved it and 
 requested him to publish it, to answer in his name, and under 
 his avowed sanction i Why does he employ the underhand 
 services of anonymous writers, who, having no reputation to 
 lose, can descend with impunity to the lowest personal abuse, 
 as well as to the most pitiful misrepresentations ? Or why, if 
 he does not actually hire the pens of these nameless auxiliaries, 
 does he not protest against their officious aid ( He must surely 
 be aware that the public opinion cannot help ascribing to him 
 the defence written in his favour, which he does not disavow, 
 and that he must be considered responsible for the injustices 
 committed by those who wage his warfare unheeded and un- 
 restrained. Such is my view of the case, and therefore I make 
 no apology for addressing to Dr. Moysey himself the answer 
 to his defenders ; and I wish it to be distinctly understood, 
 that I do not consider myself as entering into contest with the 
 anonymous writers above mentioned, who as such, and proba- 
 bly on other accounts, are beneath my notice, but with the 
 Archdeacon himself, whose rank and character entitle him to 
 the attention I shall pay to him.
 
 Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 41 
 
 §2 
 Statement. 
 
 Dr. Moysey not required by his religion to make this attack. 
 — Doctrine of the thirty-nine articles and book of Ho- 
 milies. — Change of doctrine in the Church of England. — 
 Doctrine of the Catholic Church and of the Church of 
 England at the present day, on the subject of images, not 
 materially different. — Customs abroad often misunder- 
 stood by English Travellers. 
 
 One of these anonymous writers attempts to justify the 
 harshness of Dr. Moysey's charges, by ailed gmg-, that " the 
 language of the church to which he belongs (in the thirty-nine 
 Articles and the Book of Homilies, is not a whit more polite."* 
 But I have always understood, that the established clergy do not 
 conceive themselves bound to believe, much less to defend, all the 
 doctrine of the thirty-nine Articles ; nor had I till now the least 
 suspicion, that the ]3ook of Homilies constituted a part of their 
 creed. It is true that James the First, in his declaration pre- 
 fixed to the thirty-nine Articles, protested " that he would not 
 endure any varying or departing from them in the slightest 
 degree ; and that no man, hereafter, should either print or 
 preach to draw the article aside any way, but should submit to 
 it in the plain and full meaning thereof, and should not put his 
 own sense or comment to be the meaning of the article, but 
 should take it in the literal and grammatical sense." But even 
 if this royal bull, which appears to me to overthrow at once 
 that happy freedom of ophiion purchased at the Reformation, 
 by the separation of England from the great body of Chris- 
 tians, was ever submitted to at all, it only proves what was the 
 .doctrine of the Established Church in the days of King James, 
 not what it is now. In those days of primative fervour, when 
 the Church of England had lately passed the Red Sea, and 
 the breasts of her children still glowed with gratitude for their 
 deliverance from the slavery of Egypt, many things might be 
 believed and submitted to, which in cooler days were found al- 
 together incredible and inadmissible. Hence, an Archdeacon 
 of our own times, whose opuiion I believe ranks quite as liigh 
 
 * Letter to the Rev, P. Baines, bj Vindex, page 11. 
 
 F
 
 42 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 as that of the Archdeacon of Bath, boldly controverts the royal 
 decision, and wonders how any one can suppose that they, who 
 subscribe to the thirty-nine Articles, can be expected to be- 
 lieve them. " They who contend," says Paley, " that nothing- 
 less can justify subscription to the thirty-nine Articles, than 
 the actual belief of every separate proposition contained in 
 them, must suppose that the legislature expected the consent 
 of ten thousand men, and that in perpetual succession, not to 
 one controverted proposition, but to many hundreds. It is 
 difficult to conceive how this could be expected, by any one 
 who observed the incurable diversity of human opinion, upon 
 all subjects short of demonstration." He decides, therefore, 
 that the intent of the legislature in requiring subscription to 
 the thirty-nine Articles, was only to exclude from offices in 
 the church. Papists, Anabaptists, Puritans, and other persons 
 dangerous to the establishment, and consequently, that any 
 man not comprehended in these descriptions, and believing 
 that he can lawfully subscribe the Article in this sense, may 
 do it.* 
 
 But supposing that the faith of Dr. Moysey did not require 
 the charitable relief which his very reverend brothers so kindly 
 offers him, and that he really believes the whole of the thirty- 
 nine Articles, or at least the damnatory and anti-catholic ones, 
 still there could surely be no necessity for his believing or 
 maintaining 7nore than these Articles teach. Now the article 
 referred to by Vindex merely characterizes " the Romish doc- 
 trine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshippmg and adora- 
 tion as Avell of images and reliques, and also invocation of 
 saints, as a fund thing vainly invented, and grounded upon 
 no ivarranty of scripture, hut rather repugnant to the ivord 
 of God ,•" io which condemnation of our doctrine, there is a cer- 
 tain diffidence and reserve. But Dr. Moysey and his friends 
 spurn the timid phraseology of the Articles, and adopt in pre- 
 ference that of the Homilies. Our doctrines with them are 
 plain idolatry, similar to that of the Pagans, who worshipped 
 Apollo, and to that of the Israelites, who worshipped tlie 
 golden calf.f 
 
 But though Dr. Moysey and his friend Vindex may deem 
 it laudable in a clergyman of the Established Church to adopt 
 the doctrine and the language of the Book of Homilies, I am 
 very sure that such is not the opinion of the established clergy 
 in general. I am very sure that the generality of them are 
 
 * Moral and T'oliticai Philosopl)y- cliap. 22. 
 
 t Charge, page 13. Letter to the Re\ . P. Baines, page 32.
 
 Sec. 2.] Christian lieliyion. 43 
 
 much too liberal, as well as too delicate minded, to admit tLe 
 doctrines, or utter the language, of that flimsy, violent, and 
 scurrilous work. I doubt whether even Dr. Moysey or his 
 friends would not think the following description of the Ca- 
 tholic Church rather too highly coloured, and hesitate before 
 they complied with the royal injunction, in reading it to their 
 congregations. Reader, peruse the passage in silence, and 
 judge for thyself. " Now, concerning excessive decking of 
 images and idols, with painting, gilding, adorning with pre- 
 cious vestures, pearl, and stone, what is it else, but for the 
 further provocation and enticement to spiritual fornication ; to 
 deck spiritual harlots most costly and wantonlv ; which the 
 idolatrous church understandeth well enough. For she being, 
 indeed, not only an harlot (as the scripture calleth her), but 
 also a foul, filthy, old, withered harlot (for she is indeed of an- 
 cient years), and understanding her lack of natural and true 
 beauty, and great loathsomeness which of herself she hath, 
 doth, after the custom of such harlots, paint herself, and deck 
 and tire herself with gold, pearl, stone, and all kind of precious 
 jewels, that she, shining with the outward beauty and glory of 
 them, may please the foolish fantasy of fond lovers, and so 
 entice them to commit spiritual fornication with her ; Avho, if 
 they saw her (I will not say naked) but in simple apparel, 
 would abhor her as the foulest and filthiest harlot that ever was 
 seen ; according as appeareth by the description of the garnish- 
 ing of the great strumpet of all strumpets, the mother of 
 whoredom, set forth by St. John in his Revelation, who by 
 her glory provoked the princes of the earth to commit whore- 
 dom with her ; whereas, on the contrary part, the true church 
 of God, as a chaste matron, espoused, as the scripture teacheth, 
 to one husband, our Saviour Jesus Christ, whom alone she is 
 content to please and serve, anc looketh not to delight the 
 eyes or fantasies of any other strange lovers or vv^ooers, is con- 
 tent with her natural ornaments, not doubting, by such sincere 
 simplicity, best to please Him, who can well skill of the dif- 
 ference between a painted visage and true natural beauty."* 
 
 Yet this is the book of which Vindex says " the charge of 
 criminality for the use of such language, if it will lie, should 
 rather be brought against the church herself than the individual 
 members of it.'f Be it so. Still from my heart do I pity 
 
 • Third part of the Homily on the peril of Idolatry. 
 
 + I really must apologize to the reader for quoting such a passage. It is not, 
 however, the worst of the kind, and I felt convinced that no one could possibly, 
 without an actual qootatiou, form a correct idea of the character of the book which
 
 44 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 the man, who can utter the language of the Book of Homilies 
 without a blush, or submit to it as a book of authority without 
 a pang. 
 
 I say submit to it as a book of authority. For, on the sub- 
 ject of images, as well as on many others, the doctrine of the 
 Book of Homilies is as extravagant as its language is violent, 
 and utterly at variance with that of the Established Church at 
 the present day. That book condemns not only the worship of 
 images, but even the making or having them either in churches 
 or elsewhere, as things entirely repugnant to scripture, as 
 leading unavoidably to idolatry, and as deserving of death. 
 
 " Where they say that images, so they be not worshipped, 
 as things indifferent may be tolerated in temples and churches, 
 we infer and say for the adversative, that all images of God, 
 our Saviour Christ, and his Saints, publicly set up in churches 
 and temples, places peculiarly appointed to the true worship- 
 ing of God, be not things indifferent, nor tolerable, but against 
 God's law and commandment, taking their own interpretation 
 and exposition of it. 
 
 " First, for that all images, so set up publicly, have been 
 worshipped of the unlearned and simple sort, shortly after they 
 have been publicly so set up, and in conclusion, of the wise 
 and learned also." 
 
 " Secondly, for that they are worshipped in sundry places, 
 now in our time also." 
 
 " And thirdly, for that it is impossible that images of God, 
 Christ, or his Saints, can be suffered (especially in temples and 
 churches) any while or space, without worshipping of them ; 
 and that idolatry, which is most abominable before God, can- 
 not possibly be escaped and avoided, without the abolishing and 
 destruction of images and pictures in temples and churches, for 
 that idolatry is to images, specially in temples and churches, 
 an inseparable accident (as they term it), so that images in 
 churches and idolatry go always both together, and that, there- 
 fore, the one cannot be avoided except the other, specially in 
 all public places, be destroyed. Wherefore to make images, 
 and publicly to set them up in temples and churches, places 
 appointed peculiarly to the service of God, is to make images 
 to the use of religion, and not only against this precept, 
 ' Thou shalt make no manner of image,' but against this 
 also, ' Thou shalt not how down to them, nor worship them.' 
 
 Vindex mentions with so much hnour, and which was certainly at one time a book 
 of authority in the Established Church, and still stands approved in the thirty -nine 
 articles.
 
 Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 45 
 
 For theybeing set up, have beeu, be, and ever will be wor- 
 shipped."* 
 
 " Nevertheless, they that love such evil things, they that 
 trust in them, they that make them, they that favour them, 
 and they that honour them, are all worthy of death,"f and so 
 forth. 
 
 And here I may be allowed to remark, that I have often 
 wondered how Protestant controvertists can still continue to 
 use the language of the early Reformers, which so severely 
 condemns themselves. It would really appear as if, whilst 
 they copy one after another the accusations of former times, 
 they forgot to notice, that in the meanwhile their own Church 
 had actually come round again to the very doctrines they are 
 condemning. This appears to me to be the case with Dr. 
 Moysey and his friends. They surpass the thirty-nine Articles, 
 and rival the Book of Homilies in the violence of their accu- 
 sations against Catholics on the subject of pictures and images. 
 Again and again they repeat, that we Avorship images, and 
 that we are idolaters. But to what particular observances do 
 they allude when they make these charges i I have turned in 
 my mind the whole of our docrine and practice on the subject 
 in question, and I really cannot discover in what they mate- 
 rially disagree with those of the Established Church at this 
 day. 
 
 I grant that when the Book of Homilies was written, from 
 which and similar productions, it is probable that Dr. Moysey 
 and his friends unthinkingly copied their charges, there was a 
 mighty difference between us. A holy horror of pious repre- 
 sentations seems to have seized upon the nation in the early 
 periods of the reformation. The ministers of Edward the Sixth 
 gave the intelligible hint ;% the pious Book of Homilies 
 sounded the trumpet, and an army of inspired men fell to dis- 
 mantling and disfiguring the churches through every part of 
 the kingdom. Images and pictures were broken or burnt, 
 altars were demolished, the rich basso-relievo of the sculp- 
 tured altar screen was defaced or covered over with rude pan- 
 
 * Third part of the Homily against the peril of Idolatry. 
 
 t First part of the Homily against the peril of Idolatry. 
 
 X The Protestant historian, Dr. Heylin, admits that the real motive for taking- 
 down the altars and images in the English churches was " avarice, not zeal, there 
 being no images so poor and mean the spoil thereof would not afford some gold and 
 silver (if not jewels also), besides censers, candlestics, &:c." [Hist, of the Reform- 
 ation, pages 56, 94, 3d edit. 1674.] Have our modern opponents any similar mo- 
 tive in view? Or are they, after a lapse of nearly three centuries, still the dupes of 
 those unprincipled politicians ?
 
 4() 
 
 "A Defence of llie 
 
 [Sec. 2. 
 
 nels of oak. The angel or seraph which supported the spring- 
 ing arch, or broke the slender column, Avas sure to lose a head 
 or a nose, to show that the enlightened authors of its scars, if 
 they suffered it to remain in the church at all, had no intention 
 to respect it. The cross, which for ages had risen pre-eminent, 
 whether on the gable end of the neat parish church, or on the 
 loftiest summit of the gorgeous cathedral, was hurled down to 
 the ground and trampled under foot. Scarce a monster in 
 stone, which spouted the rain water from the church roof, re- 
 mained unsuspected of its claim to idolatry, and full often was 
 it rendered less useful, as well as less ornamental, for fear it 
 should rob God of his glory, and share with him the honours 
 of his temple. 
 
 But this was only a temporary frenzy, too violent to last 
 long, and too ridiculous to make any serious impression on the
 
 Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 47 
 
 minds of rational men. Scarcely had tlic churches imdergone 
 the work of spoliation, when the authors of the mischief won- 
 dered they could have been such barbarians. They would 
 have retraced their steps and repaired the havoc they had 
 made, but the people had been inspired with a panic which 
 could not easily be allayed, and they Avho had opened the 
 flood-gates of enthusiasm, found themselves carried away by 
 the inundation. It required time to dissever in the minds of 
 the multitue the ideas of images, idolatry, and popery, which 
 had been united together, by a magical association, into one 
 great object of terror. 
 
 The Avork, however, Avas gradually effected, as occasion of- 
 fered and the returning influence of common sense allowed. 
 It was determined, at the expence of the nation, to erect one 
 Protestant cathedral. The fine old gothic church of St. Paul's 
 was blown up with gunpowder, and the new fabric, resting on 
 Grecian columns, raised its majestic head above all height in 
 the midst of the metropolis of England. On this proud emi- 
 nence the Protestant architect dared, in the midst of a won- 
 dering and trembling people, to erect the discarded standard 
 of Christianity, the saving cross, which for a considerable time 
 had found a refuge only amonst the Catholics. Nor was this 
 all. Crowds of colossal apostles and saints were invited to 
 resume their ancient station, to crown the rich facade, and en- 
 circle the walls of the majestic temple. That the interior 
 might correspond with the exterior, the splendid dome exhi- 
 bited, throughout the whole of its vast expanse, the pictured 
 history of the saint to whom the church was dedicated. Thus 
 was a public and satisfactory apology offered to religion for 
 the outrages of past times, and a full retraction made of those 
 wild and fanatic principles which had given so great scandal, 
 and caused such irreparable havoc in the churches of England. 
 
 But in returning from one extreme, men generally run into 
 another. The cathedral of St. Paul's still continues to be or- 
 namented yy'ith grai'en ima(/es, and with such as would scarcely 
 be permitted in a Catholic church. Pagan gods and god- 
 desses, of exquisite sculpture and colossal stature, are seen in 
 company with Protestant heroes and sages, representing the 
 virtues for which the latter were celebrated, and holdmg them 
 up to the admiration of posterity. I know very well there is 
 no danger of idolatry in this. An Englishman is much more 
 likely to deface an image, whatever its merits or whatever its 
 subject, than to adore it. But I do think, with all due de- 
 ference to the contrary opinion of the Book of Homilies, that
 
 48 A Defence of tlie [Let. 2. 
 
 if the second cojiimanclment forbids the placing- of any images 
 in churches, it is rather those of the Pagan deities than of 
 Christ and his Saints. 
 
 The example of St. Paul's was gradually followed by other 
 churches, and is now become almost general. Though the de- 
 cree of Edvv^ard the Sixth, ordering all altars to be removed 
 out of churges, as implying the popish doctrine of sacrifice, 
 and being therefore superstitious,"^' has never been repealed, 
 every church now must have its altar and altar-piece. Apos- 
 tles, evangelists, prophets, and all the inhabitants of heaven, 
 are seen, as occasion may dictate ; sometimes as separate 
 figures, sometimes as forming a part of a scriptural group. 
 Even the different persons of the sacred Trinity, which Vindex 
 and the Book of Homilies hold in such special horror, are con- 
 stantly found in the Churches of the Establishment. Thus, in 
 the city of Bath, God the Father is seen seated on his throne 
 in the summit of the western front of the Abbey-Church, re- 
 maming from Catholic times. From the appearance of the 
 niche, I think it probable that the other two Persons have 
 formerly accompanied him. But at all events, in the modern 
 altar-piece, placed in the same church by Protestant hands, is 
 seen the picture of God the Son, accompanied by the Virgin 
 Mother and St. Joseph ; and in Dr. Moysey's church is seen 
 that of the Holy Ghost, in the form of a solitary dove, glow- 
 ing in bright colours over the communion table. In other 
 places is found the representation of the Avhole Trinity, in one 
 emblematical triangle. So perfect appears to be the agree- 
 ment between the Established and the Catholic Church on this 
 subject, that we are constantly in the habit of copying from 
 each other. Thus the altar-piece in the Abbey-Church is a 
 copy of the painting which happened to be the altar-piece in 
 the first Catholic Church I ever saw abroad ; while the two 
 statues of St. Peter and St. Paul, lately erected in the Catholic 
 Chapel in this City, were actually suggested by duplicates of 
 the same figures, erected by Protestants in the Abbey- Church. 
 If there be any difference between us, it is that we are rather 
 more sparing of such ornaments than our Church of England 
 brethren, and that we should not easily admit the figures of 
 gods and goddesses into our churches. It very frequently 
 happens in this country, that a small crucifix, which together 
 with two or more candlesticks is a regular article of furniture 
 for the altar, is the only piece of sculpture in a Catholic chapel. 
 
 * Heylin's Hist«rj of the Reformation.
 
 Sec. 2.] Christian Relujion. 49 
 
 Indeed, I rather think that the two figures of the apostles 
 lately erected in the Catholic chapel of this city, are nearly, if 
 not quite, the only statues to bo found in any Catholic place 
 of worship in England; and I am quite convinced that there 
 are not so many Catholic statues in the whole kingdom, as have 
 been erected by Protestants m the Abbey-Church of Bath 
 alone. With regard to pictures, it seldom happens that we 
 have more than a single one over the altar, and even this is 
 often wanting. 
 
 With respect to the honour paid to the representations of 
 holy persons and things, the difference between us is scarcely 
 greater. That the Established Church considers such objects 
 deserving of a certain respect, is evident from the situations in 
 which she places them, which is, generally, the most honour- 
 able and most conspicuous, as well as the most sacred in the 
 church. Even the act of hoivinc/, which Vindex considers 
 equivalent to worship, is paid by Protestants to the altar, on 
 certain occasions, nay, even to the king's throne ; and, as there 
 may be a painting attached to the former, and as there are 
 certain figures of lions, unicorns, &c. attached to the latter, 
 these sculptured or painted likenesses must partake, at least, 
 per accidens as St. Thomas would express it, of the honour 
 paid to the objects of which they form a part.* 
 
 Now, I am not aware that more than this is required of 
 Catholics by the general rules of the Church, or practised by 
 them in this country. The Catholic Church positively forbids 
 that any statue or picture be considered or honoured as a god, 
 or with any portion of the honour belonging exclusively to the 
 Deity ; f but she permits, rather than enjoins, such other external 
 marks of respect, not interfering with the worship due to God, as 
 the usages of different places or times may authorize or have 
 authorized. In England I do not remember any mark of respect 
 which is paid by Catholics to images or pictures, except that 
 of bowing to the crucifix placed upon the altar when we pass 
 before it. But that this act is not intended for the material 
 object itself, is manifest, from these circumstances : — 1st. That 
 if the crucifix be removed from the altar, we bow" to the altar 
 just the same as if the cross were upon it ; and, in this case, 
 we should not bow to the crucifix though it were standing 
 
 ♦ In the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical of the Established Church, 
 published in 1640, it is declared to be a pious, profitable, and primitive custom 
 to bow to the communion table both at coming in and going out of the church. — • 
 See Sparrow's Collection, Can. VII, 
 
 t Council of Trent, .Session 25. 
 
 G
 
 50 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 near the altar. But, should the altar itself be removed out of 
 its place, for the purpose of making repairs, or for any other 
 reason, we should no longer bow to it. In like manner, the 
 king' and the bishops, during the ceremony of the coronation, 
 bowed to the altar in Westminster Abbey ; but had any of them 
 gone into the church when the ceremony was over, they would 
 not, I conceive, have bowed to the altar. During a state trial, 
 also, the lords, on entering the house, bow to the king's throne, 
 but not at other times ; nor would they do it then if the throne 
 was removed from the position which is allotted for it. It is, 
 therefore, manifest, that the ceremony of bowing to the altar, 
 as used by Catholics and Protestants, is precisely of the same 
 nature. Neither the former nor the latter consider these ma- 
 terial objects themselves as deserving of the respect they pay 
 them ; but, we are directed to exhibit towards them these 
 external acts, under circumstances where they more particularly 
 remind us of the object in whom our respect terminates. When 
 the altar stands in the place where sacrifice is offered upon it 
 to God, we honour it as the throne of God, gr rather we honour 
 God in the presence of his altar ; and in like manner, when the 
 king's throne is so placed and circumstanced, as to represent, 
 more strikingly, the royal person, it then receives the accus- 
 tomed mark of respect, which terminates in the king, or rather, 
 as before, the king himself receives the mark of respect paid 
 to him absent, in the presence of his throne. 
 
 Vindex, however, mentions an act of respect, or, as the 
 ancient languages express it, adoration, wliich is paid to the 
 cross in the the service of Good Friday. This act I shall after- 
 wards explain. At present I shall merely observe, that, as 
 none of the people are required to be present at this ceremony, 
 it cannot be considered as commanded by the Church. 
 
 I ask then, whether for the reasons I have mentioned, it is 
 charitable or just to cast upon us the odious charge of idolatry, 
 and hold us up as objects of horror or pity to those with whom 
 we live I Is the vast majority of the christian world to be 
 stigmatized by an Archdeacon of Bath, or an anonymous 
 pamphleteer, as so many idolaters, because they bow to the 
 altar of God I Can a dignitary of the Established Church 
 find no better subject to entertain his clergy in the chair of 
 truth, and in the presence of the God of charity, than charges 
 so destitute of truth and so repugnant to brotherly love i And 
 can they who undertake the defence of such conduct, offer no 
 better apology for it, than that the same outrages have been 
 committed by others for nearly three centuries ?
 
 Sec. 2.] Christian Religion. 51 
 
 But, perhaps these gentlemen rest their charge of idolatry, 
 not upon what is done by Catholics in England, but by what 
 they have seen or heard of in Catholic counti-ies abroad. 
 But why should the Catholics of England, who commit no 
 idolatry, be persecuted for the crime which is said to be com- 
 mitted by the inhabitants of Italy, Mexico, or China ? — Would 
 an English Protestant think it fair to be traduced as a Deist 
 or an Infidel, because many Protestants abroad, and some few 
 at home, have fallen into Deism and Infidelity I Hard indeed 
 would be our fate, if we were to be made accountable for all 
 the extravagant notions or criminal practices which may happen 
 to be committed by any individuals amongst the countless 
 millions, which, in every part of the known world, adhere to 
 the great Church with which we are joined in communion. 
 Before we can be at all fairly implicated in the misconduct of 
 other Catholics, it ought to be shewn that this misconduct is 
 the genuine and necessary consequence of our common tenets. 
 Now this has not been done. 
 
 I am aware that an English Protestant going abroad will 
 meet with many observances which he will misunderstand. 
 He is prepared by his early education to expect it, and he is 
 not prepared to guard against the wrong judgments into which 
 his ignorance of the usages of ancient times, and the import of 
 ancient ceremonies is too liable to lead him. He has read in 
 classical books of the religious ceremonies' of the ancient 
 Pagans, and he has seen a clergyman in a white surplice 
 reading some quiet English prayers in one square box, and 
 preaching a very quiet moral sermon in another. The latter 
 he takes as the standard of true christian worship, and what- 
 ever has a distant resemblance to the former, he considers as 
 belonging to Paganism. He seldom reflects that the worship 
 of the true God under the Jewish dispensation, bore a much 
 nearer resemblance to Pagan worship than any thing he will 
 meet with in a Catholic church. But he has been assured 
 from his infancy, that Catholics are only another description of 
 Pagans. He sees no reason to doubt of the fact ; so that 
 Avhen he goes into a Catholic country, he has nothing to do 
 but to collect together all such observances as he does not 
 understand, and class them, according to the best of his judg- 
 ment, under the different heads with which he has been 
 furnished, and which a learned prelate of the Established 
 Church lately reduced to three, namely, idolatry, hlaspheimjy 
 and superstition.* 
 
 * Shute, Bishop of Durham.
 
 52 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 There are many things done by Catholics, that are not 
 approved by the Catholic Church ; and there are many things 
 which she does approve, but Avhich, from the manner of per- 
 forming them becomes objectionable. There are many obser- 
 vances which she only tolerates, because she cannot correct 
 them ; and there are many which she condemns and censures 
 whenever she knows of their existence. The same thing- 
 happens in all religions of any considerable extent, and^lhe 
 same must necessarily happen in all great societies, whether 
 religious or civil, which are composed of the children of Adam. 
 There is no man more hurt than an English Catholic at many 
 observances which he meets with abroad. No one laments 
 more than he, that in churches where architecture, painting and 
 sculpture combine their magic powers to produce one beautiful 
 and impressive whole, some wretched piece of sculpture, 
 painted and dressed in rich attire, should sometimes be suffered 
 to occupy even a small side chapel and to excite the admiration 
 and the piety even of a few old women.* But though he 
 laments such an instance of bad taste iji the, admirers of these 
 objects, he knows very well that they had their origin in times 
 when taste was not so refined as it is at present, and that more 
 scandal may sometimes be given to the common people by at- 
 tacking their ancient customs, than good could be derived from 
 attempting to improve their taste for the fine arts. With 
 regard to the substance of the thing, he knows that it is not 
 changed by the merits of the statue or picture. He knows 
 that the minds of the lower classes are often more impressed by 
 the rudest piece of sculpture or the merest daub, if highly 
 coloured and strongly marked, than they would by a crucifix 
 from the chisel of Michael Angelo or a dead Christ from the 
 pencil of Annibal Caracci ; and though he himself should cer- 
 tainly prefer having the latter objects before him when he 
 says his prayers, he is a^are that those who prefer the 
 former, may pray before them with equal hmocence and equal 
 advantage. 
 
 An Englishman, whatever his religion, is a less ceremonious 
 being than most of his European brethren, and he has a much 
 cooler way of expressing his feelings, whether in religion or 
 common lite. Hence, an English Catholic often finds the 
 ceremonies of his foreign brethren too overcharged for his dis- 
 position and prefers greatly the more quiet forms of his own 
 
 * This custom appears to be equally disapproved of by the Council of Trent : 
 '' omnis licivia vitetnr : ita ut procaci venustate imagines non pingantur nee ornen- 
 'nr." Sess. 25.
 
 Sec. 2.] Christian lieliyion. 53 
 
 country. He is seldom found walking in public processions, 
 and still less frequently is he found burning his little taper in 
 honour of some favourite saint, or hanging- up in token of 
 gratitude his votive offering. He knows that these things con- 
 stitute no essential part of his religion, and therefore he omits 
 them. But he is too liberal and too charitable to condemn 
 others whose partialities are different from his own. He 
 leaves to his neighbours the same liberty of choosing their 
 devotional practises v.hich he exercises himself. He does not 
 consider himself authorized to make his own ideas the standard 
 of other men's judgment, nor his own conduct the rule of his 
 neighbour's actions. If he meet with observances which he 
 does not understand, he enquires their meaning and im- 
 port, before he pronounces upon their merit ; and, knowing 
 that charity is the first principle of the christian religion, he 
 never condemns any man of a crime till he has heard his 
 defence. 
 
 If there be any thing criminal in such a conduct, the 
 English Catholic must plead guilty. It certainly is very 
 different from that of Dr. Moysey and his friends, whose 
 ardent zeal for the honour of God and the purity of his wor- 
 ship, enables them to discover idolatry where we cannot. But 
 does not zeal itself sometimes lead men into error as well as 
 charity I I think this will appear to be the case in the present 
 instance.
 
 54 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 §3. 
 
 FIRST AND SECOND COMMANDMENTS. 
 
 Differently explained hy Dr. Moysey and his two friends. — 
 Their explanations refuted. — Catholic explanation. — Im- 
 port of external acts uncertain. — Definition of the ivords 
 adoration, worship, Latreia, Douleia, idolatry, &c. — Neces- 
 sity of attending to the meaniny of these ivords. — 
 Catholic Church does 7iot violate the commandments. 
 
 Dr. M05 sey himself and his two anonymous advocates agree 
 in accusing the Catholics of idolatry in violating the second 
 commandment. But it is curious enough that each of these 
 three divines alleges a different reason for his decision. It 
 would seem that they had first settled that we must be idola- 
 ters, and they set themselves to consider why so. — Dr. 
 Moysey says we are idolaters, because the second command- 
 ment forbids us " to bow down in prayer," to any but God. 
 Vindex says we are idolaters because the second commandment 
 forbids us to " how down at cdl" to any but God ; and the 
 author of " Catholicism Sifted' says we are idolaters, because 
 the scripture forbids the " making of images /or any religious 
 use" whether we bow down to them or not. Dr. Moysey's 
 reason I have already answered, I trust satisfactorily, as his 
 two friends have given him up. The reason assigned by 
 ** Catholicism sifted" I leave to the Established Church to 
 refute, as it is quite manifest that the pictures and statues 
 which she has in her churches are as much for a religious use as 
 ours. To Vindex I shall forthwith proceed. He states his 
 doctrine as follows. 
 
 " The law forbids any kind of similitude, whether of things 
 in heaven, or in earth, or under the earth, the bowing down to 
 them, or worshipping them. Now let me ask, Can a law be 
 framed in more direct or explicit terms ? Does it allow men 
 to bow down to God in one way and to sensible representations 
 in another J or does it positively restrict the act ofhowing down 
 to God? One would suppose that language so decisive could 
 not be wrested out of its obvious meaning. — Where a legal 
 injunction is positive, to divest it of its positive character and 
 to clothe it only with comparative force and obligation may be
 
 Sec. 3.] Christian Religion. 55 
 
 according to the rules of logic, but it must be logic which is 
 studied in a Roman Catholic school."* 
 
 From these quotations it appears, that in the opinion of 
 Vindex the second commandment positively restricts to God 
 alone the external act of bowing down, and forbids its being 
 applied to sensible objects in any way whatever. Now to this 
 explanation I object for the following reasons : 
 
 1st, Because it will involve in the guilt of idolatry many of 
 the most holy persons mentioned in scripture. " Abraham 
 bowed himself down toward the ground, "f at the presence of 
 the angels. Joshua did the same, when the angel declared 
 himself, saying, " As a captain of the host of the Lord I am 
 come, Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and 
 said unto him. What saith my Lord unto his servant r';|; 
 " David fell on his face and bowed himself three times to 
 Jonathan. "II The nobles of David did the same both to God 
 and the king, " And all the congregation blessed the Lord God 
 of their fathers, and bowed down their heads and worshipped 
 the Lord and the king,"§ &c. 
 
 2ndly, Because it will involve in the same dreadful guilt the 
 king, the bishops, and the people of the Church of England. 
 For, on certain state occasions, the lords spiritual and temporal, 
 in parliament assembled, are required and actually do bow to 
 the king's throne when the king is not in in it. On the day of 
 the coronation the king himself as well as the bishops bowed 
 repeatedly to the altar, and by the canons of the Church of 
 England all persons are commanded to bow at the name of 
 Jesus, and recommended to bow to the communion table. ^ 
 
 To this last example Vindex replies that " Protestants are 
 commanded to bow at the name but not to the name of Jesus. 
 When the sound reminds us of our glorified Saviour we offer 
 to him the worship enjoined, but we offer no worship to the 
 sound itself." Neither do Catholics, if by worship Vindex 
 means divine honour, for we know that a sound is not God. 
 But it does appear to me, that when St. Paul said, that, " at 
 the name of Jesus evei'y knee should bow," and assigned for 
 reason that it was a " name above every name," he really 
 meant to signify that the honour was due to the name itself; 
 not of course on its own account but on account of the Being 
 
 * Letter to the Rev. P. Baiiies, page 30 aud 32. 
 
 t Sept. vfoffy.vvnaiv eiri rr^v ynv. Gen. xviii. 2. 
 
 t Joshua V. 15, II 1 Samuel xx. 41. 
 
 § Chroaicles xxix. 20. moanvvnv nvfioi kou tu ^oi.a'iXh 
 
 ^ See the note page 25.
 
 56 A Defence of the [Let. 2 
 
 it represented. But if Vindex still thinks otherwise I have no 
 objection. But then I must beg to ask him how he will get 
 over the other instances abovementioned ? Do the bishops and 
 peers of England bow at the throne, and not to the throne; 
 or did they, on the day of the coronation, bow at the king and 
 not to the king; and did both they and the king himself bow 
 at the altar and not to the altar t If Vindex has not some 
 other ingenious distinction to get the king and bishops out of 
 this difficulty, I fear he must consent to add them to his cata- 
 logue of idolaters ; and if he should succeed in shewing that 
 this bowing was not to the objects but at them, the Catholic 
 Church will beg leave to avail herself of his discovery for 
 escaping from his condemnation ; as it is quite manifest that 
 her bowing down is precisely similar, both in the external 
 act and the internal motive, to that of the Established 
 Church. 
 
 3rdly, If the act of bowing down be reserved to God alone, 
 why is not every man who bows to his neighbour in the street 
 guilty of a breach of this commandment? - Will it be said, 
 that in these cases the intention is not to worship but only to 
 pay a mark of respect? But this excuse Vindex positively 
 refuses to admit, " For against the intention of man," says he, 
 " as a rule of action, I oppose the will of God. The 
 ignorance of the agent, if it be not wilful, may abate the 
 guilt of the action, but his intention cannot alter the nature of 
 things." How severe are the doctrines of our new commen- 
 tator, and how unlucky are the effects of his biblical criticism ! 
 In attempting to establish that most desirable hypothesis, that 
 all the christians in the world were idolaters for a thousand 
 years, he has proved that they are all idolaters still, not even 
 excepting his own little church of Apostolical purity ; nay, 
 with the exception perhaps of a few of our worthy countrymen, 
 the Quakers, who never bow, that there are nothing but idol- 
 aters in the whole world ! 
 
 4thly, If God had reserved to himself alone the act of 
 iDOwing down, it must have been not merely for the purpose of 
 preventing others from enjoying it, but more particularly that 
 he might himself be honored with it. So that we must 
 conclude, that this act would have held a distinguished rank 
 amongst the sacred rights which he gave to his ancient people, 
 and that it would have continued to hold the same under the 
 Christian dispensation. In this case we should have had the 
 worship of bowing down, with all its forms and ceremonies, 
 detailed in the book of Leviticus, amongst the different kinds
 
 Sec. 3.] Christian Religion. 57 
 
 of sacrifice ? and though it would have been discontinued of 
 course in the Catholic Church, after the first centuries of 
 Christianity, it would have been restored in all its perfection 
 when Henry the Eighth brought back the Church of Christ to 
 its primitive purity. Yet I am not aware that the worship of 
 hoiving down formed any part either of the Jewish ritual, or 
 of that of the early Christians, or even of modern Protestants. 
 It is true, as I before observed, that " due and lowly reverence 
 is required by the Church of England to be made, when the 
 Lord Jesus shall be mentioned," but as the mention of this 
 sacred name is merely accidental, and as bowing is commanded 
 at no other time, the principal act of divine worship, if bowing 
 were considered such, would have been left to chance and 
 might have been frequently altogether omitted. 
 
 5thly. If the commandment had restricted the prohibition to 
 the act of bowing down it would not have prohibited many 
 other modes of paying divine worship which were common 
 amongst the ancient Pagans. Thus it would not have prohi- 
 bited the form of worship, perhaps the most common of all 
 others, which consisted in kissing the idol, or kissing the hand 
 and moving it towards the idol, " As it were," says Selden, 
 " to throw the kiss to the object worshipped." It is from this 
 act that the Latin word adorate and the English word to adore 
 is derived, and perhaps also the Greek TrpotrEWPsiy 
 
 Lastly, if by the second commandment the Almighty had 
 wished to reserve to himself any one special act, it would have 
 been that of sacrifice, which has ever been considered as be- 
 longing exclusively to the Godhead, but which was constantly 
 given by the Pagans to their deities ; not the act of bowing 
 dotvn, which has always been and is still considered as the most 
 ordinary mark of civility or respect which men pay to each 
 other. 
 
 But, exclaims Vindex, " that the ivill of God may be best 
 gathered from the Word of God, is perhaps a point which you 
 will authorize me to assume."* Most certainly ; but what 
 then i " We have it then upon record," continues Vindex, 
 " in the Word of God, that the law before us did not respect 
 the worshipping an idol as the true God, but the worshipping 
 the true God under some symbol of his presence." Alas! 
 what chance has a Catholic divine against these modern theo- 
 logians ? To us the sacred Scriptures speak but one doctrine, 
 and this one doctrine is common to us all. With us the mean- 
 
 * Letter, Seepage 31. 
 H
 
 58 
 
 A Defence of the 
 
 [Let. 2. 
 
 " They forgat God their saviour, Psalm, cvi. 21." 
 
 ing of Scripture is as unchangeable as its phrases, nor will it 
 in our greatest distress, bend its stubborn form to lend us a 
 helping hand. But to the favoured children of the Refor- 
 mation it is all accommodating. Without altering its language 
 it varies its meaning according to the exigencies of each 
 individual, and offers itself to prove or disprove whatever he 
 may wish. I had considered it as at least probable, that the 
 golden calf erected in the wilderness and worshipped by the 
 Israelites, was rather an imitation of an Egyptian idol repre- 
 senting Osiris, or some other false deity, not that it was a 
 symbol of the true God. Such indeed is the decided opinion 
 of the learned Selden* and, I believe, of most other Protes- 
 tant as well as Catholic divines, and the same appears to be 
 
 Tom. ii. p. 304-5.
 
 Sec. 3.] Christian Religion. 39 
 
 clearly confirmed by other passages of Scripture, which tell us 
 that the Israelites on this occasion " forgat God their Saviour, 
 which had done great things for them in Egypt,"* that they 
 " forsook the God that made" them and " that they sacrificed 
 to devils, not to God."t But no, says Vindex, the golden 
 calf was intended as a visible representation of Jehovah hun- 
 self, and the only reason why he objected to the worship paid 
 him under this form was, that he did not choose to be 
 worshipped under any visible form whatever, this being 
 r-elative worship. But, supposing it were certain, that the 
 Jews on this occasion intended to worship the true God, I ask, 
 with all deference to the learning of Vindex, is it quite cer- 
 tain that because the Almighty objected to be worshipped 
 in the form of a calf, he would therefore have equally objected 
 to be worshipped under some more respectful form ; for 
 instance, under that which he was pleased to assume for our 
 salvation I Were I to represent Vindex himself under the 
 form of a calf, and he should express himself not pleased with 
 the compliment, should I have a right to conclude that he 
 would have equal objection to be represented under some other 
 form ; for instance, under that of a logician, metaphysician or 
 biblical critic I If it is not too great presumption, I would just 
 observe to Vindex, that though the ivill of God may very 
 safely be gathered from the Word of God, it is only from the 
 Word of God explained according to the meaning of God. 
 For when the word of God is explained in any other meaning, 
 it ceases to be the AVord of God and becomes the word of 
 man, which is a very uncertain riUe for explaining the icill of 
 God. Therefore till he can afford us some better authority 
 for his explanation of the Word of God, than his own anony- 
 mous opinion, we must necessarily prefer the explanation of 
 other commentators, whose names we know and whose opinions 
 we have reason to revere. 
 
 From these different arguments, I conclude that the second 
 commandment does not " restrict the act of bowing down to 
 God" and that it does allow us to bow down to him in one 
 way and to sensible representations in another." I will add 
 that it does not reserve to God any particular external act 
 whatever, except sacrifice, and that it does allow anij external 
 act whatever, except sacrifice,:{: to be paid to creatures. The 
 
 * Psalm cvi. 21. t Deut xxxii. 15, 17. 
 
 X Sacrifice is not merely an external act but also an internal one, consisting of an 
 external offering made to some being, for the professed purpose of acknowledging 
 the same as a God. It can therefore never be oftered to any Being but the true 
 God without the guilt of idolatry.
 
 60 A Defence of the [Let. 2 
 
 reason is, that all external acts are mere arbitrary signs, which 
 have different meanings according to the circumstances under 
 which they are employed, the intention of the person who em- 
 ploys them, and the nature of the object to which they are 
 exhibited. Bowing, kneeling, prostrating, the burning of 
 lights, incense, &c. are all subject to the same uncertainty of 
 import, and are lawful or unlawful according to circumstances. 
 An inferior bows to his superior : it is a mark of submission 
 and subjection and is a laudable act. A Catholic, or a 
 member of the Church of England, bows to the altar, or at 
 the name of Jesus ; it is an act of respect as far as it regards 
 the altar or the name; it is an act of Latreia, or divine wor- 
 ship, as far as it regards the Deity ; a man bows to an idol, 
 or at the name of Jupiter ; it is an act of idolatry. A child 
 kneels to his parent to ask his blessing ; it is an act of filial 
 piety : he does the same to beg his forgiveness ; it is an act of 
 supplication ; he does the same to the true God ; it is an a&t 
 of Latreia, or divine worship : he does the same to an idol or 
 false god; it is an act of idolatry. A wife prostrates herself 
 before a prince to beg the life of her husband ; she kisses his 
 feet and implores his mercy ; it is an act of humiliation and 
 supplication proceeding from conjugal affection : she prostrates 
 herself before God; it is an act of Latreia; before an idol or 
 a false God ; it is an act of idolatry. A man kisses his 
 friend : in England it is a mark of the greatest intimacy and 
 strongest affection ; in France it betokens a less degree of 
 familiarity or friendship ; in some other countries, it is an act of 
 the commonest civility. From a child to a parent it is a token 
 of filial affection ; from a parent to a cliild of parental tender- 
 ness; from a wife to a husband of conjugal attachment; to the 
 picture of a husband, the same ; from a subject to a sovereign, 
 it may be an act of homage ; from any one to an idol it is an 
 act of idolatry. I may light candles before a picture or statue, 
 that it may be better seen : Dr. Moysey would not scruple 
 to do it. I may bear a torch to light the steps of a friend ; it 
 is an act of civility ; to guide the bewildered traveller; it is an 
 act of charity. I may bear it at a marriage, it is a sign of joy; 
 at a funeral, it is a token of grief; before an emperor, it is a 
 mark of respect or loyalty ; before his statue, it anciently 
 meant the same. But if I light a taper or carry a torch 
 before an idol, I am guilty of an act of idolatry. If I bum 
 incense to fumigate a roi^m, it is an act of convenience or 
 luxury. If I burn it before the altar, the crucifix, the book of 
 the gospels, the ministers of religion, it is a token of respect
 
 Sec. 3.] Christian Religion. Gl 
 
 for these different objects, on account of their consecration to 
 God or connexion with his service. If I burn it to God him- 
 self it is an act of Lafreia ; if I burn it before an idol or in 
 honour of a false god, it is an act of idolatry. As therefore it 
 is clear that all these external acts may be and are lawfully ex- 
 hibited to creatures, as well as to God, it is equally clear that 
 God did not " reserve any of them to himself" by the second 
 commandment. 
 
 What then is the true meaning of the commandment ? Ac- 
 cording- to the Catholic explanation it is this. In the first 
 commandment, by the words " I am the Lord thy God ; Thou 
 shalt have no other gods before me ; " &c. the Almighty signi- 
 fied to us, that He is to be honored as our Creator and So- 
 vereign Lord, and He alone. That consequently we must wor- 
 ship Him internally by believmg in him, and in the truths he 
 teaches us ; by placing our entire confidence in him, and not 
 looking for or expecting any good but such as is derived imme- 
 diately or ultimately from liim ; by loving him with our whole 
 hearts, preferring him before all things else and studying above 
 all things to comply with his commands. That we must wor- 
 ship Him also externally by complying faithfully with all the 
 external duties prescribed for our observance, whether imme- 
 diately by himself, or through the medium of liis Apostles and 
 their lawful successors, whom he commissioned to teach us to 
 " observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them ; " 
 with whom he promised " to remam always even unto the end 
 of the world; "^ and to whom he said, " he that heareth you 
 heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me ; " f that 
 amongst the various duties prescribed by religion, that of pub- 
 lic prayer must be diligently and regularly performed ; and, 
 above all, that we must frequently offer or join in offering to 
 him that holy and mystical sacrifice, " that pure offering," 
 which the prophet Malachi foretold should take place of the 
 ancient Jewish sacrifices, and should be offered to God in every 
 place, " from the rising of the sun even unto the going down 
 of the same.":[; In fine, the first commandment requires that, 
 both with our souls and with our bodies, we do Sovereign ho- 
 mage, and shew perfect obedience to God, as our Creator, 
 Preserver, Redeemer ; as the original source of all our good, 
 the ultimate foundation of all our present and future hopes ; 
 the great and predominating object of our respect, our vene- 
 ration and our love. Whoever complies with these internal 
 
 * Matthew, xxviii. 20. t Luke x. 16. X Malachi, i. 11.
 
 62 A Defence of the [Lei. 2. 
 
 and external duties, worships God "in spirit and truth" and 
 complies with the injunction of the first commandment. 
 
 The second commandment which says, " Thou shalt not 
 make unto thee any graven image, nor the likeness of any 
 thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, 
 or that is in the water under the earth ; thou shalt not bow 
 down thyself to them nor serve them," does not forbid the ma- 
 king of images and pictures in general, otherwise, the Al- 
 mighty himself would have been the first to violate his own 
 command, when he ordered the brazen serpent to be made in 
 the wilderness and the two cherubims to be placed in the Jewish 
 sanctuary ; Solomon v/ould have violated it when he made, 
 without express authority, several other figures of cherubims* 
 in the temple, and also when he made, equally without autho- 
 rity, twelve figures of oxen to support the " molten sea." 
 This circumstance is the more remarkable, the figure of the 
 ox being the same as that which the Jews made in the wilderness 
 and which God condemned as an idol. But the golden calf 
 made by Aaron in the wilderness, was made as an idol or false 
 god, to have divine honours paid to it ; whereas Solomon's bra- 
 zen oxen were made for a different purpose and therefore were 
 not condemned. The Established Church of England would 
 also violate it by the statues and paintings, with which her tem- 
 ples are adorned. But the commandment does forbid the ma- 
 king of any image whatever as a god, and the Almighty is 
 particular in enumerating things " that are in heaven above, 
 in the earth beneath, and in the waters under the earth," be- 
 cause the Jews, to whom he delivered the commandment, 
 were just returned from Egypt, a country where almost every 
 creature, from the sun, the stars, and other heavenly bodies 
 down to the beasts of the earth and the reptiles of the sea, 
 were, through the medium of various representations, honoured 
 as gods, with a superstitious or idolatrous worship.f The 
 other part of this commandment, " Thou shalt not bow down 
 thyself to them nor serve them ;" or as the Catholic transla- 
 tion renders it, " Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them," 
 is easily understood. It does not, as I have already proved, 
 forbid merely the act of bowing down to idols, or false gods, 
 but it forbids any act whatever, whether of the body or only 
 of the mind, employed to honour such objects. — Therefore, 
 was a man to kneel before an idol or false god, or prostrate 
 himself before it, or kiss his hand or move his hat to it, or 
 
 * 1 Kings vii. 23, 29. + See Selden.
 
 Sec. 3.] Christian Reliyioii. G3 
 
 burn a taper or offer incense before it, or even in his mind respect 
 it, place confidence in it, or entertain an affection for it, he woiihl 
 be guilty of aviohition of the commandment, and of superstition or 
 idolatry, just as much as if he hoived himself down before it.* In 
 other words, any man who believed that an image was a god, or 
 that it was any thing more than a mere creature, or who placed 
 any confidence in it as a god, or by any internal or external act hon- 
 oured it as such, would be equally guilty of idolatry, whether the 
 image represented Jupiter or Jesus Christ, Minerva or the 
 blessed Virgin Mary, Apollo or St. Peter, the golden calf or 
 an angel. And the reason is, that in all these cases he would 
 equally acknowledge as a god what is only a creature ; or he 
 would honour the creature for some excellencies which can be- 
 long only to God, and therefore would rob God of the hon- 
 our which belongs to him. But whatever external act a per- 
 son may employ towards an image, whether of Christ, of a 
 parent, a sovereign, or of a saint, so long as he does not be- 
 lieve that image to be a god, nor to have any virtue in it which 
 entitles it to honour, nor places any confidence in it, nor in 
 fine intends to pay it any acknowledgement which belongs to 
 God alone, he does not violate the commandment, nor is he 
 guilty of idolatry. 
 
 From these observations it will be easy to collect what is the 
 true meaning of the words worship, adoration, idolatry, 
 and the like. 
 
 I have proved that all external acts employed in the worship 
 of God, are equivocal acts, common to God and to creatures. 
 Words are the images of things, and therefore all words in the 
 ancient languages, which signified the above acts, are as equi- 
 vocal as the acts themselves. Hence neither in Hebrew, in 
 Greek, nor in Latin, is there one single word signifying such 
 acts which may not be applied to creatures as well as to God. 
 Vindex acknowledges that the Hebrew text of the second com- 
 mandment sometimes signifies to adore as well as to how 
 down ; he also admits that the Greek word j)roskunein, which 
 
 * Therefore, notwithstanding all the Hebrew, Greek and Latin which Vindex 
 has lavished upon the words bow down, I still think that the word adore is preferable, 
 as being more comprehensive in its meaning, and as taking in the whole prohibition 
 of the commandment ; whereas the words bow down, only forbid one of the numer- 
 ous acts by which idolatry may be committed. But the original translators of the 
 Protestant bible had their reasons for preferring the words bow down to the word 
 adore, as well as they had for preferring the word hnaf;e to that oi idol, wherever 
 the latter was condemned by the sacred text. They have corrected most if not all 
 the latter mistakes in their latest editions ; perhaps on some future day they may 
 alter the former.
 
 64 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 in his own version of St. Matthew, chap. 4, signifies divine 
 worship ;* in several other passages which he quotes " can 
 mean nothing more than the act of bowing the head or body, 
 as a mark of respect shewn to man."t In modern languages 
 the meaning of such words is rather more defined, inasmuch 
 as there are some which generally signify the honour belong- 
 ing to the Deity. I say generally, because I do not know 
 any single word which is not sometunes employed in a diffe- 
 rent sense. Thus Johnson informs us, that the word adore 
 sometimes signifies merely an act of human respect ; an al- 
 derman is said to be loorshipfid, and in the marriage ceremony 
 of the Established Church the husband xvorships his wife, 
 " With my body I thee ivorship" To prevent the mistakes 
 into which 'the ambiguity of such works is liable to lead men 
 in religious discussions, the Catholic Church, at an early pe- 
 riod, selected two words, to which she gave a fixed and deter- 
 mined theological meaning, one, Latreia, signifying any act 
 employed with the intention of acknowledging and honouring 
 a being as God; the other Doideia, signifying any act by 
 which a creature is honoured, merely as a creature and not as 
 a god. 
 
 Idolatry therefore is giving Latreia to any creature, or in 
 other words it is exhibiting toivards a creature any act with 
 an intention of acknowledging it as a god. 
 
 Adoration, worship, &c. are, as before observed, ambigu- 
 ous words, which mean some times Latreia, or the honour due 
 only to God; sometimes Douleia, or mere respect due to crea- 
 tures. Hence it is manifest, how necessary it is at all times, 
 but particularly when engaged with works written in the an- 
 cient languages, first to ascertain the real sense in which these 
 words are, on any particular occasion, employed, before an 
 argument is founded upon them. If we read in scripture 
 that the nobles of David " worshipped God and the king," J 
 we must first be sure that the word worship means the same 
 when applied to the king that it does when applied to God, or 
 rather we must be sure that the same act does not vary its na- 
 ture according to the object about which it is employed, or the 
 intention of those who employ it, before we venture to pro- 
 nounce that those nobles were idolaters. In like manner if we 
 read in ancient councils or rituals, that the cross of Christ or 
 the images of the saints are to be worshipped or adored, we 
 
 * " Thou shall worship the Lord thy God." t Letter to the Rev. P. Baines, page 28. 
 
 X 1 Chronicles xxix. 20.
 
 Sec. 3.] Christian Religion. 65 
 
 must first enquire whether, by worship or adoration, is meant 
 divine honour, or only mere respect, before we pronounce that 
 their doctruie is idolatrous. The same caution is necessary in 
 deciding upon the moral character of any external acts em- 
 ployed as marks of respect. If I read in scripture that Mo- 
 ses bowed down before the Lord, who appeared to him on 
 Mount Sinia,* that Abraham bowed down before the an2;els,t 
 and that Joshua fell down before the ark,]; I am not immediately 
 to conclude, that the same act in each of these different cases 
 signifies the same thing-, and that therefore, Abraham and Josh- 
 ua were idolaters, because they exhibited to creatures the same 
 external act of worship which Moses paid to the Deity. In 
 like manner, if I read in ecclesiastical history, or observe in 
 foreign countries, that a certain class of Christians are accus- 
 tomed to bow down or kneel before altars, crosses, the books 
 of the gospel, statues, or pictures ; to kiss them, to bum 
 lights or incense before them, or in fine to exhibit towards 
 them any other external marks of respect which are employed 
 indifferently to God and his creatures ; I am not immediately 
 to conclude that these Christians are idolaters. I must enquire 
 whether these acts are intended as acts of divine worship or only 
 of mere respect. In making this enquiry it will be useful to 
 ascertain the belief of these persons, respecting the nature of 
 the objects to which these acts are exhibited. If I find that 
 they really believe that altars, crosses, books, images and pic- 
 tures are gods, or that they contain in them any excellence be- 
 longing only to the Deity, or any inherent virtue which can 
 entitle them to the honours due to God, and I find them bow- 
 ing, kneeling, &c. before these objects, I may be justified in 
 concluding that they are committing idolatry or superstition ; 
 but if I find that they do not believe these objects to be gods, 
 nor to be in any way entitled to divine honours, I am bound in 
 reason and in charity to conclude, that it is not their intention 
 to pay them such honours, but that any equivocal acts which 
 they employ, being lawfuully applicable to creatures, are ap- 
 plied in such manner by them. If I doubt of their religious 
 belief, charity will compel me to put the best construction on 
 their conduct, and not pronounce them idolaters till I am cer- 
 tain of their guilt. 
 
 Had the adversaries of the Catholic Religion attended to 
 these just precautions, we should not have heard an authorized 
 
 * Exodus xxxiv. 8. t Geiiesis xviii. 2. + Joshua vii. 6. 
 
 I
 
 66 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 work of '• the most mild and tolerant Church in Chris- 
 tendom"* asserting " that laity and clergy, learned and 
 unlearned, all ages, sects and degrees of men, women and 
 children of all Christendom, have been at once drowned in 
 abominable idolatry, of all other vices most detested of God 
 and most damnable to man, and that for the space of eight 
 hundred years and more:"t nor should we have found a digni- 
 tary of the Established Church of England in the nineteenth 
 century, renewing this awful anathema, and countenancing an 
 anonymous writer, who even extends the frightful malediction 
 by dating it two centuries earlier and continuing it, for the 
 great majority of Christendom, to nearly three centuries 
 later ]% 
 
 From the above observations, I consider it clear that the 
 Catholic Church does not violate the second commandment 
 merely by hoiving to the crucifix, altar, or other sensible object, 
 nor Uj any other external act exhibited to creatures, provided 
 she is careful at all times to observe the distinction above-men- 
 tioned of honouring God alone as God, and creatures only as 
 creatures; in other words, if she reserves Latreia to God 
 alone, and gives to creatures only Douleia. Now this I before 
 maintained, and still maintain to be the case. Dr. Moysey's 
 friend Vindex, denies it. He asserts " that the distinction 
 between Latreia and Douleia, instead of justifying the doc- 
 trine and practice of our Church, is at variance with its doc- 
 trine and practice :"|| in other words, he asserts that the 
 Catholic Church does not, either in doctrine or practice, reserve 
 Latreia to God alone, but allows it to be given to images. 
 This position he attempts to establish by a reference to the 
 history of the Church, to the decrees of our general Councils, 
 to the doctrines of our divines, and to our ritual observances 
 and prayers. I shall examine his proofs with as much consi- 
 deration for the patience of my reader, as such a subject will 
 admit. 
 
 • A curioas appellation of the Church of England by Dr. Moysey. Charge, page 13. 
 t Book of Homilies, Peril of Idolatry, part 3. 
 N.B. A new edition of this liberal and enlightened Work, from the Clarendon 
 Press, Oxford, was published iu 1816, by the Society for Promoting Christian 
 
 Knowledge! 
 
 t Letter to the Rev. P. Baines, pages 14, lo, &c. 
 II LeUer to the Rct. P. Baines, page 13.
 
 Sec. 4.] Christian Relif/ian. 67 
 
 §4. 
 
 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN IMAGES. 
 
 How far used in the first three centuries. — Introduced along 
 tvith architecture. — Common in the fourth century ; 
 general in the sixth. — History of the Iconoclast council at 
 Constantinople. — The second council of Nice misre- 
 presented by Vindex. — Its decree. 
 
 But before I proceed further, I must beg ray reader to re- 
 member the definitions I have given of the words Latreia 
 and Douleia, and as these are words which must sound harsh 
 and barbarous to any but theological ears, I will always substi- 
 tute in the place of Latreia, or add to it, divine v)orship, 
 which shall be used in the same sense. Should I have occasion 
 to speak of Douleia, I will either substitute in its place, or 
 accompany it by its equivalent words, mere respect, I must 
 also beg the reader particularly to keep in mind the uncertainty 
 and ambiguity of the words ivorship, adoration, and the like, 
 as I have already proved that, in the ancient languages, these 
 words were used indiscriminately to signify either divine wor- 
 ship, or mere respect. The reason of my making this request 
 is, because I mean to show that almost every argument adduced 
 by Vindex to prove that the Catholic Church allows divine 
 worship to creatures, is founded on a misrepresentation of these 
 ambiguous words, or a misrepresentation of certain equivocal 
 acts. 
 
 He begins as follows. " By a reference to ecclesiastical 
 history, (to the study of which I recommend you before you 
 favour the public with a second edition of your Letter) it ap- 
 pears evident that the sense of the whole Church during the 
 three first centuries is in direct opposition to image worship of 
 every sort and kind; whether you define it the worship of a 
 false god, or the worshipping the true God after a prohibited 
 manner. And if you want proofs of this assertion, you may 
 find them in the writings of Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus, Origen and TertuUian, against those of Celsus, Por- 
 phyry and Julian." Now though I do not think Vindex can 
 have read these fathers, otherwise he would hardly have
 
 (>8 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 resisted the temptation of giving us at least some one reference, 
 I must beg the reader to observe the strange perplexity of this 
 passage. The Church of the three first centuries was averse 
 to " ima(/e worship of every sort and kind" From these 
 words he no doubt intended his readers to suppose that the 
 early Church was averse to the practice of paying that mere 
 respect to images, which afterwards prevailed^! and which he 
 constantly denominates image worship. But when he defines 
 this image worship to mean " the worship of false gods, or 
 the worship of the true God after a prohibited manner" one 
 would imagine that he did not allude to the practices of the 
 Catholic Church, which certainly always was and is to this 
 day, as averse as he can be, either " to the worship of false 
 gods, or to the worship of the true God after a prohibited 
 manner."* But if Vindex means that during the three first 
 centuries the Church did not allow a mere respect to be paid 
 to pictures and images, I think it more than probable that he is 
 mistaken. I think it more than probable that as it is in human 
 nature to cherish the painted or sculptured likenesses of those 
 we love and esteem, and as, according to Mr. Gibbon himself 
 " in every age such copies, so congenial to the human feelings, 
 have been cherished by the zeal of private friendship or public 
 esteem, "t the early Christians would be as eager to possess 
 pictures and images of Christ and his apostles, as Protestants 
 are at the present day. There is scarcely a house in England 
 where such representations are not to be found even eighteen 
 centuries after the death of Jesus Christ. But had he lived 
 only a few years ago, and the breasts of his followers were 
 still fired with the fervour of the early Christians, such like- 
 nesses would, I apprehend, be in still greater request. We 
 often see ladies in these days wearing about their necks rich 
 crosses, as emblems, I presume, of themselves being the fol- 
 lowers of Christ. We also frequently see them wearing, 
 in a similar manner, the miniature of some departed or absent 
 husband, child or parent. We sometimes also see them in 
 moments of tender or mournful recollection, pressing the dear 
 image to their lips, and perhaps bedewing it with their tears. 
 At all events they respect it, they value it, and would feel 
 
 • Query. Is it always idolatry to worship the true God after a prohibited man- 
 ner ? If so, either it will follow that the dissenters from the Established Church are 
 idolaters, or that they do not worship God after a prohibited manner, and therefore 
 ought not to be stigmatized by Dr Moysey as the abettors of " error, innovation," 
 &c." See his Charge, page 12, &c. 
 
 t Decline and Fall of the Roman empire ; chap. 49 .
 
 Sec. 4.] 
 
 Christian Reliyio... 
 
 69 
 
 hurt at any iudignity being: offered to it. I think it highly 
 probable that feelings of affection, equally strong and better 
 founded, would prompt the early converts to Christianity, to 
 shew a similar regard to the representation of the great and 
 benign author of their redemption. I think it more than pro- 
 bable that in moments of grateful remembrance or tender 
 piety, the fervent Christian would embrace, with equal affec- 
 tion, the representation of the " good Shepherd" or the dying 
 Redeemer : and would Vindex say that this will be idolatry t 
 Greater respect than this was never sanctioned by the Catho- 
 lic Church, nor can I think that less was shewn in the first 
 centuries of Christianity. Indeed it is certain from TertuUian, 
 that in his time, namely in the second century, the figure of the 
 good Shepherd was engraved on the chalices used in the
 
 70 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 divine service;* and the same figure is still found on the tombs 
 of the primitive Christians in the ancient cemetries at Rome.f 
 It is certain also, that the cross, the lamb, and other emblems 
 of Christ, were frequently worn by the ancient Christians in 
 the times of persecution. 
 
 That during- the first three centuries it was not customary to 
 introduce paintings or statues, particularly of any great mag- 
 nitude into churches, I can readily believe for the following 
 reasons: 1st. Because there Avere no churches into which they 
 could be introduced. " In Tertullian's time," says the Book 
 of Homilies, " Christians had none other temples but common 
 houses, whither they, for the most part, secretly resorted. 
 Unto the time of Constantiue, the space of above three hundred 
 years after our Saviour Christ, when the Christian religion was 
 most pure and indeed golden. Christians had but low and poor 
 conventicles and simple oratories, yea caves under the ground 
 called cryptoe, where they, for fear of persecution assembled 
 together."! Now it is manifest that, in places like these, 
 paintings and statues would have been generally misplaced. 
 Moreover, in those times of severe persecution, to have had 
 such ornaments in places of worship would only have been to 
 expose themselves to insult and profanation, and those with 
 whom they were found, to detection and danger. The Chris- 
 tians of those times were in fact in nearly the same condition 
 as the Catholics in England, from the reign of Elizabeth till 
 the early part of his late majesty's propitious reign. We also, 
 during that long period of proscription and tears, when to be a 
 Catholic was a crime, and to officiate as a Catholic priest was 
 high treason and death, were obliged to worship God in 
 private houses, in garrets, and in caves ; and though our doc- 
 trines were the same then as they had been before and have 
 been since, it rarely happened that the spies of government or 
 private informers, could discover any vestige of a picture or an 
 image amongst us. But when Constantine the Great gave 
 liberty to the Christian world, and when George the Third of 
 grateful memory, slackened the bonds of his Catholic subjects,, 
 and the Catholics of both periods were allowed to erect 
 churches of great dimensions and architectural character, the 
 ornaments of painting and sculpture claimed their right of 
 admission to cover the naked panel or fill the vacant niche ; and 
 it struck the christians of both times, that if the halls of 
 
 * Turtilliauus lib : de pudicitia. c. 10. 
 
 t Bartoli, Le Antiche lucerne, n. 28, 29, &c. 
 
 i Peril of Idolatry, part 3.
 
 Sec. 4.] Chrisiian Relifjion. 71 
 
 public justice were appropriately adorned with the emblematical 
 figures of Equity, Truth, &c. or with the pictures and statues 
 of eminent legislators or upright judges, and the palaces of 
 kings Avith the representations and achievements of princes, 
 heroes and statesmen, the temples of God might, with equal 
 propriety and greater utility, be adorned with the painted or 
 sculptured representations of the wonderful and benevolent 
 works of Jesus Christ, and with the heroic actions of his mar- 
 tyrs and saints. 
 
 It is natural however to suppose, that even after the 
 Christians could introduce such ornaments with safety, there 
 would be some who would object to it, either as thinking it 
 unlawful, or as preferring the poverty and simplicity to which 
 they had been accustomed; and as the Church had not yet 
 decided any thing on the subject, every one was free to enter- 
 tain his own private opinion upon it. It is probable also, that 
 the fear of scandalizing the Jews who, in those days condemned 
 all visible representations,* or of misleading the Pagans, Avho 
 being accustomed to see only the statues of deities in their 
 temples, might conclude that the statues in Christian churches 
 were of a similar character, woidd cause many to doubt of the 
 expediency of introducing such ornaments. Thus in England 
 there are many Catholics, at the present day, who object to the 
 placing of statues in our churches in this country; not because 
 they doubt of the lawfulness of the practice, but because they 
 fear to give scandal to their Protestant brethren, many of 
 whom have been taught to believe, by their nurses and their 
 clergy, that the images of Catholics are considered by them as 
 objects of adoration. Indeed I am surprised that consider- 
 ations such as these, did not retard for a longer period the 
 introduction of paintings and statues into churches, and that we 
 should find so many mstances of them even in the first century, 
 when they could be introduced. 
 
 Vindex proceeds, " It was then (the fourth century) that the 
 walls of churches began to be painted, and statues of Christ 
 and his apostles to be erected, with the view of making the 
 heathens proselytes to the Christian faith. Notwithstanding 
 the motive, the practice was condemned, as we learn from 
 
 * That the Jews explained the letter of the different commandments too 
 strictly, is manifest from the frequent reproaches made them on this subject by 
 our Saviour, and their having been scandalized at him for healing a sick man 
 on the sabbath day. It appears that some of them actually condemned 
 Solomon of violating the commandment by the twelve oxen which he made to 
 support (he molten sea, and the lions with which he adorned his throne. 
 Josephus, book 8.
 
 72 A Defence of the [Let. 2 
 
 Epiphamus."*' But by whom was it condemned? By the 
 majority of Christian bishops i Or by many of them J Or by 
 any other person than Epiphanius himself J That some should 
 condemn, was to be expected; that many condemned is 
 •not probable, otherwise we should have heard of it; if 
 the majority condemned, why was not the practice put down 
 altogether, or at least why was not more opposition made ? 
 That much opposition could not have been made, is evident 
 from Vindex's own account. " The pictures and statues," 
 says he, " which were originally (in the fourth century) set up 
 to be looked at, in process of time became objects of respect, 
 and this ag-ain was succeeded by downright worship. And to 
 such an extent was this carried in the sixth century that it 
 afforded room for accusation among the Jews, and reproach 
 amongst the Gentiles; the former being as much scandalized 
 that the Christian should act in opposition to scripture, as the 
 latter were indignant that his practice should run counter to 
 his former precepts."!' I will just observe, by the bye, that 
 the Catholics of those days like their brethren of these, seem 
 to have had great difficulty to please their neighbours. The 
 former, Vindex tells us, placed pictures in their churches for 
 the express purpose of conciliating the Pagans " and making 
 them proselytes to the Christian faith," and then after they had 
 so placed them, these same Pagans, unreasonable mortals ! 
 were indignant at their kind accommodating conduct. We 
 also have generally refrained from introducing statues into 
 our churches, to please our Protestant brethren, and convince 
 them that such things form no essential part of our religion, 
 and yet some of them accuse us with idolatry with as much 
 violence as if we had introduced into our service all the sacred 
 rites of Jupiter, Bacchus and Cytherea. But I must also 
 beg leave to ask Vindex, whether the use of images was the 
 only thing by which the Christians had the misfortune to scan- 
 dalize the Jews and rouse the indignation of the Pagans I Did 
 not St. Paul himself find that the preaching of " Christ cru- 
 cified was unto the Jews a stumbling-block and unto the 
 Greeks foolishness ?";{: And did not these same Jews, in 
 the sixth century, consider the divinity of Christ, the neglect 
 of circumcision, the keeping of the first day of the week holy 
 instead of the seventh, and many other pomts of Christian 
 doctrine, as contrary to scripture, as the Pagans thought it 
 
 * Letter to the Rev. P. Baines, page 14. 
 t Letter to the Rev. P. Baines, page 15. X 1 Corinth, i. 23.
 
 Sec. 4.] Christian ReJiifion. 73 
 
 outrageous that a crucified man should rob Jupiter and his 
 friends of their ancient honours '. The disapprobation therefore 
 of the Jews and Pagans, is no proof that the doctrine or prac- 
 tice of the Christian church Avas unlawful or idolatrous.' 
 
 " The pictures and statues," says Vindex, " which were 
 originally set up to be looked at, in process of time became 
 objects of respect, and this again was succeeded by doximriyht 
 worship.'' This, reader, is a most instructive passage, and I 
 beg to call to it thy particular attention. The progress of 
 idolatry is as rapid as the victory of Caesar. " He came, he 
 saw, he conquered;" they looked, they respected, they wor- 
 shipped downright. But what does A index mean by down- 
 right ivorshipf Worship, we have already proved, is an 
 ambiguous term, applicable to a man's wife, to an alderman, to 
 a mayor, to the Almighty. Is doivnright worship something 
 different I From his explanation of the commandment it would 
 appear, that Vindex considers the external act of howing down 
 as downright worship. If this be all he means, he is not 
 much wrong. The custom of bowing down to created objects, 
 was certainly in use not only in the sixth century but long 
 before it. It is probable that it was used from the very com- 
 mencement of Christianity, and that the Church of England, 
 which we are told borrowed all its doctrines from the three first 
 centuries, borrowed this custom, also from those primitive 
 times. But if Vindex means to say that Latreia or divine 
 worship was in the sixth century paid by the Catholic Church 
 to images, I consider his assertion wholly incredible and in 
 direct 'contradiction to the history of the times. Between 
 looking at a picture, and respecting it on account of the 
 sacred objects it pourtrays there is a close connection. Indeed 
 one is the natural and immediate consequence of the other. 
 But between respecting a picture, as the representation of a 
 holy person and worshipping it as a God, there is an immense 
 distance ; and it does appear to me, that a much longer time 
 than Vindex has allotted to it, would be required for bringing 
 about so strange and so fatal a revolution in the opinions and 
 conduct of the Christian world. That in the short space of 
 two centuries, and these two centuries bordering upon the 
 " pure and golden ages"* of Christianity, the Church of God 
 should have been turned from the true worship of the Deity, 
 to the idolatrous worship of inanimate forms and senseless 
 blocks of wood and stone; and that this wonderful revolution, 
 
 * Book of Homilies. 
 K
 
 74 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 which argues the most profound ignorance or the most con- 
 summate malice, should moreover have taken place during a 
 period when the Church was illuminated by the most brilliai)t 
 constellation of great, learned and holy bishops and pastors that 
 Christianity ever produced, by the Saints Athanasius, Hilary, 
 Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Ambrose, Austin, Jerom, John 
 Chrysostom, &c. &c. names which must live and be venerated 
 while learning and religion subsist ; that this strange and de- 
 plorable defection should have happened in these days, of all 
 others, appears to me utterly incredible, and therefore on the 
 bare and unsupported assertion of Vindex, not to be 
 admitted. 
 
 And here let me remind Vindex of the inevitable fate, he is 
 preparing for the Church of England. Already has that 
 Church ventured to introduce pictures and statues into her 
 places of worship. Already do the orthodox people of 
 England /oo^ at these pictures and statues. Nay some of 
 them, I believe, already feel a greater respect for a represen- 
 tation of Jesus Christ, than they would for -ihat of Jupiter or 
 Nero. Only one step more is required and downright ivorship 
 succeeds, and the Church of Christ which was sunk in the 
 ocean of idolatry for a thousand years, and which started up 
 again three centuries ago in this happy island, is again plunged 
 into " damnable idolatry," and pure Christianity again disap- 
 pears, after a short and limited reign, from the face of the 
 earth ! — Will Vindex say that the Church of England in the 
 nineteenth century is more enlightened, than the Catholic 
 Church in the fourth and fifth, or that its bishops and clergy 
 are more learned and more zealous than the great and holy 
 prelates and pastors of those early times, and will therefore 
 be more active and more successful in arresting the natural 
 progress of idolatry ? Alas ! even this will not avail ; for the 
 Book of Homilies declares, " that neither preaching, neither 
 writing, neither the consent of the learned, nor authority of 
 the godly, nor the decrees of councils, neither the laws of 
 princes, nor extreme punishment of offenders on that behalf, 
 nor any other remedy or means can help against idolatry, if 
 images be suffered publicly."* 
 
 " Such," continues Vindex, " was the state of the case 
 
 until the eighth century, when the contests directly commenced 
 
 on a point which had indeed been previously canvassed." But 
 
 ,by whom had it been canvassed I Between the fourth and the 
 
 » Peril of Idolatry, part 3.
 
 Sec. 4.] Christian Religion. 75 
 
 eighth century, the period during which he would have us be- 
 lieve that the Church gradually fell into idolatry, no less than 
 six general councils were held, many of which treated of sub- 
 jects of far less importance than that of preserving the whole 
 world from damnable idolatry. Was it " canvassed" in any of 
 them / AVas it so much as mentioned ? Or, if accidental 
 mention was made of the use of images, in the last of these 
 councils, was it not to approve it I* Is it not even certain 
 that some of these councils were actually held in churches 
 adorned with pictures or statues, and that the bishops, who 
 assisted at them, paid these objects the accustomed marks of 
 respect.f The truth is that the custom of placing pictures and 
 statues in churches, and bf shewing them certain marks of 
 respect, introduced itself into the Christian religion, in the 
 early ages of Christianity, just in the same manner as it has 
 done into the Church of England in our own times, namely, 
 without any ecclesiastical ordinance whatever, and without any 
 other sanction than that of the common sense and the common 
 feelings of mankind. Had, therefore, Vindex wished to give 
 his readers a correct statement of the case, he ought to have 
 said, not that the question had been previously canvassed, but 
 that the whole Christian Church, morally speaking, was so 
 perfectly agreed upon it, that in none of the general councils 
 held in those times, had it once been made a subject of discus- 
 sion; in fine, that the contest literally and simply commenced 
 for the first time in the eighth century. 
 
 It is a subject of surprise to me that Vindex, who professes 
 himself so expert an historian, should not have favoured his 
 readers with some account of this very interesting contest. 
 To me it appears that he has been guilty of a serious omission, 
 which is likely to mislead the generality of his readers. " To 
 decide the question" says he " two councils were summoned. 
 The one assembled at Constantinople, condemned image and 
 picture worship as idolati'ous. The other wh^ch met at Nice, 
 asserted it to be lawful." Now from this statement, such of 
 his readers as are not versed in ecclesiastical history, (and how 
 few could he expect to be versed in it, when he classes liis an- 
 tagonist himself amongst the ignorant !) would naturally sup- 
 pose that the Christian world was pretty equally divided on the 
 subject in question, and that the council which condemned the 
 use of images was equal in authority to that which approved 
 
 * See Fleury hist, eccles. torn. 9. page 5-13. 
 t Fleury hist, eccles. torn. 9, page 421.
 
 76 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 it. The fact, however, is simply this. Whilst the universal 
 Church was enjoying a profound peace, and the east and the 
 west were vying with each other in erecting to the living God, 
 temples worthy, as far as any thing earthly can be worthy, of 
 his greatness and his goodness ; whilst piety was adorning 
 these temples, under the guidance of the fine arts, with such 
 visible representations as appeared best calculated to instruct 
 the beholder in religious truths, and impress him with religious 
 sentmients ; whilst God alone was considered by the whole 
 Christian world as the supreme, eternal, increased, self-exist- 
 ent Being, the sole Creator, Preserver, and Redeemer of man- 
 kind, and all other beings merely as his creatures, existing by 
 his power, excellent only on account of his gifts, and deserving 
 of no respect, but such as belongs to creatures, the work of 
 his hands ; whilst every external usage of religion was intended 
 to be no more than an outward expression of these inward con- 
 victions, Leo the Third ascended the imperial throne. He was, 
 says the Book of Homilies, " a very wise, merciful, and valiant 
 prince." He was, says Gibbon, not less truly, "jgnorant of sacred 
 profane letters ; but his education, his reason, and perhaps 
 his intercourse with the JeAvs and Arabs, had inspired 
 the martial peasant with an hatred of images ; and it was 
 held to be the duty of a prince to impose on his subjects 
 the dictates of his own conscience."t When kings become 
 apostles we may expect a novel mode of preaching the 
 gospel. They seldom possess much of that " long suf- 
 fering and doctrine":!: which the scripture recommends 
 to Christian preachers, and being more accustomed to the 
 use of the material SAvord and shield than to St. Paul's spi- 
 ritual armour, they have generally employed the former instead 
 of the latter in the business of conversion. Our Saviour said 
 "he who believeth not shall be damned ;"|| thus visiting 
 spiritual disobedience with spiritual punishment, and he autho- 
 rized his followers to use no other. But our royal apostles 
 have constantly lost sight of this distinction, and instead of 
 saying " he who believeth not shall be damned,'' they have 
 generally, by a slight mistake, ended in saying, he who believeth 
 
 * Peril of Idolatry, part 2. 
 t Decliue and fall of the Romau Empire, cliap4y. I quote Gibbon as I do the 
 Book of Homilies, because be is a decided enemy to images, and therefore cannot 
 be suspected of favouring the cause. His account of this business is equally artful 
 and incorrect ; but Gibbon was aware that he could not serve the cause of inlidelitj 
 better, than by falling in with the ideas of the Book of Homilies, and making it 
 appear that the whole Christian Church had become idolatrous at so early a 
 period, 
 
 X 2 Timothy iv. 2. H Mark xvi. 16.
 
 Sec. 4.] Chi'islian tieligion. 77 
 
 not shall be fumcjed." This was the case with the Emperor 
 Leo. He had been taught by his Jewish and Mahomedan in- 
 structors that to have images and paintings was idolatry, and 
 he was determined to remove them out of all the churches and 
 private houses in his dominions. This was rather an arduous 
 undertaking-, and he at first endeavoured to procure the co-op- 
 eration of the Church herself. Gennanus was patriarch of 
 Constantinoj)!e. Leo employed all his eloquence and all his 
 threats to bring- him over to his party ,• but the good bishop 
 told him that he had no authority to change the doctrines of 
 the Church, and that, rather than attempt it, he would 
 renounce his patriarchal dignity.* The emperor banished him 
 and substituted in his place a creature of his own. 
 
 Leo wrote different letters to the Pope to obtain his concur- 
 rence, and threatened, in case of refusal, to come to Rome, 
 break the statue of St. Peter, and send his holiness into exile 
 loaded with chains, as Constantine had done to his predecessor 
 Martin. The Pope replied, that if he came to Rome on such 
 an errand, he would not find him there; that if he chose to 
 break St. Peter's image, it was a business between God and 
 himself; that he had much better leave the Church in the 
 peace in which he found it, and not assume an authority which 
 did not belong to him. " As the bishop says he has no right 
 to interfere in the palaces of kings and distribute civil dignities, 
 so neither has the sovereign any right to interfere in the govern- 
 ment of the church, the election of its ministers, or the 
 administration of its sacraments. Let each of us confine our- 
 
 * TLe doctrine of this patriarch on the subject of images is fully expressed in 
 some of his letters which remain. In one addressed to John, Bishop of Synnas, he 
 savs, " The Christian faith, worship and adoration tend to God alone, according to 
 the commandment. Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God and serve him alone. It is 
 to him alone we address our doxologv and our worship. We do not adore the crea- 
 ture, God forbid, nor do we give to beings, who are his servants like ourselves, the 
 worship due only to God. When we prostrate ourselves before the emperors and 
 the princes of the earth, it is not to adore them as God. The prophet Nathan 
 prostrated himself on the ground before David, who was only a man, and was not 
 balmed for it. And when we allow images to be made, it is not to diminish the 
 perfection of the divine worship. For we make no image to represent the invisible 
 Divinity, whom even the angels cannot comprehend. But as the Son of God has 
 become man for our salvation, we make the image of his humanity to fortify our 
 faith. We make also the image of his mother, shewing, that being a creature of 
 the same nature as ourselves, she conceived and brought forth the all powerful God. 
 We admire also and deem happy the martyrs, the apostles, the prophets and all the 
 saints, who were the true servants of God and we paint their pictures in memory of 
 their courage and of the agreeable service they paid to God, not that we pretend 
 that they participate of the divine nature, or that we render to them the honour 
 and ivorship due to God ; but to shew the aflection we bear them." Fleury, torn. 
 9, pHgo217, Cone. torn. r,page 290.
 
 78 A Defence of the [Lei. 2. 
 
 selves to our own department." He explains to him the use 
 of pictures and images in churches. " Our churches," says 
 he, " are ornamented with the painted histories of Christ and 
 his saints. Fathers and mothers, holding their newly baptized 
 infants in their arms, are seen pointing out to them these 
 instructive histories, or explaining them to the youth or the 
 newly converted, thus edifying them and raising their minds 
 and hearts to God. We do not consider these objects as gods, 
 God forbid, nor do we place any confidence in them," He 
 tells him, in fine, that the worship which Christians pay 
 io pictures and images is only a relative honour, " not 
 Lntreia."* 
 
 Finding treaty a tedious mode of proceeding, Leo obtained 
 the sanction of a few of his bishops and courtiers, and then is- 
 sued an imperial edict commanding all images and paintings to 
 be brought to the market-place and publicly burnt, and the 
 walls of the churches to be whitewashed. Those who opposed 
 his proceedings or refused to subscribe to its justice, he banished, 
 mutilated, or put to death. 
 
 One instance of his summary mode of conversion deserves 
 to be particularly mentioned. There was a celebrated man of 
 the name of Loecumenicus, chief librarian to a magnificent 
 library of thirty thousand volumes, founded by the emperors, 
 and situated near the imperial palace. He had twelve other 
 learned men under him, whose office it was to give gratuitously 
 public lectures on religion and the profane sciences. So high 
 was the esteem in which this body of men was held, that the 
 emperors themselves were not supposed to undertake any 
 affair of importance without their advice. Leo laboured hard, 
 by argument, by persuasion, and by threats, to convince these 
 men that the Church was in error, and that he was commis- 
 sioned by God to reform her. Finding them quite incredulous 
 and absolutely unwilling to lend him their assistance, he 
 locked them up in the library, then ordered a quantity of fag- 
 gots and dry wood to be placed round the building, and burnt 
 the librarians and the books together. f This " very wise, 
 merciful, and godly prince," died in 741, leaving his son Con- 
 stantine Copronymus to accomplish the pious work of reform 
 which he had so happily begun. 
 
 The hopeful son shewed himself worthy of such a father. 
 
 * Flenry, torn. 9. p. 236, &c. Anast. torn. 7, concil, p. 7. 
 t Flenry, torn, 9. page 230.
 
 Sec. 4.] Chrislian Religion. 79' 
 
 Without greater knowledge, he possessed rather more zeal, and 
 acted with considerably greater vigour in demolishing images, 
 whitewashing the walls of churches, and in eflfectually " stop- 
 ping the mouths" of all who gainsayed his imperial doctrines. — 
 Though his edicts were much more unanswerable than his ar- 
 guments, he sometimes, like our royal apostle Henry the 
 Eiffhth, was anxious to shew his skill in controversy. I shall 
 relate one of his theological discussions, because it points out 
 clearly the real doctrines of the Catholic Church on one side, 
 and the objections of her adversaries on the other. There was 
 a venerable old man of the name of Stephen, celebrated all 
 over the east for his learning and his sanctity, the abbot of a 
 monastery in the neighbourhood of Constantinople. — Every 
 effort had been made by the creatures of the emperor, to bring 
 over to his party a man whose reputation was so high and 
 Avhose influence was so great. They all failed, and at last the 
 emperor determined to undertake the work himself. Stephen 
 was sent for to the palace, and supposing what was likely to 
 happen, he provided himself on his way with a piece of money 
 which bore the impression of the emperors. He appeared be- 
 fore the imperial controvertistloadenwith chains. — " Wretch," 
 exclaimed the emperor, " tell me what precepts of the fathers 
 we have disregarded that we should be treated by you as here- 
 tics." Stephen replied, " You have taken from the churches 
 the images which the fathers have at all times received and 
 worshipped." " Impious wretch," exclaims the emperor, 
 " call them not images; they are idols. How can such 
 objects be compatible with holy things I What association can 
 there be between light and darkness ?" "Sire," replied the 
 abbot, " Christians were never required to adore the material 
 substance of the image. We worship him whose name the 
 image bears, carrying the mind from the visible form to the 
 invisible original. The views of these things raises our 
 thoughts to heaven and fixes our curiosity." " And is it right," 
 says the emperor, " to make visible representations of what 
 the mind itself cannot comprehend?" " And where then is the 
 man," answered the abbot, " unless he has lost his senses, who 
 in worshipping Avhat he sees in the churches worships the crea- 
 ture, the stone, the gold, the silver, on pretence that it bears 
 the name of a holy object ? But your party," added he, " not 
 distinguishing the sacred from the profane, are not shocked to 
 call an image of Jesus Christ an idol like Apollo, and that of 
 the mother of God an idol like Diana ; to trample them under 
 jour feet and commit them to the flames." " Dolt," exclaims
 
 80 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 the emperor, " do we trample Jesus Christ under our feet, 
 when we trample upon his image I God forbid." " Sire," re- 
 plied the old man, taking- from under his robe the piece of 
 money he had brought, "whose image and inscription is this I" 
 The emperor taken by surprise, answered, " They were those 
 of the emperors." (Namely, his own and his son's.) " Shall 
 I then be punished," continued Stephen, " if I throw it on the 
 ground and trample upon it ?" The by-standers exclaimed, 
 " Assuredly you will, for it bears the name and image of the 
 invincible emperors." The abbot replied with a deep sigh, 
 " What then shall be the punishment of him who tramples 
 under foot the name of Jesus Christ and of his mother in 
 their images? Shall he not be condemned to the eternal 
 flames?" He then threw the piece of money on the ground 
 and trod upon it. The attendants rushed upon him with great 
 fury, and had nearly precipitated him from the terrace on 
 which he stood, but the emperor prevented them, and sent him, 
 with his hands bound behind his back and a rope round his 
 neck, to the pretorian prison, to be tried by the laws for 
 having trodden under foot the image of the emperors. He 
 was afterwards put to death without a trial. 
 
 It was this emperor who summoned the council of Constan- 
 tinople, which Vindex tells us condemned " image and pic- 
 ture worship as idolatrous." That it did so the reader will not 
 be surprised, when he reflects that it was summoned by Con- 
 stantine Copronymus, the son of Leo, that the bishops who 
 composed it were all his subjects, who bad trembled for seve- 
 ral years under his own and his father's apostolic reign, and 
 that he himself presided in person at the council. It met in 
 the year 754, and consisted of 338 bishops ; but no one at- 
 tended from the patriarchal sees of Rome, Alexandria, Anti- 
 och, or Jerusalem, and the see of Constantinople was vacant. 
 A short abstract of the proceedings of the council will enable 
 the reader to estimate the value of its decrees, which Gibbon 
 says " betray many symptoms of reason and piety,"* 
 
 It begins by paying a handsome compliment to the presiding 
 emperor and his pious father, saying, " that as Jesus Christ 
 formerly sent his apostles for the destruction of idols, so has 
 he raised up, at present, his servants the emperors, imitators 
 of the apostles, to instruct us and overthrow the works of the 
 devil. "-f 
 
 It admits the authority of the six preceding general coun- 
 
 * Decline aud Fall, chap. 49. 
 t Fleury, toni. ix. pai^e 336, &o. Council, torn. vii. page 401, et seq.
 
 Sec. 4.] Christian Religion. 81 
 
 cils, and finds, after serious examination of their doctrine, 
 that the " unlawful art of painting combats the principal dogma 
 of our religion, the incarnation of Jesus Christ ! " 
 
 To establish this curious decision, the council appears to 
 have laboured under considerable difficulty, and to have been 
 compelled, like Vindex, to have recourse to abstruse metaphy- 
 sical reasoning, which, to use Dr. Moysey's expression, ap- 
 pears to me rather " too subtle for the simplicity of the word 
 of God." " Painting," says the council, " establishes the 
 error of Nestorius, who divides Jesus Christ into two persons, 
 and even supports those of Arius, Dioscorus, Eutyches and 
 Severus, who confound the two natures ; for the painter hav- 
 ing made an image calls it Christ. Now the name Christ sig- 
 nifies the entire person comprismg both God and man. There- 
 fore either the painter confines, as he imagines, the immense 
 Divinity within the limits of a created body, or he confounds 
 together the two natures which are united without confusion. 
 He who worships the image is guilty of the same blasphemy 
 as he who makes it, and the same malediction will fall on 
 both. 
 
 " How," continues the council, " can these foolish men 
 pretend to paint the flesh of Jesus Christ, as if it were that of 
 a mere man. To do so is to suppose that the humanity of Je- 
 sus Christ subsits by itself ; it is to give him another persona- 
 lity, and consequently to add a fourth person to the Trinity." 
 
 The council denominates painting a " detestible art," and 
 pronounces it the original source of idolatry ; ** for having no 
 hope of a resurrection, they (the painters) invented this illu- 
 sion, to render as present what was not so. But as to the 
 saints who reign with God, it is doing them an injury to re- 
 present them in dead materials, by a Pagan art." 
 
 " The council acknowledges the blessed Virgin Mary as 
 the most exalted of creatures, and teaches that we ought to 
 have recourse to her intercession as very powerful with God, 
 and that all the saints, whether they lived under the law of 
 nature, the written law, or the law of grace, ought to be ho- 
 noured and invoked, according to the tradition of the church."* 
 
 Now, from the above narration, I consider it clear, first, 
 that the contest which Vindex says began in the eighth cen- 
 tury, did not arise from any considerable diversity of opinion 
 in the Christian world, the whole church, morally speaking, 
 being perfectly agreed in doctrine and in practice ; but that it 
 
 * Fleurj, Concil. torn. rii. page 524, 628. 
 L
 
 8:2 A Defence of the {Let. 2. 
 
 sprung' altogether from the will of an emperor, whom igno- 
 rance had made a fanatic, and whom fanaticism impelled to 
 commence the reform of the church, and to support his own 
 opinions by acts of violence and persecution. 
 
 Secondly, that the council summoned was manifestly under 
 the powerful influence of fear, arising from the cruel and des- 
 potic proceedings of the presiding emperor against all who op- 
 posed his will.* 
 
 Thirdly, that the council being called together by no canoni- 
 cal authority, and being moreover composed of bishops not 
 assembled from Christendom in general, but only from such 
 provinces of the east as were subject to the immediate control 
 of the emperor, could not fairly be called a general council. 
 
 Fourthly, I conclude that whatever universality or impor- 
 tance, Vindex may wish to give to this council, he must, as a 
 member of the Church of England, condemn the whole of its 
 proceedings except its anathemas against Catholics. For to 
 say nothing of the childish and laughable reasons it assigns for 
 condemning the use of images and pictures, its decisions mili- 
 tate as strongly against every class of Protestants as against 
 Catholics. For, in the first place, it entirely agrees with the 
 Catholic Church, on what Dr. Moysey calls the " adoration," 
 and what Catholics call " the invocation of the saints." In 
 the next place, it is not merely the worship of images which 
 the council condemns, but the very making of them, or having 
 them for any purpose, or in any place. 
 
 Were its decrees to be executed in England, as they were 
 in Constantinople and throughout the different provinces of the 
 Eastern Empire, there is scarcely a single church, a single 
 print shop, or a single private house in the kingdom, that 
 would escape spoliation, or a single inhabitant who would es- 
 cape condemnation. In this city we should see the officers of 
 public justice hastening to the Abbey Church, tearing down 
 the painting over the communion-table, and hurling from their 
 exalted station the six colossal statutes of David and the apos- 
 tles, to mingle their broken fragments with those of their 
 brethren from the Catholic Chapel. We should see the same 
 men rushing into Dr. Moysey's church and breaking to pieces 
 the sacreligious representation of the third person of the sacred 
 
 ♦ 
 
 Even Gibbon himself is " inciined to suspect that on this occasion the great 
 majority of the prelates sacrificed their secret conscience to the temptations of hope 
 and fear." Decline and Fall, &c. chap. 49. Many of them afterwards repented 
 Kiid rfcliirned to the unity of the Church.
 
 Sec. 4.] 
 
 Chiisllan Relujion. 
 
 m 
 
 Paul the Abbot. See note, page 8i. 
 
 Trinity. We should see them demolishing, before it has yet 
 received the admiration due to it, the elegant east window in 
 the beautiful new church in James-street, on account of the 
 multiplied emblems of the Trinity which it contains. Bath- 
 wick, St. Michael's, the fashionable Octagon, and in short, 1 
 believe, every church and chapel of the Establishment in Bath, 
 would mourn at least the loss of one or more good paintings, 
 which form now their principal ornaments. Nor would any 
 distinction be made between the altar-pieces of the Established 
 Church and those of the Catholic Chapel. All would be car- 
 ried, in equal dishonour, together with heaps of paintings, 
 prints, scriptural engravings, &c. collected from all the shops 
 and private houses in the city, and consumed by one common 
 fire before the Town-hall. Nor is this all. The Archdeacon 
 and all the clergy of Bath, as well as many of the laity, who
 
 84 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 lost their pictures, would be called upon to subscribe solemnly 
 to the justice of these proceedings, and perhaps to trample ou 
 their own representations of the Redeemer.* It would be in 
 vain, that Dr. Moysey and his two friends would press for- 
 ward to explain, that they were the real orthodox Christians 
 who preached charges and wrote pamphlets against the Catho- 
 lics ; in vain that they would entreat, at least, for the privi- 
 lege of having their pictures and images burnt at a separate 
 fire ; in vain, that each of these divines would urge his respec- 
 tive explanation of the second commandment. To the Arch- 
 deacon's decision, that the commandment forbids us only to 
 bow down in prayer ; to the opinion of the warlike author of 
 " Catholicism Sifted," that the commandment forbids us to 
 7nake images for any religious use ; to the decree of Vindex, 
 that the commandment forbids us to bow down at all, the same 
 answer would be given. You have employed, it would be 
 said, the detestible art of painting to make representations of 
 Christ, his mother, and the apostles. Nay, you, Mr. Arch- 
 deacon, have not been ashamed to put up, or to suffer in your 
 church the figure of a dove, to lead the people to erroneous 
 notions of the Deity, and to circumscribe, within the dimen- 
 sions of a small circular window, the immense Divinity. It is 
 of no use to pretend that you did not worship these things ; it 
 matters not what reason you had for making them. " He 
 who makes the image, and he who adores it, are guilty of the 
 same blasphemy and the same malediction will fall on both."-!- 
 Lastly, I conclude from the above narrative, that the image 
 breakers of the eighth century, were a set of ignorant or mis- 
 guided men, who, under the influence of a wild and violent 
 fanaticism, disturbed the peace of the Church, and were guilty 
 of follies and excesses at which, every liberal Protestant of the 
 present day must blush, and which can find no parallel in his- 
 tory, except in the barbarous ravages which the same spirit 
 produced in England during the reigns of Edward the Sixth, 
 Elizabetfi, and Cromwell, and under the guidance of such men 
 as the writers of the Book of Homilies and their modern admirers. 
 
 * This form of abjuration was frequently demanded under pain of death. An 
 image of Jesus Christ was placed on one side and a rack on the other. " Paul," 
 said one of the imperial governors to a venerable old abbot, who was brought before 
 him as a Catholic idolator, " Paul, choose one of these two things ; either trample 
 on that image, or mount that rack." "God forbid," answered the old man, "that 
 I should trample on thy image, my Lord Jesus," and bowing down he paid it the 
 accustomed token of respect ; or, as Vindex would siy, he worshipped it. He 
 Was stripped naked, stretched on the rack, hang with his head downwards over a 
 fire and burnt to death." Fleury, torn. ix. page 443. 
 
 t See the foregoing Decree of the Council.
 
 Sec. 4.] Christian Reliijion. 85 
 
 Hitherto, the faith of the Church, on the subject of images, 
 had not been established by any express definition, and could 
 only be collected from the general belief and practice of the 
 foithful. The use of sacred representations, >vhether in pri- 
 vate or in public, had been introduced among Christians under 
 the sanction of reason alone ; and the honours, that were paid 
 them, were, in like manner, either dictated by the common 
 feelings of our nature, or copied from the usages of civil life. 
 A mother kissed the picture of a departed child in a moment 
 of painful recollection, and in a moment of pious feeling, she 
 did the same to the picture or image of her dying Redeemer. 
 She suspected as little idolatry in one case as the other, and iii 
 the opinions of Catholics she committed as little. It was cus- 
 tomary, ill those times, to bow to the statues or pictures of the 
 emperors, just as it is customary in England to bow to the 
 king's throne. It was intended in the former case, as it is in 
 the latter, as a mark of respect for the sovereign himself. It 
 Avas customary, at the same period and for the same reason, to 
 carry the pictures or statues of the emperors in procession, and 
 to burn torches or tapers, incense or perfumes, before them. 
 These acts were perfectly understood. Neither the emperor 
 wished to receive nor the people intended to pay him divine 
 honours. Even the emperor Leo and the other iconoclast em- 
 perors, still allowed these honours to be paid to their own 
 images, whilst they maintained it was idolatry to pay them to 
 those of Christ and his saints. The Catholics however of those 
 days could not understand, why an hnage of the world's Re- 
 deemer, should not be deserving of as high honours as that of 
 an emperor, nor did they suppose that so long as they gave to 
 the former only what it was admitted could lawfully be given 
 to the latter, they could be guilty of idolatry ; or, rather, the 
 idea of idolatry never once entered their minds. In the city 
 the loyal Christian had burnt his taper or his incense before 
 the picture of the emperor, to shew that he loved his sover- 
 eign ; he proceeded to the church and did the same thing be- 
 fore the picture of Jesus Christ, to shew that he loved his 
 God. These same acts were applied to the pictures and 
 images of the saints, to the cross, the altar, the book of the 
 gospels, and other tilings immediately connected with the ser- 
 vice of God. 
 
 It is upon the use of these ceremonies, as applied to pious 
 representations, that the image breakers, in the eighth century 
 wholly founded their charge of idolatry against the Catholics.
 
 86 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 The latter denied the justice of the charge on these simple 
 ambiguous acts which depended wholly for their meaning 
 grounds ; first, that the external ceremonies themselves were 
 upon the intention of the employer. Secondly, that knowing 
 that images were not gods, nor entitled to divine honours, the 
 Catholics did not intend to pay them any such. Thirdly, that 
 their intention in burning tapers or incense before the repre- 
 sentations of Christ and his saints, was the same as that of 
 their adversaries in applying the same acts to the statues of the 
 emperors, to the cross and to the books of the gospel. 
 
 That such was the belief and practice of the church in the 
 eighth century, when Leo began his reform, is manifest from 
 the preceding narrative, and will appear still more undeniably 
 so from the decisions and explanations of the second council 
 of Nice, which was held for the express purpose of stating 
 authoritatively what was the actual doctrine of the church on 
 the subject of images, and of composing the differences which 
 the ignorance and tyranny of the emperors had unhappily 
 occasioned. 
 
 The second council of Nice was held at the request of Te- 
 rasius, the newly elected patriarch of Constantinople, in the 
 year 780. It was composed of 877 bishops from the east and 
 the west, with legates from Rome who presided in the name of 
 the Pope, and delegates from the four great patriarchal sees of 
 Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. The 
 Pope had demanded from the reigning emperor and the 
 senate, a solemn oath that the council should be perfectly free 
 and uncontrolled in its deliberations;* and indeed, as its de- 
 crees are described by Vindex as being conformable to the 
 general belief at the time, there is no reason to suspect that its 
 decisions were not perfectly free. 
 
 We will now examine the accuracy of the account given of 
 this council by Vindex. " To decide the question" (respecting 
 images) says he, " two councils were assembled. The one as- 
 sembled at Constantinople condemned image and picture 
 worship as idolatrous. The other which met at Nice asserted 
 it to be lawful ? not allov/ing, however, any representations 
 higher than those of Christ and his saints." 
 
 What does Vindex mean by representations higher than 
 those of Christ ? Does he believe Christ to be God I If so, 
 what can be higher I Does he mean to say that the council 
 
 * Fleui y, torn. ix. page, 520.
 
 Sec. 4.] Chrisliaa Rellyion. 87 
 
 forbad the representation of the other persons of the Trinity i 
 If so, he is mistaken, for they expressly approved of the 
 ancient custom of representing the Holy Ghost in the form of 
 a dove.* Does he mean to say that they forbad the repre- 
 sentation of the divine nature i The Catholic Church at the 
 present day equally does, and equally has forbidden it at 
 all times. 
 
 Vindex proceeds. " Their argument rested on this ground : 
 service they exclusively appropriated to God, but not ivor- 
 ship." What does Vindex mean by serviced The council 
 appropriated Latreia to God, by which word they did not 
 mean service in its common sense, as Vindex, if he has read 
 the council, well knows ; but that peculiar worship, which, 
 " according to our faith, belongs exclusively to the divine 
 nature, "-j- and which the councils expressly forbids to be given 
 to any creature. " Every act of ivorsJup,'' says Vindex, " was 
 foiuided on this principle, that the honour paid to the type is 
 referred to the prototype ; from which must be inferred that 
 the degree of worship to be paid to the representation was to 
 be correspondent to the dignity of the original. Whence it is 
 plain that worship in every instance, and not respect, (as you 
 call it, p. 14.) was to be paid to the image." Again, I ask 
 what does Vindex mean by worship ? Does he mean divine 
 ivorship I If so, I have already mentioned, and he himself 
 admits, that this was reserved by the council to God alone. 
 Does he mean such worship as lie might pay to the ivorshipful 
 the Mayor of Bath, or as he has perhaps paid to his wife, or 
 such as Abraham and Joshua paid to the angels, or the 
 nobles of David to the king ] in fine, does he, to use the words 
 of the council itself, mean a mere " honorari/ worship," that 
 does not imply any divinity in the objects to which it is applied I 
 Then do I conceive that such worship may very properly be 
 termed in English respect, and not very properly worship, 
 particularly when placed in opposition to respect. Vindex goes 
 on, " An express reserve was indeed made in favour of the La- 
 treia, or service to God; but a provision, equally explicit, was 
 made in favour of the honorary adoration of images, which was 
 intended to amount to direct worship; and this is evident 
 enough, both from the words of the Nicene council, and from 
 the testimony of succeedmg writers, however the doctrine may 
 be diluted by modern expositors of the Church of Rome." 
 
 Again, I must ask Vindex what he means by direct wor- 
 
 * Fkury, torn. ix. page 55, concil 371. t Sjd. vii. act 7.
 
 88 A Defence of tlm [Let. 2. 
 
 ship? He has just admitted that the council reserved to God 
 alone the service called Latreia. Does he mean to say that 
 in the next breath, the council allowed also to the images of 
 saints what they had just reserved to God alone? This is 
 incredible. What then does he mean when he says that the 
 " honorary adoration," allowed by the council to images, was 
 intended to amount to direct worship i Is his mind still run- 
 ning upon his new explanation of the commandment, which 
 makes the act of howing clown and divine ivorshij) synonymous 
 terms I Or, does he wish, by the use of ambiguous words to 
 involve his real meaning in a cloud, and thus withdraw it from 
 minute investigation I He had undertaken to prove that the 
 Catholic Church did not reserve Latreia to God alone, but 
 gave it also to images. If the Nicene council teaches this 
 doctrine, why does he not say so at once I Why employ so 
 many ambiguous words when he has unequivocal ones at com- 
 mand I But that his explanation is right, he says, " is evident 
 enough, both from the words of the Nicene council and from 
 the testimony of succeeding writers." Why then not give the 
 words of the council I Why enter into an abstruse metaphy- 
 sical dissertation, which not one of his readers can possibly 
 understand, to elucidate a text which is " evident enough" of 
 itself? It is indeed true, that the words of the council are 
 clear enough, but the reader shall judge whether they are 
 clear enough in favour of what Vindex wished them to prove. 
 
 " Having" says the council, " employed upon the subject 
 all care and diligence, we decree, that venerable and holy 
 images, whether formed in painted colours, of mosaic work, 
 or of any other suitable materials, be set forth publicly in the 
 churches of God, whether on the sacred vessels and vestments, 
 or on the walls, and on tablets ; also in private houses and in 
 the public ways, in the same manner as it is done with the 
 figure of the holy and life-giving cross ; namely, the images of 
 our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our immaculate 
 lady the holy mother of God, of the glorious angels, and of all 
 the samts and pious men. For the more frequently the eye is 
 fixed upon these representations, the more powerfully is the 
 mind of the beholder raised to the remembrance and admira- 
 tion of the originals. Also, that the kiss and honorary ado- 
 ration he given to them; not the true worship) of Latreia, 
 which, according to our faith, belongs only to the divine 
 nature ,* hut that incense and lights he employed to honour 
 
 * " nM rocvTMii; cca'woi.a^ov koci tj/aijTwijv 7rfO!7xvvv)iriv ctvovi/.Etv, ov i^ev rr,v 
 xovTcc viortv lOfjLuv oc>,Y)Bivnv XotTfitxv, ri vnrn i^ovn t? hcc (pvan, &C.
 
 Sec. 4] Christian Religion. 89 
 
 them, according to the religious custom of our ancestors, in 
 the same, manner as is done to the figure of the precious and 
 life-giving cross, the hook of the holy gospels, and other sa- 
 cred objects."* 
 
 Now, I appeal to the reader, whether it would have been 
 easy to draw up a decree in terms less liable to misconstruction.. 
 In the first place, the council decrees that pictures of Christ 
 and his saints be set up in churches in the same manner as the 
 cross was set up by the Iconoclasts themselves. In this it 
 perfectly agrees with the practice of the Church of England. 
 In the next place, it ordains that an " honorary worship" be 
 paid to these pictures ; but it expressly says that this honorary 
 worship must not he Latreia or divine icorship, because " ac- 
 cording to the faith of the Church, this worship belongs to 
 God alone." Lastly, the council explains what it means by 
 " honorary worship," and says it is to be expressed by the kiss, 
 by incense, and by lights, which acts are to be exhibited to the 
 images of the saints in the same manner as they were ex- 
 hibited to the cross, the book of the gospels and other sacred 
 objects by the Iconoclasts themselves. Now does Vindex 
 mean to say that not only the Catholics of the eighth century, 
 but his friends the image breakers, paid divine worship to the 
 cross, to the book of the gospels, and a variety of other things 
 comprised under the terms " sacred objects V Does he mean 
 to say that the acts of kissing, of burning lights or incense, 
 necessarily amount to direct ivorship, with whatever intention 
 they are employed I But he knows that the act of kissing, 
 prescribed by the Nicene council, is still given, by the Estab- 
 lished Church of England, to the book of the gospels in the 
 administration of oaths. He knows, moreover, if he has read 
 the proceedings of the council, that lights and incense w£re, 
 at that time, burnt before the pictures of the emperors as a 
 mere mark of respect; and he knows, or might know, that 
 even to this day in the Catholic Church the same ceremonies 
 are applied to the altar, the cross, the book of the gospels, the 
 ministers of religion, the people, and even to a corpse at a fu- 
 neral. Will he say that direct worship is intended to be paid 
 to all these objects I He knows, in fine, if he has read the pro- 
 ceedings of the council, that it opened with a solemn declara- 
 tion, that the worship of Latreia was due " to the one true 
 God alone ;"f that it concluded with pronoimcing, ** an anath- 
 
 " SjB. vii. act 7. 
 " Apertis verbis testamur nos in nnam DeamTerum Latriani, hoc est caltam et 
 fidem Dostram referre et reponere." Actio secnnda. 
 
 M
 
 90 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 ema upon all who should say that Christians worshipped 
 imag-es as gods ;"* and that during- its different discussions, it 
 over and over again repeated, that neither the saints nor their 
 images were to be worshipped as gods, but that the saints 
 themselves were to be honoured only as the servants and 
 friends of God, and that no mark of honour was to be paid to 
 their images, but such as custom authorized to be paid to the 
 images of living emperors, or to various material objects em- 
 ployed in the service of God. He knows, in fine, that the 
 grand principle on which the council defended the doctrine of 
 the Catholic Church against the objections of the Inconoclasts, 
 was that the former applied only the very same external cere- 
 monies, and with the very same internal motives to the images 
 of Christ and his saints, which the latter applied to the cross 
 of Christ, to the book of the gospels and to other sacred 
 objects. 
 
 It may be proper hej*e to mention a letter which was 
 addressed by the council to the emperor after it had concluded 
 its decrees, both because it confirms the accuracy of the above 
 statements, and particularly because it explains the ceremony 
 of the adoration or kissing of the cross on Good Friday, 
 which Vindex has brought forward a thousand years later as a 
 proof of the idolatry of the Catholic Church. They begin by 
 explaining the meaning of the Greek word "TT^oa-y.vmv, to adore 
 or worship, which they observe often means no more than to 
 salute, or kiss, and bring, as an instance of this, the ceremony 
 of Good Friday. " When we salute the cross," says the 
 council, " we sing, We adore thy cross, O Lord, and we 
 adore the lance that has pierced thy side ; which words mani- 
 festly imply no more than to salute, as we actually kiss the 
 cross at the time. But if the word adoration be often found 
 in scripture to signify the spiritual worship of Latreia, it is 
 because this word has different siarnifications. For there is an 
 adoration which implies a mixture of honour, love and fear, 
 as when we adore your majesty, (the emperor,) there is an 
 adoration of fear alone, as when Jacob adored Esau. It is 
 for this reason that the scripture, w ishing to instruct us, says, 
 ' the Lord thy God shalt thou worship {ir^oa-y.wrio-eK;) and him 
 only shalt thou serve, (xccrfivaiK;.) It places the Avord worship 
 as an indefinite term, which may be applied to other beings 
 beside God, but it restrains to God alone the service of 
 
 * " Qui dicunt quod Christian! imagines ut Deos adorent, auatheraa." Actio 
 septima.
 
 Sec. 4.] Christian Religion. 91 
 
 Latreia, and to him alone we give it."* Vindex enters into a 
 long- and learned dissertation to prove, that the council was 
 wrong in its explanation of this passage of scripture. I should 
 have been happy to have saved him the trouble, as it is quite 
 immaterial to the question, whether it were wrong or right, 
 and as I am rather inclined to agree with him. The doctrine 
 of the council is not at all founded on this text, and its doc- 
 trine is all we consider ourselves boiuid to receive, or interested 
 to defend. f But will Vindex really conclude, that the Church 
 did not reserve Latreia to God, when she employed this text 
 to prove that she did I Did she attempt to prove a doctrine 
 which she did not teach J Will he maintain that the Church 
 paid divine w orship to the emperors, when she here tells the 
 emperor himself that she does not J or that she pays divine 
 worship to the cross on Good Friday, when she has continued 
 to declare, for the last thousand years, that she has no such 
 intention .'| 
 
 * Flenry, torn. ix. page 559. 
 
 t Thus an Englishraan thinks himself bound to obey an Act of Parliament ; 
 bat he approves or disapproves of any illustrations which may be brouglit to shew 
 its propriet)'. 
 
 i N.B. it is curious enough, that the very same ceremony is used in paying 
 homage to the King of England at this day, that is used by Catholics to the cross on 
 Good Friday; namely, kneeling before and kissing. Selden, tells us, that this act 
 of civil homage was originally used by the Pagans in the worship of their gods, that 
 from them it passed to the Pagan emperors, who at first were half wishful to re- 
 ceive divine Imnnurs, from them to the Christian emperors and the kings of this 
 country, who disclaim all right to divine irorsliiji. AVhelher the ceremony of Good 
 Friday had a similar origin, T know not; but since its introduction into Christianity 
 it certainly has been no more intended for divine worship than the homage paid to 
 the king.
 
 92 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 § 5. 
 
 Refutation of different charges from St. Thomas Aquinas, 
 and other Theologians. — Council of Trent totally mis- 
 represented by Vindex. — -Its decree. — Bossuefs Exposition 
 de lafoi. 
 
 To confirm the explanation Vindex had given of the doc- 
 trine of the Nicene council, he gives us an account of a dis- 
 pute which took place amongst the schoolmen of the middle 
 ages, in the following terms: *' St. Thomas Aquinas set his 
 face against the reserve that was made in favour of the 
 Latreia to God. And so also did others besides the angelic 
 doctor : and the view they took of the subject was this : they 
 thought the same degree of worship was due to the image, 
 which was due to the original ; that the act should be precisely 
 the same in both instances. For to pay the image one sort of wor- 
 ship and the original another, was in their estimation, to worship 
 the image for the sake of itself, and not on account of the 
 original, wliich would be idolatry. Whereas, others, after the 
 Nicene council, persisted in thinking that idolatry would be 
 the consequence of not worshipping the image in an inferior 
 degree ; Avhich differences of opinion bring one to a sort of 
 dilennna : for let a man choose which side he will, he is sure to 
 pass for an idolater on the other side." Now, supposing the 
 whole of this statement, and the conclusions which Vindex 
 draws from it to be correct, I really do not see what he has 
 gained. Has he proved that his account of the doctrine of 
 the Nicene council was correct ? Not at all. The only thing 
 he has proved, is, that in the tliirteenth centur}^ namely, 
 five hundred years after the council of Nice, certain scholastic 
 divines, who like Vindex himself, were fond of metaphysics, 
 undertook to analyze the worship or respect paid to images, 
 and having bewildered themselves in the mazes of their own 
 subtleties, called each other idolaters. But Vindex will ex- 
 cuse me when I say, that I much question the truth of this 
 statement. I do not think that any of the divines of the 
 dark ages were so uncivil as to hurl at each other's heads the 
 deadly charge of idolatry. I am inclined to think, that this is 
 all the work of our Church of England theologian. I have 
 read St. Thomas and Bellarmine, the two authors whose names
 
 Sec, 5.] Christian Religion, 93 
 
 he mentions, and there is nothing of the kind in them. The 
 other part of his account, though involved in that same unfor- 
 tunate obscurity, and subject to the same unfavourable miscon- 
 struction, which attends all his explanations of Catholic 
 doctrine or opinion, is, when properly understood, not 
 materially incorrect. But to me it appears to prove directly 
 the opposite of what he wished. " The view," says Vindex, 
 " they, (St. Thomas and his party) took of the subject was 
 this : they thought the same degree of worship was due to the 
 image which was due to the original ; that the act should be 
 precisely the same in both instances." Here Vindex is out of 
 his depth. St, Thomas maintained, that no worship or 
 respect teas due to the material image itself, because it was not 
 an intellectual being ,-* and that any respect paid to it was de- 
 signed whollg for the being it represented. Consequently, in 
 his opinion, there were no two instances in the case. Vindex 
 proceeds, " For to pay the image owe sort of worship and the 
 original another, was in their estimation to worship the image 
 for the sake of itself, and not on account of the original, which 
 would be idolatry." It appears then, from this passage, that 
 St. Thomas and his friends had at least a dread of idolatry, 
 and were anxious to avoid it. Indeed they might well ; for 
 St. Thomas teaches that " Idolatry is the greatest of all 
 crimes,"^ that can be committed. In the next place, it appears 
 that they considered that it would be idolatry to worship 
 the image on account of itself ; therefore it will follow, I think, 
 that they did not consider the image as a god, or place it on a 
 level with God, or intend to worship it as a god. " Others," 
 says Vindex, " persisted in thinking that idolatry would be the 
 consequence of not worshipping the image in an inferior de- 
 gree.'' Thus it appears that both parties were equally anxious 
 to avoid idolatry, that both equally denied to created objects 
 the honour due only to God, and yet Vindex will not let either 
 of them escape condemnation. 
 
 What a pity his metaphysics are not as acute ip discovering 
 the innocence, as in contriving the guilt of his neigbour ! 
 
 The dispute which Vindex has taken such pains to misrepre- 
 sent, was simply this. All parties were perfectly agreed upon 
 the doctrines of the church, which, as I have proved, went no 
 farther than to teach that the same external marks of respect 
 
 * Imagini Christi in quantnm est res qnaedam (puta ligDum sculptam rel pictam) 
 nulla reverentia exhibetur, quia reverentia nonnisi rationali creaturae debetur. 
 Snmma. 3a. quest. \\v, art. 3. 
 
 t 2a 2a Quest, xciv. art. 3.
 
 94 A Defence of tha [Let. 2. 
 
 might be paid to the images of Christ and his saints, which 
 were paid to the book of the gospels, to the cross, to 
 the statues of the emperors, and the like; but that images 
 were not to be considered as gods, nor to be honoured as 
 such. Farther than this, neither the decrees of the council 
 of Nice, nor the faith of the Church has ever gone ; and so 
 far the divines of the middle ages were all perfectly 
 agreed. But for their own amusement, or for want of better 
 employment, they undertook to analyze the above simple doc- 
 trine, and a grand dispute ensued on the following very inte- 
 resting subject. When a man kisses the crucifix, the book of 
 the gospels, and the image of St. Peter, with the simple inten- 
 tion of paying honour to the originals, is the act in all these 
 cases to be called by the same name, or does the difference of 
 the object entitle the act to a different appellation? St. 
 Thomas was of the latter opinion : most other divines, I be- 
 lieve, were of the former. He reasoned thus. When we 
 kiss the image of Christ crucified, we do it in honour of Christ, 
 not of the material substance, which being without life and 
 intellect, is deserving of no respect whatever. Therefore, as 
 our intention in kissing the crucifix is simply to honour Jesus 
 Christ, who is God, it must be an act of Latreia ; and there- 
 fore we may say that the image of Christ is entitled to Latreia. 
 But when we kiss the statue of St. Peter, with the intention 
 of honouring St. Peter, this act is only Douleia, because St, 
 Peter himself being only a man is not entitled to Latreia. 
 Those who were opposed to St. Thomas thought that images 
 themselves, though lifeless and material substances, were still 
 entitled to a certain respect, as being the representations of 
 holy things, and therefore they maintained, that, whether we 
 kissed an image of Christ, or of a saint, the act must be 
 called merely Douleia. Now, could not Vindex, with all his 
 metaphysical acumen, if he had really exerted his powers, 
 have discovered that both these opinions might be very inno- 
 cent? Was his charity quite compelled to pronounce them 
 idolatrous ? I am surprised he did not perceive, that in this 
 case he condemns his own Church. 
 
 The bishops of the Established Church on the day of the 
 coronation, bowed to the altar. This act, according to St. 
 Thomas, could not be intended for the altar itself, because the 
 altar is an inanimate object, and therefore deserving of no 
 honour. The act was therefore intended for God, and conse- 
 quently was an act of Latreia. Yet the object to which this 
 act was immediately directed was the altar, and therefore ac-
 
 reigu : 
 
 Sec. 5.] Christian Religion. 95 
 
 cording- to St. Thomas, it may be said, that the bisliops paid 
 an act of Latreia to the altar. But will it follow from this 
 reasoning-, that St. Thomas " set his face against the reserve 
 of Latreia to God alone T' or that the bishops were guilty of 
 idolatry, by paving to an ornamental table the honour due only 
 to God f 
 
 When the English bishops and peers bow to the king's 
 throne, this act, according to St. Thomas, cannot be intended 
 for the throne itself, because the throne is an inanimate olyect, 
 and therefore deserving- of uo respect. It is therefore intended 
 for the Sovereign, and may consequently be termed an act of 
 homage; and as the throne is the immediate object which re- 
 ceives this act, it may, in the phraseology of St. Thomas, be 
 said that an act of homage is paid to the king's throne. But 
 are we thence to conclude that St. Thomas " sets his face 
 against homage being reserved to the king alone," or that the 
 bishops and peers are guilty of high treason, for giving to 
 an old chair, the homage wliich belongs exclusivelv to the sove- 
 
 A wife possesses the miniature of her absent husband. **" la 
 a moment of affectionate i-ecollection she kisses the picture. 
 This mark of affection, according to St. Thomas, cannot be 
 intended for the picture, because the picture is an inanimate 
 object, and therefore deserving of no such honour. It is 
 therefore intended wholly for the husband himself, as much as 
 if it were bestowed upon his person, and is therefore equally 
 an act of conjugal affection. Yet this act was exhibited to 
 the picture, and therefore St. Thomas would say, that the lady 
 paid an act of conjugal affection to a picture. But will Vin- 
 dex therefore maintain, that St. Thomas " set his face against 
 the reserve of conjugal affection to the husband alone I" Or 
 that the lady was, on this occasion, guilty of an act of conjugal 
 infidelity T'f 
 
 * See pages 68 and 69. 
 t "Whoever wishes for a fuller expIauatioD of this scholastic dispute, ("with which 
 the Church never interfered, because it did not interfere with her,) will find it in 
 Cabassulius and Bellarmine. The latter author, whilst he shews that the meaning 
 of St. Thomas is conformable to the doctrine of the Church, disapproves of bis 
 lan<(uase in applying the term Latreia to images, " as being contrary to the lan- 
 guage of the (Church in the decrees of her councils ; as dangerous, and requiring 
 subtle distinctions to explain it ; as oflensive to the ears of Catholics ; and as af- 
 fording an occasion to Heretics to blaspheme with greater license." " Dicere po- 
 pulo imaginem Christi vel crucem adorandam esse Latrioe cultn, illo ipso, quo ado- 
 ratur Deus, non caret magno periculo ; nam qui defendant imagines adorari Lalria, 
 coguntnr uti sabtilissimis distinctionibus, quas vix ipsimet intelUgunt, nedum popu- 
 Jus imperitus. Iste modus loquendi offendit auras CathoHcorum et praebet occasio- 
 nem hjereticisliberius blasphemandi." De imag. cap 22.
 
 96 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 If Vindex has really read St. Thomas, and really under- 
 stood him in the sense he has described, I would recommend 
 him in future, never more to meddle with the metaphysics of 
 the dark ages. If he has taken his quotations and explana- 
 tions of St. Thomas, as he has most others, at second hand, I 
 hope he will learn to mistrust the statements of former anti- 
 catholic polemics, many of whom have had archdeacons to de- 
 fend as well as himself, and were often driven to as great dis- 
 tresses by their " lofty and dictatorial" opponents. 
 
 -Per insidias iter est, forraasque ferarum 
 
 Utque viam teneas nulloqiie errnre traharis 
 Per taraeo adversi gradieris cornaa tauri." 
 
 Vindex's quotation from Naclantus, Bishop of Clugium,* 
 is copied literatim, together with the wanj translation from his 
 favourite Book of Homilies,}- As this is probably all he knows 
 of the author he quotes, he could not be expected to inform 
 his readers that this same Naclantus was one of the bishops 
 who assisted at the general council of Trent, and that, how- 
 ever unnecessary he might think it, for caution's sake (ad cau- 
 telum) to say that we adore before the image, rather than that 
 we adore the image, the council of Trent was of a contrary 
 opinion, and therefore uses the words to kneel before rather 
 than to adore, when speaking of images.;]: Naclantus was a 
 follower of the opinion of St. Thomas, and must be understood 
 in the same sense when he speaks of giving Latreia to an 
 image. If he had meant any thing else, he would have been 
 condemned as a Heretic by the council of Trent : as we shall 
 see presently. 
 
 The passage in the Roman Pontifical, || which asserts that 
 " Latreia is due to the processional cross," which is carried 
 side by side with the emperor's sword, must be understood in 
 the same sense. When Vindex saw it asserted that Latreia 
 was due to a little cross carried at the end of a long pole, 
 might he not have suspected that these words could not be un- 
 derstood in their ordinary sense ? Could he suppose that the 
 whole Christian world required his sagacity to inform them that 
 such an object was not a God, nor might be honoured as 
 such? 
 
 * Letter, page 16. t Page 119, Oxford edit. 1816. 
 
 \ ■' Ut per imagines quas osculamur et coram quibas caput aperimus et pracomli- 
 mns, Christnm adoremus," &c.Sessio 25. 
 
 II Letter, page 21.
 
 Sec. 5.] Christian Religion. 97 
 
 Vindex concludes his dissertation on these scholastic dis- 
 putes with the following triumphant appeal. " Thus you see 
 Sir, that this distinction" (of 7nere respect and divine worship) 
 " which to you appears so easy and simple, has been the 
 means of producing- contradiction and controversy among men 
 of no mean abilities and authority even in your own Church." 
 But Vindex will recollect that when I spoke of the above 
 distinction being easy and simple, I spoke of it as stated by 
 the decisions of the Church, not as tortured and perplexed by 
 the writers of the dark ages, much less as bewildered and mis- 
 interpreted by himself. There is no subject however clear, 
 which may not be obscured by writers, who, like the god- 
 dess-born ^^j^neas, have the privilege of moving in a cloud, 
 whenever it suits their convenience to be unintelligible, or who, 
 like too many modern impugners of Catholic doctrines, have 
 the confidence to explain what they have not the faculty 
 to understand. 
 
 Vindex continues to inform us, that on the doctrine of the 
 Nicene council " the Church of Rome built a superstruction 
 of her own, permitting, both by connivance and authority, (ac- 
 cording to Bellarmine,) the representation of the Deity and the 
 Trinity, which was held in abhorrence by the Nicene council." 
 What means " permitting by authority }" I can understand 
 what " to permit by connivance" means. It means to sanc- 
 tion any thing by not opposing it " To permit by authority" 
 therefore must, I suppose, mean to sanction by some authori- 
 tative decision or command. It seems to me as if Vindex 
 wished to assert as much, or be understood to assert more, but 
 was afraid to speak out. At all events, he must mean to say 
 that Bellarmine asserts the Catholic Church to authorize or 
 command some representations which are deemed unlawful by 
 the Church of England. Now Bellarmine teaches that it is 
 only an opinion in the church that images of God and the 
 Trinity may be made, and that she only tolerates or admits 
 such representations, as not absolutely unlaxvfuL* He 
 expresses it, indeed, as his own opinion, that God may be re- 
 presented in the form in which he has appeared, particularly in 
 historical compositions ; as in representing the expulsion of 
 Adam and Eve from paradise. And is not this done by Pro- 
 testants as well as Catholics ? He thinks also, that God the 
 
 . " P'°°' "•"' ^Si*^ t*™ certum in Ecclesia, an sint faciendae imagines Dei sive 
 Trinitatis, quam Christi et Sanctorum : hoc enim confitentur omnes Catholici, et ad 
 fidem pertinet, illud est in opinioiie." Disput. Bellarmini. de Imaginibus, 
 cap 8. 
 
 " Hie enim tantam defendimus non esse in universum damnandui ejusmodi ima- 
 gines," fbidem. n
 
 98 A Defence of the [Let. 2 
 
 Father may be represented under the form of an old man, in 
 the same manner as God the holy ghost is represented in the 
 form of a dove. And does not the Church of England think 
 the same I But he quotes the council of Trent to prove that 
 if pictures of this kind be used, it is the duty of bishops and 
 preachers to explain to the ignorant that such representations 
 are only figurative, and must not be supposed to be likenesses 
 of God. Does the Church of England take the same wise 
 precautions l Finally, Bellarmine teaches, that was any one 
 to make a picture of the Deity, as an exact resemblance of 
 him in form and nature, he would make an idol.* Does Dr. 
 Moysey " permit by connivance or authority," these modest 
 misstatements of our doctrine by his anonymous defender \ 
 
 Vindex continues. " Thus matters stood up to the famous 
 council of Trent, to the canons and decrees of which, you so 
 triumphantly refer us. And what say these canons on the 
 point before us I why truly that which amounts to nothing. By 
 turning to Cone. Trident. Sess. 25. you will there perceive, that 
 they decreed that due loorship should be given to images ; but 
 they do not condescend to tell us in what that due worship con- 
 sisted. In fact, the council of Trent meant to leave the ques- 
 tion in the same glorious uncertainty in which they found it. 
 They wished not to cast a stumbling block in the way of any 
 party ; their desire was to conciliate, not to offend ; and 
 therefore, they purposely adopted phrases of an ambiguous 
 cast." 
 
 But if such be really the character of the decree of the 
 council of Trent, why does not Vindex give it to his readers ? 
 There is no argument so strong against an opponent as the 
 exposing of his evasions, his equivocations and studied ambigu- 
 ities. Why then did he not thus expose the council of Trent, 
 and give, to the contempt of the world, that decree which de- 
 crees nothing, and which uses ambiguous terms, without eX' 
 planation, for the purpose of deceiving? I will supply his 
 omission at all risks. The following are the words of the 
 council. 
 
 " The holy synod commands all bishops and others charged 
 with the instruction of the people, that, conformably to the 
 custom of the Catholic and Apostolic Church received from 
 the primitive ages of Christianity, to the concurrent doctrine 
 of the holy fathers and the decrees of the sacred councils, they 
 
 • '' Observendum est, tribns modis posse aliquid piugi. Uno modo ad expri- 
 mendam perfectam similitudinem formaB et naturse rei ipsias, et hoc iiiodo res cor- 
 poreae solum pinguntur, quae lineamentis et coloribus pradila! sunt. Et si qais hac 
 ratione Deum pingere tentaret, is verum idolum constitueret." Ibidem.
 
 Sec. 5.] Christian Religion. 99 
 
 be particularly diligent in instructing the faithful on the inter- 
 cession and invocation of saints, the honouring of relics, and 
 the legitimate use of images ; teaching them that the saints 
 reigning with Christ, offer up to God their prayers for man- 
 kind; that it is good and useful suppliautly to invoke them, 
 and to have recourse to their prayers, aid and assistance for 
 the purpose of obtaining favours from God, through his son 
 Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only redeemer a.id saviour. 
 That the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and 
 other saints, may be had and retained particularly in churches, 
 and that due honour and veneration be given to them ; not 
 that it is to be believed that there exists in them any divinity 
 or excellence on account of which they are to be honoured, or 
 that any thing is to be asked of them, or any confidence placed 
 in them, as was anciently done by the gentiles who trusted in 
 idols, (Psalm 134, 125,) but because the honour which is ex- 
 hibited to them is referred to the originals which they repre- 
 sent ; so that by means of the images which we kiss, and 
 before which we uncover our heads and kneel, we adore 
 Christ, and venerate his saints whose likeness they bear."* 
 
 Now the reader will observe that the words due worship, 
 ascribed by Vindex to the council, and twice repeated in 
 italics, are not the words of the council. Its words are dne 
 honour and veneration, which it employed in preference to 
 others to prevent the possibility of mistake. In the next 
 place, the council expressly asserts, that images must not be 
 supposed to contain any divinity or excellence which entitle 
 them to honour ; that nothing is to be asked of them, nor any 
 
 * " Mandat sancta Synodas omnibus Epicopis et cffiteris dacendi mnnas curam- 
 qae sustinentibus, ut juxta Catholicas et Apostolicae Ecclesife nsam, a primaevis, 
 Christianas religionis temporibus receptum, sanctornmque Patmm consentionem 
 et sacrorum conciliornm decreta ; inprimisde sanctorum intercessione, invpcatione, 
 Reliquiarum honore, etlegitimo imagiuum usu, fideles diligentur instruant, docentes 
 eos, Sanctos uoa cum Christo regnantes, orationes snas pro hominibus Deo oflerre, 
 boDum atque utile esse supplicitnr eos invocare et ob beneficia impetranda a Deo 
 per filinm ejus Jesum Christum, Dominum nostrum, qui solus noster redemptor et 
 salvator est, ad eorum orationes, opem, auxiliumque confugere." 
 
 " Imagines porro, Christi, Deiparrac Virginis, et aliomm Sanctorum, in templis 
 praesertim habendaset retinendas, eisque debitum honorem et venerationem imperti- 
 endara ; non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas, vel virtus, propter quam 
 sint colendae, vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendnm ; vel quod fiducia in imaginibus 
 sit Agenda ; veluti olim fiebat a Gentlbus, quae in idolis spem suam collocabant, 
 (Psalm 134) sed quoniam honos, qui eis exhibetur refertur ad prototypa, qua? illae 
 repraesentant : ita nt per imagines, quas osculamur, et coram quibus caput aperimas 
 et procnbimus, Christum adoremus, et sanctos, quorum illas similitudinem gerunt, 
 venereniur, id quod conciliorum, praesertim, vero secundae Nicaenas Synodi decretis 
 contra imaginam oppugnatores est sanctitum." Coucil. Trident. Sess. 25.
 
 100 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 confidence placed in them, as was done by the Pagans ; that 
 in short, the respect, which is shewn them, is intended wholly 
 for the beings they represent. And, does all this, " amount 
 to nothing?" is this merely decreeing that " due worship is to 
 to be given to images, but not condescending to say in what 
 due worship consists J" Is this, " leaving the question in a 
 state of glorious uncertainty, and purposely adopting phrases 
 of an ambiguous cast ?" 
 
 After describing the use of historical representations of the 
 mysteries of our redemption and the actions of holy persons, 
 as being calculated to instruct and confirm the people in the 
 truths of religion, to excite them to return thanks to God for 
 favours, and conform their lives to the imitation of his faithful 
 servants ; in short, " to teach them to adore and love God, 
 and cultivate true piety," the council proceeds. " If any 
 abuses may have crept into these holy and salutary obser- 
 vances, it is the earnest wish of the sacred council that such 
 abuses be entirely abolished ; so that no representation of any 
 false doctrines be set up, which may expose the ignorant to 
 the occasion of dangerous error. But if it 'sometimes happen 
 that historical narrations taken from the sacred scripture, 
 (when deemed useful for the instruction of the unlearned,) be 
 expressed in visible representations, the people must be taught 
 that the Deity is not represented, under the supposition that 
 he can be seen by corporeal eyes, or expressed by colours or 
 forms. Let all superstitions, (continues the council) in the 
 invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the use of 
 holy images be taken away ; all base gain abolished; all levity 
 avoided, and no images be gaudily painted or adorned," &c. 
 The decree concludes with charging the bishops to see that 
 every thing in their churches be regulated with that modera- 
 tion, decency, and propriety which becomes the house of 
 God ; that no unusual representations or new relics be admitted 
 into public or private places of worship, without the approba- 
 tion of the bishop ; that he himself, in matters of doubt or 
 difficulty shall not act without the advice of a council of 
 divines, the co-operation of his metropolitan, or in some cases, 
 the consent of the Pope.* 
 
 Such is the decree of the council of Trent on the subject of 
 images. Of its agreement or disagreement with the assertions 
 of Vindex, I shall say nothing. A young man in a Catholic 
 College, who had studied divinity three months, making such 
 
 * Concil. Trident. Sess. 25.
 
 Sec. 5.] Christian Religion. 101 
 
 assertions to a company of Catholic schoolboys, would be 
 laughed at for his ignorance, or punished for his impudence. 
 From a grave divine of the Established Church to the enlight- 
 ened people of England, they may meet with a more favour- 
 able reception. 
 
 It is fair, however, to observe that there is one part of 
 Vindex's statement which is quite correct, and that is, where 
 he asserts that the doctrine of the council of Trent is in 
 " strict unison" with that of the council of Nice. But the 
 only conclusion I can allow him to draw from this circum- 
 stance is, that he has grossly misrepresented the doctrine of 
 both. 
 
 Vindex continues. "Since the sixteenth century, your 
 Church has not taken upon herself to decide the question, and 
 for reasons best known to herself." If Vindex means that 
 the Church has not called another general council to decide 
 the question, he is right ; and her reason is, because she con- 
 sidered that she had done it, as clearly as it could be done, in 
 the council of Trent, and because it would be very troublesome 
 and inconvenient to summon together the bishops of all Chris- 
 tendom, every time an anonymous writer chose to misrepresent 
 her doctrines, or to describe her decrees without having read 
 them.* But if he means to assert that, since the sixteenth 
 century, the Church has not constantly expressed her adhe- 
 rence to the decisions of her former general Councils, as occa- 
 sion seemed to require, he is mistaken. In my last letter to 
 Dr. Moysey, I referred him to " the Exposition of the Cath- 
 olic faith, by Bossuet," for a full explanation of our doctrine, 
 which I fear he has not taken the trouble to read. This work 
 was first published in 1671, has been approved by the Pope, 
 and sanctioned by the general applause of the Episcopacy, 
 and is admitted by all Catholics as a work of standard autho- 
 rity. As it has been the means of convincing many Pro- 
 testants that the Catholic doctrine is not what it is often asserted 
 to be, and as it may possibly produce the same happy effect, if 
 not on Dr. Moysey or his defenders, at least on some of my 
 readers, I shall give his statement on the invocation of saints, 
 the use of images, and of relics, at full length in an appendix 
 to this letter. 
 
 * " If Mr. Wesley be so credulous as to beliove'that the pope has horns, must 
 we convene a general council to declare that his forehead is smooth ?" 3Iiscellaneous 
 TracU by the Rer. Arthur O'Learj.
 
 102 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 §6 
 
 Objections from Catholic observances answered. — Ceremony 
 
 and office of Good Friday. — Kissing of Crosses, S;c. — 
 
 Devotions to the blessed Virgin Mary, &;c. — St, Scholasti- 
 
 ca. — The gunpowder treason. — Want of candour in 
 
 Vindex. 
 
 After the above exposition of our doctrine, I shall not 
 detain the reader long- in explaining the different observances 
 Avhich Vindex adduces to prove that, however the Catholic 
 Church " has taken g-ood care to be silent about the doctrine" 
 (we have seen how silent she has been !) " yet she unequi- 
 vocally sanctions the practice of allowing the Latreia to be 
 due to images." 
 
 The first practice he brings forward is the ceremony of the 
 adoration, or, as it is generally called in English, the kissing 
 of the cross on Good Friday. As the council of Nice has 
 already told us that the word adoration in this case, means no 
 more than the act of respectfully and affectionately saluting 
 or kissing, I shall only notice the other objeetions which Vin- 
 dex brings against the respect we shew to the cross. He 
 quotes the following address : " O cross ! more splendid than 
 the stars, &c. save this present assembly, this day met together 
 in thy praises." As he does not tell us what are his objections 
 to this passage, I can only judge from observing that in the 
 Latin he has put the word save in capitals. I suppose there- 
 fore he means to insinuate that we call upon the crucifix to 
 save us. This certainly would be very wicked indeed, and not 
 very wise. Indeed, I wonder it never struck Vindex that there 
 must be many men in the immense Church of all nations, who 
 have just sense enough to see the folly of such a belief, and 
 conscience enough to reject its impiety. Did he really think 
 that it required all the light which burst upon England at the 
 reformation, and which inspires him with such complacence in 
 his superior discernment, to tell the poor, blind, infatuated 
 Roman Catholic, that a little bit of wood which the priest holds 
 in his hands is not able to save him I 
 
 His next quotation is the following. " Hail O cross ! our 
 only hope. In this time of the passion encrease righteousness 
 to the pious, and give pardon to the guilty." His objection
 
 Sec. 6.] Christian Religion. 10^3 
 
 to this passage is, I presume, similar io the last. He wishes 
 it to be thought idoUitrous to address ourselves to a lifeless 
 block of wood as if it were the living God. But Vindex is a 
 man of letters, and must, I presume, have studied poetry and 
 rhetoric. Has he forgotten that there are such things as 
 tropes and figures, which authorize the poet or the orator to 
 give life to inaniiuate objects, to employ the sign for the thing 
 signified, and to bestow personality and intelligence on beings 
 destitute of both I Has he forgotten the names of metonymy 
 exclamation, prosopopcea, &c. ? Or has he discovered, in stu- 
 dying the book of Homilies, or some other enlightened pro- 
 duction of modern theology, that tropes and figures are idol- 
 atrous I Alas •! in this case I fear we must send all poets and 
 orators that ever lived, to keep company with the unfortunate 
 painters whom the Iconoclast council decided to be all the 
 wicked makers of idols. Nay, even the orthodox bard who 
 sang — 
 
 " Preserve ns Lord by tby dear word. 
 From Turk aud Pope defend us Lord, 
 Both which would thrust out of his throne 
 Our Lord Christ Jesus, thy dear son"* 
 
 Even this pious and orthodox lover of the muses, will fall a 
 victim to the resistless impulse of poetic fancy, and after edify- 
 ing by his inspired effusions, the pure and enlightened Church 
 of England for nearly three centuries, be condemned of meto- 
 nymy and prosopopoea, and doomed for all eternity to keep 
 company, {heu miserahile fatiim !) with that very Turk and 
 Pope, whom in life he so greatly dreaded, and so piously 
 abhorred. For in his 114th Psalm he sings thus : 
 
 ''As rams afraid the tnonntains skipp'd 
 Their strength did them forsake : 
 And as the silly trembling lambs 
 Their tops did beat and shake. 
 
 What ailed thee, O sea ! that thou 
 So suddenly didst fly, 
 Ye roaring waves of Jordan's flood, 
 Why turned ye so swiftly ?t" 
 
 Is it not evident that our Church of England poet is as 
 guilty of tropes and figures as the Catholic bard I Nay he is 
 
 * A hymn or prayer from the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England, 
 Oxford edit. 1716. 
 
 t Common Prayer, psalm cxiv.
 
 104 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 even guilty of ascribing to idols, the very animation which the 
 Catholic poet has ascribed to the cross. 
 
 " Confusion sure shall come to snch 
 As worship idols vain, 
 Also to those that glory much 
 Dumb pictures to maiutaiu. 
 
 For all the idols of the world, 
 Which they their Gods do call, 
 ShaUfeel the power of the Lord, 
 And down to him shall fall."* 
 
 Here, I say, the poet wickedly ascribes to dead idols the 
 faculty o^ feeling, which implies life. And here he has not 
 even the scripture to back him, though he pretends to be trans- 
 lating it ; whereas the Catholic poet has the authority of St. 
 Paul to extenuate his personification of the cross ; for the 
 apostle says ^^ God forbid that I should glory save in the cross 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ."f Now if St. Paul could assert 
 that the cross was the only thing in which he gloried, surely 
 the Catholic poet might have some excuse in saying that the 
 same cross was the only thing in which he hoped, and in ad- 
 dressing to it such praises or petitions as his only hope might 
 claim. But I will give the reader the whole iiymn from which 
 Vindex has copied his damning extract. If he is a lover of 
 real poetry he will not regret its insertion. 
 
 Behold the royal ensigns fly,l: 
 The cross's shining mystery ; 
 Where life itself gave up its breath, 
 And Christ by dying conquered death. 
 
 Th' audacious steel let out a flood 
 Of water, mixt with saving blood, 
 Whilst man's redemption with the tide, 
 Came rushing from the Saviour's side. 
 
 What David's faithful numbers told. 
 Surrounding nations thus unfold; 
 That God should rule from main to main, 
 And wood, not steel, assert his reign. 
 
 Hail, beauteous tree ! whose branches wore 
 The purple of his royal gore ; 
 Preferred to bear those arms, from whence 
 Spring all our blessing and defence. 
 
 * Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, psalm xcvii. 7,8. N. B. 
 There is nothing in David about •' maintaining dumb pictures." This was a hit 
 at the Papists. 
 
 t Galat. iv. 14. 
 
 \ Hymn sung at the service of Good Friday, Passion Sunday, &c. from the Ves- 
 per Book of the Catholic Chapel, Bath, page 28, 29. I regret that the English 
 translation is inferior in simplicity and spirit to the original.
 
 Sec. 6] Christian Religion. 105 
 
 On Thee, as in the world's great scales, 
 The ransom of the world prevails ; 
 Our sin, tho' great, his pains outweigh, 
 And rescue hell's expected prey. 
 
 All hail ! O happy mournful tree. 
 Our hope with Christ is nailed on thee; 
 Grant to the just encrease of grace. 
 And mediate for the sinner peace. 
 
 Bless'd Trinity, to thee we sing, 
 
 From whom aljove all graces spring ; 
 
 Thy crowns on us abore bestow, 
 
 Who conquer by ths cross below. Amen.* 
 
 Let me here address a serious question to Dr, Moysey him- 
 self. Did you, sir, authorize or could you authorize the ex- 
 tracting of a passage from this hymn, to prove that the Catho- 
 lic Church " unequivocally sanctions the practice of allowing 
 the Latreia to be due to images ?" No sir, I will not be- 
 lieve it. You are a gentleman and a man of letters, aud you 
 could never have descended to an artifice so poor, so pitiful, so 
 ungentlemanlike, for the cruel purpose of imposing upon the 
 ignorance, and rousing against your fellow Christains the angry 
 and contemptuous feelings of your unlettered readers. 
 
 I shall only add respecting the ceremony of Good Friday, 
 that I wish the reader to peruse it at length in the common 
 Roman Missal, published in English and Latin, for the use of 
 the laity in this country ; and if he have a classical mind, and 
 a single spark of religious feeling on the most pathetic of all 
 subjects, the sufferings of the world's redeemer, he will I 
 think, agree with me in pronouncing it one of the most beauti- 
 
 * VEXILLA regis prodeunt ; Arbor decora, et fnlgida 
 
 Fulget crusis mysterium, Ornata regis purpura. 
 
 Qua vita mortem pertulit. Electa digno stipite 
 
 Et morte vitam protulit. Tarn sancta membra tangere. 
 
 Quae vnlnerata lanceae Beata, cujus brachiis, 
 
 Mucrone diro, crirainum, Pretium pependit saeculi, 
 
 Ut nos lavaret sordibus, Statera facta corporis, 
 
 Manavit unda et sanguine. Tulitque praedam tartari. 
 
 Impleta sunt, quae ooncinit O crux ave spes unica, 
 
 David fideli carmine. Hoc passionis tempore. 
 
 Dicendo nationibas : Piis adauge gratiam, 
 
 Regnavit a ligno Deus, Reisque dele crimina. 
 
 Te, fons salutis Trinitas, 
 Collaudet oranis spiritus : 
 Qnibns crncis victoriam 
 Largiris adde prscminm. Amen. 
 
 O
 
 106 A Defence of the [Let. '2, 
 
 fill remains of ancient ceremonial, and one of the most im- 
 pressive ceremonies ever introduced into religion. Such I am 
 sure I have always felt it, and I am equally sure that I never 
 paid to the cross, or any other material object, the honour due 
 to God. 
 
 The next proof of the practical idolatry of the Catholic 
 Church, is a ceremony of blessing a new cross, prescribed by 
 the Roman pontifical ; in which the priest prays that this cross 
 may be a " healthful remedy to the human race, that by the 
 merits of this cross the offerers may be freed from all sin," &c. 
 '* These prayers," says Vindex, " used at the consecration of 
 a cross,;form a very legitimate test of what is intended by the ser- 
 vice of the 'Adoration of the Cross,' used in holy week, and area 
 very intelligible comment on the 'dehitmn honorem ac venerati- 
 onem' of the council of Trent." It appears then, that Vindex 
 wishes it to be understood that, in the first place, the Catholic 
 Church, by an act of Pagan-like consecration, invests the new 
 madecrosswith divine privileges, confers upon it the same merits 
 as Christ himself possessed, and then declares it fit for the cere- 
 mony of Good Friday. And is Vindex really in earnest when 
 he expresses surprise that a Catholic Clergyman, should feel 
 pity for the man, that can believe such absurdities of his re- 
 ligion, or assert them without believing them 'i I must then 
 inform Vindex, that the crosses employed in the ceremony of 
 Good Friday, have seldom had any consecration at all. I 
 never knew of one that had. In the next place, I must 
 inform him that, by the ceremony of blessing material objects, 
 the Catholic Church means no more, than begging of the 
 Almighty to bestow upon those who use them, health of body 
 or soul, remission of sin, or any other temporal or spiritual 
 blessing ; and the only virtue or merit which she ascribes to 
 such objects, after they are thus blessed, is merely such, as it 
 may please the Almighty to impart to them in consequence of 
 the prayers that have been addressed to him. 
 
 When Solomon dedicated, or as the Roman pontifical would 
 express it, blessed the new temple of Jerusalem, he stood be- 
 fore the altar of the Lord, and spread forth his hands towards 
 heaven, and prayed " that the eyes of the Lord might be 
 open towards that house day and night ; that when the people 
 should pray towards that place, God would hear them in hea- 
 ven ; that when they had sinned and should make supplication 
 in that house, the Lord would forgive the sin of his people." &c.* 
 
 * (4) Kings Tiii. 2-2, &c. &c.
 
 Sec. G.] 
 
 Christian Ri-lif/ioji. 
 
 J 07 
 
 And Solomon prayed " that the eyes of the Lord miglit be opeu towards that honso 
 day and night," &c. 4. Kingis, viii. 22. 
 
 Now, if Solomon's prayer was heard, the temple of Jerusa- 
 lem derived from it a certain hJessimj, inasmuch, as a person 
 who prayed there would possess the efficacy of Solomon's 
 prayer added to his own. The Roman pontifical does no moro 
 in begging, that similar blessings may attend those persons who 
 use, with proper dispositions, any of the things to which the 
 prayers of the Church have been, in like manner, annexed. 
 
 Instead of having recourse to the blessing of the cross to 
 explain the ceremony of Good Friday, with which it has uo 
 manner of connection, Dr. Moysey's friend would have done 
 better to have had recourse to some Catholic divine for the ex- 
 planation of both. To advance idle surmises as matters of 
 fact, and put forth his own ill natured fancies as the religion of 
 bis neighbour, is, to use his own expression, " a proceeding aa
 
 108 A Defence of the {Let. 2. 
 
 unworthy of a scholar, as it is beneath the character of a gen- 
 tleman." 
 
 " So much," cries Vindex, " for the kind of adoration paid 
 to the cross ,- now for that, paid to the Virgin Mary." 
 
 " Tu ES SPES UNICA PECCATORUM." " Thoil art 
 the only hope of sinners." This is, I admit, a very strong 
 passage. How does it proceed ? " Through thee we hope for 
 the pardon of (our) sins, and in thee, most blessed, is the ex- 
 pectation of our rewards. Holy Mary ! succour the miserable," 
 &c. Vindex had indeed good reason to head his attack upon 
 the worship of the virgin with such a passage as this, and no 
 doubt he felt confident that it was all over with Hyperdouleia. 
 I fancy I see him overjoyed at the discovery of this precious 
 document in some old book of Church of England contro- 
 versy, and carrying the glad tidings to Dr. Moysey and his 
 other clerical co-operators. But alas ! how uncertain in the 
 art of war is the issue of the best concerted schemes ! 
 
 It happens most unluckily for Vindex, that this passage is 
 not the composition of any modern Catholic idolater, but is 
 found amongst the works, and maintained by the best critics, 
 to be the genuine production of that ancient and celebrated 
 doctor of the Church, whom the creed of Vindex, even the 
 very book of Homilies itself calls " Saint Augustine, the 
 best learned of all ancient doctors,"* whose orthodoxy on this 
 subject it vindicates by the following quotation from his works, 
 " Know thou that none of the dead, nor any thing that is 
 made of God, is worshipped as God of the Catholic Christians," 
 and whom it repeatedly quotes on this and almost every other 
 subject as strictly orthodox. Therefore, either Vindex must 
 give up the book of Homilies, or he must surrender the charge 
 from St. Augustine. As I cannot suppose he will do the 
 former, I trust he will set himself to work, and endeavour to 
 extricate the saint out of the difficulty into which he has 
 brought him. In this I shall be happy to assist him, and I 
 hope he will learn from this lesson how necessary it is to know 
 what he quotes before he advances it, and how just it is to con- 
 sider whether a passage will not bear a favourable construction 
 before he condemns it. We will give the passage more 
 at length, and I dare say we shall find that it will explain 
 itself. 
 
 " Mary becomes the mother of a man by believing the 
 angel, because Eve had ruined a man by listening to the ser- 
 
 • Second part of Peril of Idolatry, p. 161. Oxford edit. 1816.
 
 Sec. 6.] Christian Relifjion. 109 
 
 pent. O, happy obedience ! O, signal grace ! Whilst she 
 yields her humble faith, she becomes the mother of the world's 
 Creator. Hence she merited the glory which she afterwards 
 received. Behold ! says she, from henceforth all generations 
 shall call me blessed. O, blessed Mary ! who can give thee 
 the thanks and praise which are so justly thine, who, by that 
 singular assent, has succoured a lost world ; Receive then our 
 thanks, however unequal to thy merits, and when thou hast 
 received our vows, obtain by thy prayers the pardon of our 
 faults. Accept what we offer, grant us what we ask, excuse 
 what we fear ; for thou art the only hope of sinners. Through 
 thee we hope for the pardon of our sins, and in thee, most 
 blessed one, is the expectation of our rewards. Holy Mary, 
 succour the miserable, help the pusillanimous, comfort the 
 afflicted, pray for the people, make supplication for the clergy, 
 intercede for the devout female sex. Ijet all experience thy 
 assistance," &c.* 
 
 It is manifest from this passage, that St. Augustine in the 
 fourth century had at least as great devotion to the " Blessed 
 Virgin" as any Catholic in the nineteenth ; but it is evident 
 enough, both from this and numberless other passages of his 
 voluminous works, that he considered this exalted personage 
 merely as a creature, and that his high veneration for her was 
 founded chiefly on the circumstance of her having been chosen 
 by God to be the mother of his Son. When he speaks of 
 her being, " the only hope of sinners," he either alludes to her 
 very powerful intercession, and speaks as an orator, by exag- 
 geration, or he applies these words to her, as the mother of 
 him on whom all our hopes are founded. Surely it would have 
 been no great violation of language had some French orator 
 said of the Duchess de Berri, after the death of the Duke, 
 " Thou art the only hope of Frenchmen," merely because she 
 was expected to be the mother of a future king. Nor should 
 I have condemned of idolatry some zealous Vindex of the 
 sixteenth century, who had said of Luther when he was big of 
 the reformation, " Thou art the only hope of Protestants." 
 
 He next quotes a hymn to the blessed Virgin Mary, in which 
 she is styled "gate of heaven." The poet gave her this name 
 because she was the mother of Christ. If the Church of 
 England be the way to heaven, I should not, for my part, 
 blame a Church of England poet, who should call Henry the 
 
 * Sermon 18. de Sanctis. MTioever wishes for farther proofs of the opinions of 
 .St. Augustine, and other early Christians on this subject, will find them in Berriiig- 
 ton and Kirk's Faith of Catholics, page 435, &c.
 
 no A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 Eig^hth, or Queen Elizabeth the *' ^a<e of heaven." In the 
 same passage he seems to have overlooked, that the holy vir- 
 gin is desired to ask for us all good things ; a proof that we do 
 not consider her equal to her Son. 
 
 This word ask might have served as a hint to Vindex, (if he 
 is determined not to learn our religion from better sources,) 
 that the extravagant expressions contained in two prayers 
 which he quotes in a note, were not to be literally understood. 
 One of these, taken from the end of a Paris Missal of 1624, 
 entreats the Holy Virgin to " command the Redeemer by the 
 right of a mother,"* and the other by one Father Crasset 
 says, " that the power of the mother and the son is the same, 
 and that the mother has been made omnipotent by her omnipo- 
 tent Son." I can only say, that I never saw such praises as 
 these in my life, and I dare say I never should have seen 
 them had it not been for the kindness of Vindex, though I 
 have actually been collecting for some time all the extravagant 
 forms of prayer made by Catholics, I could meet with, under 
 an idea that some time or other I might present them, as sub- 
 jects of curiosity, amusement, or caution, to my Catholic 
 friends. But is Vindex really so ill informed, or has he the power 
 of face seriously to bring forward, an extravagant expression 
 from the end of a Paris Missal and another from Father 
 Crasset, as arguments which are to overturn all the decisions 
 of our general councils, the doctrines of our divines, the 
 united belief of the whole Christian world, and in spite of all 
 opposition force upon us a goddess, whom we are not all dis- 
 posed to acknowledge ? 
 
 It is not worth my while to defend either the Paris Missal 
 or Father Crasset, otherwise I dare say it might be done ; as 
 no doubt there was some small share of common sense in both 
 cases. When the former speaks of the mother's commanding 
 her son, I dare say it only meant, strongly urging her power- 
 ful influeuce with him. If a criminal begging his life from 
 the mother of the king should say, " urge him, entreat him, 
 as a mother command him to pardon me," I should say the 
 
 • Thoagh an objectionable passage was Ibuiid in the body oh local work like the 
 Missal of Paris, it could not be admitted as declaratory of the doctrine of the uni- 
 versal Church ; but the prayer quoted by Vindex, if such prayer really exists, cau 
 be nothing more than a private devotion added at the end of the book, by private 
 authority. Is Robin Wisdom's prayer above quoted, which stands at the end of 
 the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England, in company with the Feni 
 Creator, Venile exultetnns, &c. of this descripiiou, or must we consider it decla- 
 ratory of the doctrine of the Established Church, respecting the Turk and th^ 
 Pope?
 
 Sec. G.] Chrislian Reiujion:. Ill 
 
 man was very earnest, but I should not conclude that he con- 
 sidered that the king's )nother had any authority over the 
 king-. Indeed, if the composer of the above prayer meant to 
 say that the Virgin Mother was equal in authority to her Son. 
 why not ask her to grant the fovour herself? Why oblige her 
 to give an order to her Son I By the omnipotence of the 
 Blessed Virgin, I dare say Father Crasset meant no more than 
 an English writer means when he speaks of the omnipotence 
 of Parliament, of public opinion, of a royal favorite, or the 
 like. If he meant any thing more he was a Heretic, and we 
 make him over to the civil power of Vindex ; or rather, if he 
 be an Englishman, we make him over to civil emancipation 
 from penal laws, to which as an apostate from the faith of his 
 ancestors, he will become entitled. 
 
 The next quotation is this, " Nos CUM prole pi a, Bene- 
 dicatyirgo Maria." " May the Virgin Mary with her pious 
 offspring bless us." I can only guess what are Vindex's ob- 
 jections to this passage. Is it that we ask the blessing of 
 Christ and his mother with the same breath ? I acknowledge 
 it is bad taste. But surely there is no idolatry or impiety in 
 it. If a child should say to his parent, " I beg your blessing, 
 and the blessing of God," we should not, I presume, see any 
 crime in this. Does Vindex perhaps object to the mother's 
 being put before her divine Son i* . But he must recollect that 
 priority of order, does not always imply priority of rank. The 
 scripture itself puts the mother and the Son in this order, when 
 it says, " There was a marriage in Cana, of Galilee, and the 
 mother of Jesus was there, and both Jesus was called and his 
 disciples to the marriage."* But the fact is, the passage above 
 quoted is a piece of bad Latin verse in rhyme, and I have no 
 doubt, that the reason of this order being chosen, was because 
 the rhyme required it ; and how often will not poets, as well as 
 others, give up reason for rhyme? 
 
 It is childish to follow Vindex through all his little extracts. 
 The remarks already made will explain them all. If Vindex 
 has read the books he quotes, he knows perfectly well, that in 
 whatever terms our petitions to the saints are worded, we ex- 
 pect from them no favours but such as they obtain for us from 
 God;t and if we speak of being benefitted by the merits 
 of the saints, it is only because those merits may naturally 
 render their prayers more efficacious with God. We intend 
 the word merits to be understood in its ordinary sense, not in 
 
 * John ii. t Se« the conncil of Trenl abovt qaoted.
 
 112 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 that peculiar sense which theologians sometimes give to it when 
 speaking of the redeeming merits of Christ. Surely Vindex does 
 not suppose, when in the prayer which begs of God that we 
 may be delivered from the flames of hell, by the merits and 
 prayers of St. Nicholas, we mean to insult the Almighty by 
 telling him, that we consider St Nicholas as our redeemer, and 
 beg he will grant our petitions accordingly ? It means, I do 
 assure him, no more than this, " Grant, O Lord, that the 
 prayers of such or such a saint, and his meritorious conduct 
 in life, which has procured for himself the rewards of heaven, 
 may prevail upon thee to rescue us from future punishments." 
 It might be very consistent in a diciple of Luther, or of the 
 early Church of England, to say, that the only merits in ex- 
 istence are those of Christ, and that the good actions of men 
 are in no sense meritorious. But the modern Church of 
 England and the Catholic Church are, I believe, perfectly 
 agreed, respecting the merits of Christ and those of good 
 men. Both admit that our best actions can be of no value, 
 except through the merits of Christ : but both also agree, that 
 good works are an essential condition of salvation, and in this 
 sense may justly be termed meritorious. We do not conceive, 
 that any man has more merits than he ought to have, but we 
 do think, that the meritorious couduct of a good man may 
 render his prayers more efficacious with God than those of a 
 sinner. 
 
 Vindex has found that the following words, applied by St* 
 Paul to Christ, are applied in some of our offices to a saint. 
 " Thou crownedst him, O Lord, with glory and honour, and 
 didst set him over the works of thy hands." This application 
 he considers so manifestly idolatrous, that he does not even 
 employ one single Latin, Greek, or Hebrew quotation, to 
 prove it such. But he forgot, that before St. Paul applied 
 these words figuratively to Christ, the Psalmist had applied 
 them literally to mankind in general ;* and surely we may do 
 the same. I do assure him we mean it in the same sense. 
 
 I must not forget the prayer quoted by Vindex from the 
 English Missal, which says " O God, who to recommend to us 
 to innocence of life, was pleased to let the soul of thy blessed 
 Virgin Scholastica, ascended to heaven in the shape of a dove, 
 grant, by her merits and prayers, that we may lead innocent 
 Jives here, and ascend to universal joys hereafter." In this 
 quotation I have neither capitals nor italics to guide me. If 
 
 * Psalm viii. 5.
 
 Sec. 6.] Christian Religion. 113 
 
 Vindex objects to the term merits, that word I have already 
 explained. But I have heard, that a ladi/ of the Church of 
 Eng-land has pronounced it dreadful, that mention should be 
 made in a prayer of such a legend as that of St. Scholastica 
 ascending to heaven in the form of a dove, and this I dare say 
 was the circumstance to which Vindex wished to invite atten- 
 tion. It maybe very dreadful; but the question here is, does 
 it prove the Catholic Church to be idolatrous ? And why is it 
 so very dreadful ? Is it because the story is untrue I I really 
 never examined, nor ever intend to do, whether it be true or 
 not. All I know is, that it is told by St. Gregory the Great, 
 the Pope who sent St. Augustine and some other disciples of 
 St. Scholastica's brother, for the conversion of England. But 
 as I do not admit the personal infallibility of popes in any 
 thing, particularly in telling stories, the account may be untrue. 
 They who believe it, may say the prayer. Surely there is no 
 harm in that. They who do not believe the story, will not be 
 excommunicated if they never say the prayer. But I would 
 ask Vindex, is it quite essential that every assertion or allusion 
 made in a prayer, should be demonstratively true ? Is it then 
 demonstratively true, as stated in the prayer used by the Es- 
 tablished Church on the fifth of November, " that King James 
 the First, the queen, the prince and all the royal branches, with 
 the nobility, clergy, and commons of England, then assembled 
 in Parliament, were, by popish treacherij, appointed as sheep 
 to the slaughter, in a most barbarous and savage manner, be- 
 yond the example of former ages ?" On the contrary, is it 
 not almost, if not quite, certain, that the whole was a piece of 
 Protestant treachery, set on foot for the express purpose of 
 ruining the Catholics ? " It was, most probably," says a Pro- 
 testant clergyman, " a machination of Cecil's, and was disco- 
 vered by the loyalty of a Catholic nobleman.*" Now it strikes 
 me, that of the two dubious facts, it is less objectionable to 
 mention in a prayer, the ascent of St. Scholastica into heaven 
 in the form of a dove, than the charge of " Popish treachery, 
 barbarity," &c. If the former be untrue, it can neither in- 
 jure nor offend any one ; for what does it matter to any one, 
 how St. Scholastica ascended into heaven? But if the latter 
 be false, the prayer of the Established Church is a cruel and 
 wicked libel upon the great body of Christians, and the whole 
 service of the fifth of November is an impious and sacrilegous 
 
 * Speech of the Rev. J. P. Jones, of North Bovey, delivered at a county meet- 
 ing at Exeter, 1821. See on the same subject Milner's Letter to a Prebendary 
 Letter vii.
 
 •114 A Defence of the [Let. 2 
 
 mockery of religion, in making the Deity himself a party to a 
 crime as black and deadly as the gunpowder itself. " Thou 
 hypocrite," (I do not mean this term for the lady,) " first cast 
 out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see 
 clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."* 
 
 After these few remarks I think the reader will agree with 
 me, that the extracts brought forward by Vindex to prove the 
 practical idolatri/, of his Catholic brethren, are of much too 
 trifling and too dubious a character to substantiate so serious a 
 charge. This reflection will require additional force when he 
 remembers, that with the best dispositions in the world to bend 
 every thing to his purpose, Vindex has gleaned only the above 
 objections out of the whole of our rituals, pontificals, and pub- 
 lic offices, comprising several folio, quarto, or octavo volumes. 
 I am sure there is not a single doctrine that ever was main- 
 tained, however true or however false, however rational or 
 however absurd, that has not had as many and as weighty 
 arguments brought for and against it from the sacred scriptures 
 alone. It is impossible for any language, however clear, to 
 guard against the quibbles and sophisms of men who are de- 
 termined to find objections. But in a service composed at dif- 
 ferent periods during eighteen centuries, written in different 
 languages, by different authors, in prose, in verse, in simple 
 narrative and lofty oratory, a man must be an ass if he cannot 
 find as many objections as he chooses ; ajid I really wonder that 
 Vindex has not succeeded better. 
 
 I must also remark, that had the quotations from our books 
 of devotion been far more to the purpose, it would have been 
 proper to explain their meaning by our creeds and public pro- 
 fessions of faith, not to gather the meaning of our creeds and 
 professions from our books of devotion. 
 
 But without saying any thing more upon the plan which 
 Vindex has adopted, I must make an observation, or two, on his 
 manner of executing it. It would appear, from his references, 
 that he had actually read our missals, breviaries, &c. Now in 
 this case, for one passage which he found apparently against 
 our doctrines, he found a hundred clearly for them. Why then 
 did he not explain the former by the latter ? He found, for in- 
 stance, in the rubrics of the missal and breviary, a general rule 
 laid down that all our offices should be concluded with one or 
 more j)rmjers, that all these prayers should be addressed to the 
 Deity himself, even when the intercession of the saints was 
 solicited, to show that God is the object of our worship, and 
 
 * Matthew vii.
 
 Sec. 6.] Christian Relif/ioii. 115 
 
 should all conclude with the words, " through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ," &c. to shew that every good we expect, even when 
 granted through the prayers of men on earth or saints in hea- 
 ven, must be originally derived from the merits of Christ, 
 Now I ask, how any man, knowing these particulars, could 
 reconcile it with candour, sincerity, or truth, to conceal them 
 from his readers, when he professed to give a fair statement of 
 our doctrines ? When Vindex gave quotations from our 
 hymns, why did he not explain them by the prayer that always 
 followed them i And why, when he quoted our prayers, did 
 he always, (except in one instance,) neglect to add the accus- 
 tomed termination, " through our Lord Jesus Christ," &c. 
 which, by the rubric, he knew was always required to be added, 
 whether inserted in the letter-press, or omitted for the sake of 
 brevity? Would a good cause require such aids as these? 
 Or would an honourable man employ them in support of a bad 
 one?" 
 
 '' Nontaliaaxilio nee defensoribusistis." 
 
 The conclusions which Viiidex draws from his extracts and 
 quotations, exhibit a curious specimen of his mode of reasoning, 
 and a striking proof of the confusion of his ideas on the sub- 
 ject he undertook to discuss. " What then," says he, "is the 
 inference which is deducible from the extracts just quoted ? 
 Is it that when you bow or kneel before the representations of 
 holy things, nothing more than mere respect is signified I If 
 this be so, it must be respect more highly sublimated than any 
 I ever heard of. According to the plain grammatical con- 
 struction of the passages above cited, I should say that you 
 adore the cross as well as the blessed Virgin Mary and the 
 apostles; and therefore your assertion, that the Latreia (or 
 adoration) is reserved for God alone is completely disproved. 
 If the act of offering up prayers, be not an act of adoration 
 or divine honour, properly so called, all I can say is, that I 
 know not what adoration means."* Here Vindex has at last 
 stumbled upon the truth. He has discovered that perhaps 
 he does not know what adoration means. He certainly either 
 did not know what it meant, or reasoned as if he did not. 
 But after the explanations I have given him, I hope that 
 neither he nor his friends will any more plead ignorance in jus- 
 tification of uncharitableness and misrepresentation. I hope 
 he will now also feel convinced, that if all the poetical, orato- 
 rical and figurativip passages, employed in our respective ser- 
 
 » tetter to the Rev. P, Baincs, p. 25.
 
 116 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 vices, are to be subjected to the test of" a mere grammatical 
 construction, the Church of England will have as little chance 
 of escape as the Catholic. 
 
 §7 
 
 INVOCATION OF ANGELS AND SAINTS. 
 
 How far admittedhy the Church of England. — Explanation 
 and defence of the Catholic doctrine. — Objections of Vin- 
 dex answered. — Justification of the Catholic doctrine hy 
 eminent Protestants. — Injustice and illiherality of modern 
 attacks injurious to the Established Church, and to 
 Christianity in general.— Account of Christianity accor- 
 ding to Dr. Moysey and his friends. 
 
 Hitherto I have confined myself principally to the Catholic 
 doctrine respecting images and pictures, and to the respect we 
 pay to them, and to sacred objects in general. I shall now 
 follow Viudex to the objections he makes against the honours 
 which we give, and the petitions which we address to the saints 
 themselves. But I must first beg leave briefly to explain to 
 the reader what is our actual doctrine on these points, that he 
 may the better understand against what those objections are 
 directed. 
 
 This doctrine is clearly laid down by the council of Trent 
 in the following words : " That the saints reigning with Christ 
 offer up prayers for men, and that it is good and useful suppli- 
 antly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, 
 help and assistance, for the purpose of obtaining benefits from 
 God, through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only 
 Redeemer and Saviour."* These words constitute the whole 
 of what we are required, as Catholics, to believe respecting 
 the invocation of saints. The following statement will enable 
 the reader to understand on what principles this doctrine is 
 founded. 
 
 That the angels are employed by the Almighty in executing 
 various works of kindness to man, is manifest from numberless 
 
 * See the original decree above quoted, Sess, 25.
 
 Sec. 7.] Christian Religion. ..- 117 
 
 passages of Scripture. At one time we find them on earth 
 supplicating the Deity in favour of whole kingdoms ; at another 
 Ave find them in heaven offering up the prayers of the saints ;* 
 at another conducting an army in its various movements ;t at 
 another delivering the divine commands;;]: at another an- 
 nouncing the intended redemption of mankind ; at another res- 
 cuing the Redeemer of the world himself from danger, minis- 
 tering to him in his wants, and consoling him in his sorrows ;|| 
 at another performing the same kind ofiices to private indivi- 
 duals, accompanying them on their journeys, and guarding 
 them in all their ways.§ Our Saviour seems to insinuate that 
 every individual has a guardian appointed him from the an- 
 gelic host, who looks to his charge with a jealous eye.^ We 
 find Abraham imploring upon the children of Joseph, the bles- 
 sing of the angel who had " redeemed him from all evil."** 
 We find the Almighty himself strictly commanding his people 
 to attend to the angel he appointed as their guide, to " obey 
 his voice and not to provoke him," promising to reward the 
 obedience shewn to his angel, as if shewn to himself, &c. In 
 short, we find the angels constantly employed by God, to use 
 the words of St. Paul, as so many ministering spirits sent forth 
 to minister for them, who shall be heirs of salvation."ff 
 Hence the Church of England does not scruple to keep the 
 festival of St. Michael and the angels, and even to copy the 
 Catholic collect, which prays " that as the holy angels always 
 do service (to God) in heaven, so by (his) appointment they may 
 succour and defend us on earth."J:|; 
 
 After the death of Christ, when the gates of heaven were 
 opened to mankind, and " the spirits of the just made perfect" 
 were admitted to a participation with the angels in the joys of 
 heaven, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they would be 
 eager to share with them in their friendly offices to men on 
 earth. Indeed, as their connection with the inhabitants of this 
 lower world was of a more intimate nature than that of the 
 angels could be, it is natural to suppose that they would feel a 
 proportionably more lively interest in the welfare of their 
 
 * Zacbarias i. 12. Rev. v. 8. 
 
 t Exod. xxlii, 20. t Exod. xx. &c. 
 
 II Lake i. Matt. ii. Luke xxii. § Tobias v. Psalm xci, (xc) 11. 
 
 H " Take heed that )'e despise not one of these little ones ; for £ say unto yon 
 
 that in heaven their angels do always see the face of my father who is in heaven," 
 
 Matt, xviii. 10. 
 
 ** Gen, xlviii. 16. tt Heb. i. 14. 
 
 U Common Prayer, Feast of St. Michael.
 
 118 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 earthly friends. That this is not mere surmise, is manifest 
 from the scripture itself. From the parable of the rich man 
 and Lazarus, it is evident that the former even in his place of 
 torments, though not a man we may suppose of very bene- 
 volent feelings, felt an anxiety for his brethren on earth, and 
 even interceded with Abraham in their behalf. In the Reve- 
 lations of St. John, we find the saints mixing with the angels 
 m all the joys of heaven; and, on one occasion, demanding of 
 the Almighty to revenge their " blood on them that dwell on 
 the earth,"* a proof that they had some knowledge of what 
 passed upon it, and that they felt an interest about it ; and if 
 on this occasion we find them demanding punishment on the 
 Avicked, we cannot doubt that on others they would be equally 
 earnest in soliciting favours for the good. Indeed, the demand 
 of vengeance made upon their enemies was probably intended 
 more as a benefit to their friends, who were suffering persecu- 
 tion from the wicked, than as a mere punishment on their per- 
 secutors. 
 
 Had the sacred scriptures come down to a later period, when 
 the apostles themselves and other zealous founders of Christi- 
 anity were admitted into heaven, we should probably have 
 found in them more ample information on this subject. But 
 this information is abundantly supplied by the early writers of 
 Christianity, and by the concurrent belief and practice of the 
 universal Church. It is true tliat Protestants in general do 
 not profess to admit this kind of evidence in deciding matters 
 of belief: they profess to confine themselves wholly to those 
 writings which are generally called by the name of the scrip- 
 tures, and which Catholics, from whom they recieved them ad- 
 mit equally with themselves to be divinely inspired. But the 
 Catholic Church admits the historical and moral evidence of the 
 early Christian writers, to establish certain points of belief or 
 practice, which are either not metioned in scripture, or not laid 
 down in a manner sufficiently clear and explicit ; and it is curi- 
 ous enough that whilst Protestants disclaim the authority of 
 this species of proof, they actually agree with us in grounding 
 some doctrines and practices upon it, which are even in direct 
 contradiction to the scripture itself. Thus the scripture posi- 
 tively commands us to keep holy the sabbath-day, namely, the 
 Saturday; and neither Catholics nor Protestants have any real 
 authority for violating this scriptural command, except the belief 
 and practice of the ancient Church. It was a positive cora- 
 
 * Rev. vi.lO.
 
 Sec. 7.] Christian Rdujion. 119 
 
 mand of the apostles, that Christians should refrain from "things 
 strangled and from blood :"* nor have we any scriptural aiitho- 
 ritv whatever for disobeying this command. In this instance, as 
 in the former, we set aside the command of scripture on the 
 authority of the ancient Church, or, as Catholics express it, of 
 tradition alone. f The same may be said of infant baptism 
 and some other points of belief, common to the Catholic Church 
 and the Established Church of England. In fact, we cannot 
 have a more certain rule. It is impossible that those who were 
 tauo-ht by the apostles should not have known their doctrines, 
 and therefore, if we find any practice or belief prevailing in the 
 Church, in the earliest times, and in every country, we con- 
 sider it certain that such practice or belief must have come from 
 the first teachers of Christianity.! 
 
 Of this description is the belief of the intercession of good 
 men in heaven for their surviving friends on earth. It has al- 
 ways been believed amongst Christians, that death does not en- 
 tirely sever those dear and tender ties that binds hearts toge- 
 ther in this state of existence. It has always been believed 
 that the virtuous parent, when he leaves behind him on earth 
 the dear objects of his tenderest affections, does not forget them 
 for ever : that when translated to a better and happier world, 
 he still looks down with feelings of affectionate solicitude on 
 those he formerly loved, and still continues to offer for them 
 the same fervent prayers in heaven which he constantly poured 
 forth on earth ; that the pastor, in like manner, retains liis af- 
 fection, and continues to offer up his prayers for his former 
 flock, the friend for his former associates, the patriot for his 
 former country, &c. in short, that the virtuous feelings of our 
 nature are rather strengthened than broken by death ; our anx- 
 iety for the true welfare of our friends, rather increased than 
 diminished by our discovering more clearly the true nature of 
 
 * Acts XV. 29. 
 
 t By tbe terras " oral traditions," which Vindex applies to the traditions of the 
 Catholic Church, he seems to be possesed with the vulgar notion, that tradition re- 
 gards only such things as have not been written. Whereas, by the term tradition, 
 Catholic divines mean all those points of beli<^ whick have been handed down to 
 us without having been written in the holy scriptures. But in the writings of the 
 ancient Fathers, historians, &c. they are written, and held in as high estimation by 
 the Church of England as by ourselves, when she has to defend herself against the 
 Dissenters, which she can never do without tradition, and seldom even with it. 
 
 i This rule is laid down by St. Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century. 
 "Quod semper quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditura est, id non nisi anctoritate 
 Apostolica traditum rectissime creditar." Commonitorium, &c. If Protestant 
 Divines would give themselves the trouble to read this work they would understand 
 better why Catholics cannot be prevailed upon to leave the ancient Church, and joia 
 their new systems.
 
 120 A Defenca of the [Let. 2. 
 
 thing's, and our power of assisting them rather improved than 
 injured by our admission to the presence of him from whom 
 every good must flow. " All the holy men, (says Origen,) who 
 have quitted this life, retaining their charity towards those 
 whom they have left behind, we may be allowed to say that 
 they are anxious for their salvation, and that they assist them 
 by their prayers and meditation with God ; for it is written in 
 the book of Maccabees, ' this is Jeremiah, the prophet of God, 
 who always prays for the people.' "* 
 
 It has also been, in every age, believed that God allows to 
 men, who leave this world in his grace, a certain knowledge of 
 what passes here below, particularly amongst those for whom 
 they are solicitous. To what extent this knowledge may be 
 granted, or in what manner it is communicated, we neither 
 pretend nor seek to know. But it has been the belief of all 
 antiquity that when we address ourselves to the inhabitants of 
 heaven, they either hear our prayers, or are, somehow or other, 
 made acquainted with our desires. 
 
 Hence the ancient pastors of the Church not only allowed, 
 but strongly recommended to their disciples to keep up, on 
 their part, this communion of friendly and affectionate inter- 
 course with " the spirits of the just nade perfect,"!" to respect 
 and honour them as fellow creatures raised to the actual en- 
 joyment of those dignities to which we only aspire, and to 
 second, by our addresses to them, the exertion of that increased 
 influence which they now possess with the Giver of all good 
 gifts. " Let us be mindful of one another in our prayers 
 (says St. Cyprian) with one mind and with one heart, in this 
 world, and in the next ; let us always pray, with mutual charity, 
 relieving our sufferings and afflictions. And may the charity of 
 him who, by the divine favour, shall first depart hence, still 
 persevere before the Lord : may his prayer for our brethren 
 and sisters not cease.";]; 
 
 It must be admitted that this belief is, in the highest degree, 
 pleasing and consoling, both to the living and the dying ; nor 
 is it easy to discover what harm there could be in entertaining 
 it, even if we had not any positive authority for it. The in- 
 bred feelings of our nature may be safely followed as the will 
 of God, when there is no injunction from him to the contrary. 
 Why then should the dying parent be refused the consolation 
 of thinking that he will still be allowed, when taken from those 
 
 * Origen : lib. iii in Cant. Cantic. torn, iii, p. 75. Faith of Catholics, p. 433. 
 He lived in the third century. 
 
 t Heb. xii. 23. t Ep. )x. p. 143. Faith of Catholics, p. 433.
 
 Sec. 7.] Chi'islktn Relujion. 121 
 
 he mourns to leave behind, to watch over and befriend the ob- 
 jects of his parental love i Why should the child, vfhen af- 
 flicted for the recent loss of a virtuous parent ; the newly 
 converted Christian for that of the author of his spiritual birth ; 
 the friend for the death of his friend; be condemned or res- 
 trained, when reflecting on the past virtues and present happi- 
 ness of him they loved, they call upon his spirit to remember 
 them still, and, as he can, continue to befriend them? To 
 repress emotions like these, is to add unnecessarily to the abun- 
 dant miseries of life, to cast a chill upon the finest feelings of 
 our nature, and to impart to the amiable and endearing religion 
 of Christ, the coldness and cheerlessness which characterized 
 the religions, true or false, of the ages before his coming. 
 
 It is this doctrine which Dr. Moysey in his charge denomi- 
 nated the " adoration of saints," and stigmatized with the 
 harsh appellation of idolatry. Vindex more modest, seems 
 half willing to withdraw the charge of idolatry on this head, 
 and substitute in its place certain minor accusations. I shall 
 consider his objections as coolly and as seriously as I can ; but 
 he will excuse me if I do not treat them with all the ceremony 
 to which he may think them entitled. To me they appear 
 equally childish, mischievous and ill-natured. 
 
 " Praying to the saints to intercede for us with God, tends 
 to lower our ideas concerning God J We are taught to con- 
 sider his love and mercy to be infinite, &c." But why, let me 
 ask, should praying to the saints to intercede for us with God 
 tend to lower our ideas concorning God ? *' We are taught 
 to consider his love and mercy to be infinite, and that the 
 throne of grace is accessible without the interposition of 
 glorified beings." This we admit, and therefore we generally 
 address our prayers directly to God. But if Vindex will con- 
 clude from our occasionally begging the intercession of saints, 
 that we believe the throne of grace is not accessible without 
 the interposition of glorified beings, I hope he will allow me 
 to conclude, from the custom in the Church of England of 
 praying for each other, that she believes the throne of grace is 
 not accessible without the interposition of beings that are not 
 glorified. And why should not the intercession of sinners on 
 earth be as injurious to the mediatorship of Christ as the inter- 
 cession of saints in heaven ? 
 
 But how, in the name of all that is ingenious, does Vindex 
 make out that " the design of God to draw our entire 
 affections towards him, to inspire with unreserved confidence 
 in his goodness, and to purify our souls from idolatrous and 
 
 Q
 
 122 A Defence of the [Let. 2 
 
 superstitious dross, is completely counteracted by our supposing 
 others, besides himself, to be hearers of our prayers ?" This 
 objection is above all power of reply. I must therefore merely 
 say of it, 
 
 " Valeat quantum valere potest." 
 
 " But," says Vindex " you do not affect to deny that in the 
 overflowings of your respect, you bow down before the saints, 
 and offer up worship before them." I beg Vindex's pardon, 
 I never admitted any such thing. Oh the contrary, I objected 
 to the terms adoration and worship being at all employed to 
 designate the respect we pay to the saints, those words, in 
 modern languages, being generally employed to signify the 
 honour due only to the Deity. 
 
 " But," resumes Vindex, " what proofs can you bring that 
 the saints do actually know all that you attribute to them. ?" 
 Supposing that they should not know all that we attribute to 
 them, what is the harm ? If a saint should not hear me when 
 I beg his intercession, the worst that could happen would be 
 that my labour would be lost. Surely I should not be an 
 idolater or an impious man because I thought a person to have 
 quicker hearing than he really had. If a man is in distress at 
 sea, must he not call for assistance unless he is quite sure that 
 his cries will be heard by the nearest vessel, or on the shore I 
 And if he happen not to be heard, must he be accounted to 
 have attributed to men the omnipresence or omniscience of the 
 Deity ? Should we even suppose, that in another world the 
 knowledge of man is so encreased as to enable him to know 
 every thing that passes in this globe of the earth, would this 
 be supposing him to possess infinite knowledge ? I am sure 
 Milton's devil, when, in the midst of ten thousand thousand 
 worlds of greater magnitude, he was seeking our little habita- 
 tion, would have laughed at any one who should have told him 
 that, whoever knew the whole of what passed in that one little 
 ball, knew as much as the omniscient Deity. I think it very 
 probable that, in another state of existence, the blessed may be 
 enabled to take in even a much wider range of information 
 than this world can furnish ; but it is not necessary for justify- 
 ing the Catholie doctrine, to suppose that they take in half so 
 much. It is merely necessary to suppose that, by some means 
 or other, the saints become acquainted with such subjects as 
 regard themselves. 
 
 •• But," continues Vindex (and I beg the reader to observe 
 this master piece of ratiocination,) " If you think this know-
 
 Sec. 7.] Chrislian Religion. 123 
 
 ledge constitutes their happiness, this knowledge must be per- 
 fect, that is, it must embrace a clear and full insight into the 
 whole scheme of Providence." Now, in the name of Aris- 
 totle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine, and all the metaphy- 
 sicians tliat ever lived, how did Vindex arrive at this strange 
 conclusion I Can no knowledge but such as is perfect confer 
 happiness ? Can any one doubt that Vindex himself derives 
 great happiness from the extent of his knowledge and the 
 acuteness of his metaphysical discriminations ? Yet the know- 
 ledge of Vindex is not perfect. " But unless the knowledge 
 of the saints is perfect, it"would not be perfect happiness; it 
 would be suspense." If, by perfect, Vindex means infinite, 
 we know as well as he, that it can belong only to the Deity. 
 But if by perfect knowledge he means such an extent of know- 
 ledge, as is proportioned to the limited capacities of the 
 creatures who possess it, such knowledge, though not infinite, 
 will, we apprehend, quite satisfy the saints, and secure them 
 from suspense. I shall not pursue Vindex any further in this 
 curious dissertation. His reasoning all falls to the ground 
 after he is informed that it never once entered into our heads 
 to suppose that the saints " saw clearly the issue of all things, 
 or that they knew exactly what God will do to the end of the 
 world." We cannot therefore admit the justice of another 
 curious conclusion which he draws from these fruitful premises. 
 " The prayers of mortals and the intercession of saints are 
 quite different. The one supposes ignorance which is confessed, 
 the other implies knowledge which remains to be proved." As 
 I think it will be long before this perfect knowledge of the 
 saints has been proved, I hope Vindex will, in the meantime, 
 allow us to believe, that the prayers of our fellow creatures, 
 whether living or dead, are of the same nature, and to take 
 our chance of having our prayers heard by the saints, and of 
 benefitting by their intercession, as far as they can employ it in 
 our favour. 
 
 It may be proper here to enquire whether there is any thing 
 in the constitution of the Established Church which requires 
 of its ministers to charge the Catholics with the crime of 
 idolatry. I have admitted that the Book of Homilies, which 
 the thirty-fifth article of the Church of England recommends 
 as containing "a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary 
 for these times," (two centuries and a half ago,) does positively 
 accuse us of this impiety. But I have also proved, from the 
 dissertations of Archdeacon Paley, that no member of the 
 Established Church is bound, at the present day, io believe or
 
 124 A Defend' of the [Let. '2 
 
 maintain all the doctrines either of the homilies or the articles. 
 That such has been the opinion and practice of many of the 
 most eminent Protestants, on the subject in question, might be 
 shewn by numberless quotations from their works. I shall 
 select a few, which happen at this moment to lie within my 
 reach. 
 
 The learned Selden, to whose works I have had frequent 
 occasion to refer, and who is styled by Grotius (his contem- 
 porary and rival in literary fame) the " glory of England," 
 says " Idolatry is in a man's thought, not in another's. If I 
 bow to the altar, why am I guilty of idolatry ? Because a 
 bystander thinks so ? I am sure I do not believe the altar to 
 be God, and the God I worship may be bowed to in all places, 
 and at all times. The Papists taking away the second com- 
 mandment is not haply so horrid a thing, nor so unreasonable 
 amongst Christians, as we make it: for the Jews could make 
 no figure of God but they must commit idolatry, because he 
 had taken no shape ; but since the assumption of our flesh we 
 know what shape to paint God in."* He admits that no well 
 informed Catholics pray to images, nor probably a7iy 
 Catholics in England, though he thinks "it is to be feared 
 the ignorant do" in other countries. Of this we shall speak 
 hereafter. 
 
 The next authority I shall adduce, is that of Grotius himself, 
 whose quotation I beg the reader particularly to notice, because 
 it entirely agrees with the view I have taken of the subject in 
 the preceding passages. " Images," says he, " are in the 
 churches over which the Pope presides. So are they also in 
 those of the Greeks, and in some of those of the Protestants. 
 In fact, the second commandment being a positive precept, 
 and given to the Jews on account of the circumstances of time 
 and place, no more binds the people of Christ than the law 
 which enjoins the observance of the Sabbath, (Saturday,) as 
 we have demonstrated in treating of the decalogue. Images 
 are helps of the memory ; and as, when the name of a king is 
 
 • Vol. Hi. page 20^3. Selden is mistaken when he speaks of the Catholics 
 taking away the second coraraandnient. In all our larger works of instruction we 
 copy the commandments, as the Church of England does, at full length, from the 
 scripture itself. We join together, into one commandment, what Protestants call 
 the first and second, in the same manner as they join together what we call the 
 ninth and tenth. The scripture makes no mention of what is the first, second, or 
 third commandment, and they have been variously divided at different times. The 
 division used at this day by the Catholic Church was in use in the time of St. 
 Augustine, that is, about twelve hundred years before the Protestant religion was 
 thought of, a proof that the Church did not adopt it " for the convenience of prop- 
 ping up its own system," as Vindex very learnedly and very modestly asserts,
 
 Sec. 7.] Christian Religion. 125 
 
 mentioned, we are accustomed to show some token of respect, 
 though the kmg be absent, so, when the recollection of a mar- 
 tyr is brought to our minds by any external sign, we express in 
 like manner, that reverence and affection, which are due to the 
 virtues of such great men. We have also proved, in treating 
 of the decalogue, that there is no external reverence so reserved 
 to God alone, that the same has not been also given by the 
 people of God, to kings, magistrates and prophets. We have 
 proved also, that the import of such acts is different from that 
 of sacrifice, libation aud incense; though, even with respect to 
 bowing down and other external acts, it may be a matter of 
 prudence, particularly when the common people are concerned, 
 to make a difference in the external act according to the difference 
 of the honour intended. In all this, therefore, there is no 
 idolatry ; otherwise the most religious men among the Jews, 
 would have been idolaters. Moreover, the Pope does not 
 oblige any one to use images : and if any excess be committed 
 in honouring the saints or their images (nor can it be denied 
 that this may be, and has been the case) bishops and kings will 
 only do their duty in correcting such abuses. Nor will any 
 good Pope oppose them in this ; nay, the council of Trent 
 itself recommends it to be done, and prohibits also the sale of 
 any of the sacred functions or duties. Kings aud bishops 
 therefore ought to be entreated to do their duty, in which they 
 will be seconded by the canons of the Church, and the decrees 
 of the Popes, as any one may be convinced by consulting the 
 codex of Gratian."* How delightful it is to the feelings of a 
 Catholic, and how profound is the respect he feels for a Pro- 
 testant, who, like this learned adversary, will merely do him 
 " the justice of stating his doctrines fairly !" Why may not 
 Dr. Moysey and his friends " go and do in like manner ?" 
 
 The author of " An Essay towards a Proposal for Catholic 
 Communion, by a Minister of the Church of England," asks 
 the following question, " Whether those in communion with 
 the Roman Church, are not idolaters in the worshipping of 
 images f He answers, " I have strictly enquired into this 
 point and by all I can observe, both in their councils, profes- 
 sions of faith, catechisms, spiritual books, and other books of 
 devotion, I cannot see but they as firmly believe in one only 
 
 * Grotius de Antchr. Op. Theolog. torn. 3. p. 485. col. 2. When Grotius 
 speaks of sacrifice, libation, and incense, as acts reserved to God alone, he speaks of 
 incensii used as a sacrifice, and burnt on an altar, not as used with the thurible or 
 censer, in which way he knew it was employed to shew respect to the books of the 
 gospel, to the altar, the people, and even, as I before observed, to a corpse at a 
 funeral.
 
 126 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 God as we do ia the Church of England; and with as 
 much constancy declare, that the honour of God ought not to 
 be given to another," &c, " From all which," continues he 
 " I must conclude, that all the charge of idolatry, is only a 
 consequence of ours, and such as they expressly disown, I may 
 say abhor, and therefore, according to our fourth rule, ought 
 not to be insisted on as an obstruction to communion ; espe- 
 cially since that Church imposes on none the use of images, 
 but leaves all its members at liberty of using them if they 
 think fit, or of wholly letting them alone ; which according to 
 our second rule, is motive enough for waving this question, 
 since whatever the idolatry be, they oblige none to be guilty of 
 it." He quotes, in support of his statement, the authority of 
 Bishop Montague, Dr. Pocklington and other eminent divines 
 of the Established Church. He might have added the im- 
 pressive admonition of the learned Thorndike,* " Let not 
 them (who charge the Papists to be idolaters) lead the people 
 by the nose, to believe that they can prove their supposition 
 when they cannot." j- 
 
 I might add to these authorities the opinions of, I believe, a 
 a large majority of the Established clergy of the present day, 
 who see the uncharitableness and are ashamed of the illiberal - 
 ity of employing vulgar abuse against their Catholic brethren. 
 In the City of Bath, I am told there are, at this season of the 
 year, generally some hundreds of respectable clergymen, many 
 of whom, we may suppose, are quite as well-informed, and as 
 zealous in the cause of religion as Dr. Moysey, and have more 
 leisure upon their hands for defending it. Had they approved 
 of his violent charge, or thought his assertion of our idolatry 
 necessary for the support of the Established Church, can we 
 suppose that not one of them all would have come forward to 
 justify his conduct I Would he have been driven to the poor 
 shift of employing in his defence the pens of anonymous 
 writers, who can insult with impunity and misrepresent without 
 fear I 
 
 It cannot therefore be pretended that the defence of the 
 Established Church required of Dr. Moysey and his friends to 
 charge their Catholic brethren with idolatry. Neither will it, 
 
 * '' Essay towards a Proposal," &c. p. 54, &c. third edition 1812, the first 
 edition was published ia 1704. I have been told, that the Rev. Author of this 
 work afterwards became a Catholic. It is an event which would happen ruore fre- 
 quently, if men would follow his examining our tenets for themselves, and (he 
 advice of Mr. Thorndike in not suffering themselves "to be led by the nose," by ig- 
 norant or interested men, who misrepresent our doctrines. 
 
 t Just iveiglds and mettsurcs, page 11,
 
 Sec. 7.] Christian Religion. 127 
 
 I am sure, be said by any one who has read these pag'es, that 
 it is quite certain we are g'uilty of that crime. Now is it 
 consistent with the morality of the Established Church posi- 
 tively to charge a neighbour with a crime, and publicly to pro- 
 claim his guilt to the world as certain, when it is not so ? I 
 am sure this is not the morality of the gospel, nor is it that of 
 the Catholic Church, Were it known to me, as a minister of 
 religion, that any Catholic had publicly and falsely accused a 
 Protestant, or the Protestant body, of any odious doctrine 
 calculated to injure them, I should think myself bound to 
 oblige that man to make a public retractation and apology, 
 just as much as if he had injured Catholics, and if he refused 
 to do it, I would not give him the sacraments of the Church 
 even on his death-bed. The same, I am confident, would be 
 the conduct of any Catholic clergyman in the kingdom. 
 
 But there are other aggravating circumstances in the case of 
 Dr. Moysey and his friends. The former at least, numbers 
 some respectable Catholics amongst his acquaintance, who 
 have shewn him attention, and from whom, I am very sure, he 
 never received any just cause of complaint. It is therefore not 
 only unjust, but illiberal and unhandsome, to hold up to public 
 derision these very friends, who had a right to expect from Iiim 
 a different return. Will he pretend that he does not injure 
 them by misrepresentations of their religion ? He is much 
 mistaken. He injures them most seriously. It is no small 
 drawback upon the pleasure of society, when a person knows 
 that he has been represented as a fool or a criminal, and does 
 not know, but many of those, with whom he associates, really 
 think him guilty. So much is this felt by Catholics, that hun- 
 dreds, perhaps thousands, are at this moment living abroad, 
 principally because they cannot brook to live amongst men, 
 who hate, despise, or suspect them. I have reason to believe, 
 that some very respectable and wealthy Catholic families might, 
 at this moment, have added not a little to the society of this 
 city, had it not been for the sermons and charges of such men 
 as the Archdeacon and his friends. 
 
 I am aware, that the better informed part of the community, 
 particularly such as have lived amongst Catholics, do not 
 believe the violent accusations made against us, even when they 
 hear them from the pulpit. But Dr. Moysey should remember, 
 that the great majority of mankind, as well in the highest as in 
 the lowest classes, are not well-informed. He cannot be igno- 
 rant, that of the many who compose the fashionable society in 
 this city, very few indeed have had the means of examining
 
 128 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 into the truth of the doctrines taught them by their clergy, and 
 that, generally speaking, they implicitly believe the accusations 
 they hear against the Catholics. I could bring him instances 
 from persons of the first rank in Bath, who have acknowledged 
 that they " hated the Catholics" on account of their supposed 
 tenets, who really thought them a poor misled priest-ridden 
 race, and who even withheld from poverty and distress the 
 hand of relief, because the object " worshipped the Virgin 
 Mary instead of God !" To the Catholic clergy in particular, 
 considerations like these, frequently render society unbearable. 
 A man who has any dignity of soul, will prefer absolute soli- 
 tude to the society of men who view him in the light in which 
 Dr. Moysey and his friends would represent a priest of the old 
 religion. These feelings are not a little sharpened when he 
 reflects, as a Catholic clergyman always can, that his life is 
 spent in labouring to promote good-will and peace equally 
 amongst men of all persuasions, and in iuculcating the obliga- 
 tion of kind feeling, respect and every charitable office, equally 
 towards those who make it their constant business to slander 
 him, and those who do him justice. The shallow excuse 
 which the Archdeacon and his defenders have brought forward 
 to hide the illiberality of their conduct, by deprecating all hos- 
 tility to our persons, whilst they condemn us as idolaters, would 
 be admissible, if their assertions respecting our religion were 
 true. But unable as they are to prove them so, their harsh 
 and unprovoked attacks, are equally irreconcileable with cha- 
 rity, decency, and justice. 
 
 The illiberality of such conduct appears still more from the 
 consideration that in condemning, as the book of Homilies and 
 its admirers do, the whole Catholic Church, " laity and clergy, 
 men, women and children, of damnable idolatry, of all vices 
 most detested of God, and most damnable to man," ever since 
 the eighth century, they not only strike, with one wide blasting 
 anathema, the immense majority of Christians at the present 
 day, but nearly all the Christians in the world, for the last 
 thirteen hundred years, including all the sects of Eastern Eu- 
 rope and Asia, comprising all their own ancestors from the 
 sixth to the sixteenth century, taking in all those good and 
 zealous men who converted us from Paganism, to the know- 
 ledge of the true God, all the virtuous and disinterested mis- 
 sionaries, who carried the name of Christ and the blessings of 
 civilization to many of the neighbouring nations of Europe, 
 and not unfrequently sealed their sincerity with their blood. 
 The malediction extends its bane to all our Saxon and English
 
 Sec. 7.] Christian Religion. 12^ 
 
 sovereigns, warriors, statesmen and patriots, to whom we are 
 indebted for the most perfect government in the world ; to all 
 those zealous and disinterested pastors, who, principally out of 
 their own incomes, erected, in honour of the living God, all 
 the cathedrals of England, built almost all the parish churches, 
 founded and endowed nearly all the great schools and colleges, 
 and established both the universities ; in fine, gave to the 
 Church of England, the whole of those princely revenues 
 which confer upon their possessors so much respectability, 
 comfort and power, nay, preserved for them the sacred scrip- 
 tures themselves, together with every ancient work of sacred 
 and profane learning, and furnished them with every thing that 
 is most valuable in their liturgy itself. To men like these, all 
 Englishmen owe gratitude, respect and admiration. To vio- 
 late the sacredness of their fame, to dig up their venerable re- 
 mains from their places of consecrated rest, to commit them as 
 spiritual traitors to the flames, or bury them as spiritual mur- 
 derers and spiritual suicides in the public highways, and all 
 this, perhaps, for no other person than to accomplish some 
 pitiful object which will not bear naming, to give point to a 
 clerical address, which would be dull without it, to defend the 
 rashness of an unprovoked aggressor, or to gratify the harsh, 
 and unamiable feelings which nature or prejudice has instilled, 
 is ill-becoming those who boast so loudly of mildness and tole- 
 ration, and who are for ever exclaiming against uncharitable- 
 ness in others. 
 
 If Dr. Moysey and his friends think they serve the cause of 
 the Established Church, or of Christianity itself, by their vio- 
 lence against the Catholics, they are much mistaken. Expe- 
 rience has proved that such violence will not prevent the 
 members of the Established Church from deserting her com- 
 munion and becoming dissenters, whilst it furnishes the latter 
 with an imanswerable justification of any similar attacks they 
 may make upon the Church of England herself. An argu- 
 ment that proves too much, proves nothing", and frequently 
 injures the cause that employs it. This remark is proved by 
 the simple fact that Protestants, seeing the incredibilty of the 
 accusations made against the Catholic religion, are often led 
 to examine into their accuracy, and finding them false, return to 
 the faith of their ancestors. It is the cause of nine-tenths of 
 the conversions that are made to Catholicity. It never hap- 
 pens that a controversy like the present, does not procure some 
 converts to the Catholic religion, whilst a single instance will 
 never be found of any Catholic forsaking his religion in conse- 
 
 R
 
 130 A Defence of the [Let. 2 
 
 quence of the violent accusations made against it. On the con- 
 trary, such accusations serve to coufirm him the more strongly 
 in his faith, because knowing them to be utterly false, he is the 
 more firmly convinced that those who employ such arguments 
 must be in want of better, 
 
 Infidelity itself can desire no better arguments than those 
 which the violent accusers of Catholics offer them. For it is 
 impossible to reconcile such accusations with the truth of 
 scripture. That scripture predicted, that the religion of 
 Christ should be an universal religion. " In thy seed," said 
 the Almighty to Abraham, " shall all the natiotis of the 
 earth be blessed."* " Ail the ends of the world," says the 
 prophet David, " shall remember and turn unto the Lord 
 and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee."t 
 " It shall come to pass in the last days," said the prophet 
 Isaiah, " that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be estab- 
 lished on the top of mountains, and shall be exalted above the 
 hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.";]: " Fro7n the rising 
 of the sun," said the last of the Jewish prophets, " even to 
 the going down of the same, my name shall be great among 
 the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered to my 
 name, and a clean offering."!] Hence the commission which 
 Jesus Christ gave to his apostles at his ascension was to estab- 
 lish an universal religion: " Go teach all nations, and lo ! I 
 am with you."§ And hence the term Catholic, or universal, 
 is applied to the Church of Christ in the apostles' creed as its 
 perpetual characteristic. Now, neither the religion of the 
 Church of England, nor all its multifarious connections, can 
 have the smallest pretensions to such an universality ; nor, can 
 the Catholic Church, which alone possesses such clauus, be 
 allowed to come forward to save the truth of scripture, if it 
 have apostatized from Christ, by falling into damnable idol- 
 atry. 
 
 in the next place, the scripture clearly teaches that the true 
 Church of Christ shall continue for ever. For this purpose 
 he promises to her his continual protection, " Go, teach all 
 nations ; and lo ! I am with you, alway, even unto the end of 
 the ivorld."*^ He declares that the powers of hell shall never 
 prevail against her. " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
 will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it."** These promises are confirmed by different pre- 
 
 * Gen. xxii. 18. t Psalm xxii. 27. t Isaiah ii. 2, 
 
 II Maluchi i. II. $ Matt, xxviii. f Matt, xxviii. 20 
 
 ** Matt, xvi. 19.
 
 f 
 
 Sec. 7.] Christian Religion. 131 
 
 dictions of the prophets, who foretold that what Christ here 
 promised, should actually be fulfilled. "In the days of these 
 kings, " said the prophet Daniel, "shall the God of heaven set 
 up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, and it shall stand 
 for ever."* Now, if it be true, as Vindex and the book of 
 Homilies maintain, that the whole Christian Church, laity and 
 clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of 
 men, women, and children of whole Christendom, have been 
 at once drowned in abominable idolatry, of all vices most de- 
 tested of God, and most damnable to man, and that for the 
 space of eight hundred years and more,"*f- how will they recon- 
 cile this grand apostacy with the truth of scripture I Their 
 account of the Christian religion will be this. 
 
 The Christian religion was founded by Christ, and preached 
 by the apostles and their legitimate successors, acting under 
 his commission, through the different countries of the then 
 known world ; and so great were the numbers which every 
 where became Christians, that the term Catholic, or universal, 
 was applied to the Christian Church in the apostolic times, 
 and handed down iu the creed to all future ages, as its perpe- 
 tual characteristic. But after 300 years, idolatry began to 
 creep uito the Church : in the sixth age it had arrived 
 at such a pitch that " it scandalized the Jews, and roused 
 the indignation, of the very Pagans." In the eighth cen- 
 tury, the dark shades of idolatry had covered the whole 
 earth, and, for the space of eight hundred years, the 
 gates of hell prevailed against the Church, and Christ forsook 
 his promised charge. But in the sixteenth century it pleased 
 God to raise up Henry the Eighth, King of England, to whom 
 he gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which he had for- 
 merly given to Peter. This royal apostle was inspired, first, 
 with a desire of a second wife whilst his first was living, then 
 of breaking communion with the great idolatrous Catholic 
 Church, which would not allow him that privilege. He was 
 then commissioned by heaven to resuscitate the pure religion 
 of Christ, which, for near a thousand years, had been drowned 
 in the ocean of idolatry ; and by means of rigorous penal and 
 exclusive laws, by banishing or putting to death all the old 
 idolatrous clergy in the kingdom, and inducing a purer and 
 more enlightened race into their sees and livings, by obliging 
 all laymen, whether they would or not, to attend the churches 
 
 * Dan. ii, 44. See on this subject the Groinids of the Old Religion. 
 t Book' of Homilies, Peril of Idolatry, part iii. page 201. Oxford Edition, 181C.
 
 132 A Defence of the {Let. 2. 
 
 of these new apostles, Henry the Eighth, with his infant son 
 and illegitimate daughter, his successors in the chair of Peter, 
 contrived to bring over to the religion of Christ, about one- 
 third of the population of an island called Great Britain. 
 But no sooner were these peaal laws relaxed, and men left at 
 some degree of liberty to follow their own judgment, than the 
 Christian religion again began rapidly to decline. Some 
 returned to their ancient idolatry ; many, regardless of the 
 authority given to the ministers of Christ by the king and par- 
 liament of England, turned their backs upon them, refused 
 their spiritual guidance, and in spite of the additional expense 
 in times of deep distress, set up hundreds of new sects, and 
 thousands of new conventicles, in short, continued by their de- 
 fections and oppositions so to weaken the religion of Christ, 
 that it is calculated by its most strenuous advocates, that were 
 half a dozen Catholic peers, the ancient nobility of the land, 
 and as many Catholic gentlemen admitted into the parliament 
 of Great Britain, the total ruin of pure Christianity would be 
 the inevitable consequence. 
 
 Such is the history of the Christian religion according to 
 Dr. Moysey and his friends. They may themselves think it 
 as credible as they please, and gloss it over in whatever forms 
 of expression they are able. A man who has to chuse between 
 infidelity, and a Christianity like this, must have a strong 
 faith indeed, if he embrace the latter. But had the charge of 
 idolatry, or damnable error, not been advanced against the 
 Catholic Church, the miraculous manner in which that Church 
 was orignally established, its wonderful propagation through all 
 the countries of the known world, its providential preservation 
 and unbroken succession of pastors through every age since 
 the apostolic times, conformably to the clear predictions of 
 Christ, and its continued and encreasing universality, in spite 
 of all the opposition of earth and hell down to the present day, 
 are circumstances which form a chain of argument, the strong- 
 est that can be opposed to the assaults of infidelity, and the 
 best calculated of all others to preserve Christianity. 
 
 It may, indeed, be difficult to justify the separation of 
 England from the Universal Church, without supposing that 
 the latter had ceased to be the Church of Christ. But it will 
 still be more difficult to prove, on such a supposition, that the 
 Church of England has any claims to that title, that its pastors 
 have any legitimate authority from Christ, or that a small na- 
 tional Church, which, like a house built on the sea-shore and 
 daily encroached upon by the waves, is constantly weakened
 
 Sec. 8.] Christian Religion. 133 
 
 by the defection of its own members, and is, now confined to 
 the popuUition of, at most, one-third of a single kingdom, is 
 the universal Church of Christ built upon a rock, against 
 which no waves, no winds, no storms, no assaults of the infer- 
 nal powers should ever prevail. The Catholic Church has not 
 the least ambition to be acknowledged by the Church of 
 of England as a portion of the true Church, She will stand 
 or fall by herself alone. But the Catholics of England would 
 be glad to be exempted from misrepresentation and abuse, and 
 thev would much rather that the Established Church should 
 enjoy prosperity, than that total disbelief should continue its 
 ravages in the country. But to leave Dr. Moysey and his 
 Christianity, and return to the main subject. 
 
 §8 
 
 Abuses existing in the Catholic Religion, not idolatry. — 
 Superstition and credulity, common to Catholics and 
 Protestants, though different in form. — Advice to travel- 
 lers. 
 
 From what has been said I consider it demonstrated ; 1st. 
 that there neither is, nor ever has been any idolatry in the doc- 
 trines of the Catholic Church on the subject of saints and 
 images. 2dly, That in England, at the present day, no idol- 
 atry is committed by Catholics, on either of these heads. But 
 it is fair to enquire, whether in Catholic countries many serious 
 practical abuses do not prevail, particularly amongst the 
 lower classes. 
 
 That abuses do exist I consider certain, both from the na- 
 ture of man, the admission of the council of Trent, the fre- 
 quet complaints of Catholic writers, and the constant endea- 
 vours of Catholic bishops and pastors in foreign countries to 
 guard the people against them. But, whether such a crime as 
 idolatry is ever committed amongst Christians I very much 
 doubt. For, as I have before proved, and as Selden justly 
 argues, no man will worship an image as God unless he 
 believes it to be God ; and I cannot believe, that in the whole 
 of Christendom, there can exist any man or woman, so
 
 134 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 ignorant in Christian times, as to believe that an image or a 
 saint is God. 
 
 The abuses therefore which do exist I consider to be merely 
 superstitious, not idolatrous ; though even of these, for the 
 reasons assigned in a former part of this dissertation, I believe 
 the number is much smaller than English travellers, who are 
 unacquainted equally with the import of ancient ceremonies, 
 and of the instructions which, in all well regulated dioceses, 
 are constantly given to the people, are apt to suppose. It may 
 sometimes happen, that too much attention is paid to little 
 observances, introduced by the private authority of individuals, 
 who have more zeal than knowledge, and more piety than good 
 taste. It may happen at other times, that too much impor- 
 tance is attached, and too much confidence placed in external 
 forms, by persons, (of whom there are great numbers in all re- 
 ligions,) who being unwilling to take the trouble of subduing 
 their passions and avoiding sin, which constitutes the essence 
 of religion, are glad to magnify to themselves the efficacy of 
 forms and ceremonies, the use of which costs them nothing. 
 Does Dr. Moysey doubt that motives of thi&,kind have caused 
 many desertions from the Established Church, to some of the 
 minor divisions of Protestantism, where greater stress is said 
 to be laid on inward workings of the spirit and on sanctification 
 bestowed free of trouble or exertion on the fortunate sin- 
 ner ? 
 
 But that the abuses I have admitted are not the necessary 
 consequence of Catholic tenets, I consider certain from these 
 facts ; first, that they do not exist amongst those who are well 
 instructed in its doctrines, but only amongst the ignorant. 
 Secondly, because there are certainly, not more superstitions 
 amongst the Catholics who use images, than amongst Protes- 
 tants who are without them, though the superstitions of each 
 may be different. The fact is, mankind is naturally inclined 
 to superstition, and nothing but knowledge, which cannot be 
 sufficiently imparted to them all, can preserve them from 
 falling into it, whatever their religion may be; but it depends 
 upon various circumstances, what particular form their super- 
 stition Avill assume. In this country I have found a much 
 greater degree of superstition amongst Protestants than 
 amongst Catholics, in the belief of fortune-tellers, witchcraft, 
 omens, lucky and unlucky days, nay, frequently in the spiritual 
 powers which they believe the Catholic clergy to possess, and 
 for the exertion of which they not unfrequently apply to us. 
 But Catholics who are told from their infancv that all these
 
 Sec. 8.] Christian Rdujion. 135 
 
 things are forbidden by the first commandment, and who, 
 whenever they commit them, are obliged to confess their fault 
 and sincerely promise amendment, are infinitely freer from such 
 superstitions ; but they may be guilty of others, with which I 
 am unacquainted. 
 
 Whether every exertion is made in Catholic countries, which 
 ought to be, to eradicate or prevent superstitions, I cannot 
 pretend to say. But if any would assert, that the chance of 
 correcting such abuses, as actually do exist in the most igno- 
 rant portion of the Catholic Church, would justify, in prudence 
 or in piety, the separation of any country from the communion 
 of the Universal Church, the establishment of a new order of 
 ministers, and a new source of spiritual jurisdiction, the con- 
 tinuance for centuries of ehdless divisions, contentions, animos- 
 ities and hatreds, the enactment of cruel, sanguinary and 
 oppressive laws against the majority of a nation, in fine, the 
 risk of involving a whole people in scenes of violence and 
 bloodshed, and, perhaps, leaving them at last without any 
 Christianity whatever, I entirely disagree with him. I had 
 rather, for my part, see half the old women in the kingdom 
 place too muoh confidence in the burning of a taper, than half 
 the young men applying the torch of destruction to the dwel- 
 lings of the other. 
 - If any one is wishful to ascertain to what extent, idolatry or 
 superstition prevails on the subject in question in Catholic 
 countries, I would recommend to him, when he next travels 
 abroad, to adopt the folloAving ordeal. Perhaps in Flanders, 
 Italy, or Spain, he will observe some poor woman lighting a 
 little taper, before a very tawdry image of the Blessed Virgin, 
 and then kneeling down before it to say some prayers. Let not 
 my friend Viudex, should he be the man to make the experi- 
 ment, be too much transported with zeal at this shocking sight, 
 nor, in the first ardour of his piety, overturn the poor woman, 
 or insult the image. Let him not even exclaim idolatry, abom- 
 ination of desolation, or any other expression of orthodox 
 horror, with which he may be familiar. Such conduct would 
 only frighten the party against whom it is directed, and prevent 
 the chance of his receiving any answers. But, bridling his 
 feelings for a few moments, let him quietly and good-naturedly 
 approach the suppliant, and address to her the followiug inter- 
 rogatory. " My good woman, what is your object in burning 
 that taper J" I predict he will receive for answer, ' It is to 
 honour the Holy Virgin or the Mother of God.' " But is 
 that figure the Mother of God ?" The answer will be, ' It is
 
 136 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 her image,' " But do you think that the Mother of God is a 
 goddess? or that she can grant you any favour, which she does 
 not first receive from God?" The answer will be * No.' 
 " Do you think that image can hear you V The answer will 
 be again ' No ;' or perhaps it may be only a smile signifying 
 that the interrogator is supposed to be in jest. " Do you 
 think that the imago before which you are burning that taper 
 and praying, can either see, hear or help you, or that there re- 
 sides in it any divinity, virtue, or power, which entitles it to 
 the honours you pay it ?" A more homely mode of expression 
 may be required to make the questions understood I but I feel 
 perfectly convinced that the moment their meaning is compre- 
 hended, a decided no will be the reply. Here the examination 
 must close on the score of idolatry, and the defendant must be 
 pronounced not guilty. 
 
 To ascertain whether there were any superstition in the case 
 the interrogatory may proceed thus. "Do you think that pray- 
 ing to the blessed Virgin will save you if you do not keep the 
 commandments I Do you think that your salvation is certain if 
 you say such or such prayers before this image I Do you con- 
 sider it certain that the prayers you offer to the blessed Virgin 
 before this image, will be heard and granted I Do you expect 
 any effect from these prayers, which cannot be obtained by 
 other prayers t Do you believe that any miraculous effect is 
 sure to follow the prayers you offer here?" If the person 
 answer ' Yes" to any of these questions, she is certainly guilty 
 of superstition, in attaching to an external act, effects which 
 neither reason nor religion authorizes her to attach to it. There 
 may be other ways in which superstition might be committed 
 m an act of this kind, which would be criminal, excusable or 
 innocent, according to various circumstances. There might be 
 also a fault of credulity which is neither idolatrous nor super- 
 stitious. Thus, if the woman believed, without sufficient proof, 
 any stories of miracles having been wrought at that image, and 
 said her prayers before it, merely hoping that she might receive 
 similar favours, but not calculating upon them as certain, she 
 would be chargeable with credulity, not with idolatry or super- 
 stition. For the existence or non-existence of any such mira- 
 cles, is a mere point of history, which we may believe or disbe- 
 lieve as we think it proper, with the same innocence that we 
 may believe or disbelieve any ordinary fact. If we believe 
 such accounts without the strongest evidence, we are certainly 
 guilty of credulity ; as, on the other hand, if we disbelieve 
 them on such evidence we are guilty of folly. If the woman
 
 Sec. 8.] Christian Reliyion. J 37 
 
 prayed before that particular image rather than another, ajid 
 expected, on that account, greater effects from her prayers ; 
 this also may be a persuasion, perhaps ill founded, but certainly 
 innocent. There is no gttilt in believing that the Almighty is 
 more liberal in bestowing his favours in one place than in 
 another. Solomon prayed that God would be more liberal of 
 his favours in the temple of Jerusalem than in other places, 
 and there is no harm in supposing that Solomon's prayer was 
 heard. It is possible that the Almighty may, for some similar 
 reason, perhaps on account of the piety of some eminently 
 virtuous person who had prayed in such a chapel, or before 
 such an image, bestow greater favours there than in any place 
 not similarly circumstanced. Whatever may be without im- 
 piety, may be believed without impiety. Hence, if I found 
 that the person of whom I spoke above, offered her pray- 
 ers before one particular image rather than another, merely 
 because her parents or friends had done it before her, or 
 because she thought she had a better chance of being heard 
 there than elsewhere, either for the reasons assigned, or 
 for some other reason that does not militate against any 
 principle of religion, I, for my part, would not condemn 
 her. Were I indeed her religious instructor, I should caution 
 her against being too credulous, and, for fear of superstition, 
 should request her to say her prayers more frequently else- 
 where ; but I should not think that I was acting either cha- 
 ritably or wisely, if I proclaimed the poor woman an idolater 
 or a fool ; for in my opinion there is no znore striking proof of 
 unchristian illiberality, vulgar ignorance, or senseless fanaticism, 
 tiian to be for ever roaring out idolatry, superstition and blas- 
 phemy at every thing which seems to agree with certain vague 
 and undefined notions a person may have formed of these 
 offences, or to be perpetually bestowing pity (as English pro- 
 testants are very apt to do) on those who know what is right 
 and what is wrong quite as well as themselves.* For my own 
 part, I can truly say that in the churches abroad, I have re- 
 peatedly been ashamed of my Protestant countrymen and 
 women, when, though ignorant, as to my knowledge they 
 
 * As far as my observation extends, tliere is quite as much credulity in the 
 Church of England as there is in the I'atholic Church, and of a much more dange- 
 rous kind. There are many Catholics in the sister island who believe, that St. Pa- 
 trick drove all venoraons animals (except Orange-meu) out of Ireland, but the most 
 ignorant Catholic in the united kingdom, never paid one momeut's attention to the 
 reveries of Johanna Southcott, -whilst she boasted of having vast numbers of res- 
 pectable Protestants, and even tvpelve Protestant clergymen, amongst (he believers 
 and propagators of her ridiculous and blasphemous pretensions ! 
 
 S
 
 138 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 sometimes were, even of their own religion, I have seen them 
 looking at each other with expressions of indescribable self- 
 complacence, and apparently thanking God for their own 
 superior wisdom, merely because they did not understand 
 some Catholic ceremony of nearly two thousand years old. 
 
 Let them follow the advice I humbly presume to offer them 
 of first examining evidence, before they pronounce sentence ; 
 and if they should discover any idolatry or superstition in 
 Catholic countries, let them rather, with a view of benefitting 
 the souls of their neighbours, have the charity to state the case 
 to the bishop or parish priest of the place, who will spare no 
 pains to correct the abuse, than commit the injustice of pub- 
 lishing their discoveries, with ill-natured exaggerations, in 
 England, for the purpose of depriving English Catholics of 
 peace, reputation and liberty. 
 
 .»>CZ3. 
 
 §9. 
 
 Breach of Faith. — Accusation hy Dr. Moysey and Vindex 
 stated and refuted. — Council of Constance and John Huss. 
 — Dispensations of Catholics and Protestants compared. 
 — Council of Later an. — Sir John Cox Hippesley, ^c. 
 
 I shall not detain the reader long on the subject of "keeping 
 faith with heretics." It will be recollected that Dr. Moysey, 
 in his Charge, the original cause of this controversy, asserted 
 that it was a docrine of the Catholic Church, that faith might 
 not be kept with persons of other religious persuasions, that 
 many Catholics, particularly clergy, actually adhered to this 
 doctrine, and that he conceived they would all be bound to act 
 upon it " if the good of the Church, which," says he, " is a 
 consideration paramount with them, require them to do so :" 
 that no dependance could be placed upon the Catholic clergy, 
 they being the sworn and obedient servants of a foreign juris- 
 diction, and that the most solemn assurance of Catholic lay- 
 men were of no value, because they were " under the entire 
 subjection of their priests."
 
 Sec. 9.3 Christian Religion. 131) 
 
 In my former letter to the Archdeacon, I acknowledged 
 that if such Avere the prmciples of Catholics, " not only would 
 it be just to exclude them from power in the state, but that it 
 would be proper to expel them from the country, as beings 
 unworthy of the blessings of civil society, and expose them as 
 monsters to the general execration of mankind." In fact, 
 such doctrines strike at the very root of civil society, nor 
 would it be possible, as a spirited and eloquent writer very 
 justly remarks, for any government to subsist, the members of 
 which believed them to he true.* Hence, the very existence 
 of so many Catholic states through so long a series of ages, is 
 a sufficient refutation of their charge. Yet grievous and in- 
 credible as the accusation was, the Archdeacon, with a dignity 
 becoming a person in his station, adduced no proof in support 
 of his assertions, but merely said that such vxis the doctrine of 
 our Church, that we obstinately refused to repeal it, and that 
 it " still stood as a decree of authority in the words of Inno- 
 cent the Third." 
 
 Every one of these assertions I positively denied; and ad- 
 duced as proofs that we do not hold such doctrines : First, 
 the authentic decisions of six Catholic universities, situated in 
 different parts of Europe, obtained by Mr, Pitt, for the satis- 
 faction of the British Government in 1788, all which most 
 positively disclaim the odious imputations, with strong expres- 
 sions of astonishment, that a learned and enlightened nation 
 like England, should in the eighteenth century be capable of 
 entertaining them. Secondly, I proved that the British go- 
 vernment, which was so deeply concerned in the truth or fals- 
 hood of the charges, had publicly and repeatedly acquitted us 
 of it: that even our warmest parliamentary opponents had 
 given it up, and that not even the bishops themselves, had 
 dared to bring it forward in the late critical discussion of our 
 claims. Lastly, I showed that all the Catholics of England, 
 Ireland, and Scotland, bishops, priests, and people, do, with 
 the approbation of the Pope himself, solemnly call God to 
 witness upon oath, that they do " reject and detest the impious 
 and unchristian principle" imputed to them. 
 
 I had hoped that arguments like these would have satisfied 
 even Dr. Moysey, nor do I think he would dare to expose him- 
 self to the odium of again makins: the charge openly, and in 
 his oivn name. But either he, or some other person or persons 
 acting in his defence, have done it under the cover of an ano- 
 
 * Artliur O'Leary.
 
 140 A Defence of the [Let. 2 
 
 nymous publication; and as there may be some, with whom 
 such publications have weight, I subjoin, for their considera- 
 tion, the following additional facts, in confirmation of my 
 former proofs. 
 
 In the first place, the late Pope Pius the Sixth, in an official 
 communication to the bishops of Ireland, solemnly disclaimed 
 on the part of the Catholic Church, the odious doctrine in the 
 following terms. " The see of Rome never taught that faith, 
 is not to be kept with the heteredox ; that an oath to kings 
 separated from Catholic communion can be violated ; that it is 
 lawful for the bishop of Rome to invade their temporal rights 
 and dominions. We too consider an attempt or design against 
 the life of kings and princes, even under the pretext of religion, 
 as a horrid and detestable crime."* 
 
 Secondly : If Catholics believe that oaths when made to per- 
 sons of other religious persuasions are not binding, why do our 
 nobility and gentry refuse their seats in parliament, and submit 
 to a total exclusion from every office of trust, honour and emol- 
 imient in th^ state, even to that of acting as a justice of the 
 peace on their own property, and amidst their own dependants, 
 thus exposing themselves and families to be looked upon from 
 generation to generation as a suspected, misfrusted, and degra- 
 ded race, when the simple taking of an oath to the Protestant 
 government is the only obstacle that stands in their way to 
 power, wealth, liberty, and reputation I 
 
 Thirdly : If Catholics maintain that oaths made to persons 
 of other religious persuasions are not binding, why are their 
 oaths admitted in courts of justice as evidence, to dispose of 
 the property, and even take away the lives of his Majesty's Pro- 
 testant subjects equally with those of Protestants J 
 
 Fourthly : Why does the Government of England, in its 
 treaties with foreign Catholic powers, accept of their simple 
 oaths, without requiring any additional security on the ground 
 of their religious principles i 
 
 Fifthly : Why do not the bishops of the Established Church, 
 whenever the Catiiolic claims are brought forward, stand up as 
 the guardians of truth and the friends of their country, and, by 
 convincing the lay lords of the guilt and mischief of Catholic 
 principles, preserve the Church from that danger which so much 
 alarms themselves and their archdeacons? And why, when a 
 
 * See the whole letter in the Appendix to the Report of the Committee of the 
 House of Commons " on the Laws and Ordinances in foreign states respecting; 
 Roman Catholic subjects," page 427. Also the speech of Sir John Cox Hippesley, 
 
 page 84.
 
 Sec. 9.] Christian Relifjion. 141 
 
 bishop has returned home from one of those important discus- 
 sions, in which he has not so much as whispered a syllable 
 against Catholic breach of faith, does he make the assertions 
 in his cathedral, which he did not make in the House of Lords, 
 or countenance his archdeacons to publish them all over the 
 country, for the purpose of inflaming the Protestants with ha- 
 tred against the Catholics, and inspiring them with suspicions 
 of the conduct of the government I It is not my place to ac- 
 count for this apparent contradiction in conduct ; but this I 
 know, that whilst no one is at liberty, or thinks it worth his 
 while to contradict the assertions of a bishop or an archdeacon 
 made only from the pulpit, should any bishop dare to assert in 
 the House of Lords, that it is a tenet of the Catholic Church 
 that faith might not be kept with heretics, a hundred lay voices 
 would be raised to refute his assertion, ridicule his ignorance, 
 or expose his bigotry. Even one of his own brethren, the ven- 
 erable and respected Norwich, would enter his ardent and inde- 
 pendent protest, and, by his single voice, rescue the Established 
 Church from universal shame,* 
 
 I shall now make a few remarks upon the arguments which 
 are brought forward by Dr. Moysey's anonymous friend, to 
 substantiate the odious charge he continues to advance against 
 us. 
 
 I have observed, that the only proof which the Archdeacon 
 himself condescended to offer, was an assertion, that the doc- 
 trine he imputed to us actually " stands as a degree of autho- 
 rity in the words of Innocent the Third." This assertion I 
 opposed by a flat denial. Vindex replies, " I neither know 
 nor care whether the doctrine that faith is not to be kept with 
 heretics, stands as a decree of authority in the words of Inno- 
 cent the Third." This is a mode of defence so dignified, that 
 I cannot help suspecting it to come from the same quarter as 
 the Charge. But its dignity here is misplaced; for if the as- 
 sertion of Dr. Moysey be not true, it will follow, whether Vin- 
 dex cares or not, that the Archdeacon, u})on the authority of 
 a decree which has no existence, did under circumstances of 
 peculiar solemnity, in the house of God, and in the presence of 
 his clergy, and afterwards before the public in print, assert 
 what was not true, to the serious injury of his " Christian bre- 
 thren," the Catholics. Vindex therefore deserts the ground on 
 which Dr. Moysey had rested his accusation, but continues to 
 
 • If the English Catholic were in any danger of coramiting idolatry, it would be 
 from the reneration he feels for this friend of justice and humanity. •• Justissimus 
 «M«s." " Qui fuit in Teucris et servantissinins aequi,"
 
 142 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 maintain it, upon a decree of the council of Constance, in 1415, 
 respecting- the trial and condemnation of John Huss, which 
 he says, " decreed and declared it lawful to violate the most 
 solemn engagements when made with heretics." This broad 
 and damning- conclusion, Vindex rests upon the following quo- 
 tation. " When nevertheless the said John Huss, by pertina- 
 ciously infringing the orthodox faith, rendered himself incapable 
 of any safe conduct and privilege, neither ivas any faith or 
 promise, either hy natural, divine, or human law, to be ob- 
 served towards him to the prejudice of the Catholic faith ." 
 Now I think the reader will agree with me, that a milder 
 interpretation might possibly be put on this passage, and that 
 it requires considerable violence to bend it to the meaning 
 which Vindex assigns to it ; that consequently he ought not to 
 have brought it forward with so much confidence, particularly 
 after witnessing the fate of Dr. Moysey's attack. But will 
 the reader believe me when I tell him, that it is more than 
 probable that the above are not the words of the council ! 
 " The clause," says Butler, " is an evident interpolation. It 
 is to be found in no manuscript, excepting one in the imperial 
 library at Vienna ? and in this it has not the formal signatures, 
 which are subscribed, without exception, ' to all the other 
 acknowledged canons,"* But there is another canon of the 
 council, on this same subject, which is much clearer, and is 
 acknowledged to be genuine. Why did not Vindex quote 
 this I Why chuse that which is more obscure and the authen- 
 ticity of which is not only doubted but denied ? Perhaps here 
 again he will answer " that he neither knows nor cares !" 
 
 The fact respecting Huss and the decree of the council 
 concerning him is simply this. John Huss was a Catholic 
 priest in Bohemia, his native country. He fell into certain 
 errors contrary to Catholic doctrine, maintaining, amongst other 
 things, that "princes, magistrates, bishops, and other superiors, 
 lose their authority when in the state of mortal sin; that the 
 people have a right to correct their temporal rulers as they 
 shall deem necessary ; that tythes are mere alms, and that 
 parishioners may whenever they please, take them away from 
 their clergy on account of their sins."f These and many 
 similar doctrines he preached publicly, drew over considerable 
 
 * Memoirs of tbe English Catholics, &c. vol. iii. page 104. 
 
 t Nullus est DomiDus civilis, nollus est praeatas, nnllus est episcopus dum est in 
 peccato niortali. Error 30 Joannis Huss. Cone. Const. Sess. 15. 
 Populares possunt ad suum arbitriuui dominos temporales corrigere.
 
 Sec. 9.] 
 
 Christian Reiicjion. 
 
 143 
 
 JOHN HUSS.— See page 142. 
 
 " Princes, magistrates, bishops and other superiors, lose their aathority when in the 
 
 state of mortal sin." 
 
 numbers to his opinious, raised some serious commotions in the 
 country, and threatened still greater, when the Church and 
 state becoming equally alarmed, he was ordered by his sove- 
 reign, the Emperor Sigismund, to repair to the city of Con- 
 stance, and answer for his doctrines before the general council 
 which was there assembled. That he might not be molested 
 on his way to or from Constance, the emperor gave him a pass- 
 port, or safe conduct. Instead of submitting to the judgment 
 
 Decimae sunt purse eleemosynas et parochiani possunt, propter peccata suornm 
 prajlatornm ad, libitum saum, auferre eas " Errores 17 et 18 Joannis Wicklifl"." 
 Huss positively declared, that the condemnation of the errors of Wickliflf was un- 
 natural, wicked and unjust. Concil, Const. Error 25.
 
 144 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 of the council, the authority of which he had repeatedly 
 acknowledged, and the decisions of which, as an ecclesiastic, 
 he was bound to obey, he continued to maintain his dangerous 
 doctrines publicly, under the eyes of the council, and at last 
 attempted privately to make his escape. He was then put 
 under arrest,* and when some of his partizans raised a cla- 
 mour, alledging that the emperor had pledged his word for his 
 safety, the council passed the decree which declared that no 
 safe conduct of the emperor however worded, or with what- 
 ever promise or oath it might be accompanied, could deprive 
 the council of their right of judging a man who was their sub- 
 ject in spirituals. " Every safe conduct," says the council, 
 " granted by the emperor, by kings, and other temporal 
 princes to heretics, or persons accused of heresy, in hopes of 
 reclaimmg them, ought not to be of any prejudice to the Catho- 
 lic faith, or to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or to hinder that 
 such persons may and ought to be examined, judged and 
 punished, as justice, shall require," &c.t They accordingly 
 condemned Huss of heretical doctrines, and, after every effort 
 made to induce him to retract, when he still continued obsti- 
 nate, he was declared a heretic by the council, and delivered 
 over to the power of the state to be treated as the civil law 
 should direct. The civil law directed that heresy should be 
 punished with death, and the unfortunate John Huss was pun- 
 ished accordingly. 
 
 I shall not examine here whether Huss deserved his fate or 
 
 * If the council treated John Huss with severity for attempting to make his 
 escape and for causing disturbances, it was not because he was a heretic. It is re- 
 markable, that this council deposed no less than three popes, and one of them 
 (John the Twentj-third,) for the very ofleace, attempted by Huss, namely, with- 
 drawing himself from the judgment of the council, and privately making his escape. 
 Coun. Const. SeSs. 12. 
 
 t See Rutler's Memoirs of the English Catholics, from which I copy this trans- 
 lation, and where the canon is given more at length with a dissertation, vol. iii. 
 page 102. 
 
 The above is the explanation given to this decree of the council by all the Catholic 
 writers I have read. That the council did not consider it lawful to violate an oath 
 on any account ichatevfr, is evident from the following questions, which, amongst 
 •others, were ordered bv them to be put to persons suspected of the errors of Wick- 
 lift' and Huss, who were said to have taught this doctrine. '' Let the suspected 
 person," says the couacil, " be asked, ' 'Viniether he believes that perjury knowingly 
 committed, on whatever cause or occasion, for the preservation of our own, or ano- 
 ther's life, even in favour of the faith, is a mortal sin?' And if any one is found to 
 maintain, that perjury, under any of these circumstances, is not a mortal sin, 
 the council directs that he shall be obliged, publicly, to revoke and abjure his 
 errors," 
 
 " Utrum credat quod perjurium scienter commtssam ex quacumque causa vel 
 occasione pro conversatione vitae corporalis vel propriae vel alterius etiaminfavorem 
 fidci, sitmortale peccatum." Bulla Martini quinti. Sess. 45. Cone. Const.
 
 Sec. 9.] Christian Religion. 145 
 
 not.* But were any man to come to this country from Italy, 
 with a passport from the Pope, and preach in England that the 
 Established clerg-y had no right to their tithes, and that they 
 might be deprived of them for their sins, I do think that the 
 bench of bishops would very soon come to the same conclusion 
 respecting the Pope's pasport, as the council of Constance did 
 respecting that of the Emperor Sigismund. They would say 
 that his Holiness had no right to grant a passport to license a 
 man to transgress the laws of England with impunity, and that 
 if he had guaranteed his safety, even on oath, his oath in such 
 cases could not be binding. And should there be any hesitation 
 on the part of the bishops or the government to proceed against 
 this dangerous innovator, I do suspect that we should see the 
 Archdeacon of Bath as active in collecting signatures for a pe- 
 tition to parliament against him, as he has been in collecting 
 them against the Catholics. Nay, should the offender, after 
 all, be sentenced to be burnt, as many Catholics were for a very 
 different reason under Henry the Eigth, I should not be at all 
 surprised to see my friend Vindex in a mask, one of the most 
 busy men about his pile. At all events, I am sure he would 
 soon bring his metaphysics and criticism into play to demolish 
 the reasoning of any Italian theologian, who should, on account 
 of the above decision of the bishops, charge the Church of En- 
 gland with maintaining " that it was lawful to violate the most 
 solemn engagements when made with Catholics." So far was 
 the Emperor Sigismund himself from considering that his word 
 to John Huss violated by the condemnation and punishment of 
 that unfortunate man, that he repeatedly declared, during the 
 trial, that, if Huss refused to retract his errors, he would him- 
 self light the first faggot at his pile.f 
 
 But had the decree, passed by the council, actually taught 
 the odious and infamous doctrine Vindex asserts, still it could 
 not have constituted an article of Catholic faith, nor conse- 
 quently have bound the inward assent of any Catholic. First, 
 because no decree of a general couuil is ever admitted as an 
 article of faith, unless it be proposed as such to the whole 
 Church. Now this decree was never proposed to the Church 
 
 * If Huss taught the doctrines attributed to him, and he certain!)' did teach most 
 of them, he deserved to be punished as a disturber of the public peace, and an ene- 
 my to civil society. If his errors were no ways injurious to the state, it was a cruel 
 and unchristian act to put him to death for them ; and if the council directly or in- 
 directly sanctioned such temporal punishments for mere spiritual offences, it exceeded 
 its powers, and must be so far condemned by every Catholic. 
 
 t See the Protestant historian L'Enfant. His. Conci Const. 
 
 T
 
 146 A Defence of the [Xef . 2. 
 
 at all, nor was it even ratified by the Pope who presided at the 
 council,* but was a mere assertion of right, made on a particu- 
 lar occasion, and applicable only under particular circumstances. 
 Secondly, nothing can be considered as an article of Catholic 
 faith, unless it is aecieved as such by the great body of Catho- 
 lic bishops. Now so far from the decree in question, having 
 ever been recieved by the great body of Catholic bishops as 
 an article of faith, I defy Dr, Moysey, or any other man with 
 a name, to produce one single instance of a Catholic bishop 
 recieving it as such, or deducing from it the odious doctrine 
 asserted by Vindex.-f- 
 
 How hard is the fate of the British Catholic ! Not only is he 
 deprived of the civil rights and privileges purchased for his 
 country by the bravery of his Catholic ancestors, and this for 
 no other crime than refusing to condemn their relioion as idol- 
 atrous and wicked, but as if, with the revenues of his church 
 and the liberties of his person, his understanding also had been 
 made over to the clergy of the new religion, he has never since 
 . the reformation been allowed the poor privilege of knowing 
 what himself believes. It is in vain that he protests against 
 the injustice of having doctrines imputed to him which he 
 abhors; in vain that he declares, in the most solemn manner, 
 even upon oath, that such are not his doctrines ; in vain that by a 
 conduct above reproach, he pleads his innocence; the ministers of 
 a religion, which for ever boasts its liberality, return him for an- 
 swer, ' ' We know your religion better than you do yourself. You 
 believe as we assert. Even your oaths are undeserving of 
 credit, because it is a tenet of your religion, estciblished at the 
 council of Constance, " that it is lawful to violate the most 
 solemn engagements when made with heretics !' " 
 
 Vindex asserts that Bellarmine, a Catholic divine of whom 
 we have before spoken, taught, " that the Pope had power to 
 establish, abrogate, suspend, dispense with ecclesiastical canons ; 
 to void promises, oaths, vows, obligations to oaths by his dis- 
 pensation." Now, suppose Bellarmine had really taught this 
 
 * Pope Martin the Fifth, who presided at the latter part of this conncil, expressly 
 declared, that he gave his ratification only to such of its decrees an regarded faith, 
 not to others. "Martinus quintus dixit quod omnia et singula determinata et derecta 
 in materiis fidei per praesens concilium conciliariter tenere et inviolabiliter obser- 
 vare volebat, et nunquam contraire quoquo raodo. Ipsaque sic conciliariter facta 
 approbat et ratificat et non aliter nee alio modo." Sess. 45. 
 
 t The thirty -nine articles of the Church of England were established by an act of 
 parliament. But does it therefore follow, that ei-erij act of parliament is an article 
 of faith in the Church of England ? Then will it follow, that it is an article of faith 
 of the Church of England, that the City of Bath may be lighted yp with gas!
 
 Sec. 9.] Christian Religion. 147 
 
 doctrine, must his opinious be charged upon the faith of the 
 Catholic Church, or must the Catholics of England necessarily 
 be traduced as perjurers, and deprived of their civil rights, 
 " because an Italian wrote nonsense in bad Latin, two centu- 
 ries ago ?"* But as Vindex gives no reference, and as Bellar- 
 mine, though a stickler for the extravagant pretensions of 
 some Popes, has never been accused by those who know his 
 works best, namely. Catholic divines, of teaching the wild and 
 absurd doctrines which Vindex wishes to impute to him, I am 
 quite convinced that he never held them. 
 
 There are certain powers of dispensation exercised by the 
 Catholic Church, as there are by the Church of England, and 
 as there must be by every government, whether spiritual or 
 temporal, and some few of these are reserved to the Pope, for 
 the express purpose of rendering them more difficult to be 
 abused. With regard to ecclesiastical canons, if Vindex by 
 this term means canons or articles of faith, it is untrue that 
 either Bellarmine or any other Catholic divine ever allowed to 
 the Pope the power of abrogating, suspending or dispensing 
 with one of them. If he means canons of discipline, in whose 
 hands should a dispensing power, limited and regulated by 
 laws, so properly reside as in the chief magistrate of the 
 Church I And what has Vindex to do with the discipline of 
 our Church ? 
 
 The fact is, the Catholic Church never alloAved, nor did the 
 Pope ever claim the right of abrogating or dispensing with the 
 immutable laws of God and nature, and every power short of 
 this, which the Pope ever exercised in England, was expressly 
 reserved at the reformation to the Archbishop of Canterbury 
 and the king. I- Whatever therefore the dispensing power of 
 the Pope might be, it is manifest that the same is claimed by 
 the Church of England. But in its mode of exercising this 
 power, the latter has greatly outstripped the former. It is 
 manifest to me, that all the Popes who have sat during eighteen 
 centuries in the chair of St. Peter, have not granted so many 
 or such extraordinary dispensations as have been granted in the 
 three last centuries by the Reformers alone. In fact, the 
 reformation was wholly founded on dispensations. Luther 
 could not begin the godly work, till he had granted himself a 
 dispensation from the oaths of obedience which he had taken to 
 his bishop, to his religious superiors, and the Pope; nor coiUd 
 he afterwards take a wife without exercising another power of 
 
 * O'Leary's Tracts. 
 t Act of twenty-fifth of Henrj the Eighth.
 
 148 A Defence of the [Lei. 2. 
 
 dispensation, tlie greatest that is reserved by the canons to the 
 Pope, and which many Catholic divines maintain the Pope 
 himself has not the power to exercise. Luther was as liberal 
 in his dispensations to others as he was to himself, and infinitely 
 more so than the Pope had ever been. Henry the Eighth, 
 one of the greatest and most powerful sovereigns of Europe, 
 requested of the Pope a divorce from his wife Catherine, and 
 urged his request with every argument that his passion could 
 devise, or his power enforce ; yet, after repeated examinations, 
 difficulties, hesitations and delays, the suit was at last positively 
 refused, on the ground that the grant of it was inconsistent 
 with the divine law. The landgrave of Hesse, a petty prince 
 of Germany, represents to Luther and his fellow apostles, how 
 very agreeable and convenient it would be to hira to have two 
 wives at the same time, and his wishes are instantly complied 
 with. " It is one thing," says this Protestant council, " to 
 introduce a new law, and another to make use of a dispensa- 
 tion. If, therefore, your highness has absolutely determined 
 upon marrying a second wife, we judge that you ought to doit 
 secretly, as we before said when speaking of dispensations ; 
 that is to say, the thing should be known only to your high- 
 ness, to the lady herself, and to a few corifidential friends, 
 bound under the seal of confession. In this case, no great 
 difficulties or scandal could arise from it. For it is no unusual 
 thing for princes to keep concubines ; and though the reasona- 
 bleness of the thing might not be understood by the ignorant, 
 the better informed would understand it, and see that this 
 mode of proceeding was much better than living in adultery ; 
 nor is it necessary to trouble ourselves about what others may 
 say, so long as all is right with our conscience. Thus, and so 
 far, we approve your highness's design; for the gospel does 
 not recall what was permitted by the law of Moses." They 
 recommended the happy man particularly not to say any thing 
 to the Emperor, because as he was impressed with papistical 
 notions, he might amuse himself at his highness's expense, 
 &c.* 
 
 The divorce from Queen Catherine v/hich Henry the Eighth 
 
 * See this carioas aud scandalous document at full length in Bossuei's Histoire des 
 Variations liv. vi. I shall add the following extract in the original Latin only. " Certis 
 tanien casibus locus est dispensation^ Si quis apud exteras nationes captivns, ad 
 curam corporis et sanitatem, inibi alteram uxorem superindaceret ; vel si qais ha- 
 heret leprosam : his casibus alteram ducere cum consilic sui pastoris, non intentione 
 nuvam legem inducendi, sed suee uecessitati consulcndi, banc uescimus qua ratione 
 damnare liceret.' '
 
 Sec. 9.] Christian Reli(/ion. 149 
 
 had in vain solicited from the Pope, was granted by Archbishop 
 Cranmer, empowered by the king-, without a moment's hesita- 
 tion. Not only did this first royal head of the Church of 
 of England, grant a dispensation to all his bishops from the 
 oath of obedience they bad taken to the Pope, authorizing 
 them to transfer the same to himself, but he even punished 
 with death, those who refused to acknowledge his dispensing 
 power, and accept its favours, Elizabeth offered the same 
 dispensation to her Catholic bishops, but it was accepted only 
 by one, the rest chusing rather to resign their sees than to 
 acknowledge a dispensing power so new and extraordinary. 
 She afterwards dispensed with the necessity of apostolical 
 jurisdiction, if not orders, in favour of her new bishops, as 
 well as with her own female incapacity to govern the Church 
 of Christ. And who, I Avould ask, dispenses with our legisla- 
 tors when they continue to swear that "no foreign prelate hath 
 any jurisdiction, or power ecclesiastical or spiritual, within the 
 realm," when it has been publicly known for centuries, that the 
 whole Irish Catholic Church is governed by bishops, acknow- 
 ledging the authority, and acting under the jurisdiction of the 
 Bishop of Rome, nay, even after these same bishops have been 
 publicly received and acknowledged in this capacity by the 
 sovereign himself.' Who dispenses with that multitude of poor 
 ignorant beings who fill the lowest offices under government 
 for sixpences and shillings ; and who, without ever having heard 
 such a word as transuhstantiation, or having the least idea 
 what is the doctrine or practice of the Catholic Church, either 
 on that or other subjects, " do solemnly and sincerely, in the 
 presence of God, profess, testify and declare, that (they) do 
 believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's supper there is not 
 any transuhstantiation of the elements, &c. and that the invo- 
 cation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and 
 the sacrifice of the mass, as thexj are now used in the Church 
 of Rome are superstitious and idolatrous /" Far be it from 
 me to condemn all these poor unthinking mortals of the horrid 
 crime of perjury, or even their better informed superiors, the 
 Commons, Lords, and Bishops of England ; but surely there 
 must lie a dispensing power some where or other, to authorize 
 these awful proceedings ; and such a power as I maintain never 
 
 This dispensation was signed by Martin Luther, Philip Melancton, Martin Bu' 
 cer, Antony Coriin, Adam, John Lening, Justus Wintferte, and Denis Mflanther, 
 and the marriage was actually celebrated in the presence of Melancton, Bucer, Me- 
 lander and others. AVho could resist the tratli of a g«spel like this!
 
 150 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 was claimed or exercised by any Pope since the days of St. Pe- 
 ter. Even the solemn subscription to the tliirty-nine articles, 
 which Paley so easily allows to be made by the Established 
 Clergy who do not believe them, implies a power of dispensa- 
 tion, and a liberty of explanation which would never have been 
 approved by Rome, nor accepted, I do hope, by any Catholic, 
 had it been sanctioned even by a general council. 
 
 Had Catholics the same happy facility in adapting the mea- 
 ning of oaths to existing circumstances as their Protestant bre- 
 thren, thy would not so often annoy the parliament with a dis- 
 cussion of their claims, nor so often give Dr. Moysey the 
 trouble of collecting signatures against them. It would only 
 be necessary for them to desire some Catholic casuist to bor- 
 row the words of Archdeacon Paley and argue as follows. 
 " They who contend that nothing less can justify the taking of 
 the oath of supremacy and the declaration against transubstan- 
 tiation, than the actual belief of every proposition contained 
 in them, must suppose that the legislature expected the con- 
 sent of ten thousand men, and that in perpetual succesion, 
 not to one controverted proposition but to many. It is diffi- 
 cult to conceive how this could be expected by any one who 
 observed the incurable diversity of human opinion upon all sub- 
 jects short of demonstration." After laying down these very 
 convincing premises, our Catholic casuist has only to follow 
 Paley in his reasoning and say, " The intent of the legislature 
 in proposing the above oaths, is merely to keep those men out 
 of parliament and public offices, who are weak enough not to 
 take them. But as we do not intend to be kept out of par- 
 liament and public offices, therefore we may swear as well as 
 our neighbours to what is not true." The Catholics might then 
 march into Parliament and enjoy, with the rest of the popula- 
 tion, a share in all those good things which government can 
 bestow. 
 
 " Who art thou that judgest another man's servant ? To his 
 own master he standeth or falleth," is a maxim which I hope 
 Catholics will ever bear in mind when they contemplate the 
 conduct of their neighbour. Still there are occasions in which, 
 if a Catholic refrain from judging, he cannot restrain his won- 
 der ,• and on none more than when he witnesses the extraor- 
 dinary use which is made of oaths in this country. 
 
 " Non equidem invideo, miior magis 
 
 But when a man comes forward, and asserts that the Catho- 
 lic Church claims a power of dispensation on these awful
 
 Sec. 9.] Christian Relif/ion. 151 
 
 subjects, that can be compared in the most distant manner 
 with that which is exercised by the Church of England, and 
 other Protestant communities, we must be allowed to think 
 either that the man has lost his senses, or that he has just awa- 
 ked from a slumber of 200 years, and thinks that the country, 
 at the present day, will swallow the same gross preparations, 
 which were administered to them, in former times, by the 
 book of Homilies and the fathers of the reformation. " Judge 
 not and ye shall not be judged. Give and it shall be given 
 unto you : good measure jxressed down and shaken together 
 and running over shall men give into your bosom. For with 
 the same measure that ye mete withal, it shall be measured to 
 you again."* 
 
 Vindex asserts, on the authority of some scraps of quota- 
 tions, chiefly from the fourth council of Lateran, that Catho- 
 lics allow to the Pope a power of freeing subjects from their 
 oaths of allegiance to heretical, and excommunicated princes. 
 I shall answer him in the words of tAVO gentlemen of the Es- 
 tablished Church. 
 
 " If those councils (of Lateran, Constance, and Basil)" says 
 Sir John Cox Hippesley, must be pressed into the discussion, 
 it must be said that neither they, nor any other, ever de- 
 clared that the deposing and dispensing doctrines are parts of 
 the Catholic faith : consequently, all Catholics are at liberty 
 to renounce them ,- and the only question must be, whether 
 those councils did actually excercise or vindicate to themselves 
 the deposing and dispensing power I It is well known indeed, 
 that the council of Constance deposed three Popes, though 
 this is a fact that the learned and right honourable gentleman 
 (Dr. Duigenan) has not condescended to notice. 
 
 " In which ever way this is determined, it cannot effect the 
 present Catholics, as they do not acknowledge, but have ex- 
 pressly renounced, on their oaths, the existence of such pow- 
 ers in any council, much less in any Pope. We will not deny 
 that some of these councils did assume such powers in a cer- 
 tain degree, not however as belonging to these ex officio, but 
 as conferred upon them by the free consent of the temporal au- 
 thorities. It must be recollected that, before the dismember- 
 ment of the empire, the emperors frequently enforced the ob- 
 servance of the ecclesiastical canons by temporal laws ; and 
 also that, after the conversion of the barbarous nations, their 
 princes did frequently, in dubious cases, (particularly those of 
 
 * Luke, vi. 37.
 
 152 A Defence of the [Let. 2 
 
 a mixed nature, partly temporal, partly spiritual,) submit 
 themselves to the decisions of the pontiffs, and request them 
 to confirm their temporal laws, by the spiritual authority. In 
 such cases, the Popes certainly did not usurp any power, 
 since it was freely given to them. 
 
 " The famous decree of the council of Lateran, so much ob- 
 jected to, will be found as a constitution of the Emperor Fre- 
 derick, and in the precise words of the canon ; though, as a 
 canon, even its aulhenticityis called in question by the Catho- 
 lic Bishop Hay, and by Collier and other Protestant writers. 
 The canon, nevertheless, appears in several collections of the 
 councils, nor is it necessary to dispute it, inasmuch as it is not 
 a canon of faith, nor was ever considered as such by any 
 Catholic. 
 
 " Those councils may be considered as general parliaments 
 of Christendom, the lords temporal and spiritual being assem- 
 bled, and almost every Christian sovereign, with the emperors 
 of the East, and of the West, being present, either in person 
 or by representation. On those occasions, the temporal princes 
 (and it must be recollected too, that the abbots often held 
 great temporal sovereignties) often advised the bishops to en- 
 force their canons with the threat of temporal punishments, 
 and promised to see that such threats were executed. It is 
 well known that the Emperor Sigismund, whose safe conduct 
 to John Huss the council of Constance is accused of having 
 violated, declared in that council, that if Huss did not retract, 
 ' hijnself would light the first fagot at his pile.' 
 
 " The assumption of such power by general councils under 
 such circumstances, cannot therefore be said to be usurpation, 
 as it was only ass.umed with the consent of the civil authorities, 
 and could have no effect ivithout their concurrence.'"'''^ 
 
 " The heavy charges," says a clergyman of the Established 
 Church, " brought against the Roman Catholic Church, of 
 
 * Substance of the speech of Sir John Cox Hippeslj, bart. 1810, Second edit, 
 page 69, &c. The indefatigable exertions of this gentleman for some years in the 
 cause of Catholic emancipation, entitle him to a gratitude from the Catholics, simi- 
 lar to that which Mr. Wilberforce so justly receives, from every friend of humanity, 
 for his benevolent exertions in procuring the abolition of the slave trade. Perhaps, 
 there is no Protestant in the kingdom, who has paid so much attention to, or 
 understands so well the tenets of the Catholic Church on all subjects, particulaily 
 such as are connected with civil matters, as Sir John Cox Hippesly. I quote him 
 with the greater jileasure because he is in our own neighbourhood, and because I am 
 convinced, though I have not the honour of knowing him personally, that he would 
 be very ready to give any information on the Catholic religion, to those Protestant 
 clergymen who are determined to write upon it without giving themselves the trou- 
 ble to study its doctrines.
 
 Sec, 9.] Christian Religion. 153 
 
 having- sanctioned by its canons the dreadful doctrines, * that 
 the Pope may depose kings, absolve their subjects from their 
 oaths of allegiance, and give away their kingdoms,' rest entirely 
 on the resolutions adopted by some general councils, held du- 
 ring the dark ages, vt^hen feudal tyranny prevailed throughout 
 the greater part of Europe. Even the canons adopted at 
 those councils have been strangely if not ■willfully misrepre- 
 sented, by modern Protestant writers of high rank ; and who 
 have displayed but little candour, and less learning, on the 
 subject; being, apparently, quite ignorant of the policy of the 
 feudal system. It is unnecessary for me to say any thing fur- 
 ther on this particular point, as it has been amply treated on, 
 and completely set at rest, by two of the most learned writers 
 of the present day, namely, by Mr. Lingard, in his review of 
 certain Anti-Catholic publications, and by the late M. Eustace, 
 in his Answer to the Charge of the Bishop of Lincoln."* 
 
 The deposing power of the Pope is solemnly abjured by the 
 whole Catholic body in the united kingdom, in the following 
 terms : " I further declare that it is not an article of my faith, 
 and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion, that 
 princes excommunicated by the Pope and council, or any au- 
 thority of the see of Rome, or by any authority whatsoever, 
 may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any person 
 whatsoever. "f 
 
 That there are occasions when the duty of allegience on the 
 part of the subject ceases, Mr. Locke and most Protestant 
 writers are agreed. That Protestants have invariably acted 
 upon this principle, and that the present institution of Great 
 Britain is founded upon it is equally certain. Bellarmine and 
 some other Catholic divines have maintained that it belongs to 
 the Pope to decide when the oligation of obedience ceases, 
 and that his decision may safely be followed. Every indepen- 
 dent government does well to guard against the acknowledge- 
 ment of such foreign authority, by any of its subjects ; and 
 therefore no English Catholic hesitates to declare to his govern- 
 ment, on oath, that he neither does nor will acknowledge such 
 authority. To me, however, it appears, that much greater 
 importance has been attached to this doctrine, and much more 
 use made of it to terrify the honest people of England than 
 was necessary or reasonable. Happy would it be for govern- 
 ments could they persuade their subjects that it is never lawful 
 
 * Substance of the speech of the Rev. I. P Jones, delivered at a county meet- 
 ing at Exeter, 1821, page 23. 
 
 t Oath and declaration prescribed by an act of the thirty-first of George the Third. 
 
 U
 
 154 A Defence of the [Lei. 2- 
 
 to disobey or rebel, except when they have authority for this 
 purpose from the Pope. But unfortunately, when men are 
 disposed to resist authority, they do not trouble themselves 
 about dispensations. All history proves that, for one instance 
 (if one instance can be found) in which rebellion has been 
 countenanced by the pastors of the Catholic Church, ten thou- 
 sand have occurred, in which rebellion has been prevented, or 
 peace restored, by their benevolent and zealous exertions. 
 The want of a dispensation from the Pope did not prevent the 
 Protestants of England from rebelling sgainst, and murdering 
 one king, attempting the life of a second, and dethroning and 
 banishing a third, whilst a solemn declaration from the Pope, 
 pronouncing, not without some shew of plausibility, the ille- 
 gitimate and tyranical Elizabeth as an usurper, and entitled to 
 no allegiance, did not prevent the Catholics of England from 
 voluntarily and ardently defending her to the last, even at the 
 time when she was murdering their priests, compelling them- 
 selves to live in a new religion which their consciences disap- 
 proved, and to die in grief and misery, deprived of those spi- 
 ritual helps and consolations which they considered essential 
 to their future happiness ;* and all this^t a time when the 
 
 * XXm. Eliz. cap. 1. — A person hearing mass — Punishment, one hundred 
 tnarks and one years imprsnnment. 
 
 One not repairing to Church according to I. Eliz. cap. 2, — Punishment, twenty 
 pounds for every month he is absent 
 
 XXVII. F.liz. cap. 2 — Jesuits, seminary priests, and other ecclesiastical 
 persons, born in these realms, and ordained by the pretended authority of the See of 
 Rome, coming into or remaining in the queen's dominions — ^'uilty of high treason — 
 Puitishnent, to be drawn, hunged, and quartered. Their receivers, aiders, and 
 maintainers, knowing them to be such — felony without benefit of clei'ay. 
 
 All others brought up in seminaries beyond sea, (and not in orders,) not return- 
 ing in six months after proclamation in London, and within two days after their re- 
 turn, submitting and taking the oath of supremacy. — High treason — Punishment, 
 to be drawn, hanged, and quartered. 
 
 Giving, carrying, or sending relief to any ecclesiasical person or seminary beyond 
 sea. — A Premunire. 
 
 A Jesuit, or other ecclesiastical person, who within three days after his return, 
 submits, and takes the oath of supremacy. — Discharged of the penalties. 
 
 Any person knowing a Jesuit or priest to remain within the queen's dominions, 
 and does not, within twelve days, discover him to a justice of peace. — To be fined 
 and impriioned at the queen's pleasuie. 
 
 The justice of the peace not discovering it to the privy council within twenty- 
 eight days, forfeits two hundred marks, 
 
 XXXV. Eliz. cap. 2. — A Jesuit, or priest, or one suspected to be so, refusing to 
 answer whether he be so or not. — To be committed to prison till he ansivers directly, 
 
 I quote the above from many similar acts passed in the reign of Elizabeth, mere- 
 ly as a counterpart to the severe decrees Vindex quotes from some Catholic councils 
 and Popes. I beg the reader also to observe, that those decrees of the councils 
 and popes were directed against a comparatively small number of men, the Albigen- 
 ses, theWickliflBtes, and Hussites, men whose doctrines y/ere not only neu', but 
 subiwrsive of civil society, some of which would, by the laws of England, as they 
 now stand, be punished with death. But the laws of Elizabeth were enacted a-
 
 Sec. 9.] 
 
 Christian Religion. 
 
 15: 
 
 Father Huddleston and King Charles the Second, See Page 136. 
 
 Catholic body formed at least " nine-tenths of the population,"* 
 and had certainly the poiver of asserting- their rights. The 
 same wonderful devotion to the principles of obedience shewed 
 itself in their steady defence of the unfortunate Charles the 
 First against Protestant rigicides, and in saving the life of 
 Charles the Second from Protestant rebels.f It has continued 
 
 gaiDst the great mass of the population of the kingdom, not for maintaing anjnew or 
 nnsocial doctrine, but for adhering to what had been the religion of their ancestors 
 for a thoasond years, which was and is still the religion of an immense majority of 
 the Christian world, and under the auspices of which the laws and liberties of Eng- 
 land had been founded. There is no use in reproaching each other with (he cruelties 
 and outrages of past times. But if the comparison of iniquity must be made, I 
 should not fear to oppose the treatment of the Catholics of these kingdoms since 
 the reformation, to all the persecutions, that have taken place in Christendom or 
 Turkey, since the days of Dioclesian. 
 
 * Speech of Sir John Cox Hippesley, Bart, page 74. 
 
 t It is remarkable that Charles the Second, during the first six days after the
 
 15G A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 to the present day, through a long period of savage persecution, 
 to keep them so steadily an invariably loyal, that even the host 
 of consecrated defamers, who have never ceased to prefer 
 against them every other crime that malignity could devise, 
 have never dared to accuse them of disloyalty. 
 
 Vindex cannot imagine what I mean when I assert that 
 " the infallibility of the Pope is not an article of the Catholic 
 faith,'^ and attempts to prove that, in making this assertion, 
 I am guilty of "a mental reservation extremely clever and 
 convenient." I am much obliged to him for the cleverness he 
 gives me credit for, when I had no idea that I had done any 
 thing to merit it. When I say that the infallibility of the 
 Pope is not an article of the Catholic faith, I mean that no 
 Catholic is bound to believe it, but that each one may think of 
 it as he pleases, just as much as a Protestant may do. Bellar- 
 mine and some other divines, chiefly Italian, have believed 
 the Pope infallible, when proposing ex cathedra, an article 
 of faith. But Vindex says what is not true, when he asserts 
 that " the Church at Rome regards not as her ligitimate child- 
 ren, those who renounce it." In England or Ireland, I am 
 not aware that any Catholic maintains the personal infallibility 
 of the Pope. We believe the Universal Church to he infal- 
 lible in matters of faith and morality. In other words, we 
 believe that all such doctrines of faith or morality as are recei- 
 ved by all Catholics in every part of the world as articles of 
 faith, must necessarily be the true doctrine ; and as truth is 
 immutable, we maintain that this doctrine must be equally so. 
 It is found in our creeds and professions of faith. On all 
 other points, we consider private individuals. Popes, and even 
 general councils, as fallible and liable to change.* 
 
 If Vindex had attended to this necessary distinction, he 
 
 battle of Worcester, " when there was the strictest search made after his majesty's 
 person, and the reward of a thousand pounds was promised to the discoverer, and 
 the penalty, as in cases of high treason, denounced against anyone that should con- 
 ceal him, was entirely in the hands of Catholics." His chief attendant and com- 
 panion during this time was the Rev. John Huddleston, a Catholic priest and a 
 Benedictine monk, who frequently concealed him in his own hiding hole, where he 
 himself had often been obliged to lurk to escape the severity of the king's laws 
 against the Catholic clergy ! During this time Father Huddleston made so strong an 
 impression on the king's mind in favour of the Catholic religion, that his majesty ne- 
 ver forgot it, and on his death-hed made profession of the Catholic faith, and recei- 
 ved the sacraments of the Catholic Church from the hands of this same worthy and 
 loyal clergyman. See the authentic account of these interesting transactions in 
 Dodd's Church History, vol.iii. page 177, &c. 
 
 • On articles of Catholic Faith see Verron's Regula fidei CathoUcoe ; on the li- 
 mits of the different ecclesiastical authorities, see Hooke's Principia Religionis 
 naturalis et reveiatae.
 
 Sec. 9.] Christian Relujion. 157 
 
 would not have found himself under the necessity of placing us 
 in the unpleasant dilemma, of either admitting that we were 
 not to be believed upon our oaths, or that our Church had 
 changed her faith. Had indeed his explanations of the decrees 
 of the councils of Constance and Lateran been correct, it 
 would have followed that the Church had changed her disci- 
 pline or opinion, but not her faith, because those decrees were 
 never given or received as articles of faith. But since his ex- 
 planations of these decrees are as incorrect as his reasoning upon 
 them, we can neither consent to give up our immutability, nor 
 allow ourselves to be traduced as perjurers. 
 
 I will just observe, however, that had Dr. Moysey originally 
 allowed us this alternative, and merely asserted that 400 years 
 ago the Catholic Church had taught the above odious doctrines, 
 but that the Catholics of England, having solemuy abjured 
 them on oath, were to be acquitted of them, I should probably 
 not have thought it worth my while to give him a reply. The 
 charge of having changed our tenets could not have injured us 
 in the opinion of most of our countrymen, Avho boast of being 
 liable to error, and amongst whom changes in religion are such 
 very ordinary occurrences. We should have satisfied ourselves 
 with knowing that he was mistaken, and retained our respect 
 for that religion, which our knowledge of one single change, in 
 an article of faith, would for ever utterly destroy. But to 
 chuse the harsher alternative, and positively assert that, not- 
 withstanding our oaths, we do maintain the odious and mis- 
 chievous doctrine, was a proceeding as unnecessary on the part 
 of the Archdeacon, as it was unbearable on ours. 
 
 I shall conclude this odious subject with a quotation, which, 
 with the change of a few names and dates, is perfectly applica- 
 ble to the present occasion. 
 
 " Mention no longer ' violation of faith with heretics.' You 
 violate all the laws of civil society, in dissolving the ties of 
 friendship, and pointing out your fellow-subjects as the victims 
 of legal severity. You split and rend the nation : you weaken 
 its power, ancl trespass upon the respect due to your rulers, 
 whom instead of being the fathers of their people, you would 
 fain force to become the heads of factions. 
 
 " You violate the sacred rights of nature. Her bountiful 
 Author declares, that ' he makes the sun to shine on the good 
 and the bad.' The light of the sun, the brilliancy of the stars, 
 the sweetness of the fruit, the balsamic effluvia of flowers, are 
 dispensed with a liberal hand to the heathen and idolater. 
 Must you deprive your neighbours of gifts common to all
 
 158 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 Adam's children, because they stick to a religion which all your 
 forefathers professed, and which if wrong, can hurt no man but 
 themselves? 
 
 " In vain do you attempt to impose upon the public, with 
 extracts and spurious canons, obsolete decrees, patches of 
 councils, legends of massacres, in order to iix a creed upon us. 
 The world knows that Roman Catholics sway the sceptre of 
 authority in kingdoms and republics. The very nature then of 
 civil society, is a manifest contradiction to the creed you impute 
 to us : for, if wewere no more thanmachines veering at the breath 
 of Popes and priests, whom neither conscience, religion, the 
 sacred ties of an oath, nor the fear of God's judgment can re- 
 strain, patentees of guilt, and sure of impunity, we could not 
 form a society for the space of one year : for, in such a society 
 the notions of vice and virtue would be confounded; the black- 
 est crimes and the purest virtue reduced to the same level ; the 
 discipline of morals destroyed ; the harmony of the body politic 
 dissolved ; the brother armed against the brother ; and if, by 
 a kind of miracle, in such a cursed number of men, a second 
 Abel could be found, the earth would soon groan with the cries 
 of his blood. If divines have attempted to^ demonstrate the 
 existence of God from the nature of civil society, the very na- 
 ture of civil society demonstrates the falsehood of the creed with 
 which you compliment us. And if the gloomy plan of such a 
 horrid republic please your imaginations, go and lay the foun- 
 dations of it in some distant part of the earth. Be yourselves 
 its members and governors, for no Christian could live there. 
 
 "When the delicate pencils of the Gibbons, Reynolds and 
 Marmontels, will paint the political scenery of the eighteenth 
 century; when on the extensive canvass, they will represent 
 the gloom of long reigning prejudice, scattering, as the clouds 
 of night, at the approach of the rising sun ; when they will 
 paint the poignard, drenched in human blood, snatched from 
 the hand of stern persecution — the French praying in concert 
 with the American — the Americans invited into Russia — the 
 order of military merit established in favour of Protestants, in 
 the palace of a Catholic king — Ireland rising from the sea, co- 
 vered with her Fabii and Scipios, pointing their spears to dis- 
 tant shores, and holding forth the olive and sheaf of corn to 
 their neighbours of all denominations; when they will con- 
 trast the present to former times, shew the happy result of 
 a change of system, and prove that the world is refined ; you, 
 painted in as frightful attitudes as the group of figures in 
 Raphael's Judgment, with stern fanaticism in your counte-
 
 Sec. 10.] Chrisiiau Relif/iou. 15J) 
 
 uances, a bible in one hand and a faggot in the other — you, I 
 say, will be an exception to the general rule : the world will read 
 with surprise, that, in seventeen hundred and eighty, there have 
 been fanatics, in England and Scotland, that gave birth to so 
 many illustrious writers. Your transactions shall be recorded in 
 the appendix to the history of Jack Straw and Wat Tyler ; and 
 your chaplains and apologists shall be ranked with James Nailer 
 and Hugh Peters."* 
 
 § 10. 
 
 Remarks on the Charge of Misrepresentaiion, pointed at hy 
 Vindex. — Examination of his Reasons for Opposing Ca- 
 tholic Emancipation. — Explanation of the name of Roman 
 Catholic. — Concluding Remarks. 
 
 Having disposed of the accusations preferred against the 
 Catholic religion, it will not be expected that I should notice the 
 abuse cast upon myself by one of Dr. Moysey's anonymous de- 
 fenders. There is, however, one reflection which I must notice, 
 because in attacking me, it is meant to injure the cause I de- 
 fend. Speaking of my former Letter to the Archdeacon, 
 Vindex says, " It appears to me from the subject of your let- 
 ter, that you ignorantly misconceive, if you do not wilfully 
 misrepresent, the tenets of your own Church."t Now I pre- 
 sume, that when Vindex makes the supposition of my "i2:no- 
 rantly misconceiving the tenets of my own Church," he ima- 
 gines that the theological education of a Catholic clergyman is 
 confined to the translation of the Greek testament, or the read- 
 ing of a few Catholic controvertists. In this case I grant it 
 would have been as easy for me to misconceive the tenets of 
 my Church, as it is for the clergymen of another Church to 
 misconceive theirs. But it may be proper to inform him that 
 the theological education of a Catholic priest, is something 
 very different from this. Before he can be admitted to or- 
 ders, he must not only know accurately what are the doc- 
 
 * Father O'Leary's Tracts, Dublin edit. ISlG, page 153. Whoever wishes for 
 furtlier information on this subject will find it in these spirited and eloquent works. 
 Also in Jliiner's Letters to a Prebendary, &c. ; Lingard's and Eustace's Tracts, &c. 
 t Letter to the Rev. V. Baines, page 2.
 
 160 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 trines of his own religion, but he must be convinced of the 
 truth of them all, and must have examined into and seen 
 the force of every objection, which heresy or infidelity has 
 brought against them. Not only are the works of Catholic 
 divines put into his hands, but the ablest productions of Anti- 
 Catholic writers are subjected to his examination, and he is en- 
 couraged to draw from them every argument he can devise 
 against his own religion. If after these examinations, there 
 should appear any doubt of his perfect conviction of the truth 
 of his religion, he would not be allowed to receive ordination, 
 and in this country particularly, he would be a madmad if 
 he did. 
 
 In every country indeed the restraits and privations to which 
 the Catholic priesthood is subjected, are calculated to prevent 
 any one from embracing it, except from principles of real reli- 
 gion, and a sincere desire to benefit his fellow-creatures. But 
 in England, where the ancient honours and revenues of his 
 Church are enjoyed by a more favoured race, where a mere 
 subsistence, frequently dependent upon the gratuities of his 
 own flock, and oftentimes scarcely this is afforded him ; where 
 the poor pittance obtained for his maintenance, is expected to be 
 shared, and always is willingly shared with the objects of distress 
 and the necessities of his mission ; where the most arduous and 
 painful duties generally fill up every moment of his day, and 
 frequently break his hours of nightly rest ; when in the midst 
 of a life like this, he sees himself surrounded by men who hate 
 him for his religion's sake alone, and who sometimes traduce 
 him, as the worst of men, in the very churches which his fore- 
 fathers built, and in the pulpits from which, for ages, they 
 zealously inculcated the amiable duties of fraternal charity ; 
 when he sees himself an exile in his own country, poor in the 
 midst of plenty, despised where he might be honoured, he is 
 worse than a madman, if he embrace such a state, or continue 
 in it one single day, without the fullest conviction of the truth 
 of his religion, and the consequent hopes of a future recompense. 
 The English Catholic priest may indeed tn/hj say with St. 
 Paul, " If in this life only we hope, we are of all men most 
 miserable." * 
 
 What inducement then, can an English Catholic clergyman 
 have "wilfully to misrepresent the tenets of his Church?" Is 
 it likely, if he knows whose tenets to be idolatrous, that he will 
 subject himself to the above hardships in this world, that he may 
 be eternally damned in the next i Is a Catholic clergyman 
 
 * Corinth, xv, 19.
 
 Sec. 10.] Christian Re/ii/ion. K>t 
 
 different in nature from all the rest of mankind i Is he alone 
 insensible to the attractions of a life of ease, affluence and plea- 
 sure ? Is it in his nature to prefer the barren desert to the 
 fertile plain i the stern poverty of the monk, which admits of 
 no additional enjoyment, even in the midst of wealth, to the 
 soft comforts of the modern churchman, who can enjoy all the 
 good things of this world and lay exclusive claims to all the 
 happiness of the next ? If conscience would permit the change, 
 is it likely that the love of images or falsehood would prevent 
 it ? Where is the man who would not say with the poet, 
 
 " Pone metus, veniam, simulacraque nostra relinqaam." 
 
 Will it be said, that the object of the Catholic priest is to make 
 converts to his religion by misstating its doctrines ? But will 
 not these very converts immediately abandon it, when they find 
 they have been deceived ? 
 
 And how could a person like myself, if I wished it, mis- 
 represent the tenets of my Church on this important subject ? 
 For some years I have been in the weekly habit of teaching the 
 doctrines of the Catholic religion to a numerous and respectable 
 congregation in a public place of worship, where many Protest- 
 ants (as Dr. Moysey, I am told, so feelingly deplores) are in the 
 habit of attending. If I teach one doctrine from the press and 
 another from the pulpit, are there not thousands of persons, 
 both Catholics and Protestants, who could come forward and 
 expose my duplicity ? Have / ever been convicted of a false- 
 hood I Have I ever misstated the religion of others for the pur- 
 pose of defending my own I Why then are such insinuations 
 thrown out against me, and that too under the cover of an 
 anonymous publication ? Can this be the work of the digni- 
 tary of the Church of England ? Or can he, by more than 
 mere silence,, approve of such proceedings 1 
 
 Vindex bears honourable testimony to the " unshrinking 
 bravery of the Catholic soldier in the field of battle," but denies 
 that after he "has fought bravely, and bled profusely in his 
 country's cause," he ought to be admitted to offices of trust, 
 because it cannot be expected that he will " make the Protes- 
 tant Church and state the object of his fostering care and pro- 
 tection in an equal degree with the Protestant."* This is a 
 hard saying to address to a body of brave men who constitute 
 one half, if not two- thirds of those victorious armies and navies 
 which have raised England to such a height of military renown. 
 
 * Letter to the Rev. P. Baines, page 9, &c. 
 X
 
 102 A Defence of the [Let. 2. 
 
 It is hard, (and if they were not Catholics it might be hold,) to 
 say to them, " You have fought bravely, and shed your blood 
 profusely in defence of your country ; but you must not pre- 
 sume to expect any reward ; because ' it is one thingj^to be a 
 good soldier, and another thing to be qualified for a confidential 
 legislator.' You are, unfortvmately, a suspected race, and how- 
 ever gallant your conduct, however steady your loyalty, and 
 however irreproachable your lives, you must never expect to 
 rise from your degraded state, because certain comfortable and 
 wealthy clergymen of the Established Church think that you 
 would not ' make the Protestant Church and state the objects 
 of your fostering care.'" 
 
 But what reason has Vindex to suspect the Catholic of want 
 of attachment to the state ? Was not that state founded by 
 his Catholic ancestors, and has not he, except for the persecu- 
 tion he suffers, as much interest in its preservation as his Pro- 
 testant countrymen? 
 
 But it is theChurch, I dare say, that Vindex has in his eye. 
 And what does he mean by the word Church ? Does he mean 
 the relic/ion of Christ ? I hope this is not so precarious a 
 state as to be in danger of ruin should the government of En- 
 gland, allow to a few brave men the liberties of their country. 
 Does he mean the doctrines of the Established Church 1 I 
 know of no doctrines peculiar to this Church, except such as 
 are contained in the thirty-nine articles ; and surely there can 
 be no necessity for a Catholic senator's defending them, when 
 even the established clergy declare that there is no necessity for 
 believing them. Does he perhaps mean by the word Church, 
 the revenues which are enjoyed by the higher orders of clergy 
 in the Established Church I The importance of defending these 
 may, indeed, be a very proper subject for an archdeacon to 
 discuss, v/hen addressing his clergy ; (for to them nothing can 
 be more interesting ;) but is it equally so to the public ? 
 
 There was a time when Englishmen were told and believed 
 that the Church of England was destined by Providence " to 
 beat down sin, death, the Pope and the devil, and all the king- 
 dom of Antichrist in every part of the world, and to gather to- 
 gether ' the poor silly flock of Christ all into one fold.' "* Nor 
 can we wonder that, under such impressions, the honest people 
 of this country should feel anxious that the holy men appointed 
 by heaven to accomplish this desirable work, should be well 
 rewarded for their pains. Experience, however, has proved 
 that these expectations were altogether delusive. The empires 
 
 * Book of Homilies, p. 398.
 
 Sec. 10.] Chrisliun Reltr/iun. 103 
 
 of "siu, death, the Pope, and the devil," are each as power- 
 ful as ever, and " the poor silly flock of Christ" in this country 
 instead of being more united than formerly, is more disunited 
 than any body of Christians in the whole world. Hence the 
 opinions of men respecting the deserts of those apostles, who 
 were to have renewed the face of the earth," have greatly 
 changed, and the " poor silly sheep" who have leaped over the 
 fences of the new fold, and appointed themselves new shep- 
 herds, are no longer so deeply impressed with the advantage of 
 maintaining the pastors whose assistance they have spurned, in 
 addition to those whom they have chosen for their guides. 
 Even our legislators themselves, though not Catholics, begin to 
 doubt whether it is quite essential to the welfare of the state 
 that Ireland should be thrown into a state of rebellion, and its 
 wretched inhabitants driven by famine and despair to commit 
 atrocities at which humanity shutters, merely that a large body 
 of Established clergymen who have never seen their flocks, may 
 be enabled to dance and abuse the Catholics at Bath and Chel- 
 tenham. To me it appears that if the Established clergy saw 
 clearly their own interests, they would enjoy quietly the good 
 things which the law has given them, and not in these days of 
 domestic distress and foreign revolution, direct the eyes of a 
 starving and daring populace to a fruit which ought to be for- 
 bidden. 
 
 That Catholics shoidd have much affection for a body of 
 men from whom they have and do experience so great injus- 
 tice, cannot reasonably be expected ; but if only such as love the 
 establishment of the church, are to be admitted into the coun- 
 cils of the state, I am much mistaken if ere long the Established 
 clergy do not find themselves entirely burdened with the offices 
 of the latter, and entirely released from those of the former. 
 
 Vindex maintains that the Catholics are perfectly free "be- 
 cause exclusion from power is only negative in its operation. 
 It inflicts nothing," says he, " it only withholds somethinti'." 
 I cannot always fathom the depth of his metaphysics, but to 
 me it appears that the present state of the sister island is a re- 
 futation of his system. The " withholding something," namely 
 meat and drink from the poor Irish, is not a negcdive, but 
 a positive evil, which is not altogether done away with, by the 
 privilege they enjoy of practising a religion, which despair has 
 driven them to forget. It is even thought by many, that the 
 Established clergy of Ireland would soon be less free to collect 
 their tithes, if the Catholic clergy were more negative in en- 
 forcing the payment of them, or withheld {qx a few months that
 
 164 A Defence of ike [Let.'2. 
 
 powerful influence they are reproached with exercising- over 
 their flocks, and which they never cease to employ to induce the 
 people to practice that difficult gospel lesson of" loving those that 
 hate them, blessing those that curse them, and praying for 
 those that persecute and calumniate them. 
 
 I cannot conlude this dissertation without offering a few re- 
 marks on a postcript added by Vindex to his letter. " I have," 
 says he, " throughout this letter, designedly styled the mem- 
 bers of your church ' Roman Catholics,' because I conceive 
 the appropriation of the term ' Catholic in your Church to be 
 founded on arrogance and presumption." I must own that in 
 reading Vindex, and observing the style to which he frequently 
 descended to, I was surprised not to meet with the old nick- 
 names of Papist, Romanist, &c. with which writers of his 
 level generally honour us ; and it gratified me to think that even 
 an anonymous writer, who copied the arguments, did not ven- 
 ture to copy all the abuse of former days. It appears, how- 
 ever, that Vindex really did not intend to be so civil as I ima- 
 gined, and that in calling us Roman Catholics, he thought he 
 was giving us an appellation which we disown, and which, 
 like the above nicknames, had been the fruit of Protestant li- 
 berality. It may be proper then to inform him, that although 
 Catholic is our family name,* which we (jenerally use with- 
 out any addition, and which we have received from apostolic 
 times, yet when we wish to do ourselves particular honour, we 
 add to it the title of Roman. By the former we are disting- 
 guished from all heretics, as a learned Protestant writer could 
 inform him ; by the latter, from all schismatics. " Heretics," 
 says Bingham, " commonly confined religion either to a par- 
 ticular region, or some select party of men, and therefore had 
 no pretence to style themselves Catholics : but the Church of 
 Christ had a just title to this name, being called Catholic (as 
 Optatus observes) because it was universally diffiised over all 
 the world. And in this sense the name is as ancient almost as 
 the Church itself. "f But as the early Christians adopted the 
 name of Catholic to distinguish the members of the true 
 
 * Christian is my name, Cathelic is my surname, said a Christian writer of the 
 fourth century, St. Pacian. 
 
 t Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church, chap. i. sect. 7. N. B. I em- 
 ploy the word heretics in this place, hecause Bingham employs it. In a Catholic 
 sense, this word implies a person not only in error, but obstinate in error. On 
 this account, / nerer would employ it against the generality of Protestants in 
 this country ; because thongli I believe them to be in error, I do not tliink they are 
 generally ohstinalely so, but are deceived by interested men, who misrepresent to 
 ♦hem the religimi of tbeir ancestors,
 
 Sec. 10.] Christian Relli/ion. 165 
 
 Church from all heretics, so in later times they assumed the 
 additional title of Roman, to disting'uish themselves from all 
 schismatics, and to point out more clearly their exclusive right 
 to the name of Catholic, For when larger portions of the 
 Church were by schism separated from her communion, it 
 sometimes happened that they retained for a certain time their 
 ancient appellation of Catholic, and it was then that the great 
 body of the faithful added to the name of Catholic the title of 
 Roman, to signify their continued adherence to that authority 
 from which the others had revolted. 
 
 During the reign of Henry the Eighth, before the Church 
 of England had adopted any of the new doctrines, and whilst 
 she remained purely schismatical, she continued to be called 
 Catholic, and had she continued so to the present day, we, 
 who adhere to the communion of the universal Church, should 
 have been careful, on all occasions to have styled ourselves 
 Roman Catholics. But when England afterwards adopted the 
 doctrines of the Reformers, and i*eceived, in consequence, the 
 name of Protestant, she instantly ceased to be called Catholic, 
 a name to which she had indeed forfeited her right when she 
 became a national church. Her attempt to recover this name, 
 should such attempt be made, is useless ; as no one will ac- 
 knowledge her right to it. For did she even comprise Avithin 
 her pale the whole population of the kingdom, still, according 
 to Bingham, she could have no pretension to the name of Ca- 
 tholic, " because her religion would be confined to a particular 
 region, or a select party of men." But when at least one third 
 of her population are the ancient Catholics of the country, 
 and more than another third is composed of a variety of sects, 
 each less numerous, and generally of even more modern date 
 than herself, should the Established Church in such a case, 
 call herself the universal or Catholic church, it would only be 
 acknowledging publicly that she ought to be what she is not. 
 Since therefore, in this country there is Jio fear that we shall 
 be misunderstood when we call ourselves simply Catholics, we 
 generally, for the sake of brevity, omit the title of Roman, but 
 on more solemn or more ceremonious occasions we add it at our 
 option. What Vindexcan mean by saying that " he considers 
 our appropriation of the term Catholic to be fbimded on arro- 
 gance and presumption," I cannot imagine. Surely he does 
 not expect that we shall ask his j)ermissiou to use a title which 
 has descended to us from apostolic times, a!id to which our 
 right is established by a prescription of above eighteen centuries.
 
 166 A Defence of the [Let. % 
 
 If so, I fear the " presumption and arrogance" is on his side, 
 not ours. 
 
 It is curious to observe, how all sects of Christians, who 
 have separated themselves from the Catholic Church, have in 
 all ages laboured, but in vain, to obtain this envied title. 
 " Among many considerations," observed St. Augustine, in 
 the fifth century, " that bind me to the Church, is the name 
 of Catholic, which not without reason, in the midst of so 
 many heresies, this Church alone has so retained, that, although 
 all heretics wish to acquire the name, should a stranger ask 
 where the Catholics assemble, the heretics themselves will not 
 dare to point out any of their own places of meeting."* Now 
 to apply St. Augustine's rule to our own times, I ask Vindex 
 whether if a respectable man enquired of him the way to the 
 Catholic chapel in this city, he could, in honour, send him to 
 Laura Chapel or the Octagon ? 
 
 The veneration which the ancient Christians paid to the Ro- 
 man See, is scarcely excelled by that which they expressed for 
 the name of Catholic. St. Ireneus, in the second century, 
 calls Rome " the greatest, the most ancient, the most illustri- 
 ous Church, founded by the glorious apostles Peter and Paul, 
 receiving from them her doctrine, which was announced to all 
 men, and which, through the succession of her bishops, is 
 come down to us. Thus," continues he, " we confound all 
 those, who, through evil designs, or vain glory, or perverse- 
 ness, teach what they ought not. For to this Church, on ac- 
 count of its superior headship, every other must have recourse, 
 that is the faithful of all countries, in which Church has been 
 preserved the doctrine delivered to the apostles."f He then 
 gives the succession of Popes down to his own time, namely, 
 not quite a century from the death of the apostles, and whilst 
 Eleutherius, the twelfth Pope, filled the apostolic see. 
 
 That the veneration of Christians for this illustrious Church 
 and for the title of Roman, should have continued to increase 
 with the lapse of time, no one can wonder, when he consi- 
 ders, that whilst so many empires have risen and fallen, and 
 every earthly establishment has yielded to the destroying hand 
 of time ; whilst even in the Church itself, a regular succession 
 of bishops can no where be traced to the apostolic times, ex- 
 cept in the Church of Rome alone, that Church, like the 
 
 * Contra Ep. Fundam, toin. ii. page 46. —Faith of Catholics, page 94. 
 t •' Ad hanc, propter potiorem principalitatcin, oaiiiein necesse est convenire 
 ecclesiam." Advcrs. lla^reses. Lib. iii. c. 3.
 
 Sec. 10.] 
 
 Christian lieiiffUm. 
 
 IG 
 
 / 
 
 See also page 168. 
 rock, upon which Christ promised that he would build his 
 Church, against which the gates of hell should never prevail, 
 has alone withstood the shock of ages, alone holds up to the 
 world her unbroken succession of bishops up to the days of St. 
 Peter, and continues to this day the great rallying point and 
 centre of Christian unity. These sentiments are the more 
 deeply impressed when we reflect, " that there has been no 
 nation as yet, since the apostolic age, converted from Infidelity 
 to Christianity, which has not been brought to the light of faith 
 by men, either sent by the Pope of Rome for that purpose, or 
 in communion with him."* 
 
 It is to me a matter of surprise, that Vindex is not as eager 
 to claim, for his own Church, the title of Roman, as he is to 
 
 • See an historical proof of this asser<ion in the Religions World displayed, bj 
 the Rev. Robt. Adam, B. A. Oxford, vol. ii. page 3, 4, &c.
 
 168 A Defence of the [Let. 2 
 
 give it to us. For unless the Church of England has received 
 her orders from Rome, it is certain she has no clergy. To the 
 appellation of Catholic she can never hope to have the slight- 
 est pretension ; to that of Roman she might have put in some 
 claims, however doubtful.* 
 
 It is the universality, unity, perpetuity and stability of the 
 Church, expressed by the appellation of Roman Catholic, 
 which inspire its members with such unbounded confidence in 
 its truth, and is the chief cause of that " lofty and dictatorial" 
 (Vindex ought to have said firm and decided) tone, of which 
 he complains in the writings of its defenders. When a Catho- 
 lic clergyman has been taught to extend his tiew beyond the 
 boundaries of his native island and to take a survey of the 
 whole Christian world ; when combining the past with the pre- 
 sent, he sees a religion beginning with Christ, and descending 
 ill one unbroken succession to the present day ; when he con- 
 templates the Church, founded on an immovable rock, which 
 becomes the centre of a circle, widening through every age, 
 like the waves on a ruffled surface, till it embraces in its pale 
 all the nations of the known world ; when he beholds the spouse 
 of Christ, looking down from her proud eminence on the 
 wrecks of all human things, scattering the blessings of religion 
 from shore to shore, and guarding them from age to age for 
 her obedient children, whilst those who forsake her, like sheep 
 that have left their fold, wander for a time in restless uncertain- 
 ty, till at last they are seen no more ; when he sees her in the 
 midst of the rudest assaults of earth and hell, still resting se- 
 curely on the promises of him who cannot fail, as confident of 
 the future protection of heaven as she is secure of the past, her 
 confidence becomes his own ; and if at that moment he beholds 
 some consequential member of a modern sect, cased from head 
 to foot in the armour of misrepresentation, advancing towards 
 him and hurling his little spear or striking his pettish hand a- 
 gainst the rock of the Church, he cannot repress the feeling at 
 least oi pity, which is only encreased by the anger and vexation 
 of his disappointed foe. 
 
 I have the honour to remain, 
 Very Reverend Sir, Your obedient servant, 
 Bath, March 22, 1822. P. BAINES. 
 
 * Luther, though never accused of being too modest, felt so strongly the incon- 
 sistency of professing a belief '' in the holj Catholic Church," after he had separa- 
 ted himself from her, that he changed the apostle's creed, sabslituting the word 
 Christian instead of Catholic !
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 AN lEXFOSITION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CONTROVERTED DOCTRINES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 
 
 Bij BOSSUET, 
 
 WITH PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS AND NOTES 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. JOHN FLETCHER, 
 
 Extiiicte.l from the CATHOLIC'S MANUAL.* 
 
 On the Invocation of the Saints. 
 
 *' The doctrine of the Church upon this subject is, — that it 
 is useful to address ourselves to the saints, in order to obtain 
 the aid of their intercessiou.f She, however, at the same 
 time, teaches, that we must do this in that same spirit of cha- 
 rity; and according to that same order of social fellowship, 
 
 * I hope none of my readers will be alarmed when I tell them that this exposi- 
 tion of Bossuet appears to have been mainly instrumental in bringing about the la- 
 mentable conversion of Miss Loveday, which has drawn more expressions of horror 
 from the religions editors of English news-papers, and mora tears from the pious 
 ladies of England, than the conversion of a thousand Misies to any of the sects 
 which deny the divinity of Christ would have done ! 
 
 t Tobias xii. 12. The angel Raphael says to Tohis ; When thou didst pray 
 tcith tears, and didst bury the dead, I offered up thy prayer to the Lord. 
 
 " 2 Machabees XV. 12, &c. This, says Judas, relating his vision, this is Jere- 
 miah, the prophet of God, who prays much for the people and the holy city 
 
 Y
 
 170 Apjjendix. 
 
 which prompts us to solicit the mutual assistance of one ano- - 
 ther, whilst we dwell together on this earthly theatre. Did 
 the mediatorship of Christ receive any injury, or disparage- 
 ment, from the circumstance of our addresses to the saints, 
 then would it also, as the Catechism of the council of Trent 
 remarks, be violated in like manner by the prayers, which we 
 thus reciprocally offer up for each other's benefit. 
 
 " In order, however, still farther to prevent any misunder- 
 standing, the Catechism, which I just referred to, points out 
 the very great and essential difference that exists between the 
 manner in which we implore the assistance of the Almighty, and 
 that in which we petition the intercession of the saints. We 
 entreat the Abnighty, it says, either to confer upon ns some 
 hlessincj ; or to deliver us from some misfortune. But since 
 the saints are rnore pleasing to him than ive are, we, hence, en- 
 treat them to lend us their assistance, and to obtain for us the 
 grant of our requests,. For this reason, the forms of our pe- 
 titions, on each oo§asion, are extremely different. Address- 
 ing ourselves to God, xve say to him: Have mercy on us ; 
 Hear us. Whereas, speaking to the saints, ive say ?nerely : 
 Pray for us. (Tit. de Invoc. Sanct.) Hence, be the 
 manner what it may in which men chance to present their peti- 
 tions to the saints, it is at least to this form, that the Church 
 and its enlightened members are always careful to reduce them : 
 
 " Luke XV. 10. / say to ijou, there shall be joy before the angels of God, upon 
 one sinner doing penance. 
 
 *' Apocalypse v. 8. And when he had opened the book, the four living crea- 
 tures and the four and twenty ancients, fell down before the Lamb; having each 
 of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the 
 Saitits. 
 
 " Apostle's Creed. / believe in the co7n7nunion of Saints. 
 
 " The belief of the Fathers of the church respecting this article is sufficiently, 
 perhaps, stated in the preceding chapter. But should the reader wish to see the 
 testimonies of these holy men, either upon this, or any other controverted subject, 
 I refer him to the work of Messrs. Berington and Kirk, entitled, ' The Faith of 
 Catholics, confirmed by Scripture ; and attested by the Fathers,' a work, which 
 stands a splendid monument of learning, industry and talent; and whose utility, if 
 equalled, is not surpassed by any modern publication. 
 
 " The fact, however, is so notorious, that in the early ages of the Church, the 
 faithful every where invocated the saints, that it is not contested by the enlightened 
 Protestant. ' It is,' says Bishop Montague, 'the common voice with general con- 
 currence, without contradiction, of reverend and learned antiquity. And I see no 
 cause to dissent from them (the Catholics,) touching intercession of this kind. 
 Christ is not thus wronged in his mediation. And it is no impiety to say, as the 
 Catholics do : HoLY Mary, Pray for me.' (Invoc. of Saints.) 
 
 '' Indeed, even Luther himself approves of the invocation of the saints. ' I al- 
 low,' he says, ' with the whole Christian Church, and believe, that the saints in hea- 
 ven should be invoked. For who can contradict, the miracles wrought daily at their 
 tombs? (De purgat. quorund art.)
 
 Invocation of Saints. 171 
 
 and this, the above catechism, in the subsequent parts, confirms. 
 
 " But it may be well, too, to take notice of the manner in 
 which the council itself, instructing the pastors of the Church 
 how they ought to speak of the invocation of the saints, com- 
 mands them to address the faithful. It bids them say that ' The 
 saints, ivho reign with Christ, offer tip their prayers for the 
 henefit of men ; that it is good and nsefid, snpiMantly to ask 
 their intercession ; and to have recourse to their aid and influ- 
 ence, in order to obtain favours from God, through His 
 Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord ; ivho alone is our Savi- 
 our and our Redeemer.^ 
 
 " Neither is this all that the council teaches. For, besides 
 this, it condemns all those who presume to inculcate any doc- 
 trine that is at variance with the foregoing principles. 
 
 " From these principles it is, therefore, easy to understand, 
 what the belief is of the Catholic Church, respecting the invo- 
 cation of the saints. It is simply this, — that it is useful to soli- 
 cit their intercession, in order to obtain from God, through the 
 inerits and mediation of Jesus Christ, those benefits which we 
 stand in need of. It is, indeed, entirely through Jesus Christ, 
 that we obtain whatsoever we do obtain, in consequence of the 
 influence of the saints : since it is in the name of Jesus Christ, 
 that the saints themselves address the Eternal Father ; and in 
 his name only, that their petitions are attended to. Such, ex- 
 pressed thus clearly in few words by the council of Trent, is the 
 faith of the Catholic Church on the article of the invocation of 
 the saints. How astonishing then it is, that after an explana- 
 tion so plain and satisfactory, the Protestant should still obsti- 
 nately accuse us of ' departing from Jesus Christ.' We thus, 
 in reality, only beseech his members, who are at the same time 
 ours ; his children, who are also our brethren ; his saints, who 
 are our first-fruits, to unite their intercession to our supplica- 
 tions ; entreating the common master of them and of us, to grant 
 our petitions, in the name of our common mediator, Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 " The same council explains to us still further, and in very 
 few and easy words, what the spirit is, or what the intention 
 of the Church, when she offers up to God the sacrifice of the 
 mass, by way of honouring the memory of the saints. The 
 honour, which we pay to them in this sacred action consists in 
 naming them in our prayers, ' the faithful servants of God ; in 
 returning thanks to God for the victories, which, through his 
 grace, they have so happily purchased ; and in beseeching him 
 humbly, to allow "his indignation to be softened by the influ- 
 ences of their intercession.
 
 172 Apppendix. 
 
 " St. Austin, above thirteen hundred years ago, had madei 
 the observation, that, 'although it was the custom of the uni- 
 versal Church to offer up the sacrifice of the mass over the bo- 
 dies, and in the memory of the martyrs, yet it ought not hence 
 to be imagined, that it was to the martyrs, that the holy obla- 
 tion was presented.' (L. 8. De Civit. Dei.) In like manner, 
 the same saint remarks again, that 'at the holy table, during 
 the celebration of the sacred mysteries, a commemoration is 
 made of the blessed martyrs ; not by the way of praying for 
 them, as it was the custom to pray for the rest of the dead, but 
 rather to entreat them to offer up prayers for us.' I cite the 
 words of the holy bishop, because they are nearly the same with 
 those, which, upon this subject, the council of Trent makes 
 use of in Its instructions to the faithful. The Church, says the 
 council, does not offer 7ip sacrifice to the saints, hut to God 
 alone, who has crowned the saints. Hence, the priest ad- 
 dressing Saint Peter or Saint Paul, does not say to them : I 
 OFFER THIS SACRIFICE TO YOU; but returning thanks to 
 God for their victories, he asks only their assistance ; in or- 
 der that they, whom we commemorate on earth, may he pleased 
 to intercede for 7is in heaven. (Ses3. 22.) Thus it is that we 
 honour the saints ,• wishing thus to obtain by the help of their 
 suffrages the grace of God ; and above all the grace to imitate 
 their virtues ; to which we are animated by the contemplation 
 of their bright example; and by the honour which, before God, 
 we pay to their happy memories. 
 
 " The Protestant who will give himself the trouble to consider 
 the above explanation of our doctrine, will, if he be candid, be 
 compelled to own that, as we neither take away from the De- 
 ity any one of the divine perfections, so neither do we attribute 
 to the creatures any one quality or operation that is appropriate 
 but to God. Thus are we distinguished from idolaters, a name 
 which, as it is applied to us, was invented only by Protestant 
 ill-will, in order to make us odious. 
 
 " But it is objected, that, * by addressing our prayers to the 
 saints, and by honouring them as if they were present in every 
 place, we attribute to them a kind of immensity, or at least a 
 knowledge of the secrets of the human heart ; a circumstance, 
 which according to the testimony of the scriptures, God reserves 
 solely to himself.' Now this objection, although indeed often 
 repeated, is still founded upon ignorance, or upon a very mis- 
 taken notion of our tenets. For without examining upon what 
 foundation a certain degree of knowledge of earthly things, or 
 even of the secrets of the human heart, may be attributed to the
 
 Invocation of Saints. 173 
 
 Saints ; without examining this, it is melhinks evident, that it 
 is not raising the creature above the sphere of its condition, to 
 say, that it does possess some knowledge of these objects, by 
 the means of that light which God communicates to it. The 
 example of the prophets evinces this. God has often imparted 
 to the prophets the foresight of future events, although such 
 quality ought to appear confined most peculiarly to himself. 
 
 " But in short never did there exist any Catholics so unwise 
 as to have imagined that the saints are acquainted with our 
 wants, or read our desires, through the medium solely of their 
 own sagacity. All that the Church, after the example of 
 every age of antiquity, teaches upon this subject is, that it is 
 useful to address our supplications to them, whether they learn 
 our necessities through the ministry of the angels ; for the an- 
 gels, the scripture informs us, are acquainted with human 
 transactions, being ' ministering spirits,' appointed by God, to 
 promote the work of our salvation : whether they know our 
 desires through the medium of a particular revelation ; or in 
 short, whether God himself discovers the secret to them in the 
 mirror of his own infinite essence, that principle in which all 
 truth is comprehended. These are points upon which the 
 Church has decided nothing. 
 
 " Be the medium however what it may, by which God com- 
 municates to the saints the knowledge of our prayers, it is still 
 true, that the Catholic does not, as did the idolaters, attribute 
 to any human creature any one of the divine perfections : since 
 he does not acknowledge, even in the greatest saints, any pos- 
 sible degree of excellence which does not immediately derive 
 from God. He entertains no veneration for them, save that 
 which results from their virtues ; owns no virtue, save that 
 which is the gift of grace ; no knowledge, besides that which 
 God communicates; no power to assist us, beyond that which 
 arises from their intercessions, ; nor any share of happiness, ex- 
 cept that which is the effect of their conformity to the rule of 
 the divine will. 
 
 "Whoever, therefore, considers our sentiments concerning the 
 saints, will conceive it manifest, that we do not exalt these happy 
 beings above the rank of human creatures. He will likewise 
 understand, what the nature is of that external honour which 
 we pay them. The external honour which we pay them, is 
 merely the expression of those interior sentiments, which we 
 entertain for their virtues and their sanctity.* 
 
 * "The Protestant who has seriously considered the real sentiments of the Ca- 
 tholic Church, with respect to the veneration which we pay to the saints, will I am
 
 174 Appendix. 
 
 " But since the honour which the Catholic Church pays to 
 the saints, is manifested principally by the respect Avhich we 
 shew to their images and relics, it is for this reason proper to 
 explain what our belief is respecting these two objects of our 
 veneration.* 
 
 On Images. 
 
 " In relation to images, the council of Trent expressly for- 
 bids any one to believe, that there is any divinity, or any 
 virtue in them, ivhich should appear to claim the tribute of 
 his veneration ; that it is sinful to ask any favour from them 
 or to place our confidence in them. The decree of the council 
 is, that 'all the honour which is paid to them, shall be referred 
 to the originals whom they are designed to represent.' Sess. 
 25. de Invoc. Sanct. 
 
 *' In these words of the council, the plainest distinction is 
 made between the ideas of the Catholic, and the notions of the 
 idolater, on the subject of images. So far, according to the 
 above definition, is the Catholic from believing, as did the idol- 
 
 snre, if candid, acknowledge that there is not in it any thing that even distantly 
 resembles the nature of idolatry. Hence, he will reprobate that insolence which 
 daily reviles us as stnpid idolaters ; and he will feel astonished at that singular po- 
 licy, which compels men to swear, (as our legislators swear,) that we are such. 'I 
 do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God profess, (this is the oath which 
 qualifies our legislators for their acts of wisdom') testify and declare, that I do be- 
 lieve, that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, as 
 now used in the Church of Rome, is superstitious and idolatrous.' Good God ! how 
 truly horrible ! To swear that it is idolatry, which has not a shadow of idolatry in 
 it ! To call heaven to witness, that it is idolatry which the Christian universe, 
 through every age, the saints and the sages of every country, have fervently cultiva- 
 ted! Pitiful is the policy which requires the frightful oath, and dreadful the hardi- 
 hood that takes it. 
 
 * " Like the invocation of the saints, the early use and veneration of their images, 
 are conceded to us by the best informed Protestant writers. The Centuriators allow, 
 that they were common, even, in the third and fourth ages of the Church. Eusebius, 
 they say, writes that he saw in Asia, Christians who preserved the images of St. Pe- 
 ter and St. Paul, and of Christ himself. (Cent. 3.) 
 
 " Tertullian, the same writers add, seems to declare, that the Christians kept 
 the imago of the cross both in their public assemblies and in their private houses. — 
 And it was hence that the Pagans called them, ' Worshippers of the Cross.' (Cent. 
 3.) See also Cent. 4 passim. Our own English writers, nearly all who have 
 treated on this subject, make the same concessions. 
 
 " In the Wittemberg editions of Luther's works, the great reformer is represented 
 on his knees before a crucifix. 
 
 '* I could indeed adduce the authority of many celebrated Protestants, who ap- 
 prove of the use and veneration of images. The pictures of Christ, says Bishop 
 Montague, of the Blessed Virgin and of the saints, may be had in houses, and 
 plaged in Churches : and respect and honour may be given them. (In Epistom.)
 
 On Images. 175 
 
 ater, that there resides any divinity in such objects, that not 
 even does he think, or conceive, there is any virtue in them 
 whatsoever, except that of awakening in the mind the remem- 
 brance of those originals whom they are intended to exhibit. — 
 This is the sole foundation of the honour that we pay to images. 
 
 " It cannot, for example, be denied that the image of 
 Christ Jesus crucified, awakens in us, when we cast our eyes 
 upon it, the lively remembrance of him, * who hath loved us 
 so, as to lay down his life for our salvation.' Whilst the con- 
 templation of the image nourishes in the soul this useful re- 
 collection, we are, of course, inclined naturally to declare, by 
 some external expression, the tenderness of our gratitude ; 
 and, by humbling ourselves before the representation, to testify 
 the willingness of our submission to the divine original. So 
 that, to speak correctly or theologically, when we honour an 
 image of an apostle or a martyr, our intention is not so much to 
 honour the image, as to honour the apostle, or the martyr, in the 
 presence of the image. Such is the language of the Roman pon- 
 tifical. That of the council of Trent is similar to it. 'The honour,' 
 says the council, ' which we pay to images, is referred to the ori- 
 ginals whom they represent ; so that, by means of the images 
 which we kiss, and before which we kneel, we adore Jesus 
 Christ, and venerate his saints.' (Sess. 25.) 
 
 " In short, it is easy to understand in what spirit the Church 
 designs to honour images, by the characters of that respect, 
 which she pays to the cross, and to the book of the gospel. 
 Bending down to the cross, our intention is to adore him ' who 
 bore our sins upon the tree.' And if we bow our heads before 
 the book of the gospel ; if we rise from our seats when the 
 holy volume is presented to us ; or if we kiss it with profound 
 respect, the whole honour, on such occasions, is referred sole- 
 ly to that eternal truth, which is therein proposed unto us. 
 
 " The Protestant is indeed unreasonable, who considers as 
 an act of idolatry, that religious feeling of the mind, which 
 induces the Catholic to uncover, or bow down his head before 
 the image of the cross, merely in commemoration of Him, who 
 expired upon it for the love of man. And blind, exceedingly 
 blind, is he, who does not perceive the infinite difference which 
 there is between those who put their trust in idols, under the 
 idea that the idol contained some divinity, or at least some se- 
 cret vktue ; and those, who, like us, declare that the only use 
 of images, is, to raise the soul to heaven, in order theret o hon-
 
 176 Appendix. 
 
 our Christ Jesus or his saints ; and in the saints, the Almighty 
 himself, who alone is the author of all grace and sauctifica- 
 ton.* 
 
 On Relics. 
 
 " The honour which, in imitation of the first Christians, we 
 pay to the relics of the saints, is similar to that which we tes- 
 tify for their memories, f The bodies of the saints are so 
 many victims that have been offered up to God, either by the 
 sacrifice of martyrdom, or by the hardships of penance. And 
 did the Protestant reflect, that it is in this point of view that 
 we consider them, he would not then conceive, as through 
 prejudice he does too often, that the respect which, from such 
 motives, we shew to these venerable objects, could possibly de- 
 tach us from that honour which we owe to God. 
 
 •" It is a fact, that there is hardly a single passage in the scriptures, which is 
 connected with any controverted question, that the Reformers did not, some way or 
 other, alter and pervert ; • making,' as the learned Protestant, Zanchius, admits 
 • the scriptures agree with their own fancies,' They did this, particularly in those 
 texts which, relating to idols, they thought fit to apply to images. In all these, 
 they constantly translated the word ' idol,' image, or else' ' image,' idol, precisely 
 as the alteration was adapted to their designs ; or as it seemed best calculated to 
 alarm the piety, and to scare the simplicity of the ignorant. It was thus, for ex- 
 ample, that they translated the twenty-first verse of the fifth chapter of the first 
 epistle of St. John — ' Babes keep yourselves from images ;' a translation which is 
 false and ridiculous, as its aim was mischievous. For, in order to deceive the vul- 
 gar and excite confusion, they fixed np the awful words in huge and terrific charac- 
 ters, throughout all, or nearly all, the churches of the nation. It was by falsehoods 
 and impositions, such as these, that they, at length and chiefly, succeeded in cheat- 
 ing the credulity of the public. 
 
 t " Fourth book of Kings, xiii. 21. When a dead man was let down into the 
 sepulchre of Eliseus, no sooner did he touch the bones of the prophet, than he was 
 revived, and stood up on his feet. 
 
 " Acts xix. 11, 12. And God wrought, by the hand of Paul, more than com- 
 mon miracles. So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handker- 
 chiefs and aprons ; and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits 
 went out of them. 
 
 " The Centuriators allow that the veneration of relics prevailed in the Church in 
 the third and fourth centuries. Saint Cyprian, they say, exhorts the priests of 
 Rome carefully to mark down the days of the deaths of the mart}TS, in order that 
 they might celebrate their commemoration in the chapels of the martyrs. (Cent. 3.) 
 ' It was,' they add, ' in this (the fourth) century, that began the translation and 
 veneration of the relics of the saints.' (Cent. 4.) 
 
 So manifest, in reality, is the veneration which, in the early ages of the Church, 
 the Christians used to pay to relics, that not even do the most learned, though in- 
 veterate Protestants attempt to dispute it. Daille, Blondel, Chemnitius, Whit- 
 aker, &c, attest the prevalence of this veneration frequently. Indeed, the works 
 of the fathers are full of testimonies in commendation of it. Every where, says St, 
 Hilary, is the blood of the martyrs received, and their venerable bones bear wit- 
 ness ; the devils trembling before them, maladies expelled, and wonders wrought. 
 (Contra Constant.)
 
 Christian Religion. 177 
 
 " The affection which, in the cases of human friendship, a 
 friend experiences for a friend, extends, not only to the che- 
 rished individual, but to his children and relations ; and not 
 merely to these, but even to whatever represents him, to what- 
 ever once belonged to him, or that brings back to the mind the 
 pleasing- remembrance of him. This is the dictate of the in- 
 stincts of nature. And did the Protestant again weigh this, 
 then would he likewise understand how the progress of honour 
 is similar to that of friendship ; since honour is nothing else, 
 in reality, than affection united ^ith fear and mingled with re- 
 spect. In short, did the Protestant consider that the whole ex- 
 terior worship which the Catholic cultivates, derives its origin 
 from God alone, and returns solely to God again ; did he con- 
 sider this, then would he, too, conceive clearly that such wor- 
 ship, animated as it thus is merely by the Author of sanctity 
 cannot possibly be displeasing to any one of his divine perfec- 
 tions. He would, on the contrary, conceive that if God, 
 jealous as he is of the love of men, does yet permit them to 
 love each other for the love of him, nor deems such love the 
 division of our affections ; just so, jealous as he likewise is 
 of the respect and veneration of the faithful, still does he al- 
 low them also, without looking upon such act, as any partition 
 of the worship which is due to him, to honour, for his sake, 
 those happy beings, whom himself has honoured so greatly. 
 
 It is however true, that the external marks of reverence 
 which, at different periods, the Catholic may have employed 
 in expressing his veneration for the saints, are by no means, 
 all of them, essential to religion. Without making any al- 
 teration in her doctrine, the Church has often extended, or 
 abridged, her external practices ; regulated in these points, 
 by the nature of circumstances, by the character of times 
 places and events, not wishing that her children should be ser- 
 vilely subjected to visible things, but by their means, be ani- 
 mated only to greater fervour, and admonished to turn the 
 mind to God, in order to present to him, in spirit and truth, 
 ' that reasonable service,' which he expects from all his 
 creatures. 
 
 After this natural and simple exposition of our tenets, it is 
 obvious, as I have remarked already, that a great part of our 
 disputes would be prevented, or at least hushed, did men only 
 give themselves the trouble to appreciate terms ; or else, con- 
 duct themselves with Christian charity. Would the Protes- 
 tant only consider calmly the above explanations, which com- 
 prise the express doctrine of the council of Trent, he would 
 
 z
 
 178 Catholic Doctrine. 
 
 cease to reproach us with violating the mediation of Jesu& 
 Christ ; with invoking the saints ; or honouring their images, 
 in a way that should be appropriated to God alone. Adoration, 
 it is true. Invocation, and the name of Mediator, do in some 
 sense, belong only to God, and to Christ Jesus. And hence, 
 it is easy to abuse or misapply these terms, in order to throw 
 an odium upon our tenets. But if men would act candidly, 
 and reduce words to the signification which I have just been 
 giving them, then would their reproaches vanish, and their 
 objections lose all their influence. Or, if they had any other 
 difficulties, less important than the foregoing, to object against 
 us, sincerity would compel them to acknowledge that they are 
 satisfied, at least, upon the principal subjects of their preju- 
 dices and complaints. 
 
 " At all events, certain it is, that nothing can be more un- 
 just than the objection which is so very often urged against us, 
 ' that we make piety consist in mere devotion to the saints ;' 
 whereas, all that the Church or the council of Trent teaches 
 upon the subject, is simply this ; that * it is good and useful 
 to invoke their intercession.' The design, therefore, of the 
 Church is to condemn those who, either out of contempt, or 
 through error, reject this act of piety. Her censure, in such 
 cases, is wise ; because, whilst it is wrong to permit the con- 
 tempt of practices which are beneficial to salvation, it is wrong 
 likewise to tolerate, under the mere sanction of a few upstart 
 teachers, the condemnation of a doctrine, which every age of 
 Christianity has authorized and cultivated.
 
 REMONSTRANCE, 
 
 IN A THIRD LETTER, 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 CHARLES ABEL MOYSEY, D. D. 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF BATH, 
 
 ON THB 
 
 RENEWAL OF HIS FORMER ATTACKS 
 UPON THE CATHOLICS 
 
 IN HIS 
 
 LATE CHARGE 
 
 TO THE 
 
 CLERGY OF THE DEANERY OF BEDMINSTER, 
 
 July the 19th, 1824. 
 
 Very Reverend Sir, 
 
 A printed Charge delivered to the Clergy of" the Deanery 
 of Bedminster at the Visitation of the Venerable Charles Abel 
 Moysey, D. D. Archdeacon of Bath, June 29, 1824, and 
 printed at their particular request, has within these few days 
 made its appearance in this city. 
 
 It expresses the most lively apprehensions for the safety of 
 the Established Church of England, in consequence of the ra- 
 pid increase of Catholics and Dissenters, the hostility with 
 which both these growing bodies are animated against the Es- 
 tablishment, and the alarming concessions which Government 
 seems inclined to make to them, in spite of the ardent and re- 
 peated remonstrances of the Established Bishops and Clergy. 
 
 It passes some high compliments upon the latter, as the 
 most zealous, active, learned, liberal, and disinterested body 
 of Churchmen that ever astonished, edified, and relieved man- 
 kind ; and represents to the people of England, in the most 
 glowing colours, how sad would be their fate, should Provi- 
 dence, in its severity, permit them to be deprived of the spi- 
 ritual guidance and protection of these incomparable pastors. 
 
 To these or any other encomiums, which you may think pro- 
 per to pass upon yourselves aud your brethren, I have not the 
 
 z
 
 180 Defence of the [Let. 3. 
 
 smallest objection ; nor do I wish that the people of England 
 should undervalue your services, or think less favourable of 
 you than they seem disposed to do. But can you not commend 
 yourselves without vilifying your neighbours l Cannot the pure, 
 the enlightened, the apostolical Church of England appear in 
 sufficient relief without throwing all the rest of the Christian 
 world into darkness and shade I Has truth no charms unless 
 accompanied with falsehood ; no brightness unless encompassed 
 with clouds of misrepresentation and abuse I 
 
 Of the aspersions cast upon the Dissenters, I shall say no- 
 thing. Indeed the chief offence, with which you charge them, 
 is that of endeavouring to overthrow the monopoly of honour 
 and emolument now enjoyed by the Establishment ; a crime, 
 to which, I dare say, they will readily plead guilty ; and for 
 which, if others do not, neither will I condemn them. But 
 of the violent misrepresentation and unprovoked abuse which 
 Vou have thought proper to pour upon the Catholics and their 
 religion, I shall say a few words. 
 
 You assert that the Catholic Church "is an idolatrous and 
 tyrannical empire, a terrible authority which blinds the consci- 
 ences and tyrannizes over the mental liberties of the people ;" 
 that its " modes of worship are superstitious and idolatrous," 
 and its doctrines a mass of " errors and abominations^ You 
 represent the Catholic Priesthood as an unprincipled and de- 
 signing race of men, who, to swell the number of their pro- 
 selytes, descend to " every art,'' even that of bribery, and to 
 *' ensnare their hearers, explain away in public the monstrous 
 doctrines" they secretly profess. You endeavour to alarm the 
 honest credulity of the people, by assuring them that there are, 
 in the Catholic Church, " certain Papal edicts against all Pro- 
 testants carefully kept out of sight," but which will be brought 
 forth and executed upon them the moment the bulwark of the 
 Established Church is thrown down. You descend even to 
 the use of nicknames, denominating the Roman Catholic re- 
 ligion Popery, and its professors Pajnsfs, Romanists, &^c. 
 To complete the outrage, you earnestly recommend to the peru- 
 sal of your readers a work, by a brother Archdeacon^ 
 surpassing even your own in misrepresentation, abuse, and 
 scurrility. 
 
 I confess I am surprised at your conduct and at that of your 
 Clergy. It is now three years since you published a Charge 
 at their request, and I did hope it would have been the last. 
 It produced a discussion, the results of which were certainly 
 not favourable to yourself or your cause, and which materially
 
 Let, 3.] Clirisiian Relujion. 181 
 
 benefited that of the Catholics. It placed a Catholic Clergy- 
 raan under a necessity of vindicating his religion, and induced 
 the public to read his vindication. It enabled many well mea- 
 ning Protestants to discover that their own Clergy, however 
 respectable and deserving of credit on other accounts, are not 
 to be trusted when they speak of the religion, from which 
 their forefathers revolted. It led many to examine more fully 
 into the doctrines of the Catholic religion, and to become its 
 proselytes or its zealous defenders. 
 
 Your former misrepresentations were similar to your present 
 ones ; something more violent. We were as criminal as the 
 ancient Pagans on the score of idolatry, and on some points 
 we even surpassed them in. guilt. No Pagan nation ever au- 
 thorised the systematic violation of oaths. That impiety was 
 peculiar to the Catholic Church. Our Clergy were imposters 
 and our Laity dupes, ready to break through every moral tie 
 to promote the interests of their Church. These and many si- 
 milar aspersions you poured out upon the Catholics, and you 
 exhorted your Clergy to imitate your example, assuring them 
 that their Ordination oaths and the safety of the purest, the 
 most enlightened, the mildest, and most tolerant Church in 
 Christendom obliged them to do so ! 
 
 I refuted your accusations in a short pamphlet, and proved 
 you to have asserted the most notorious mis-statements. I 
 was answered by an anonymous publication signed " Vindex," 
 which endeavoured to maintain most of the positions you had 
 taken, and asserted, with the book of Homilies, not only that 
 the great body of Christians are at the present day, but have 
 been for thirteen hundred years " immersed in damnable idola- 
 try of all vices most detestable to GoD and most hurtful to 
 man ;" also that this same immense body of Christians hold 
 the moral doctrine that promises and oaths are not binding 
 when made to Protestants ! This production compelled me to 
 write a Defence of the Christian Religion during ths last 
 thirteen centuries, in which I demonstrated that the charge of 
 idolatry made against the Catholic Church had its origin in 
 days of fanaticism, and was brought forward to justify the se- 
 paration of England from the universal Church ; that the 
 Church of England has since altered her opinions on the sub- 
 ject of images and pictures, and that she now practically agrees 
 with the Church she forsook ; that images and pictures nei- 
 ther are nor ever were worshipped by Catholics, in the proper 
 sense of that word, and that the Catholic Church never au- 
 thorized, much less commanded, any respect to be paid to
 
 182 Defence of the Let. 3. 
 
 them, which a Protestant mother does not pay to the picture 
 of her deceased husband, or Protestant Bishops and Lords to the 
 King's empty throne. I pointed out the unworthy artifices 
 which were employed by yourself and Vindex to convict the 
 Christian world of the horrid crime of idolatry ; your quibbles 
 upon the word ivorsJiij) ; your garbling and misrepresentations 
 of the doctrines of our councils, perversion of historical facts, 
 misinterpretation of our Divines, and distortion of our religious 
 books and practices. I adduced authorities from eminent 
 Protestant Divines, giving the same explanations of our doc- 
 trines that I had done, and acquitting us of the charges of 
 which, some of their virulect writers accused us. 
 
 It is evident that your character as a writer, as a clergyman, 
 and as a man, required you to justify yourself if you could; 
 and had my statement been capable of refutation, there was 
 nothing so easy. I brought forward documents to prove my 
 assertions. Nothing could be so easy, had those documents 
 been unsatisfactory or incorrect, as to prove them so. Was 
 this done '( So for from it, the very work which had under- 
 taken your defence, which had been ushered into notice with 
 such unusual eclat, had been advertised in so many news- 
 papers, and had figured in so many windows, was, upon the 
 appearance of the Catholic Defence, suddenly withdrawn from 
 circulation. Why was this done.' Its authors felt that it 
 would not stand the test ; that its misstatements had been too 
 glaringly exposed, and that the sincerity and truth ot the Catholic 
 statement would only appear more manifest if contrasted with 
 the quibbles and falsehoods of the unlucky Vindex. Perhaps 
 it was thought that a day might come when even Vindex, 
 under a new name, might figure amongst the ghostly tracts 
 that sneak from their graves under the patronage of the 
 Religious Tract Society, after the occasion that gave them 
 birth and the disgrace that attended their death have been 
 forgotten. 
 
 Two years and a half elapsed, and no advocate for you or 
 your ally appeared, when, behold ! a brother Archdeacon, won- 
 dering that so flimsy and flippant a work as that which refuted 
 your charges, and which was then out of print, should have 
 made so much impression on certain weak minds, and trem- 
 bling for the salvation of so many poor ignorant souls, who 
 continued to forsake the purest Church in Christendom, and 
 return to the idolatrous religion of their forefathers, charitably 
 stepped forward, and presented the public with a work signifi- 
 cantly denominated " The Protestant's Companion; or, a
 
 Let. 3.] Christian Religion. 183 
 
 seasonable Preservative against the Errors, Corruptions, 
 and Unfounded Claims of a Superstitious and Idolatrous 
 Church"! 
 
 This is the work which you so earnestly recommend in your 
 Charge, as justifying your former, and covering your present at- 
 tack. You describe it as containing the essence of Bull, Barrow, 
 Leslie, and other ponderous champions of the Establishment, 
 as " bringing the matter within a small compass, and stating it 
 with irresistible perspicuity and power." It is an octavo 
 volume of 408 pages ! 
 
 Till I saw this recommendation of Archdeacon Daubeny's 
 work, I fancied it was the spontaneous production of an aged 
 Churchman, whose zeal prompted him to defend the cause 
 which you had abandoned, and whose vanity made him de- 
 sirous of adding the conquest of a " Pojnsh Bishop'' to his 
 other literary trophies. It appears, however, that he is only 
 accting as your ally, to finish a campaign which you as principal 
 commander, opened with so much dignity, but which your 
 more weighty occupations leave you not leisure to conclude. 
 Under the former persuasion, I had designed to address an 
 answer to the author of the " Protestant's Companion," with- 
 out any reference to yourself, who, though the original ag- 
 gressor, had, as I supposed, prudently withdrawn from the 
 contest, and to whom I was unwilling to give the least unne- 
 cessary molestation. Your strong recommendation and adop- 
 tion of Dr. Daubeny's work induce me to alter my design, and 
 continue my correspondence with you as the original mover 
 and principal leader in the controversy. To avoid unnecessary 
 delay and break the tediousness of a discussion, embracing so 
 many points of difference, I shall address it in separate letters. 
 The following is the outline of the intended communication : 
 
 It is my intention to shew that the " Protestant's Com- 
 panion" is not, as you assert, a concise and perspicuous state- 
 ment of the difference between the Roman Catholic Church 
 and the Church of England, but a huge and ill-digested com- 
 pilation of whatever was most incorrect and most abusive in 
 the old writers of the Establishment, accompanied with a vio- 
 lence and ferocity which animated religious combatants two 
 centuries ago, and adorned with a coarseness and scurrility 
 which after its present aged proprietor, it is to be hoped no one 
 will possess. I shall prove that on every subject he has un- 
 dertaken to discuss he has grossly and designedly misrepre-. 
 rented the Catholic doctrines ; that like you and Vindex, he 
 has been unable to make good his cause without falsifying his- 
 tory, misinterpreting the acts of councils, garbling the writings
 
 184 Defence of the [Lef. 3. 
 
 of ancient fathers and perverting the sense of modern theologi- 
 ans, to a degree, which I venture to predict will astonish some 
 of his admirers, though I do not expect it will cause himself to 
 blush. In fine, I shall meet him on every subject, which has 
 not been already discussed, and furnish the reader with new 
 editions of former discussions. 
 
 The public will then be able to form a judgment between us 
 upon the momentous questions — whether the Roman Catholic 
 Church or the Church of England is the " One, Holy, Ca- 
 tholic, and Apostolic Church" mentioned in the Nicene Creed ; 
 whether the former or the latter Church is in error and schism, 
 and to which the promises of Christ belong ; whether the un- 
 repented sins of men, of whatever degree, are in a future world, 
 equally punished with everlasting torments, or whether there 
 are not temporar}'^ punishments for smaller, as well as eternal 
 punishments for greater offences ; whether the Churchof 
 England is a divine or a human institution, and its establish- 
 ment a relief or a burthen to the country ; whether the cause of 
 Truth is promoted by annexing to certain religious opinions all 
 the wealth of the Church and all the favours of the State, or 
 the peace of the country secured by making it the interest of a 
 smaller body of Religionists to traduce and insult at pleasure 
 an immense majority of the nation; whether this state of things 
 is likely to last long ; and whether, if the Church of England 
 should be given up, there would be any pure Christianity in 
 the world. 
 
 These and many other important points, suggested by the 
 " Protestant's Companion," will form the subject of future 
 letters. At present I shall direct your attention to certain 
 minor accusations contained in your late Charge. You inform 
 your readers (page 11) that the Catholics are at present busily 
 and successfully employed in making proselytes to their reli- 
 gion ; that for this purpose " every art is tried — on the poor 
 benevolence and alms — but always accompanied with the con- 
 dition of frequenting their worship." 
 
 Had you merely asserted that alms are sometimes employed 
 by Catholics for the purpose of making proselytes, or are some- 
 times accompanied with the condition you mention, it would not 
 have been easy to contradict your statement ; because it would 
 have been as difficult for me to know what some Catholics 
 might do, as it is easy for me to know what no well-instructed 
 Catholic would do. But your assertion that Catholics always 
 accompany their alms with the condition you assert, enables me 
 to give you a positive contradiction, and to call upon you to 
 substantiate the odious charge with even a semblance of proof.
 
 Let. 3.] Chrisiian Religion. 185 
 
 I do not believe you can produce a single instance of a single 
 Catholic doing that which you assert to be the constant prac- 
 tice of all. But this accusation is evidently intended to insi- 
 nuate that Catholics make use of improper inducements to 
 bring over persons to their religion, and that this is the real 
 cause of the numerous conversions which have for some years 
 past and still continue to swell our numbers. It may be proper 
 therefore, to set you right on this subject : the following facts 
 will suffice for the purpose. 
 
 In the first place, with respect to alms, Catholics are taught 
 that in bestowing them a certain order of charity is to be ob- 
 served. That if tAvo persons are in equal distress, and one of 
 these persons is a parent, the other a stranger, and it is not in 
 our power to relieve both, the preference must be given to the 
 parent ; but if the other person is in e.vtreme distress, whilst 
 the distress of the pareut is noiextreine, then the former, though 
 no relation, must be assisted in preference even to a parent. 
 There are various other considerations, besides kindred, which 
 amongst objects equally distressed, may entitle one to a pre- 
 ference : a friend, a neighbour, an inhabitant of the same town 
 or country, would be entitled to our assistance, in cases of equal 
 distress, before perfect strangers or the inhabitants of other 
 climes. For the same reason, a Christian might be preferred 
 before a Pagan ; and even amongst Christians, a member of the 
 religion to which we belong might, in cases of equal distress, 
 be preferred before one who belonged to another religious con- 
 nexion. But Catholics are taught, and I hope Protestants 
 are taught the same, that if two objects in luiequal distress 
 present themselves, and we cannot relieve both, we must give 
 to him who is in great want, though not of our religion, in pre- 
 ference to him who is in lesser need, though a brother in faith. 
 
 This doctrine I conceive to be conformable to that of St, 
 Paul, Ephesians vi. 10, and to the dictates of right reason. 
 The same doctrine, as thousands can testify, J have ever pub- 
 licly and privately inculcated : I have, moreover, never failed 
 to guard my hearers against all narrow-minded and sectarian 
 distinctions in the discharge of that amiable duty, which more 
 than any other, is to mark us as the disciples of Christ. I 
 have constantly pressed upon their attention the lovely example 
 ♦ of this Divine Being, who asked no questions about the religion 
 or conduct of the children of distress, but with equal kindness 
 imparted relief and consolation to the Jew and Samaritan, to 
 the true believer and to the Pagan, to the virtuous and to the 
 wicked, to the unjust, the extortioner, the adulterer, and the 
 dyinu thief. '2 A
 
 186 Defence of the [Let. 3 
 
 On the same principles I have endeavouretl to regulate my 
 own conduct : I have made it a rule not to ask the religion of 
 the party applying for relief, and never in my life was I, and 
 never I trust, shall I be guilty of an act so odious, so con- 
 temptible, and so unchristian, as to refuse relief because the 
 distressed object was a Protestant, or grant it only as the price 
 of hypocrisy. If a distressed object has had the honesty to tell 
 me he was not a Catholic, I have always relieved him the more 
 readily on that account ; but I have repeatedly sent away with- 
 out relief, applicants who urged their being Catholics as a plea 
 for my relieving them, considering that persons who could urge 
 such reasons were, in all probability, impostors, or intended to 
 insult me. Does this conduct, which I am convinced, is the 
 conduct of Catholics in general, merit the odious charge you 
 have made against them I Would your own conduct, and 
 that of your friends, bear a stricter scrutiny I Could you con- 
 scientiously declare, that you have always acted on the same 
 liberal principles I 
 
 But your insinuation that Catholics use bribes to swell the 
 number of their converts, proves how little you know of the 
 process through which every convert to the Catholic religion is 
 obliged to pass. You seem to suppose that a man becomes a 
 Catholic as he becomes a member of most of the sects in this 
 country, namely, by merely attending the Catholic worship. It 
 may be proper to inform you of the real case. We never con- 
 sider a Protestant as having become a Catholic merely by his 
 attending the Catholic place of worship, however frequently or 
 regularly he may do so. A man must have been admitted to 
 our sacraments, or at least have made a solemn and deliberate 
 profession of our faith, before we consider him a Catholic. The 
 usual method of proceeding is this. When a Protestant has 
 by some means or other discovered that the doctrines of the 
 Catholic religion have been misrepresented to him, he is recom- 
 mended to apply to the Catholic Priest, to know what those 
 doctrines really are. Upon such application being made, the 
 Catholic Priest puts a Catechism into his hands, or explains to 
 him accurately the doctrines it contains, and the reasons upon 
 which they are founded. This is generally a work of time. In 
 well-informed persons a few weeks (it is very seldom less) may 
 suffice ; in ignorant persons, it is generally the work of months. 
 The Apostles' Creed is explained article by article ; the Com- 
 mandments, with all the religious and moral duties they im- 
 pose, relating to God, to our neighbours and to ourselves are 
 fullv and repeatedly inculcated. The nature, obligation and
 
 Let. 3.] Christian Reiujion. 187 
 
 necessity of prayer, sacrifice and sacraments, is clearly pointed 
 out ; the various kinds of virtues and vices ; the difference, as 
 far as it is known, between mortal and venial, original and actual 
 sin : the commands of the Church, the ceremonies of religion, 
 &c. are taught and explained. When the applicant has been 
 made fully acquainted with every thing it is necessary for him 
 to believe and practise, he is not immediately admitted to his 
 profession of faith, much less to the sacraments. The Priest 
 is bound in conscience, and never fails to satisfy himself that 
 his convert really believes and is thoroughly convinced of the 
 truth of the Catholic reliofion. In cases of doubt, the convert 
 IS often encouraged to apply to the minister of some other re- 
 ligion, and see what arguments the latter can alledge against 
 the doctrines taught him by his Catholic instructor. With well- 
 informed persons I have always pursued this method, and I 
 have ever found it the most effectual means of confirming them 
 in the Catholic faith. They have almost invariably found that 
 the Clergyman to whom they applied, did not even know what 
 the Catholic doctrines were, and that all his arguments were 
 directed against doctrines we do not hold. It has sometimes 
 happened that the convert has been unable to determine be- 
 tween the positive assertions of the Protestant Clergyman that 
 Catholics do hold such and such doctrines, and those of the 
 Catholic Priest that they do not. In such cases I have always 
 offered to meet the Protestant Clergyman in the presence of 
 the convert, that the latter might see whether the same asser- 
 tions would be made before me that were made before him, 
 and that he misfht fairlv decide for himself^ In no one instance 
 has my offer been accepted, though every advantage but that 
 of truth lay on the other side. Dr. Moi/setj knows that I have 
 made himself this offer, and that he has suffered his jmrish- 
 ioners to become Catholics rather than accept it. I am ready 
 to make him the same offer still, with respect to any convert 
 he may choose to select. 
 
 If the convert is poor, I have never failed to represent to 
 him, in the strongest colours, the difficulties to which his con- 
 version would in all probability expose him. *' If you look," 
 I have said, "to any worldly advantage, you will be much mis- 
 taken. You will offend your former friends, and I cannot 
 promise you that you will gain any new ones. If the obtaining 
 of charity is your object, / shall never consider myself obliged 
 to bestow upon you the smallest trifle because you are a Ca- 
 tholic. The Catholic bodv is charitable, but it is overburthcned
 
 188 Defence of Ihe [ief. 3 
 
 with poor, and you will obtain less from them than you have 
 done from the Protestants. In short, your change of religion 
 will only injure you in this world. It will therefore be folly in 
 you to make it for any other motive than the good of your soul 
 and from a conviction that it is your duty to do so." 
 
 I have given similar cautions to those in better circum- 
 stances. I have asked them if they were prepared to encoun- 
 ter the displeasure of their friends, the loss of a parent's, bro- 
 ther's, sister's love ; the banishment from domestic confidence ; 
 the being looked upon as fools or dupes ; if they could bear the 
 sneers, the taunts, the insulting pity of the bigoted, the illiberal 
 and the ignorant : if their conviction of the truth of the Catho- 
 lic Religion was so strong, that they considered themselves 
 bound to follow it, to the injury of their future prospects in life; 
 if in the rewards which religion promised in a futvu"e world, and 
 the consolations it afforded in this, they would find a sufficient 
 recompense for the sacrifices it would require them to make I I 
 have recommended them to pause before they took a step, 
 which could not without guilt be retraced ; to examine into 
 their own hearts and see if their intentions were pure, to em- 
 ploy their reason in the enquiry, and implore, with calm and 
 composed, though sincere and fervent prayer, the light of Hea- 
 ven to guide them. In no one instance have I ever consented 
 to admit a convert into the Catholic Church, till by imjself or 
 through others, Ihadheenfidly satisfied that his motives were 
 such as I have described. 
 
 Such are the methods I have ever pursued in making con- 
 verts, and such have been the methods pursued by every Ca- 
 tholic Priest with w hom I am acquainted. Can any thing be 
 more fair, more candid, more favourable to the liberty of man J 
 If a Catholic Priest believe his religion to be the only true one, 
 (and he is an ideot if he continue in it without such con- 
 viction,) will charity allow him to be relax in inducing others 
 to embrace it I And if his object be to lead his converts to the 
 discovery of truth, not to ensnare them ; to enable them to 
 follow the free dictates of their conscience, not to lead them 
 captive into error ; could he pursue more effectual methods 
 than those I have described ? 
 
 If the statement I have made is not true you have the means 
 of refuting me. You know different persons, even of your 
 own parishioners, who have become Catholics. Let them be 
 questioned, and if you discover that they have been withdrawn 
 from you by alms or bribes, or unfair arguments, or by any
 
 Let.'^i.] Clirisiian Reli(jton. 180 
 
 other means than tho8c I have described, and that they con- 
 tinue in the Catholic Religion from any other motive than the 
 conviction of its truth, I will myself assist you in the recovery 
 of your lost sheep. 1 will exclude them as intruders from the 
 Catholic fold, and tell them that they had better be good Sa- 
 maritans than wicked Jews ; better be sincere members of a 
 false religion, than hypocritical members of the true one. I 
 promise you also, that if you will mention to me a single Priest 
 or Layman, who has resorted to the disgraceful methods you 
 assert to be always employed by Catholics in making converts, 
 and if the offender is within the limits of my jurisdiction, he 
 shall be reprimanded as he deserves. 
 
 But the above mentioned are not the only " arts " of wliich you 
 accuse us in making; proselytes. You proceed " Every art is 
 tried — on the poor; benevolence and alms; but always accom- 
 panied with the condition of frequenting their worship : on the rich, 
 broad and fearless assertions of priority ; assertions of apostolical 
 authority, said to exist on their part, and of defection from Rome 
 (our mother, as they say,) on ours. Their policy is to urge such 
 things, and to keep the saint and image-worship, and the pre- 
 tended infallibility of their head, and other such abominations, 
 for a time, out of sight. And very lately the monstrous doc- 
 trine of Transubstantiation was (as is said) so explained away, in 
 order to ensnare the hearers, as to represent that the ques- 
 tion between us and them is not concerning a corporeal pre- 
 sence of Christ in the holy communion ; but that they hold no- 
 thing except a spiritual presence to be therein ; in direct de- 
 fiance of the Council of Trent, the acknowledged standard of 
 the Church of Rome.*" 
 
 To the charge of " making broad and fearless assertions of 
 priority and apostolical authority on the part of the Catholic 
 Church, and of defection from that church, on the part of the 
 Church of England, I plead guilty ; but shall have occasion 
 hereafter to show abundant cause why these assertions are 
 made. But as to the charge of keeping our " saint and image- wor- 
 ship, and the pretended infallibility of the Pope and such other 
 abominations out of sight," I must beg leave to deny it altogether ; 
 first, because our saint and image worship (as you nickname it) 
 is, as I have abundantly proved,t so very similar to that of the 
 Established Church, that there can be no possible reason whv 
 we should wish to conceal it. Secondly, because I have also 
 
 * Charge pages 11 and 12. t See tlie Stcoud Letter.
 
 190 Defence of the Let. 3. 
 
 proved to you, and you ivell knoiu,* that the inrallibility of the 
 Pope, is not an article of our faith. Thirdly, because it is ab- 
 surd to talk of a Church like ours concealing its doctrines and 
 practices, known as they are in every country of the world, and 
 public as the sun at midday. 
 
 And now, very Reverend Sir, allow me to ask, upon what 
 plea of justice, truth or decency, have you ventured to charg^e 
 us with holding ahominable doctrines, knowing, as you did, 
 that one of these doctrines was admitted by many divines of 
 your own Churchf to be innocent, and that the other was not 
 held by us at all ! 
 
 You proceed : " Very lately the monstrous doctrine of Tran- 
 substantiation was (as is said) explained away, in order to en- 
 snare the hearers," &c. Again, let me ask, could no term less 
 harsh than that of monstrous be vouchsafed, by the Archdea- 
 con of Bath, for a doctrine, which he knew to be that of so 
 vast a proportion of the Christian world ? Would it have 
 compromised the dignity of a Church of England Divine, when 
 speaking of the belief of such men as Fenelon, Bossuet 
 and Sir Thomas More, to add to the epithet monstrous (if it 
 must be used) some such qualification as "in my opinion, to 
 the best of my judgment," or the like? But by whom were 
 these monstrous doctrines so lately explained away for the 
 purpose of ensnaring the hearers? Here, at least, we have an 
 instance of your modesty. You were too modest to mention 
 the name. I will spare your blushes, and relieve the curiosity 
 of all who wish to know. I am the person. It was I who ex- 
 plained the doctrine of Transubstantiation ; but not I trust, the 
 monstrous doctrine. Nor was it my motive to ensnare my 
 hearers. By what wondrous penetration did you arrive at the 
 knowledge of my motives ? Neither did T explain away the 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation, but explained it faithfully as 
 follows : 
 
 The Council of Trent teaches, and the whole Catholic 
 Church believes, that in the most holy sacrament of the Eu- 
 charist the body and hlood, together with the soul and divinity 
 of Jesus Christ, that is, Jesus Christ himself, is contained 
 truly, really, and suhstantially , under the sensible species or 
 
 * This is the third time that Dr. Moysey and Vindcx have asserted that the 
 infallibility of the Pope is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, thoi:<;h in botli 
 my former letters I informed him that it was not. See the Second Letter. 
 ■ If he doubted the accuracy of my statement, why did he not inform 
 himself better before he repeated the mis-slatement ? Sir John Cox Hip- 
 pisley, or any wcll-iuformed Protestant Layman, woukt have set him nght. 
 
 t Vid. Second Lttlcr.
 
 Let, 3.] Christian Relief ion. 191 
 
 appearances of bread and wine. This is the Catholic doc- 
 trine of the Real presence. 
 
 The doctrine of Transuhstantiation teaches, in addition, 
 that bread and wine do not remain in the sacrament, in con- 
 junction with the body and blood of Christ (as was taught by 
 Luther,) but that the same consecration, wliich causes the body 
 and blood to be substantially present, causes the substance of 
 bread and wine to be no longer there.* 
 
 From this definition, it follows that Jesus Christ himself is 
 present in the sacrament; not merely a ficjure of him, or only 
 ii pari of him, as some of the Reformers taught. 
 
 But this definition does not decide any thing respecting the 
 state in which Christ has existed, and does at present exist, 
 out of the sacrament, subsequently to his resurrection from the 
 dead, and his ascension into heaven. 
 
 On this subject, the Catholic Church believes, as I presume 
 all Christians do, that the body of Christ, since its resurrection, 
 is greatly changed ; at least as much so as our own bodies will 
 be changed after their resurrection. Now St. Paul informs us, 
 that the body of man will be changed, after the resurrection, 
 into a more spiritualized substance. " It is sown in corruption, 
 it is raised in incorruption ; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised 
 in glory ; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power ; it is 
 sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a 
 natural body, and there is a spiritual body." Cor. c. 15. v. 42. 
 
 That the body of Christ was thus changed after his resur- 
 rection, is manifest from the Gospel. It combined together 
 some of the properties which belong to natural or mortal bo- 
 dies, with others belonging to spirit, and incompatible with 
 bodies in their mortal state. He entered the room, like a spirit, 
 when the doors were shut, and then presented to the hands of 
 Thomas a solid tangible substance, like a body in its natural 
 state. He altered his appearance, or held the eyes of his be- 
 holders in such manner, that Mary Magdalen and his two dis- 
 ciples did not know him. He sat down at table with the latter 
 and partook of their food, and then, like a spirit, vanished from 
 their sight, and became invisible. 
 
 It is the body of Christ, thus spiritualized and changed, or, 
 in other words, it is this spiritual bod / of Christ, which the 
 Catholic Church believes to be present in the sacrament ; not 
 
 * " Uno verbo transubstantiatio uiliil addit prsesent'uc corporis Cliristi, nisi desi- 
 tiuitem jianis virtute si^niiicatiouis verboiaiii, seu quo verba Cliristi sint vera; et 
 nomine Traiisnbstaatiationis nihil a!iad est inteliigenduni." Regnla Fidei, sect. 1'2, 
 No. 5.
 
 192 
 
 Defence of the 
 
 [Let. 3. 
 
 He sat down at table, Sfc. see page 191- and St. Luke xxiv. 
 
 the gross mortal flesh, which the people of Capernaum thought 
 he meant to give them, when they said, " How can this man 
 give us his flesh to eat V and which Dr. Moysey, and his Esta- 
 blished brethren, in spite of our repeated protestations, insist 
 upon our believing. 
 
 With respect to the manner in which this spiritual hody of 
 Christ is present in the sacrament, the Catholic Church has 
 not decided. She does not require us to believe, that even the 
 spiritual body of Christ is present in the sacrament, in the same 
 state in which it exists in heaven, at the right hand of the Fa- 
 ther ; she allows us to suppose, that a body in its spiritual 
 state, like a spirit itself, may not have essentially any relation 
 to place, or that it may have a different mode of existence in 
 different places. Hence, all that she requires Catholics to be- 
 lieve on this point is, that the spiritual budy of Christ is sa-
 
 Let. 3.] Christian ReUgion. 1J)3 
 
 cramentally pressnt in the holy Communion ; or, in otiier 
 words, that the body of Christ, which is now become a spirit- 
 ?<a/&ofZy, is, in some manner or other, conformable to the nature 
 and intention of a sacrament, iridy, really and suhstantiaUy 
 present in the Eucharist.* 
 
 Were I to give Dr. Moysey credit for being quite serious, 
 when he urg-es these words, truly, really arid substantially 
 present, to prove that we believe in a gross carnal presence, 
 like that of a mortal body, I must concliide that he is no philo- 
 sopher, and that he attaches to the Avord substance the same 
 vulgar notion which unlearned persons attach to it. But I 
 trust I need not inform an Established. Dignitary, of his literary 
 attainments, that the word suhsta7ice, in its philosophical and 
 theological sense, is as applicable to spirit as to body ; and that 
 we can, with equal accuracy, speak of the substance of spirit 
 as the substance of body. It signifies, when speaking of spirit 
 or body in general, that portion of their composition which 
 would remain, if all their properties or qualities were removed. 
 When speaking of individual spirits, or individual bodies, the 
 word substance signifies that portion of their composition which 
 is essential to their being what they are, evey^y other property 
 and quality being removed from them. 
 
 What the nature of this substance is, whether in its general 
 or individual acceptation, we are wholly ignorant, and must re- 
 main so till we are gifted with other faculties than those we 
 now possess. All we know either of spirit or body are their 
 properties or qualities, and of these we know so little, that we 
 cannot v/ith certainty determine whether any, or which of them, 
 are essentialto constitute the Being in which they residef 
 
 * The following are the words of the Council of Trent: 
 
 " Priucipio docet sancta synodus et aperte ac simpliciter profiteteur in almo 
 sanctae Eiicharistiac sacramento post panis et vini consecrationem dominuin 
 nostrum Jesum Christum, verum Deura atque hominem, vere realiter ac sub- 
 stantialiter, sub specie illarum rerum sensibilium contineri : nee enim haec in- 
 ter se pugnant, ut ipse Salvator noster semper ad dexteram patris in coelis as- 
 sideat juxta modum existendi naturalem ; et ut multis nihilominus aliis in 
 locis sacranientaliter prasens sua substantia nobis adsit, ea existendi ratione, 
 quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus, possibilem tamen esse Deo, cogita- 
 tione per fidem illustrata, assequi possumus et constantissime credere debe. 
 mus." — Sessio, xiii. cap. 1. 
 
 Hence Verron's Rlgida Fidei concludes. 
 
 " Non solum corpus Christi sub symbolis potest dici spirituale, et ipsemet 
 Christus spiritus, sed etiam sub symbolis spirituali modo seu spiritualiter, et 
 non aniniali nee corporali modo, seu corporaliter seu carnaliter. — Sect. 11. No. ^ 
 
 t '' Of the nature of this matter all philosophers are equally ignorant: for, 
 as BIr. Harris says, it is in truth /orm; or, as modern philosophers would say, 
 
 2 B
 
 194 Def(ince of llie {Let. 3 
 
 Nothing can demonstrate more clearly the total ignorance 
 liuder which we labour, respecting the nature of bodies, than the 
 endless variety of opinions which the ablest philosophers and di- 
 vines have adopted, and the very little agreement that subsists 
 amongst them . Amongst the rest one eminent Bishop of the Esta- 
 blished Church* has maintained that bodies are nothing more than 
 a collection or combination of certain properties ; and another;]; 
 no less eminent, has maintained that bodies have no existence 
 at all, except in the Divine mind, and that our perceptions of 
 bodily qualities are all the effect of the immediate agency of the 
 Diety upon our minds, 
 
 But if such is our ignorance respecting the nature of bodies 
 of their earthly and mortal state, how much more ignorant may 
 we be supposed to be, respecting bodies in a glorified and spi- 
 ritualized state ! To believe that the substance of such a body 
 may be present, thougli unaccompanied with its usual, or m ith 
 any sensible properties, is certainly not repugnant to the princi- 
 ples of philosophy : to assert that it cannot be present, without 
 such properties, betrays equal ignorance and presumption. To 
 pronounce that the belief is mojistrons, upon whatever reasons 
 it is fouuded, is characteristic of the modeSty and science of the 
 Archdeacon of Bath. But to proceed. 
 
 It is manifest to our senses, that after the consecration of the 
 bread and wine, the sensible properties Avhicli meet the sight, 
 the taste, the touch, &c. are 7iot changed, or at least that the 
 same effects continue to be produced upon our senses that were 
 produced before.I It is equally manifest that the sensible pro- 
 perties belonging to the natural body of Christ are not present 
 
 they are in truth qualities, which arc tlie whole that we either hear, or see, or 
 feel, or of wliich we have either idea or conception. ]Mr. Locke says ex- 
 pressly 'that if any one will examine himself concerning the notions of pure 
 substance in 2,eueral, he will find that he has no other idea of it at all, only a 
 supposition of he knows not what support of such qualities as are capable of 
 producing simple ideas in us." Enc\c. Brit. Metaphysics, No. 148. 
 
 " The things then immediately perceived by us, or of which we have an ade- 
 quate idea or conception, are only qualities tliat must belong to a subject ; and 
 all that Ave know about the subject is, that it is that to which such qualities 
 belong. For this is evident, that our notion of matter, as distinguished from 
 its qualities, is a relative and obscure notion, and must remain obscure till 
 men have other faculties." Ibid. No. i50. 
 
 * Dr. Law, bishop of Carlisle. 
 
 t Dr. Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne. — " Dr. Reid himself, the ablest of all Dr. 
 Berkeley's opponents, frankly acknowledges, that no man can show, by any 
 good argument, that all our sensations might not have been as they are, though 
 no body or quality of body had ever existed." Bletaphysics, No. 1G3. 
 
 t " It is certainly possible that the Supreme Being, without the instrument- 
 ality of matter, should communicate to our minds all the sensations and notions 
 from which we infer the reality of solid substance." Metaphysics, No. 172.
 
 JLel. 3.] Chrislian lielifj/oii. 11)5 
 
 to our senses. The change, therefore, that has been made in 
 the elements, must be in their iuvisibh; snhslaiice or essence, 
 not in their external qualities. Hence the Council of Trent de- 
 fined, that the body of Christ is suhsfanfialli/ present in the 
 sacrament, that is to say, that it is present as to substance or 
 essence, not as to its usual qualities or properties. 
 
 For the same reason v/e are taught that when the visible part 
 of the sacrament, viz. what appears to be bread and wine, is 
 broken, or div ided, the invisible essence of the sacrament, viz. 
 Christ, is not broken, nor divided, nor in any Avay changed ; 
 and that whilst the former is eaten and nourishes our bodies, 
 like ordinary food, the latter being of a spiritual and heavenly 
 manner, for the nourishment and refreshment of our souls,* 
 nature, is eaten after a spiritual and heavenly. In fact, 
 the intention of Jesus Christ, in giving' himself to us in this 
 most, holy and adorable sacrament, was not to feed our mor- 
 tal bodies and increase our animal strength, but to impart 
 to both our bodies and souls, by an ineffable union with himself 
 a principle of spiritual life, and strength, and immortality. It 
 was to shew the ardour of his love for us, by making m-, as it were 
 one with himself, that we may live by him and he in us, till we 
 arrive at that still more perfect and eternal union, which we 
 shall enjoy with him in heaven. " He that eateth my flesh, 
 and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. — As the 
 living Father hath sent me, and i live by the Father, so he that 
 eateth me, even he shall live by me. — This is that bread which 
 came down from heaven : not as your fathers did eat manna, 
 and are dead : he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever." 
 — St. John vi. 56, ^a.f 
 
 * " Totum quod diximus de coipoie spiritual! et modo illo spirituali exis- 
 tendi sub speciebus potest etiamob id dici de receptione et manducatione, sci- 
 licet Christum manducavi, iit sacramentaliter ex concilio, ita spiritualiter et 
 spiritali modo et non carnaliter seu carnali modo, ore tamen corporis. Patent 
 haec ex se ex dictis etapplicarihic facile possiint. JManducare corporali modo 
 et carnali sue corporaliter et carnaliter est manducare ad modum quo niandu- 
 camus carues alias scilicet masticaiido et dividendo carnem iu ore, palato 
 gnstando ejus saporem, &c. Non sic manducamus Ciiristum ergo nee corpora- 
 liter, nee carnaliter, nee corporal et carnali modo, sed spiritali et spiritualiter. 
 Adde etiam efiectum manduci\tiouis corporaliset corporaliter, esse nutritionem 
 corporis ; at vero efiectum manducationis Christi esse gratiam per modum re- 
 fectionis animse, id est vegetantem et roborantem auimaminoperationibus vita; 
 spiritalis, et sic esse refectionem et nutritionem anima; nostrce, quee estspiritus ; 
 ergo etiam inde scilicet ex eftectu, potest dice manducatio spiritalis et non cor- 
 poralis sea non carnalis seu non carnileter, et corporaliter, in dicto sensu." 
 Ibid No. 3. Regnla Fidei, sect. II. No. 2. 
 
 t Sumi autem voluit sacramentum hoc, tamqxiam spiritualem animarum ci- 
 bum, quo alantur et confortentur vivenles vita illius qui dixit: qui manducat 
 me et ipse vivet propter me : et tamquam antidotum, <nu) liberemur a
 
 19(j Defence, ojlhe [Lel.S. 
 
 Such is the doctrine of the Catholic Church as explained by 
 me " on a very late occasion," as well as on many former ones. 
 Of our reasons for believing it I have spoken elsewhere, and 
 shall at present say nothing.* Let us now see what is the doc- 
 trine of the Church of England, as declared in her Articles and 
 explained in her Cathesism. 
 
 The twenty-eighth Article says, that "the supper of the 
 Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have 
 among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament 
 of our redemption by Christ's death ; insomuch, that to such as 
 rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread 
 which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ,, and like- 
 wise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. 
 
 " The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the sup- 
 per, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the 
 manner by which the body of Christ is received and eaten in the 
 supper, is faith." 
 
 The explanation of this cautious and accommodating article, 
 as given in the Cathecism of the Church of England, is as 
 follows : 
 
 " Question. — What is the outward part^r sign of the Lord's 
 supper i 
 
 " A7isiver. — Bread and wine, which the Lord commanded to 
 be received. 
 
 " Question. — What is the inward part or thing signified I 
 
 Answer. The body and blood of Christ, which are verily 
 and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's 
 s tipper. 
 
 Question. — What are the benefits, whereof we are partakers 
 thereby I 
 
 Ansiaer. — The strengthening and refreshing of our souls by 
 the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread 
 and wine." 
 
 Such is the doctrine of the Church of England. Now, Sir, 
 you are aware that the words of both the Articles and the Ca- 
 techisms have been variously explained by* your own bishops 
 and divines. Indeed, so various are the explanations given 
 and tolerated in the Church of England on this most important 
 subject, that I have not had the good fortune to meet with two 
 
 ciilpis quotidianns, et apeccatis niortalibus praEservemnr. Pigniis prastereaid 
 esse voliiit futursc nostra giorife etperpetuje t'ellcitatis adeoque symbokira unhia 
 illiiis corporis cnjus ipse capvit existit : cuique nos tamquam membra arctiesi- 
 ma, fidei, spei, et caritatia connexione, astrictos esse voluit, ut idipsuin oranes 
 diceremus nee essent in nobis schismata." Concil. Trident : Ses : xiii, c. 2. 
 
 * See a Sermon preaclied at Taunton on flij Evicliaristic sacrament and t^A- 
 rriiice, &c., I)y the Author.
 
 Lel.S.] Chrisllan Rdiyion. ii)? 
 
 which perfectly agree. Some have gone so far as to inaintaiii 
 that when the catechism sajs, that ihe body and blood of Christ 
 are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the 
 Lord's supper, it means that mere bread and wine are eaten in 
 remembrance of the death of Christ ; that Christ is not present 
 in the saciameat at all, unless the receiver think of him, and 
 that then he is present only as any thing else is present when 
 we think of it. Bishop Hcadley says, that if this is not the 
 meaning of the Catechism, he is unable to say what is.* 
 
 He has many followers in these days of increasing light and 
 liberality. But most of your old divines, and perhaps most of 
 your more orthodox modern ones, maintain a real presence of 
 (Uirist in the sacrament of some kind or other ; and the Esta- 
 blished Church is not nice with them, provided they are always 
 ready to swear that transubstantiation is idolatry .f But sup- 
 posing that some bishop or dignitary of the Established Church, 
 exercising the liberty of opinion assumed by and conceded to 
 the lowest of her freeboru children, should reason as follows, 
 what would be his fate I 
 
 " The Catechism says, ' that the body and blood of Christ 
 are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the 
 Lord's supper,' therefore I conclude, that the body and blood of 
 Christ must be verily and indeed present in the sacrament, and 
 therefore that there must be a real presence of the body and 
 blood, or in other words, a real bodily presence. 
 
 "■ But the article declares * that the body of Christ is given, 
 taken, and eaten in the sacrament only after a heavenly and 
 spii'itual manner,' therefore I conclude, that the body of Christ 
 is present only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. 
 
 "Again the Catechism teaches, that the outward part or 
 
 * " This passage in the Catechism will, I tiiink, lead us to the only consis- 
 tent sense of tlie words we are now considering ; which, I own, are very figu- 
 rative, where a figure ought rather to have been explained than made use of. . 
 The faithful are said verily and indeed to take and receive the body and blood 
 of Christ ; because believers alone, coming as snch, eat liis body and drink 
 his blood indevd, or in that very sense in which he appointed them to do it ; 
 viz. by eating brend and drinking xoim in a thankful and serious remembrance 
 of his natural body broken and bhiod shed. .If this be not the sense of this 
 passage, I own myself unable to say what is." Accouni, of the nature and end 
 of the sacrament of the Lord's supper, by Beuj. Hoadley, bishop of Winchester. 
 
 t Archdeacon Daubeny will not allow Bishop Hoadley to have been ortho- 
 dox on this point, " Bishop Hoadley's book (says h',0, on the sacrament, is 
 not considered by the Church of England to be a stanJurd for her doctrine ?" 
 He adds, "The difference between the two Churches of England and Rome 
 is not about the real presence itself, but about the manner of it." Protestant's 
 Companion, pages 77 and 78. — We shall discoss the Archdeacon' system in a 
 future letter.
 
 li)8 Defence of the [Lei. S. 
 
 sign of the Lord's supper is bread and wine, and that the inward 
 part or thing signified in the body and blood of Christ, ' which 
 are verily and itideed taken and received hij the faithful in the 
 Lord's supper' Hence I conclude, that the sacrament con- 
 sists of two parts, an external and internal part. Now all ma- 
 terial objects ai'e known to consist of two parts ; an external 
 part which we see, feel, taste, &c. which is called its qualities 
 or accidents, and an internal part which we can never either 
 see, or feel, or taste, which is called its suhstance. So far the 
 sacrament agrees with all other external objects. I conclude, 
 therefore, that when the Catechism says that the outward part 
 of the sacrament is bread and wine, it means that the outward 
 properties of bread and wine, namely, all that we ever see, as 
 tte, or feel in bread or wine, not the inward substance of bread 
 and wine, which, in fact, we never either see, or taste, or 
 feel. First, because it would be incorrect to call that an 
 outward sign, which is inward and imperceptible to the senses : 
 and secondly, because in that case, the sacrament, different from 
 all other external objects, would consist of three parts; one ex- 
 ternal, namely the properties of bread and v.ine, and two in- 
 ternal parts, namely, the internal substancer-of bread and wine, 
 and the internal substance of the body of Christ. 
 
 "In the next place, I conclude that the bread and wine, 
 when they become the sacrament, must undergo a certain 
 change, not of properties, for these evidently continue the same ; 
 but a change of suhstance, with the nature of which substance 
 we are wholly unaquainted, and which, as it is never subject to 
 any of our senses, may be withdrawn or changed by the Crea- 
 tor without our perceiving it, as he pleases. 
 
 " Moreover, as it is evident that the external properties of the 
 body of Christ are not present in the sacrament, and that if they 
 were, the sacrament, different from all other objects, would 
 consist of three parts ; namely, the external properties of bread, 
 the external properties of the body of Christ, and the internal 
 substance of the latter ; therefore I conclude that when the 
 Catechism says that the inward part of the sacrament is the 
 body and blood of Christ, it means only the inward substance or 
 essence of this body and blood, which mode of existing the ar- 
 ticle denominates spiritual and heavenly, because different from 
 its natural and earthly mode. Or perhaps, the article may 
 employ the words heavenly and spiritual to intimate that the 
 body of Christ being, since his resurrection, in a spiritual and 
 glorified state, its substance in the sacrament is of a more re- 
 fined and spiritual nature than that of mortal bodies ; or, per- 
 haps, it wishes to teach us that the substance of a spiritual body.
 
 Let. 3.] Clnisiian ReUcjlon. 199 
 
 like the suljstance of spirit itself, may have no essential refer- 
 ence to place, or may be present in different places, in a differ- 
 ent state, conformably to the reason or object of its presence. 
 My belief, therefore, drawn from the Articles and Catechism of 
 my Church, is this : 
 
 " First. — That the external part of tlie sacrament is the usual 
 properties of bread and wine. 
 
 "Secondly, that the iuward part is the body and blood of 
 Christ, which beina: verily and indeed taken and received bv the 
 faithful, are verily and indeed present in the sacrament; not, 
 indeed, as to their external properties, but merely their internal 
 substance ; which internal substance being of a spiritual and 
 heavenly nature, strengthens and refreshes our souls, according 
 to the words of the Catechism, in like manner as our bodies 
 are refreshed by the external and bodily properties of the bread 
 and wine. 
 
 " Thirdly. — That whereas, before the consecration of the 
 elements, their internal part was merely the substance of bread 
 and wine, but is afterwards the body and blood of Christ, it is 
 evident that a change of substance has taken place, and that it 
 may be truly said, that in the sacrament the bread and wine are 
 in truth and reality changed as to substance ; or in other words, 
 are truly, really, and substantially changed into the body and 
 blood of Christ." 
 
 Suppose, I say, that some bishop or dignitary of the Esta- 
 blished Church, taking the Articles and Catechism into his 
 hands, and exerting as others have done, his best endeavours to 
 discover their real meaning, should affix to them the mean- 
 ing which I have supposed, what would be his fate ? Would he 
 be treated as a fool or an ideot ? Is there any power in the 
 Church of England to degrade or suspend a bishop who should 
 give such an explanation of the Articles and Catechism ? Could 
 he not preach, and write, and print it with impunity? Could 
 he be excluded from his seat in the House of Lords, if he there 
 maintained it? Or could he deprive of his care of souls any 
 clergyman who held the opinion I If he could, where is the 
 boasted liberty of the reformation ? And by what law or canon 
 could he do it? If he could not, then is the above-mentioned 
 opinion consistent with the doctrines of the Established Church? 
 Yet it is neither more nor less than the Catholic doctrine of 
 Transubstantiation ; the doctrine, which, however vilified and 
 misrepresented by the reformers of England, every Catholic in the 
 world believes to be the truth, which he cannot abjure without
 
 200 Defence of the {Lei. 3. 
 
 violating- Ins conscience,nor profess in this free, liberal, and en- 
 lightened nation, without being- abused and insulted by the Es- 
 tablished Clergy, ridiculed by the most ignorant of the people, 
 and excluded J)y the Government from the liberties of his 
 country ! 
 
 Shall I be told that no clergyman of the Established Church 
 would be foolish enough to put such an interpretation upon the 
 meaning of the Articles and the Catechism ? Then il must be 
 that the intellects of the Established Clergy are brighter than 
 those of other persuasions ; for as far as my judgment goes, 
 the above-mentioned explanation is the most natural and con- 
 sistent one which can be put upon the articles and Catechism, 
 and one, which I have reason to suspect the framers of those 
 Articles intended should be put by all who liked it ; and why 
 should not I say with Bishop Hoadley, " if this be not the 
 sense of the Catechism, I am unable to say what is ?" 
 
 But be the explanation ever so foolish, or, as you express it, 
 so monstrous, still if there should happen to be a bishop or 
 priest of the Establishment as sparingly gifted as his Catholic 
 brethren, he may hit upon it, and in that case it becomes the 
 allowed doctrine of the Church of England-, which she has nei- 
 ther right to condemn, no power to repress. It is true she may 
 put to such bishop or priest, on certain occasions, the declara- 
 tion against Transubstantiation ; but what shall prevent him 
 from understanding that word in the gross, carnal sense, which 
 the Jews at Capharuaum, and the Archdeacons of Bath and 
 Sarum have affixed to it , or understanding it even in the Ca- 
 tholic sense, what shall prevent him from adopting Archdeacon 
 Paley's explanation, and taking the oath, not as a declaration 
 against any particular doctrine, but as a general protest against 
 the inconveniences of Popery I In either case, the King, the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, or any of or all the dignitaries of the 
 Established Church may, with perfect safety to their souls in a 
 future life, and the full enjoyment of their honours and com- 
 forts in this, believe maintain, and teach a doctrine for believ- 
 ing which, the unfortunate Catholic is declared incapable of 
 present and future comfort, excluded from the pale of the Bri- 
 tish Constitution and condemned of ignorance by the Archdea- 
 con of Bath ! 
 
 And after all, may there not be many persons in the Church of 
 England, who, without knowing or suspecting it, believe as we be- 
 lieve? The positive words of the institution, the declaration of 
 the Article and Catechism, the repeated assertions of certain 
 churchmen of the Establishment, that the Church of England
 
 Lei, 3.] Christian Reltylon. :2()1 
 
 believe a real presence, the solemn forms of the Liturgy, its re- 
 peated cautions and admonitions to the communicants, and its 
 solemn comminations against the unworthy receiver, declaring 
 to him in the words of St. Paul, that " he eats and drinks his 
 own damnation, not discerning the Lord's body ;" these and 
 many similar considerations, which constantly meet the ear and 
 the eye of the members of the Church of England, point too 
 clearly to the real Catholic doctrine to be easily understood in 
 any other sense. To convert all these positive declarations of 
 a real presence of Christ into mere figures of speech, or to un- 
 derstand how this Divine Being, who is essentially composed of 
 body, soul and divinity, can be present in the sacrament, and 
 yet this body, soul and divinity not be there, even in a sjjiritual 
 or sacramental manner, requires more acuteness than I must 
 own I possess, or than I suspect, is possessed by many members 
 of the Church of England, as sincere and not more gifted than 
 myself. 
 
 And yet it is melancholy to think that these very pei'sons, 
 actually believing the Catholic doctrine, though little suspect- 
 ing that they do, and supposing that doctrine to be the hideous 
 thing which the Established Clergy represent it, do, in order to 
 qualify themselves for seats in the Senate, or offices in the 
 State, or dignities in the Church, solemnly call God to witness 
 that they do not believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, 
 and that they do believe the sacrifice of the mass, as now used in 
 the Church of Rome, to be superstitious and idolatrous !* 
 
 Should not considerations so awful induce those who are 
 liable to take these oaths to inform themselves well, before they 
 venture conditionally to abjure the protection of their Creator, 
 what the Catholic doctrine really is ; particularly when they 
 find that such extraordinary ignorance prevails on this subject, 
 even amongst the clergy, that two learned Archdeacons of the 
 Established Church, hearing a Catholic Bishop give a plain, 
 simple statement of the doctrine of his Church, as understood 
 and believed by the whole Catholic world, did not hesitate to 
 accuse that Bishop ot being ignorant of the doctrines of his re- 
 
 • The declaration against Popery by the 30 C. 2. st. 2. e. 1. "I, A, B. do 
 solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, 
 that 1 do believe, that in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, there is not any 
 Transiibstantiution of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood 
 of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof, by any person whatsoever ; 
 and that the invocation, or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other Saint, 
 and the sacrifice of the Mass as they are now used in the Cimrch of Rome, are 
 superstitious and idolatrous." !! "W'liat an aweful oath to exact from the iguo- 
 rdvt, illiterate and unreflecting! 
 
 2 c
 
 :>02 Defence of ths [Let. 3. 
 
 ligion, or of wishing " to explain them away for the purpose of 
 ensnaring his hearers." * 
 
 Yet both these learned and zealous Clergymen, before they 
 could fill their high stations, did solemnly take the oath against 
 Transuhstantiation ; the meaning of which they ought care- 
 fully to have explained to such of their flocks as were liable to 
 take these frightful tests, but which it now appears they did not 
 themselves understand ! 
 
 I have noticed that you accuse the Catholics of idolatry, in 
 your present as well as former Charge. In the former you 
 rested your proofs wholly on the respect we pay to the saints 
 and their representations. You now rest them wholly on the 
 adoration we oay to Chi'ist in the sacrament. The most ad- 
 admirable quality of your present demonstration of this most 
 weighty charge, about which others have written volumes, is its 
 extreme conciseness. It is compressed into one half line. \- 
 You adduce a short quotation from the Council of Trent, stat- 
 ing that true Latria is due to the sacrament, and you add 
 "This is quite enough to prove the charge of idolatry to the 
 full." I hope not; for if our idolatry is so easily proved, the 
 Lord have mercy on us, it must be stupid indeed. I regret 
 that you did not read three lines farther in the Council of 
 Trent, before you closed the book and settled the point. I 
 think you might have settled it differently ; I trust you v/ould 
 have allowed us some chance of escape. In the words imme- 
 diately following those which you quote as directing divine 
 adoration to be given to the sacrament, the Council adds the 
 reason, namely, " because we believe Christ our Lord and God 
 to be really present in it, who is not less deserving of our ador- 
 ation, because he presents himself to us as our spiritual food." 
 Hence the canon of the Council founded upon the chapter you 
 quote, defines " that Christ the only hec/otten Son of God, is 
 to he adored in the sacrainent." It is, therefore, clear that 
 the object of our adoration is Jesus Christ himself. Indeed we 
 believe the sacrament to contain nothing else. But why are we 
 idolaters I Dr. Daubeny declares, that the Church of Eng- 
 land believes Christ to be really present as firmly as we do. 
 If so there can be no idolatry in adoring him. If you do not 
 adore him, I consider it certain that you do not believe him to 
 be present, and that all these positive assertions of his being 
 really present and bein^' ''verily and indeed taken and recei- 
 
 * Dr. Daubeny charges me with having ''introduced a new-fangled doc- 
 trine [for the invention of which I may justly claim the patent]," Protestant's 
 Companion, page 81. t Charge, page 12. in the note.
 
 Let. 3.] Chrislian HeUgioii. 203 
 
 ved hy the faithful" are but so many "equivocations and men- 
 tal reservations" to make the people suppose that you believe 
 what you do not, and habituate them to the use of scripture 
 phrases stripped of their meaninjE^. Either then adore Christ in 
 the Euchai'ist, or at once candidly acknowledge that you do not 
 believe him to be present, and say honestly, with Bishop Hoad- 
 ley, that the sacrament after all is mere bread and wine. 
 
 But supposing" that Christ is not really present in the sacra- 
 ment, are v.e not then idolaters l Certainly not ; for whether 
 lie is there or not, still He and He alone is the subject to which 
 our adoration is directed. I grant that if any Catholic should 
 say, "it is my intention to adore that suhstance upon the altar, 
 ivhether it he Christ or not" and it happened not to be Christ, 
 he would be guilty of idolatry. But such an idea never enters 
 the mind of any Catholic. His intention is simply to adore 
 Christ.* He believes Christ to be present under the sacra- 
 mental species, and he adores him there. But should he hap- 
 pen not to be present, through the priest's forgetting to conse- 
 crate, or from any other cause, the only thing with which the 
 adorer could be charged would be a mistake as to the presence 
 of the object he adores, not as to the object itself. If the blind 
 man after receiving his sight, had by a mistake of persons, wor- 
 shipped St. Peter instead of Christ, would he have been guilty 
 of idolatry I 
 
 Perhaps you are not av/are how much more consistent than 
 yourselves many of your most eminent bishops and divines have 
 been, who considered the adoration of Christ in the Bucharest 
 as a necessary consequence of his presence. Perhaps you little 
 suspect that several of them have anticipated our defence against 
 your half-line demonstration. The celebrated Dr. Jeremy Tay- 
 lor, bishop of Down, thus defends us : " The object of their (the 
 Catholics') adoration in the sacrament is the only true and liv- 
 ing God, hypostatically united with his holy humanity, which 
 humanity they believe actually present under the veil of the sa- 
 crament ; and if they thought him not present they are so far 
 from worshipping the bread, that they profess it idolatry to do 
 so. This is a demonstration that the soul has nothing in it 
 that is idolatrical ; the will has nothing in it but what is a 
 great enemy to idolatry." Bishop Forbes goes still farther. 
 
 * " Quis Catholicovum, haec objecta adorationis sub speciebus somniavit ? 
 NuUussane: etpestifere somuiaret : n(ica.Aov^m\isaliquidsubsistens indefinite, 
 (juidquid illudsit, sub speiciebus, sed solum Christum credilum ibi esse." Re- 
 gulaFidei, sect. 13. u. l. 
 
 t Liberty of Prophecying, sect. 20.
 
 204 Defence of the [Let.Z 
 
 "The sounder Protestants (says he) make no donht of 
 adoring Christ in the Eucharist ; for in receiving the Eucha- 
 rist he is to be adored with triie Latria." He adds, that " it 
 is a monstrous error of the more rigid Protestants, who deny 
 that Christ is to be adored with any thing more than an internal 
 and mental adoration, and not by any external act of worship."* 
 But I have an authority still in reserve, which I feel convinced 
 will induce you to withdraw your condemnation, if not cause you 
 to join us in our worship. Bishop Andrews informs us not only 
 that he himself worshipped with (St.) Ambrose the flesh of Christ 
 in the mysteries ;" but that Kinff James the First, that most 
 learned and most theological of all the heads of the Church of 
 England, ''declared that Christ is truly present, and is to he 
 truly adored iu the sacrament." t 
 
 I am curious to know what will be your next proof of our 
 idolatry. 
 
 I trust that the reader and yourself will now be satisfied, 
 that you formed a decision more hasty than either modest or 
 correct, when you asserted that my doctrine respecting a spiri- 
 tual presence was " in direct defiance of the Council of Trent." 
 You adduce, indeed, two passages to prove your assertion ; but 
 imfortunately, you mistranslate one and misinterpret the other. 
 You assert that the Council condemns those who hold that 
 Christ is present only in '• symbol, or in figure, or in spirt. ^' 
 The words of the Council are, in symbol, or in figure, or in 
 poiver, that is, in effects : " ut in signo, vel figura, aut virtute." 
 You say the Council curses those who say " that Jesus Christ 
 is received in the sacrament only spiritually, and not sacra- 
 mentally and really ;' but then it explains, in the same passage, 
 what it means by spiritually. It tells you, that by receiving 
 Christ spiritually , it means in the passage alluded to, receiving 
 him in desire ; or in other words, endeavouring to be united 
 with him hy faith and love, when it is not in our power to re- 
 ceive him in the sacrament.:}: Had you read the Council, you 
 could not have made these mixtakes, for I will not suppose 
 them to be wilful misrepresentations. 
 
 I wish I could make the same remark respecting a petty at- 
 tack you make upon the phraseology of this Council, where 
 you say, that in 1551 the Council of Trent "formerly anathe- 
 matized [in plain English cursed and devoted to perdition] those 
 
 * De Eucharist ia, lib 2. c. 2. 
 + Answer to Bellarmin, c. 8. See on this subject Bishop Mihier's End of Re- 
 ligious Controversy, and an Essay towards a Proposal for Catholic Communion. 
 I See Council : Trident. Sess. xiii. c. 8.
 
 Let. 3.] Christian ReTujion. 205 
 
 who held certain doctrines." I had ho]3ed that these little and 
 illiberal and uncanded artifices, to inspire the illiterate multi- 
 tude with a vulgar horror of the Catholic Church, had been 
 abandoned to field preachers and writers of rvligious tracts, I 
 am sorry to see them linger with even one dignitary of the Es- 
 tablishment. Can I then suppose you so ignorant of the forms 
 of spiritual censures, ancient and modern, as not to know or 
 condemn the meaning of the terms "uvx^iixot, Ur'sr, anathema sit i 
 Read, then, a lay writer of your own Church (Selden de Sy- 
 iiedriis, book 1st, chapter 8), and he will tell you that this form 
 of censure is more ancient than Christianity; and that " th^re 
 is no one who does not know that it was employed by the 
 Clu-istian Church in the primitive ages" (alas ! he little thought 
 how profoundly unknowing future Archdeacons could be) ; that 
 it is repeatedly employed by St. Paul himself; and that it is 
 nearly equivalent in meaning to excommunication, and conse- 
 quently to the corresponding termination of the Canons of 
 the Church of England. The Catholic Church says, " If any 
 one denies the real presence, or transubstantiation, let him be 
 anathema;^*' and the Church of England says, "Whosoever 
 shall affirm that any of the Thirty-nine Articles are in any part 
 superstitious or erroneous, let him be excommunicated, ipso 
 facto and not resorted, but only hy the Archhishop, after his 
 repentance and public revocation of such his wicked errors"^ 
 I said above that the Catholic anathema was nearly equivalent 
 to the Protestant excommunication ; it is not so severe ; be- 
 cause, as Selden and every other writer on the subject will in- 
 form you, the term excommunication alone comprises all the 
 evils to the full implied by the term a7iathe?na. The ipso facto 
 of your excommunication, audi j^uhlic revocation of the ivicked 
 errors, and restoration only hy the Archhishop, are consider- 
 able aggravations, and render the Protestant excommunication 
 so much more severe than the Catholic anathema. 
 
 But the fact is, the Catholic form, whatever its import, was 
 borrowed by the Chui'ch from St. Paul, and is used in the same 
 manner, and with the same meaning, as the Apostle used it, 
 St. Paul said (Galat, c. i. v. 9), "if any man preach any other 
 gospel to you than that you have received let him he anathema;' 
 or, as the English translation has it, " let him he accursed," 
 
 The Apostle passed this condemnation on certain reformers 
 of those days, who professed to give the Galatians a purer sys- 
 tem of faith than they had received from him. Hence when- 
 
 * Council of Trent, session 13, canons 1 and 2 
 t Constitution and Canons Ecclesiastical, canon 5.
 
 206 Defence of the [Let. 3. 
 
 ever any similar reformers have risen up in subsequent ages, 
 and introduced among the faithful similar improvements on the 
 received helief, the Catholic Church has always applied to them 
 the anathema of St. Paul. Whether the Apostle meant to 
 " cur'se and devote to perdition'' ihe&e teachers of new doc- 
 trines, I will not presume to decide : I leave him and you to 
 settle this point between you. If he did, it shews very clearly 
 that he considered the teaching of new doctrines a most grie- 
 vous crime, and justifies the Church in carefully adopting, 
 thi-ough every age, the means he proposed for suppressing the 
 evil. But if St. Paul did not mean to " curse and devote to 
 perdition' the Galatian reformers, neither did the Council of 
 Trent mean to "curse and devote to perdition" the reformers 
 of these days. 
 
 But the object of this little attack is something more than at 
 first meets the eye. You evidently wish to persuade the peo- 
 ple, and perhaps you really think, that Catholics hate and wish 
 evil to those who are not of their communion, and that they 
 would, if they were able, persecute all Prostestants in this 
 world, and devote them to perdition in the next." It is thus 
 the established Clergy in former days, and tlie high churchmen 
 and field preachers of these, continue to slander the great body 
 of Christian believers. May God forgive you, if there is malice 
 at your heart, or enlighten your mind, if your conduct proceed 
 from pure ignorance. Heaven forbid that I should condemn 
 you, or prescribe limits to human blindness, or forestall the 
 judgments of God on any human creature. 
 
 But can you persuade yourself that the uncharitable judg- 
 ments you form of so many hundred millions of your fellow 
 Christians could be justifiable, even if confined within the se- 
 crets of your own breast? In publishing these judgments to 
 the world, and endeavouring to instil into other hearts the 
 deadly aversion that rankles in your own, have you no fears that 
 you may be still more guilty? We live in an enlightened age 
 — all, except Papists, are much wiser than their forefathers — 
 the bounderies of science are become almost unlimited — scarcely 
 are the mysteries and secrets of the third heaven placed beyond, 
 our reach. In such an age, cannot a learned Archdeacon, who 
 thinks it his duty to speak of Catholic doctrines, by any means 
 discover what those doctrines are I The public libraries are 
 full of our books of instruction, our clergy are known and public 
 characters, our places of worship are open to all the world, and 
 public explanations of our doctrines are given weekly to all who 
 choose to hear them. You are met daily in the streets by Ca-
 
 Let. 3.] Chrislian Reli()ion. 207 
 
 tbolics of every rank and condition, from tlie Earl Marshal of 
 England to the ra^^ged charity schoolboy, any one of whom, if 
 asked, would satify you that we do not hold the strange and 
 barbarous opinions with which you charge us; anyone of whom 
 would tell you, that to love every human being as himself, 
 whatever his religion, is the next great duty after loving God; 
 and that to hate or wish evil to any one whomsoever is a deadly 
 crime. With such opportunies of getting rid of your injurious 
 prejudices, can you be justified in cherishing and propagating 
 them { Be assured the days will come, when it will scarcely 
 be believed that honest, upright and honourable men could have 
 believed and acted in our regard as you have done. 
 
 But what is the real cause of this marvellous ignorance, if ig- 
 norance it is, which adduces you to continue the persecutor and 
 false accuser of your Catholic brethren ? A cause there must 
 be for every effect ; and the only one that I can think of, in the 
 present instance, is the terror with which you are evidently in- 
 spired for the safety of the EstahUsliinent in this country. You 
 see the Church of England going rapidly down, and it seems to 
 me that you catch at any thing to save her. You see the sec- 
 taries, as you call them, hemming you in on every side, and 
 reducing you every day within narrower lunits; whilst the Ca- 
 tholic body, which a few years ago was almost unknown in the 
 country, or known only to be trampled upon and despised, has 
 risen up beside you like a giant, with more than one-third of the 
 population of the empire at its back, and so fenced and supported 
 by public opinion, and the truth and justice of its cause, that 
 neither penal laws can be re-enacted against it, nor fair argu- 
 ments found to check its growing greatness. Already your be- 
 wildered imagination beholds " Papal edicts ready to be en- 
 forced against all Protestants," the Established Clergy of Eng- 
 land deprived of their enormous wealth, and " Popish BisJiops' 
 and Popish Archdeacons marching in solemn procession into the 
 Cathedrals which their forefathers erected, and which, for al- 
 most three hundred years have wondered what had befallen 
 them. No wonder that, thus impressed, you make feverish and 
 ill-guided attacks upon the Catholics. No wonder that you 
 sieze the same weapons to defend your Establishment in its de- 
 crepitude, which guarded its cradle, and made its manhood ter- 
 rible. I submit to your own serious reflection, and to the judg- 
 ment of every unprejudiced reader, whether this state of things 
 is not the real cause which makes you find it so difficult to learn 
 the Catholic Catechism I 
 
 In the agitation of your alarm you overlook, as generally
 
 208 Defence of iha [X«?. 3. 
 
 happens, your real danger i and whilst you combat an imagined 
 foe, neglect one v,ho is about to scale your walls. Your bro- 
 ther of Saruni has told you, that the Sectaries of England are a 
 heterogeneous mass of heretics and schismatics, " without altar, 
 without priesthood,"* or any vital connection with the Church 
 of Christ ; whilst, you yourself admit, that a decided and settled 
 hostility to the Established Church animates the whole of this 
 great and growing body. Here are dangers, indeed, both spi- 
 ritual and temporal. Yet such is your terror of the Catholic 
 Church, that you now offer to make a league v/ith these very 
 Dissenters against her, as against a common enemy. In the 
 most earnest manner you call upon them to assist you. With 
 the most pathetic feeling you exclaim, " would that our Dis- 
 senting brethren would think on this ! Would that they would 
 consider how little of that toleration which they now enjoy would 
 be allowed, or ever has been allowed by the Papal Church." 
 I need not, I am sure, tell the Dissenters to look at the tolera- 
 tion of Catholic France, or to find in the world a Catholic 
 country, where a small minority, as in England, exclude from 
 civil priviliges, on the score of religions opinions, the great ma- 
 jority of the nation. I need not remind the Dissenters that if 
 they or v/e do not still smart under all the rigour of the most 
 barbarous penal code that ever disgraced a christian country, it 
 is because the Church of England has not been able to prevent its 
 partial repeal. I need not remind them that toonr degradation 
 alone does she owe her greatness, and that she has no hopes of 
 a continuance of her prosperity but in the continuance of our 
 misfortunes. When did the Church of England grant to the 
 Catholics or the Dissenters one walling boon i When did go- 
 vernment grant such boon, and the Church of England not cry 
 out that her existence v»as endangered i 
 
 There is one consolation which, I hope, I may afford you. 
 You fear and almost predict the Catholic Church will again 
 become the Established Church of England. Be assured no 
 such event will ever take place. In Ireland, on some future 
 day, perhaps, it may ; and if any religion must be established 
 in that unhappy country, it ought to be in the Catholic religion ; 
 because this is the religion of the great majority of the nation. 
 But for the same reason, the Catholic religion neither ever can 
 or ever ought to be the established religion of England ; for the 
 majority of the English nation will never again be Catholic. 
 The history of past ages does not, I believe, furnish a single 
 
 * On Ihe nature, pvogre^s, and consequence of Schism, page 2Sl. and passim.
 
 Let. 3.] Christian Religion. 209 
 
 example of a nation being favoured with the grace of a second 
 conversion, after having so universally and for so long a time 
 abandoned its primitive faith. Your own judgment, indeed, 
 may convince you how limited, in a country like this, must be 
 the progress of a Church, which exacts so long and tedious a 
 process for the admission of its proselytes, and requires of the 
 latter so much ftiith, so much sincerity, so much courage and 
 resolution, as I have shown, are required in this country for 
 becoming a Catholic. The prejudices of early instruction, the 
 pride of the human heart, the influence of passion and interest, 
 a growing indifference to religious truth and the corresponding 
 growth of Unitarianism and unbelief, will, for ages to come, con- 
 tinue to prevent the great mass of the English people from even 
 looking into the merits of the Catholic religion. A compara- 
 tively small number will, however, always be found, who pre- 
 ferring the happiness of a future life to the interests and enjoy- 
 ments of this, will seek only for the truth, and will find it in the 
 religion of their forefathers. The relaxation of the remaining 
 penal laws, the spread of education, and perhaps, the change of 
 names between the Sectaries and the Church of England, would, 
 by diminishing the difficulties of conversion, considerably in- 
 crease the numbers of our converts. In the mean time, per- 
 haps the next greatest advantage that can be conferred upon 
 the Catholic cause, are the favourable opportunities which such 
 high Churchmen as the Archdeacons of Bath and Sarum afford 
 to Catholic writers to make the public acquainted with our real 
 doctrines, and to expose the misrepresentation under which our 
 religion has been so long obscured. 
 
 I shall now, very Reverend Sir, take my leave of you for a 
 while. Towards the beginning of November, you may expect 
 to hear from me again, on the first and most important subject 
 discussed in Archdeacon Daubeny's " Protestant's Companion," 
 viz. WHICH istJie trueor Catholic Church of Christ, and who 
 are its ministers ; or, as that elegant writer politely expresses 
 it, " On the usurped supremacy of the Pope, and the boasted 
 universality of the Church of Rome." 
 
 In the mean time, I have the honour to remain. 
 
 Very Reverend Sir, Your obedient Servant, 
 Peter Augustine Baines. 
 
 FINIS.
 
 210 
 
 IN THIS VOLUME. 
 
 1 Frontispiece — Doctrine of the Catholic Church— Glorjr to God on High, &c. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 2 The *' Reformers" Deforming and Plundering a Christian Church. . . .^. . . 45 
 
 3 Jewish Worship of the Golden Calf — They forgot God their Saviour, } -a 
 
 Psalm, cvi. 21 ] ^^ 
 
 4 A Christian Lady with a Crucifix and the miniature of her departed hus- ) „ 
 
 band 5 ^-^ 
 
 5 Paul the Abbot, before the Imperial GoTernors 83 
 
 6 Solomon Dedicating the New Temple of Jerusalem. Kings viii. &c 107 
 
 7 John Huss, preaching Seditious Doctrine in Bohemia 143 
 
 8 Father Huddlestone assisting in the preservation of King Charles II 155 
 
 9 The Catholic Church on a Rock, impregnable and unmoved by all the pow- } , _ 
 
 ers of Darkness, &C S 
 
 10 Jesus Christ manifesting himself to the Two Disciples going to Emmaus. . 19* 
 
 AMBROSE CUDDON, CATHOLIC PUBLISHER, PRINTER, &c- 
 
 62, Paternoster Row, London.
 
 
 1 
 
 1
 
 -!■ 4 
 
 ■4\ 
 
 UC SOUTHERfJ REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 632 783
 
 ranMoygipiM 
 
 S._ m Sk ;a?>. >#^ 
 
 i 
 
 K(^ue 
 
 .^n-^^r 
 
 fi^ 
 
 W': 
 
 BraHRHB^nrani 
 
 /M ,^n Wk /)i\ -^Pk iirv i^ /^ ' ./sr\ ^\ ^ /w\^^ A