An able Prelate of the Irish section of the Latin Church once observed—“The chief points to be discussed between the Church of Rome and of England are—the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures, Faith, Justification, the Mass, the Sacraments, the authority of tradition, of Councils, of the Pope, the celibacy of the Clergy, language of the Liturgy, invocation of Saints, respect for images, prayers for the dead. On most of these it appears to me that there is no essential difference between (Roman) Catholics and Protestants; the existing diversity of opinion arises, in most cases, from certain forms of words which admit of satisfactory explanation, or from the ignorance or misconceptions which ancient prejudice and ill will produce and strengthen,—but which could be removed; they are pride and points of honour which keep us divided on many subjects, not a love of christian humility, charity, and truth.” [3] Thus wrote the celebrated Bishop Doyle in the year 1824. Was he right or was he wrong? Are the differences between the two Churches so very slight that there is no material difference? If this be so, my Lord, permit me, with all respect for your rank as an English Nobleman, to ask you on what plea you have left the Communion of the English Church, and alienated the consecrated House of God at Pantasa from her service, for that of the dissenting body to which you have joined yourself? Bishop Doyle wrote either truth or falsehood in the above passage. If truth, have you left the Church of your Baptism and of your country for a system of foreign production, “no material difference, meanwhile, existing between them.” If falsehood, I might leave you to settle this matter with one of the ablest Romish Bishops of modern times. But, my Lord, there is a “material difference” between the two Churches—a difference as great as between light and darkness—the difference between Scriptural verities, and the unfounded figments of Tridentine manufacture. To prove this as briefly as may be, is my object in addressing you—and I humbly hope that the perusal of this letter may be blessed to your good, and that, as St. Cyprian would speak—you may prove not like the raven who seduced from the Catholic faith, returned to it no more; but, like the dove departing from the ark of God, but finding no rest for the sole of its foot, returned to it again, with an olive branch of peace in its mouth.
The first of the “chief points” is: “the Canon of the sacred Scriptures.”
On this point it were easy to multiply testimonies. Let Cardinal Bellarmine—without exception, the greatest controversialist the Church of Rome can boast of, speak first. His words are, [4a] “all those books which the Protestants do not receive; the Jews also did not receive.” Now, my Lord, you are, of course, aware that “to the Jews were committed the oracles of God.” Rom. iii. 2. Moreover, that our blessed Saviour while he pointedly condemned the Jews for “making void the word of God by their traditions,” never blamed them for omitting any part of that word; but on the contrary expressly recognises the Jewish Canon of the Holy Scripture. Luke xxiv. 44. Nor did any of the Apostles ever censure them for omitting from the holy volume any portion of God’s revealed Will. I need not, I presume, inform you, my Lord, that the Ancient Catalogues of the books of Holy Scripture reject what we call the Apocrypha; nor, if you have ever read those ancient writings, need I tell you, that they contain statements opposed to Scripture, to reason, and to fact. [4b] It may not be unproductive of good also to inform you, my Lord, that on the publication of the Complutensian Polyglot, by Cardinal Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo, so late as the 16th Cent: the preface expressly rejects the apocryphal books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the additional chapters of Esther, and the Maccabees. [4c] While if we are to be guided by your infallible Church of Rome regarding the Canon of Holy Scripture, we must reject the Epistle to the Hebrews,—perhaps the most important of the Epistles,—for, according to the undeniable testimony of St. Jerome, this Epistle was once rejected by the Latin Church. Perhaps Dr. Newman’s system of “Developement” may be extended from doctrines to facts, and make the Church which once rejected an inspired Epistle and now receives it, equally right, at each period, owing to the amazing spell of infallibility. With all these facts before you, I think, my Lord, that this “point of difference” might be easily settled. I pass on to the next on which I will remark—viz.—The Mass.
Your great Cardinal Bellarmine considers this essential to Christianity. Yet I will venture to assert that no professing Church would entertain the awful notion of a propitiatory sacrifice to the Almighty now—since the atonement made by the holy one and the just once for all on Calvary,—unless with the determination to outbrave the direct testimony of inspiration that “there is no more offering for sin.” Heb. x. 18. [5a]—With this intention it may be, my Lord, that the Latin Church now receives the Epistle to the Hebrews,—just as, receiving the Gospels in which our Lord commands “Drink ye all of this” wine in the Lord’s Supper, she “notwithstanding”—it is her own word—(“non obstante” in the Council of Constance) prohibits the people from receiving it, and thus, in palpable opposition to Christ’s command, robs them of that “Cup which we bless,” and which “is the communion of the blood of Christ.” [5b] But this doctrine of the mass must stand or fall, according to your own confession, with the Romish figment of transubstantiation. Now, my Lord, what is the proof of this doctrine? We are referred by Romish writers to Matt. xxvi. 26. seq. and John vi. 63. seq. But hear what some of the ablest writers, on your side of the question, acknowledge with respect to these alleged proofs. Your celebrated Dr. Lingard, ’tis true, tells us that the latter place, viz., “John vi. contains the clearest proof of the Roman Catholic doctrine.” But what say Doctors equally celebrated in their day, and no less anxious advocates for the peculiarities of Romanism? Biel, a well-known Romish authority, in Can. mis, and Cusan and Cajetan, both Cardinals, and Thomas Aquinas, your “Angelic Doctor,”—declare, that this “clearest proof,” does not refer to the subject at all! I will add, my Lord, because Romanists—however loud in their call “tell it unto the Church”—the Church with them always meaning their particular Priest—seem again unwilling to be guided by the opinion of individual Ecclesiastics. I will add, I say, that your own “infallible” Council of Trent, while luxuriating in a “twofold interpretation” of this passage, and scorning to be “reduced to the poverty of one,” does not dare to pronounce that it refers to the Lord’s Supper. [5c] But—supposing that it has that reference,—which I believe it has prospectively,—surely our Saviour’s own commentary upon the discourse is worth a thousand glosses of all the Schoolmen—“It is the Spirit that quickeneth,” He says, “the flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are life.” John vi. 63. [5d]—But we are also referred to the words of institution in Matt. xxvi. 26.—seq. Now if I do not very much mistake, your friend, Cardinal Wiseman, decides that this place is destructive of the tenet for which he adduces it. He says in his “Lectures on the Eucharist” that in a sentence where “two material objects are represented as identical, we must plainly understand the passage figuratively.” But the Catechismus ad Parochos—otherwise called the Catechism of the Council of Trent, says, “When instituting this Sacrament our Lord himself said ‘this is my body;’ the word ‘this’ expresses the entire substance of the thing present; and, therefore, if the substance of the bread remained, our Lord could not have said, ‘this is my body.’” Undoubtedly it was what Christ held in his hand that he designated by the word “this.” But, independent of the consideration that it was impossible for our blessed Saviour to hold His Own Body in His Own Hand, I ask what was that? The Romish opinion is—that the bread was not changed until our Saviour had pronounced the last of these words—“this is my body.” If this be true, then, it was bread when the word “this” was used, and consequently the bread must have been referred to by that word. Apply then to this reasoning the indubitable Canon of Dr. Wiseman—Lec. p. 180.—That “it is obviously necessary to fly from the literal meaning of texts which represent two material objects as identical.” I will detain your Lordship for a moment or two longer on these words of institution. Do you rest your faith in transubstantiation on these words? I ask, then, my Lord, by what process you conclude that the words “This is my body,” mean “Let this be my body.” The latter clearly denote conversion,—the former, according to all phraseology, can denote nothing of the sort. Or again—with all reverence let me ask it—whether does your Lordship profess to eat the mortal or the immortal body of your Saviour in participation of the Eucharist? If the former, I suppose St. Paul is explicit in refutation, for he tells us that “Christ dieth no more.” Rom. vi. 9. If the latter, I presume the words of institution will not much help you, for when they were spoken Christ had no immortal body to bestow. On this “point” I will add no more but that your Prince of Controversialists, the author of what Dr. Wiseman calls “Magnificent Controversies,” plainly confesses that “most learned and acute Romanists believe that there is no place of Scripture so express as without the authority of the Church evidently to compel a reception of transubstantiation.” De Sac: Euc: 1. iii. c. 23. The value of the “authority” of the Latin Church will not be very highly estimated by any unprejudiced person moderately acquainted with her principles and practices.
I pass on to the third “point,” viz.—Tradition. Read the following description of your traditions by your own celebrated Dr. Milner, of the “end of controversy” notoriety. In the twelfth letter of his conclusive work he says—“There are among Catholics divine traditions * * * and there are among many Catholics historical and even fabulous traditions.” On this point I need add no more except to assure you that no sensible Anglican will ever question that written tradition is a valuable auxiliary in the interpretation of Scripture; while any one acquainted with the wretched fables of oral traditionary transmission in the Church of Rome will heartily unite in the language of Archdeacon Jortin, that “it is a muddy stream of everlasting nonsense.” [7]
I come now to the Authority of Councils:—and here, what Councils are meant? If I mistake not the Pope, as you call him, is bound by the decrees of only eight. And surely what are sufficient for “His Holiness” might well be deemed quite enough for his “Subjects.” Yet De la Hogue tells us that there are eighteen. There may have been this number, or twice as many, if the Doctor pleases; but can he, or Dr. Wiseman, or any other Doctor induce you or any reasonable man to believe that Councils which contradict each other have all emanated from the spirit of unity and truth? Do I misrepresent them? Let us see,—and to be as brief as I can, let one instance suffice. The Council of Ephesus decreed—“That it should not be lawful to utter, write, or compose any other faith than that which had been defined by the Nicene Fathers; and that if any dared to offer any other Creed, if Ecclesiastics, they should be removed from their office; if laics, that they should be anathematised.” Labb. et Coss. Concil. t. 3. p. 688. Compare with this, my Lord, the Creed of Pope Pius, according to the Council of Trent, and then I ask you to answer to your own conscience whether the assembly at Trent, which you call a General Council, was not in direct and irreconcilable opposition to one of the four universally received General Councils of the Church? Let this suffice on the subject of Councils,—and now we approach the so called “Pope”—not, you may rely upon it, to kiss his toe, or to join in “his adoration;” for who is the Pope, my Lord? You say he is the Vicar of Christ, and the successor of St. Peter. But let St. Bernard correct this rashness—“They have not the inheritance of St. Peter,” he says, “who have not the faith of Peter.” I should like to know which of St. Peter’s writings or which of his traditions contains the twelve New Articles of the Creed of your Pope’s Church. And as to his being the Vicar of our holy Redeemer let me recommend to you the following passage from the book of Homilies of that Church which you have so unaccountably forsaken—“As the Lion is known by his claws, so let us learn to know these men by their deeds. What shall we say of him that made the noble King Dandalus to be tied by the neck with a chain, and to lie down before his table, there to gnaw bones like a dog? Sabel. Ennead. 9. lib. 7. Shall we think that he had God’s holy Spirit within him, and not rather the Spirit of the devil? Such a tyrant was Pope Clement the Sixth. What shall we say of him that proudly and contemptuously trod Frederic the Emperor under his feet, applying that verse of the Psalm unto himself, thou shall go upon the lion and the adder, the young lion and the dragon thou shalt tread under thy foot. Ps. 91. Shall we say that he had God’s holy Spirit within him, and not rather the Spirit of the devil? Such a tyrant was Pope Alexander the Third. What shall we say of him that armed and animated the son against the father, causing him to be taken and cruelly famished to death, contrary to the law both of God and also of nature. Shall we say that he had God’s holy Spirit within him, and not rather the Spirit of the devil? Such a tyrant was Pope Pascal the Second. What shall we say of him that came into his popedom like a fox, that reigned like a lion, and died like a dog? Shall we say that he had God’s holy Spirit within him, and not rather the Spirit of the devil? Such a tyrant as Pope Boniface the Eighth. What shall we say of him that made Henry the Emperor, with his wife and young child to stand at the gates of the city in the rough winter barefooted and bareleged, only clothed in linsey woolsey, eating nothing from morning to night, and that for the space of three days? Shall we say that he had God’s holy Spirit within him, and not rather the Spirit of the devil? Such a tyrant was Pope Hildebrand, most worthy to be called a firebrand, if we shall term him as he hath best deserved. Many other examples might here be alleged, as of Pope Joan the harlot, that was delivered of a child in the high street going solemnly in procession; of Pope Julius the Second, that wilfully cast St. Peter’s keys into the river Tibiris; of Pope Urban the Fifth, that caused five Cardinals to be put in sacks and cruelly drowned; of Pope Sergius the Third, that persecuted the dead body of Formosus his predecessor, when it had been buried eight years; of Pope John the Fourteenth of that name, who, having his enemy delivered into his hands, caused him first to be stripped stark naked, his beard to be shaven, and to be hanged a whole day by the hair, then to be set upon an ass with his face backwards towards the tail, to be carried round the city in despite, to be miserably beaten with rods, last of all to be thrust out of his country, and to be banished for ever.” [8a] Were these, let me ask you, my Lord, successors of St. Peter, and Vicars of our Lord Jesus Christ? Oh the blasphemy of such a thought! Oh the strong delusion which must produce such a notion! I ask, again, were these the infallible heads of the Church of Rome? But you perhaps do not believe in the Infallibility of the Pope: you only assert his Supremacy. Each being equally unfounded, I only now remind you of the words of your famous Bishop Doyle—“Whether we believe the Pope to be infallible or not to be infallible, we are equally good and orthodox Catholics.” [8b]
The next “point” upon our list is the Celibacy of the Clergy. It is very true that St. Paul said that he would that all men were even as he—that is single. But this was during a time of persecution when families would have been irksome and injurious to Christian Missionaries. But the same Apostle when giving permanent instructions concerning the Clerical body directs—“a Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife.” 1 Tim. iii. 2. “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.” v. 4. And again v. 12—“let the Deacons be the husband of one wife.” Indeed, my Lord, did your fallen Church labour to be identified in Apostacy with the heretics of the first centuries, how could she have better succeeded than in “forbidding to marry?” 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2, 3. And now, hear, from your own authors, the fearful consequences of a celibate Clergy.
Claud D’Expence a very celebrated Parisian divine, writes thus—“Shameful to relate they give permission to Priests to have concubines, and to live with their harlots, who have children by them, upon paying an annual tribute, and in some places they oblige Priests to pay this tax saying they may keep a concubine if they please.” Espen: Com: ad Cap. 1. ad Tit. Dig: 2.
Hear again, how your Cardinal Baronius writes—“What then was the face of the Roman Church? How very filthy when the most powerful and sordid harlots then ruled at Rome, at whose pleasure Sees were changed, and Bishopricks were given, and what is horrible to hear and most abominable—their gallants were obtruded into the See of Peter, and made false Popes; for who can say they could have been lawful Popes who were intruded by such harlots without law? There was no mention of the election or consent of Clergy, the Canons were silent; the decrees of Popes suppressed; the ancient traditions proscribed,—lust, armed with the secular power, challenged all things to itself.” Bar: Ann: A.D. 912.
This is the system of a celibate Clergy for which you, my Lord, have forsaken that Church which honors “holy Matrimony”—knowing that the Apostle declares that “Marriage is honorable in all.” Heb. xiii. 4. [9]