Part 2

Our next “point” will be, “_respect for images_.” Bishop Doyle worded this very cautiously. But _do_ you pay no more than “_respect_” to your images? My Lord, if words have any meaning, Romanists worship images—they give them religious service. Let us see for a moment. The Second Council of Nice says—“The honor paid to the image _passes_ to the prototype: and he who _adores_ the image, adores in it the person of him whom it represents.” Labb: vol. vii. p. 556.—Here is an evident assertion of the “adoration of images.” While you cannot, my Lord, fail to observe the striking identity of language of this so called Christian Council with that of the heathen idolaters—“not that gold and silver”—say they,—“when fashioned into statues are gods, but that _through_ these images the invisible Gods are honoured and worshipped.” {11a} And Cardinal Bellarmine, if I remember rightly—says, that “it is most certain that the Nicene Council decreed that _images are to be adored with the highest worship_.” Now, my Lord, this Council is one of your eighteen General Councils. Oh how, then, shall I characterise this idolatry? We pity the poor heathen who bow down to stocks and stones, but what is _their_ guilt when compared with that of members of Christ’s baptized family committing the _same crime_? I may be threatened by those who know no better with the anathema of your “holy Æcumenical Council,”—for verily it _does_ curse enough,—“cursed be the breakers of images,”—“cursed be they who refuse to salute the holy and venerable images.” But, my Lord, this antiscriptural and irrational anathema will only turn tenfold into the bosoms of its impious pronouncers, while I would with all earnestness call your Lordship’s attention to a curse which I pray God you may never experience, although you are in the fair way for earning it—viz.—Deut xxvii. 15. “_Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image_, _an abomination unto the Lord_, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.”

The next “point” is—“_Prayers for the Dead_.” Your lately appointed Cardinal—Dr. Wiseman—connects this “point” with the doctrine of Purgatory thus—“the practice is essentially based on the belief in Purgatory.” Lec. ii. Now although it is quite evident that Dr. W.’s learning is to a great extent _second hand_, {11b} there can be no question of his learning by any one who has read his “profoundly learned work,” as I think Mr. Hartwell Horne calls his Horæ Syriacæ; yet it does appear strange that he should, as here, completely confuse things so very different. Dr. Wiseman must be aware, as every tyro in such matters is, that prayers were offered for the dead long before a Purgatory was dreamed of. One of the Doctor’s own references proves this, viz.—1 Maccabees xii. 43.—where we read that _that_ prayer was made in reference _to the resurrection_,—not to release from purgatory. On the contrary, it is said, that if Judas had not hoped that the dead should rise again, it had been a “superfluous thing to pray for the dead.” Prayer for the dead in the early Christian Church had a reference to the same, or to an augmentation of their glory—for they prayed even for the saints and martyrs. Such prayers for the dead, then, could have had no reference to the doctrine of Purgatory, the fire of which, Bellarmine, if I remember, states to be the same as that of hell, differing only in duration. I therefore dismiss such a PRACTICE, and will say a little on the _doctrine_ upon which, according to Dr. Wiseman, it is founded. That is—the doctrine of _Purgatory_.

On this “point” I will first observe, that your most able men have declared it utterly incapable of proof from the holy Scripture, and also that it is in opposition to the doctrine of the ancient Church. Let us hear a few on each statement. It is incapable of proof from holy Scripture. As to this _general_ statement we have the following among others. “Purgatory was for a long time unknown, and _either never_, or _very seldom mentioned among the ancient fathers_.” Bishop Fisher—in refut: Luther.—And, a Romish Bishop whose “_discussion amicale_” you are no doubt well acquainted with, observes, that, “Jesus Christ has not revealed the knowledge of Purgatory, so that we can, therefore, only form conjectures on the subject, more or less probable.” Vol. ii. p. 242. As to the Scripture proofs alleged by Dr. Wiseman, and others, your own writers plainly assert their insufficiency. The places usually quoted are: Matt. v. 25, 26. and Matt. xii. 32., 1 Cor. iii. 15. {13a} and 1 Pet. iii. 18, 19. Now, my Lord, without at all entering into an examination of those places, which my limits will prevent, and which has been unanswerably done a thousand times, I simply remark—That St. Matt. v. 25, 26. has been given up as a proof by your great Maldonatus who says the prison spoken of is hell. St. Matt. xii. 32. has been abandoned by Card: Bellarmine who confesses that the sin there spoken of was never to be forgiven. He also confesses that the fire spoken of in 1 Cor. iii. 13. is not meant of Purgatory,—by what process he extracts it, then, from the 15 v. was perhaps best known to himself: and 1 Pet. iii. 18, 19.—has been given up by Father Maguire, a great champion among you. {13b} This being the case, may we not well conclude that there is no foundation in holy Scripture for the doctrine of Purgatory—the acknowledged foundation of prayers for the dead, according to Dr. Wiseman,—and which, therefore, fall with it. I am happy in adding the testimony of your celebrated Picherellus that St. John by the one text—Rev. xiv. 13.—“put out the fire of Purgatory.” In fact, my Lord, as Meagher observes—“The doctrine of Purgatory is of heathen origin, intended to cheat the simple out of their money, by giving them bills of exchange upon another world for cash paid in this, without any danger of the bills returning protested.”

And now, my Lord, I call on you, as a man of sense, as a man of honesty, as a man wishing the salvation of your neverdying soul, to reject a doctrine “which would rob the believer of his peace, which would throw around the glorious attributes of Heaven’s Sovereign the funereal pall of darkness, and obscurity, which would transform a God of love into a God of terror, mingle our paltry satisfactions with the agonies of Calvary, and attach to the seamless robe of Christ’s righteousness woven from Bethlehem to the Cross, the tattered vestments of personal suffering.”

The Sacraments are another “point” of difference mentioned by Bishop Doyle. You say that there are seven,—we say that there are “two only as generally necessary to salvation.” Our two Sacraments are, as you are aware—“Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.” Your five additional Sacraments are: _Confirmation_, _Penance_, _Extreme Unction_, _Holy Orders_, _and Matrimony_. {14} On these, little need be said. The universally received definition of a Sacrament excludes all of them. For what is a Sacrament my Lord? Our Church Catechism defines it thus, in accordance with St. Augustine—“an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, _ordained by Christ Himself_, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.” A like definition is given by your own writers. Thus the _Catechismus ad Parochos_—de Sac. and Bishop Bossuet—Expos: de la doc. de l’ Egl: Cath. cap. ix.

_Confirmation_ is a sacred rite and of Apostolic origin. But where did Christ institute it? No where. It, therefore, is not a Sacrament. _Penance_ is a godly discipline, if practiced after a godly sort, but it was never instituted by Christ, and consequently is not a Sacrament. One of the parts of Penance, according to your Church, is Confession. And here, one feels a difficulty in addressing a married nobleman of your persuasion, or a bachelor with female relations and friends. Oh my Lord are you aware of the filthy questions to which married ladies are subject in the Confessional of the Church of Rome? They may not yet have been proposed to any of _your_ friends: policy, on the part of the wily party with which you have connected yourselves, may have hitherto prevented it. But you ought to be informed that there is a printed catalogue of the questions which bachelor Priests of your unholy system are in duty bound to propose to married, as well as unmarried, females. Have you read this catalogue, my Lord? If you _have_, your common decency is for ever obliterated from the annals of your family, if any female friend of your’s, under your control, ever confesses to a Romish Priest. If you have _not_, as you value even a respectable position in society, read the instructions given to Priests, for hearing Confession, as given in Dens and Baillie, the Maynooth Class books, before you allow any female friend of your’s to attend such Confession. I will not pollute these pages by giving you even an abstract of them. _They are filthy—they are loathsome_, _they are beyond description disgustingly offensive_. Break the shackles, my Lord, with which you have voluntarily bound yourself: dare to assert yourself a free man. Were you chained to the plough as a slave, your _mind_ might be free; but your _soul_ is enchained by the Church of Rome.

_Extreme Unction_ is your next Sacrament. The Council of Trent goes no farther—except in its _Canon_ as before shown—than to say that Christ “_insinuated_” this “_as it were_” a Sacrament.—“INSINUAVIT”—“TANQUAM”—while their reference to James v. 14. is suicidal, for the words—“the Lord shall raise him up”—_εγερει_ {15a}—show that it has no reference to the dying, which indeed your Cardinal Cajetan confesses—inloco—where he also denies the Tridentine “_insinuation_” of our Lord. Titular Bishop Doyle informs us also—p. 101.—of his “Abridgement of the Christian Doctrine”—or rather his edition of. Tubbervill’s older work—“the time is uncertain” when Christ “instituted Extreme Unction.” _Uncertain_! I had thought that nothing _could_ be uncertain to an “infallible” Church.

Your next additional Sacrament is: _Holy Orders_. Now, my Lord, although “it is evident unto all men diligently reading the holy Scripture and ancient authors that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church—Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,” yet it no where appears that Christ himself instituted them. I call upon you, then, either to reject Holy Orders as, or refuse your definition of, a Sacrament. The last of your additional Sacraments is _Matrimony_. {15b} I had thought that Matrimony was instituted in the time of man’s innocency; but your infallible Church, by her definition of a Sacrament, and by pronouncing this one, decides the contrary. I will only further remark here, that it is most marvellous that a Church which so honors and exalts Matrimony as to make it a Sacrament, should deem it too _polluting_ for those whom she exclusively calls “_Spirituals_!”

“Faith and justification” are the only other points of difference alluded to by Bishop Doyle. {16} On these I prefer to give you the decisive statements of the Bible. “He that _believeth_ and is baptised shall be saved, and he that _believeth_ not shall be damned.” Mark xvi. “_Believe_ on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Acts xvi. 31. “We conclude that a man is _justified by faith without the deeds of the law_.” Rom. iii. 28. “By the works of the law shall no flesh be _justified_.” Gal. ii. 16. My Lord, “there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved, but the name of Jesus Christ.” He died, the Just One instead of the unjust ones, that he might bring us to God. His blood cleanseth from all sin. And although to _you_ “there be Gods many, and Lords many,” to _us_ there is but One—The Father, the Creator,—the Son, the Redeemer,—the Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier, for “these three are one.” 1 John v. 7.

And now, my Lord, I have done. I offer no apology for addressing you. I trust you may be enabled to thank me, however unworthy, for having done so. I offer no apology for my manner of writing to you. I have endeavoured to show you “the error of your way,” and if I have used “great plainness of speech” “it is what I could attain unto,” and what I desired. That God may show you the fearfulness of the step you have taken—the grovelling bondage under which you have placed yourself, and rescue you from that bondage, before it be too late, when your eyes shall have closed upon everything of earth once and for ever, is my fervent prayer; and with every good wish for you, and for the unconscious partner in your guilt,

I beg to subscribe myself, MY LORD, Your well-wisher, and obedient humble servant,

G. L. STONE.

* * * * *

Some readers of the foregoing Letter may have expected to find in it some allusion, at least, to what Gavazzi calls “the broken faith of Lord Fielding.” I have purposely avoided any remarks on the subject; and do not think it necessary to account for the omission.

* * * * *

PRINTED BY T. PAINTER, HIGH-STREET, WREXHAM.

FOOTNOTES.

{3} Analysis of Divine Faith, p. 359.

{4a} Omnes libros quos Protestantes, &c. De verbo dei. lib. 1. cap. 10.

{4b} 2 Es. viii. 33. Eccles. iii. 3, 30. Comp. Eccles. vii. 20. Rom. iii. 20. 1 John i. 8. Tobit. vi. 16, 17. 2 Mac. xiv. 41, 46. Comp. Tobit. v. 12 and xii. 15. While the books of Maccabees seem to represent Antiochus to have _died three times_! 1 Mac. xvi. 6. 2 Mac. i. 16. ix. 28.

{4c} Cardinal Cajetan also rejects the Apocrypha. Com: in Om: authen: vet: testam. Paris, 1546. p. 481–2.

{5a} Cardinal Cajetan in 2 Thess. 2. speaks of the “Sacrificum altaris” as a matter merely of _traditionary_ authority, while, your Bourdeaux New Testament wishes to make it _Scriptural_ also, as appears by its horrid falsification of Acts xiii. 2. by rendering it—“as they offered to the Lord _the Sacrifice of the Mass_.” le Sacrifice de la Messe. What will not Popery do, to gain a point? Your Catechism of the Council of Trent says—“Our Lord himself, at his last Supper, offered to his Eternal Father his precious body and blood, under the appearances of bread and wine, at the same time declaring himself ‘a Priest for ever according to the Order of Melchisedec.’” Was a greater falsehood every uttered?

{5b} “The Ministers whom we call Deacons, distribute _to each one present_, a portion of the blessed bread and the wine and water.” Justin Martyr, Apol. 1.

{5c} “Cum ea geminæ interpretationis opulentia de S. Johannes testimonio Ecclesia frueratur, quarum utraque probationem ab hœreticis inde deductum impugnabat, ad unius tantummodo paupertatem non esse redigendam.”

{5d} St. Augustine’s Commentary on this is well worth your reading.

{7} Dr. Milner tells us Letter 12—that “the English Testament puts the word ‘Ordinances’ in 1 Cor. xi. 2. instead of ‘Traditions,’ contrary to the original Greek,” &c. It is remarkable that, notwithstanding this, in the edition of the Rhemish Testament printed by Coyne in Dublin in 1825, “Ordinances” is found, and not “Traditions.” So much for the authority of our _titulars_.

{8a} Second Book of Homilies.

{8b} Reply to the Appendix of the Bishop of Fern’s Charge—p. 7.

{9} The Achilli trial is fresh in the recollection of all. View this matter as you may,—whether Dr. Newman was a libeller, or Dr. Achilli a debauchee,—it proves your system to be what your own celebrated Espenseus long ago called it—“A Custom House of sin.” Ubi sup.

{10a} Is not this at variance with the Blessed Virgin Mary’s own confession? St. Luke i. 46, 47.

{10b} Warden Neale’s Lectures. Lond. Cleaver. 1852.

{10c} On the subject of angel worship, so fearfully practiced in your Church, against the express command of St. Paul, Coloss. ii. 18, 19, I will here remark that your authors, are horribly reckless in quotation. Titular Bishop Doyle actually refers to St. John’s PROHIBITED angel worship,—Rev. xix. 10. xxii. 8–9.—in proof of its propriety,—and the Catechism of the Council of Trent says—“Jacob invoked the blessing not only of the angel whom he saw, but also of him whom he saw not. Gen. xxxii. 26. xlviii. 16.” pretending to be ignorant of the fact that it was _the same_ angel—the Angel of the Covenant—the second Person of the blessed Trinity—“God whom he saw face to face”—“even the Lord God of Hosts.”

{11a} Vide Arnob.

{11b} In Dr. Wiseman’s reply to Dr. Turton’s work on the Eucharist I find the following—

“I quoted the _Meletamata Sacra_—I suppose the learned Professor (Dr. Turton) was unacquainted with the work; so, like a good controversialist—certainly, not like a good scholar—he goes to another work of Titman’s, and from that attempts to confute me. This is his Commentary on _St. John_. * * * * The words from the _Meletamata Sacra_ are as clear as those from the _Commentary_; nor will any quotation from the latter obscure or invalidate the former, p. 186.

“There are readers who, without any intimation from me”—writes Dr. Turton—“will be aware of my astonishment at the sight of the foregoing extract from the _reply_; and every reader will be enabled to form some judgment on the subject, when I state, that the _Meletamata Sacra_ and the _Commentary on St. John_ are _the same work_. And thus Dr. Wiseman, _after_ treating familiarly of “the learned Titman”—after quoting the _Meletamata Sacra_—after supposing that the Cambridge Professor was unacquainted with that work—Dr. Wiseman, I say, after all this—writes himself down, either as a person who did not know that the work, called _Meletamata Sacra_, _is a_ Commentary—_the_ Commentary—_Titman’s_ Commentary—on St. John—or as one who aimed at inducing people to believe that the _Meletamata Sacra_ and the _Commentary_ are different productions. * * * Now, whether this misrepresentation proceeded from ignorance or design, there is something about it so wrong—wrong in such a manner and to such a degree—that I have the greatest difficulty in deciding upon my future course. If I could persuade myself that Dr. Wiseman had ever had the _Meletamata Sacra_ open before him, I should certainly stop here. No earthly consideration could induce me to add another sentence to these observations. * * * * If Dr. Wiseman _was_—as he professed to be—acquainted with the _Meletamata Sacra_, he has used language, respecting that work, and myself, which, as I have already intimated, must effectually preclude all further attention, on my part, to his _Reply_. If, again, he really was _not_—as he professed to be—acquainted with that work, still his language cannot but raise great doubts with regard to the course that ought to be pursued. In truth Dr. Wiseman’s proceeding, even when viewed in the most favorable light, is so marked by every thing that is contrary to propriety, and excites so much suspicion as to the rest of his book, that my undertaking has now become irksome beyond expression.” Dr. Turton’s Observations on Dr. Wiseman’s Reply. p. 130 to 135.

I will here add that Dr. Turton’s “suspicions” have been more than realised as regards Dr. Wiseman’s performances. Dr. Wiseman tells us in the preface to the first edition of his “Lectures, p. viii.” that “he has in general drawn his quotations of the fathers from the useful compilation of Messrs. Kirk and Barrington.” In the address “to the reader” in the second edition of this work we are informed that “the venerable Prelates (Dr. Poynter and Dr. Trevern) and many other Catholic writers, have made use of the Faith of Catholics in their publications.” p. p. vii. viii. Now what is the fact, as regards this Romish text book? Let the title of the following book give you some idea—“Romish Misquotation: or certain passages from the Fathers, adduced in a work entitled—“the Faith of Catholics,” &c., brought to the test of the originals, and their perverted character demonstrated, by the Rev. Richard T. P. Pope.” A work which verifies its title beyond the possibility of refutation.

Since the above went to press I have looked into titular Bishop Doyle’s “Analysis of Divine Faith.” I find that he also used Barrington’s Compilation. His words are: p. 176: “The testimony of these witnesses”—the fathers—“I shall insert here, copied or translated from the original records, by the late Rev. Joseph Barrington, whose fidelity and accuracy in this respect, has never, to my knowledge, been impeached or even suspected.” I will only say here, that a more gross and unprincipled misrepresentation and perversion of the testimony of the Ancients was never published. See Pope’s Roman Misquotation. London. Holdsworth. 1840.

Mr. Faber in his last edition of “the Difficulties of Romanism” has left little for any one else to say in proof that the Fathers are opposed to the peculiarities of the Latin Church. ’Tis true that Mr. Husenbeth has published a ponderous reply—approaching to a thousand pages. Mr. Faber’s little pamphlet demolishes the huge affair. Its title is: as well as I remember—“An Account of Mr. Husenbeth’s refutation of the argument of the Difficulties of Romanism, upon the entirely new principle of a refusal to meet it.”

The testimony of the Syrian Fathers alleged by Dr. Wiseman in favor of the doctrine of transubstantiation in particular, is shown to be thoroughly adverse to it by the great and good Doctor Lee. See his Visitation Sermon. I am really surprised that Dr. Wiseman could ever have appeared in public after the publication of Dr. Lee’s Sermon: yet, perhaps, one _might_ have been prepared for such want of common propriety, by his previous conduct, after Dr. Turton’s triumphant exposure of him and of his arguments.

{13a} Your French Testament of Bourdeaux, 1686—most disgracefully has here—“he shall be saved, yet so as by the fire of Purgatory”—ainsi toutefois comme par le feu du Purgatoire.

{13b} Discussion with Mr. Pope. Report, p. 150. Comp. p. 158.

{14} The Canons of your Council of Trent on these are as follow—

“If any one shall say that Confirmation is not a true and proper Sacrament—let him be damned.” Can. 1. De Confirm.

“If any one shall say that Penance is not truly and properly a Sacrament—let him be damned.” Can. 1. De pæn. Sac.

“If any one shall say that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament—let him be damned.” Can. 1. De Sac. Ex. Unc.

And so of the others. I will here just say that this Canon adds “_instituted_ by Christ”—_institutum_.—We shall presently see that this is an advance from the “_insinuatum_” of the Council.

{15a} Where did your Testament get “_ease_ him?”

{15b} You are aware, perhaps, of the gross _mistranslation_ of your Testament, in Eph. v. 32. to support this notion.—_μυστηριον_ is _mystery_, not _sacrament_. But your French new Testament is bolder still, and actually foists in the words—_le Sacrement de Mariage_ in 1 Cor. vii. 10.—and again in 2 Cor. vi. 14. and in 1 Tim. iv. 3. This is a _very rare_ book,—a small thick octavo of 774 p. p.: I have examined it, but believe that there are now very few copies to be found. I saw one purchased by the present Lord Bishop of Cashel, at a public auction, for the enormous sum—if my memory does not fail me—of £40. Bishop Kidder, I think first called public attention to it—next Mr. Grier—and Archdeacon Cotton, in 1827, republished Bishop Kidder’s tract, with notes. I add here, that the book was published—“_avec approbation et permission_,” abundantly.