from idolatry in their image worship, say no more for their exculpation, than the heathens said for themselves, and that, therefore, Catholics are equally idolatrous as the heathens are, or

were.

"Here the impression which generally obtains among Protestants on this subject, is stated more strongly than it needs be; and as if to give it the character of the utmost possible offence against charity, other language than their own is added to that, which they, correctly enough; in general, are represented to have used. It may be true, that some Protestants, in an intemperate zeal of dissent from Popery, have considered Roman Catholics equally as idolatrous as the heathens either are or were.'

In this passage he imputes to me the addition of other language than that which is correctly used by Protestants, but he cannot deny that I use the expressions found in the Catechism. In my letter I made distinct reference to the following question and answer of the little work.

"Q. Do they not declare, that they do not direct their worship to the images themselves, but pray to Christ and his saints, through the images?

"A. That indeed is said by some of them, but it is no more than the heathens said for themselves, and cannot excuse them from the sin of idolatry: for the word of God is express, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image. Thou shalt not bow down to them. Neither shalt thou set thee up any image, which the Lord thy God hateth.'"'' (Deut. xvi. 22.)

The conclusion, "Therefore Roman Catholics are equally idolatrous as the heathens are or were," was clearly my own inference, which I believed to be contained in the premises and inevitably to flow from them; it was distinctly marked as such; and yet this writer complains of me for having added those expressions. Why then did he add to my expressions, the words groundless and palpable? Why did he add the word false, which generally implies an intention to deceive, and which intention I did not impute? Why did he add the word wilful, which I never insinuated? Why did he add the word shameful, which I did not use? Why did he add the word shocking? Why the word wicked? Why did he add perverse? Why did he assert that I charged malicious misrepresentation? Why had he the hardihood to assert that I charged malignant misrepresentation? Is either of those phrases or any word than can convey a similar meaning to be found in my production, such as it is? Yet this is the champion of truth who is to correct my aberrations! who is to vindicate the compilers of the little book from misrepresentation!

"Why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye: and the beam that is in thy own eye thou seest not." (Matt. vii. 3.)

Now, gentlemen, you must yourselves be fully aware that I never boldly charged Protestants with being guilty of perverse and groundless misrepresentations of the religion of Roman Catholics: and therefore the writer who makes the assertions states that which is not the fact.

But I now arraign him upon a more weighty charge. In his first essay, he lays the ground of our criminality in giving to creatures the worship due to God alone, upon one assumption among others, viz., that we call upon the Saints to be merciful to us, in the same manner as we call upon God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, &c. His words are these, in the sixth paragraph of the essay:

Here, after the invocation of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, the Holy Trinity, prayer is offered to Angels and Saints, to pray for those thus praying to them, to intercede for them, and be merciful to them."

show the truth of the assumption by quoting In the preceding paragraph he attempts to the Litany of the Saints from the Roman Missal: the latter part of the paragraph as given by him is thus:

"St. Mary Magdalen, St. Agatha, St. Lucy, St. Agnes, St. Catharine, St. Anastasia, St. Bridget, all ye Holy Virgins and Widows-Pray for us. All ye men and women, Saints of God, make intercession for us. Be merciful unto us.' (pp. 263-4 of the Missal.)

The whole of these words it is true are found in the Missal in the place referred to; and yet the assertion which he makes is not true. A Roman Catholic will immediately perceive what credit is due to such a writer, but as some members of other communions might read this letter, it is necessary for me to enable them to form a just estimate of the value of this writer's testimony.

The book from which he quotes has the Litanies arranged in the following order: it commences with an invocation to God for mercy."

I should hope that I do not misrepresent the fact when I state my impression, that although the American Church thought proper to curtail the number of saints' days to be observed as festivals, she does not condemn the English Protestant Church, from which she sprung, for retaining a greater number of those days; and hence I may fairly assume, that she does not think it criminal in the Archbishop of Canterbury to believe that an individual named on his calendar is a canonized saint, even though he should be omitted upon the American calendar. Now the English Protestant calendar contains those nineteen names of saints which are found upon that of the American Church, and seventeen others of those invoked in the above Litany: so that we have thirty-six of our number pronounced by the English Church to be attendants of the Divine presence: and she has also the names of forty other saints not in the above Litany, nor on the calendar of the American Church, amongst whom is King Charles the Martyr, who was beheaded by order of the Reformers of the Church and State of Great Britain. Besides this, the Church of England has the festival of All Saints, and the festival of the Holy Innocents, in like manner as our Episcopal brethren in this Union celebrate them, as also the festival of St. Michael and all Angels. One of the many inconsistencies then of the English Protestant Church is, that although she gives us between seventy and eighty saints in her calendar, yet in the admonition to the reader, in Præces Private, printed by authority in 1573, it is stated, not that we repute them all for saints or holy men: and yet they are all classed together as saints without informing us which is so reputed and which is not so reputed. Now, I would ask who classed these persons in this manner? Who declared that any one of them was a saint? Has the American Church power to do so? Has the English Church power to do so? And if so, why will not the Roman Catholic Church have at least equal power? Why then does the writer, with the contradictory name, complain of the Roman

upon what she conceives to be sufficient evidence, that those whom she calls saints are blessed attendants upon the Divine presence, whilst he acquits his own churches? Or if he condemns us, why not condemn them? The principle is the same whether the number be great or small. It certainly is no very enviable state, for the English and American Churches to find themselves pressed on one side by the charge of assuming to declare some who are saints, and with those titles of their churches, those festivals in their Liturgy and those names upon their calendar, to be found proclaiming that they know not whether they are saints or not: and still further, should they admit that a few whom they designate are known to be inhabitants of heaven, to be perplexed in the effort to confine to that few the application of a principle which might be fairly extended to several others. This is a result of their deviation from principle. The Presbyterians and Baptists are released from this difficulty by boldly rejecting the principle at once, they have at least no selfcontradiction on this point, nor are they compelled as Protestant Episcopalians are, to make an arbitrary distinction. The Catholies do not act arbitrarily, but upon principle; they have a rule by which they are led, and they acknowledge as saints all to whom the rule applies. There is nothing arbitrary in this. The Protestant may, if he will, assert that Catholics have no sufficient rule by which to ascertain that any particular individual has been admitted to the divine presence; but then the asserter himself must, if he will be consistent, not assume for his society a prerogative which he will deny to a pre-existing, a Catholic, and an Apostolic Church. This and several other assaults upon popery, by champions of the Protestant Episcopal Church, always remind me of a story told somewhere by, I believe Sir R. L'Estrange, of a Lutheran, who declared that all Martinists were rank heretics, and erroneous in most of their tenets, as well as schismatical in their origin, when upon examination it was discovered that the Martinists were followers of Martin Luther and most steadily adhered to what they had received as his doctrine.

Having thus exhibited the character of your correspondent, I shall proceed, gentlemen, to examine his production more particularly under the heads of what are our tenets, and what is his theology.

I remain, gentlemen,
Your obedient humble servant,

Charleston, S. C., June 8, 1829.

B. C.

LETTER III.

To the Editors of the Gospel Messenger and
Southern Episcopal Register, &c.

Ye seraphs, who God's throne encircling still,
With holy zeal your golden censers fill;
Ye flaming ministers, to distant lands
Who bear, obsequious, his divine commands;
Ye cherubs, who compose the sacred choir,
Attuning to the voice th' angelic lyre!
Or ye, fair natives of the heavenly plain,
Who once were mortal-now a happier train!
Who spend in peaceful love your joyful hours,
In blissful meads, and amaranthine bowers,
Oh, lend one spark of your celestial fire,
And deign my glowing bosom to inspire,
And aid the Muse's inexperienced wing,
While Goodness, theme divine, she soars to sing.
BOYSE.

GENTLEMEN:-I now proceed to show that your correspondent "Protestant Catholic" is not only inconsistent with the tenets of your church, but that he has altogether failed in sustaining his first charge against me.

He stated that Roman Catholics called upon the angels and saints in the same way that they did upon God, to be merciful to them, and this ground has been removed, because of the untruth of the statement. His next averment is that Roman Catholics " pray to angels and saints to save them by their merits." And here he assumes two grounds for their condemnation: first, that it is idolatry to pray to the blessed spirits, next, that we dishonour Christ when we ask to be saved by the merits of such beings. I shall take each topic separately.

In paragraph 10, he lays down his principle: "And what is prayer offered to a creature, whether visible or invisible, if not idolatry?" If by prayer be meant the homage which is due only to God, by which we ask of him as the sole fountain of grace and mercy, that which he alone can effectually bestow, I answer distinctly, to offer such prayer to any creature would be idolatry. But it is untrue that Roman Catholics do offer any such homage to any creature, and until your correspondent shall have proved that they do, he will not have laid any ground for the application of his principle: my assertion is that he has not shown, and cannot show that such prayer is so offered. But the word prayer, frequently signifies a request," an intreaty made by one creature to another, for such aid as that creature can bestow," and in this sense I submit that prayer might be lawfully made by a human being, not only to his fellowman, but to any other creature that can aid him. To make application for such aid to one who could not hear, or who hearing, could not help, might be folly; but it would not be idolatry. If prayer of this latter kind

፡፡

77 66

be offered to angels and saints, I assert it is not idolatry.

To say that no distinction can be made by the suppliant who addresses a principal from whom alone the favour must come, and an intercessor who might join in the supplication to that principal, is to contradict not only common sense, but daily experience, and the very paragraph itself affords full evidence that the Roman Catholics do act upon this distinction.

"But Roman Catholics, do not, they say, commit idolatry in praying to saints; for they offer them only an inferior worship, and not that which is due to God-they only invoke them, and ask their help in obtaining the benefits which God alone can confer."

The admission here made, renders it unnecessary for me to adduce any farther evidence for the fact that the Roman Catholics do make the distinction.-The word prayer is then susceptible of two meanings, which are totally unlike: and Roman Catholics do not pray to angels and saints in the first sense of the word: to state or to insinuate that they do is to misrepresent them. Your correspondent makes this statement by a miserable quibble upon the ambiguity of the word, prayer, and by an unbecoming equivocation attempts to show against their own declaration, that Roman Catholics do pray to the created spirits in the same way that they offer their prayers to God.

66