Letters to Charles Butler, esq, on the theological parts of his Book of the Roman Catholic Church...

Front matter

t

LETTERS

TO

Appendix

Letter to the Right Hon. Earl Grey, occasioned by his Lordship's Speech in the House of Lords on moving the Second Reading of his Bill for abrogating the Declarations contained in the 25th and 30th of Charles II., commonly called " The Test against Popery." 331

TO

CHARLES BUTLER, ESQ.

Letter I

Introduction. — Reasons for the present publication. — Title of Roman-Catholics.

Sir,

I have read your " Book of the Roman- Catholic Church and in common, I conceive, with all your Readers, have been much gratified with the tone and temper in which it is written. If, in one or two instances, your zeal has made you, for a while, forget your charity, yet your politeness is always unimpaired; and you never appear to be more in your natural character, than in smoothing the asperities of controversy, and deprecating its violence. It has, indeed, been suggested by some of your Critics, that you have no objection to see your cause supported by others, in language which you would yourself be ashamed to use : and they appeal,

B

1XTR0DUCTI0X.

for the justice of this suspicion, to your strog recommendation of a work, from which every moderate person of every party turns with disgust, I mean " Strictures on the Poet Laureates Book," written, as you tell us, by Dr. Milner.

I am not disposed to regard this matter so seriously; but look upon it rather as a very pardonable instance of the veneration you are accustomed to pay even to the foibles of an Apostolic Vicar. That dignitary, it seems, occasionally amuses himself with appearing in Masquerade ; literally appearing, — for, though he wears a Masque, he writes upon it his own name, under the ingenious anagram of John Merlin: and, in the person of that old Deceiver, scruples not to indulge in certain licenses of language, which decorum would forbid him to adopt in his proper character. As, however, I have no inclination to. join in his revels, I shall not waste time in descanting on them. But on another work of the same author, for my knowledge of the existence of which I am likewise indebted to your Book,— I mean the " End of Controversy," — I shall have frequent occasion to remark in the course of these pages. Meanwhile, I hope I shall remember, during the whole of my address to you, that in courtesy at least, you have set an example, which it will

Introduction

be discreditable to any, who may engage in the same controversy, to omit to imitate. Although, therefore, I may find it difficult, perhaps impossible, to say all that I think necessary on several of the topics of these letters, without in some degree wounding your feelings ; yet I am desirous, in the outset, to assure you, that whatever I may think of your opinions, whatever I may be compelled to say of some parts of the statement of those opinions, I would not intentionally fail in any portion of that respect, which is due to you as a Scholar, a Gentleman, and, I would willingly hope, a sincere Christian.

To much the larger part of your Book, however, the historical matters on which you are at . issue with Mr. Southey, I shall say nothing. That controversy is already in hands which will do it ample justice, nor will I weaken the effect of Mr. Southey's powerful eloquence in vindicating his own statements, by obtruding any feeble efforts of mine. The only purpose for which I have taken up my pen, is to say something on the theological part of your subject, especially on what is contained in your 10th Letter, entitled " View of the Roman- Catholic System."

I enter on this discussion, however, not with any intention of renewing the controversy on

b 2

REASONS FOR the merits of our respective creeds; but merely to correct what appears to me to be a very erroneous statement, in some respects, of the doctrines of my own Church, but in a much greater degree of those of the Church of Rome. This is become the more necessary from the increasing prevalence, even in quarters where we might hope to find more accurate information, of an opinion, that the line, which separates the two Churches, is in fact much less strongly marked, than the prejudices and the passions of our Predecessors have taught us to believe.

That Members of your Communion should labour to encourage this notion, is not at all surprising. No mode of drawing Proselytes to the Roman-Church has been found so effectual, as that of persuading the incautious Protestant, that the change to which he is invited, — the departure from early convictions on the most important of all subjects,— is far less extensive, than he has been accustomed to regard it. You yourself, Sir, speak* of a " near approximation in our religious creeds." And certainly this is at the present day a much less paradoxical position, than it would have been deemed a few generations ago. For in this protestant conn-

* Page 3.

THE PRESENT PUBLICATION.

•J try, many of the most revolting dogmas of Rome have been so much modified by collision with the tenets of the Reformed Church, so much reduced or palliated by the policy of your advocates, that the real state of religious opinion and practice among you here, is widely different from that which is exhibited in countries where similar causes do not operate, and where the Roman Creed has been permitted to produce its full effect.

Hence it will probably happen, that I shall be reproached with undertaking the ungracious office of reviving the memory of past differences, and seeking to exasperate the feelings of our contemporaries by an appeal to those grounds of discord, which are now, even by yourselves, tacitly abandoned. Such, however, is not the object of these pages. I am actuated, I hope, only by a wish to perform some part of the duty which I owe to that " pure and reformed part" of the Christian Church, of which I am a Minister. It surely cannot be necessary for a Clergyman of the Church of England to apologize, at any time, for bringing forward the real grounds, on which his Church found itself compelled to separate from the Church of Rome. This is not, be it remembered, nor can it ever be, one of those cases, in which silence and

REASONS FOR compromise are consistent with good faith, and may therefore be demanded by charity. No ! this, if any, is a vital question. For, if the differences between the two Churches be, indeed, as slight, as you and others would represent them, the plain consequence must be, (and you, at least, will not deny it,) that our separation from you was, and is, schismatical ; that the Fathers and Martyrs of the Reformation were not only in error, but in sin ; that they have propagated that sin to us their descendants ; and that we cannot too soon retrace our steps, and sue to be re-admitted into the bosom of your Church.

It is plain, therefore, that the Ministers of the Church of England must not, and can not, permit it to be believed, that any approximation to the real doctrines of the Church of Rome is regarded by them as even possible. Be we, in charity, and mutual forbearance, as conciliating as you will: — too charitable, and too forbearing in things indifferent, we cannot be : — still we must not dissemble, that " between us and you there is a great gulph fixed ;•' wbich may indeed be passed from either side to the other, — but which admits not of any true resting-place being found between them.

But there is another reason, more peculiarly

THE PRESENT PUBLICATION.

belonging to the times in which we live, for this eagerness to represent the creeds of the two Churches as similar as possible; — I allude to the great political object, which engages all your hopes, and calls forth all the skill and ingenuity of your advocates. It is concluded, reasonably enough, that no better expedient, than this, can be adopted, to reconcile the minds of Englishmen to the removal of the remaining political restrictions under which you labour. Hence, again, a publication, like the present, issuing from the press at this particular period, will probably be attributed to the opposite wish of seeing those restrictions strengthened and perpetuated. But here, too, I think it proper to declare, that such is very far from being the motive of my present undertaking. Not that, if it were, I should feel it in any respect a discreditable motive, or one which would need to be defended. For, while so much is written, and said, on both sides of the question, what harm could there be in choosing this particular line of argument, be it convincing or otherwise, to vindicate the reasonableness and the justice of the existing Laws?

But such, I repeat, is not my purpose. If the time of this publication may seem to argue the contrary, let me remind you that this time

REASONS FOR is not of my choosing, but of yours. At any period, and under any circumstances, I should have judged it right to expose so important a mis-statement, as I consider yours to be: — and I am not prevented from so doing by an apprehension, that I may be thought desirous of supporting one side of a great political question by the indirect influence of a theological argument. To say the truth, the connection of the political and theological questions does not appear to me so absolutely inseparable, as many wiser men than myself continue to regard it. But, at any rate, you, and those who act with you, have not a shadow of right to complain on this ground. You have sought to strengthen your political cause by mixing with it a statement of the theological dogmas of your Church. Now, let those dogmas be truly stated, (and the truth, when disputed, can only be ascertained by evidence and argument,) and then let their final bearing on the political question be that, and only that, which truth shall warrant.

But, whatever be the cause, the effect is notorious. It is become an usual topic in all popular discourses, written or spoken, on behalf of Roman-Catholics, in the journals of criticism (so called), and even in the speeches delivered in

THE PRESENT PUBLICATION.

parliament, to represent the creed and the discipline of the Church of Rome as nearly in accordance with those of the established church. The most signal instance of this kind was afforded in a debate in the House of Lords, on the 10th of June, 1819, on which occasion I presumed to address to the noble Earl, who led the debate, and distinguished himself by the theological arguments of his speech, a letter, which is now appended to these pages. In truth, some passages of your " Book," and of his Lordship's speech, have a remarkable resemblance, especially in their apparent reliance, for the accuracy of the principal statements contained in them, on the same reverend authority, that of Dr. Milner. His " End of Controversy" is the grand storehouse, from which a main portion of the facts and evidence, adduced both by yourself and by the noble Earl, appears to have been drawn; and a nice observer might, perhaps, without much difficulty, select some six pages of this work, in which all the theological learning displayed in that memorable debate would be found to be comprised.

In short, so much of management has been successfully employed to distort or disguise the truth, that it is no longer a superfluous task to revive in the members of our own church a re-

TITLE OF collection of the real nature of those tenets, from which our forefathers, at the Reformation, were enabled, by God's blessing, to rescue themselves and their descendants.

It is, Sir, with this purpose that I have undertaken to examine your " View of the Roman- Catholic System." But before I commence that examination, permit me to say a few words on the reason assigned by you for giving it this name. Mr. Southey, in the chapter to which your 10th Letter is an answer, had called it the Papal system. But you tell us that " the words " popery, papal, and papist" (the only names by which your religion, and those who profess it, were known to the law of the land till a very recent period) " being particularly offensive to ** Roman-Catholics, you have altered the title M of Mr. Southey's chapter, by substituting " the word 6 Roman-Catholic ' for the word " 'Papal': — that in the oath which the legisla- " ture has prescribed to you, you are styled " Roman-Catholics: — and that on this account " it has always been a rule with you to denote, " in- your publications, the religious denomina- " tion of Christians to which you belong, by " the appellation of Roman-Catholics."*

ROMAX-CA T II 0LICS.

II

To the wish implied in this alteration of yours I am very ready to accede. Indeed, in common with most, or all, of my Protestant brethren, I am accustomed, in the courtesy of private society, to give to persons of your communion the appellation which you suggest. You will pardon me, however, if I accompany my present adoption of it, before the public, with an explanation of* the sense in which alone it ought, I conceive, always to be understood. The caution is not unnecessary ; for our courtesy, in this particular, has been perverted into a standing argument against us. Among others, Dr. Milner, in his " End of Controversy," thus avails himself of it. Speaking of " Catholicity" as his " third mark of the true church," " Is there not," says he, " among the rival churches, one exclusively known and distinguished by the name and title of The Catholic Church, as well in England, Holland, and other countries which protest against this church, as in those which adhere to it ? Does rot this effulgent mark of the true religion so incontestably belong to us, in spite of every effort to obscure it by the nicknames of Papists, Romanists, &c, that the rule of St. Cyril and St. Augustin is as good and certain now as it was in their times ? What I mean is this: if any stranger in London.

TITLE OF

Edinburgh or Amsterdam, were to ask his way to the Catholic Chapel, I would risk my life for it, that no sober Protestant inhabitant would direct him to any other place of worship than to ours."*

Before I refer to the main point contended for in this passage, I must notice, by the way, a little artifice of the reverend writer, in insinuating as the reason of our being called Protestants, that we " protest against the Catholic church." Dr. Milner knows perfectly well that we owe that appellation to a very different cause :j" he knows that neither we nor our predecessors ever " protested against the Catholic church," nor even against that church which assumes to itself exclusively the title of Catholic. Against the latter, indeed, we have gone a good deal further than protesting. But this by the way.

On the main point here contended for by Dr. Milner, I answer by admitting the fact which he says " he means;" and I ascribe it, without hesitation, to the courtesy, the forbearance, and,

*f The name of Protestants was adopted because of the protestation made by certain princes of the German Empire, who asserted the rights of religious liberty against the decree of the Diet of Spire, A.D. 1529.

R O M A X - C ATH OLICS .

in part, the carelessness, of Protestants, who unwilling to fight about a name have at length acquiesced in an assumption which ought, perhaps, to have been always strenuously resisted. I have already said that the law of the land gave you and your religion a very different name till the year 1791, when, for the first time, it called you Roman-Catholics. Nay, so little was your exclusive assumption of the title of Catholics then admitted, that you were afraid of so calling yourselves in your petition to parliament lest your petition should on that account be refused admission. You therefore were designated by your own committee as " Protesting Catholic Dissenters." Be this, however, as you will, your chapels may still, for ought I care, retain the name. But for the assertion, that your Church is in this country " exclusively known and distinguished by the name and title of The Catholic Church," I can only admire the hardihood of the person who has thought fit to make it. I appeal to my protestant readers, whether they are in the habit of hearing the Roman church so distinguished by any of their Protestant brethren. That by protesting against " offensive appellations," deprecating the use of " nicknames," (as your more appropriate denominations are called by Dr. Milner and

TITLE OF others,) you have succeeded in obtaining for yourselves, ordinarily the title of Horn an- Catholics, often that of Catholics simply, I admit, and for the unfair advantage taken of the concession I sincerely lament. But the abuse has not yet extended so far — we have not yet so utterly forgotten the creed which we every day recite, — as to give this title to your church ; that is still, even in common parlance, the Church of Rome ; and really, if Dr. Milner has any modesty, he ought to be somewhat more than content with such an appellation, given to it by Protestants ; for he must be aware that, on our principles, it is much more manifest that yours is not the Catholic church, than it is easy to prove that you are, in any legitimate sense, a church at all. Many of the wisest and most pious Protestants have denied, in toto, your claim to that title ; and the most that any of us can concede, is, that you are still a branch, though a most tremendously corrupt branch, of the Catholic church.

This is not a topic on which it is at all my wish to enlarge ; but the boldness of the assumptions of Dr. Milner, and others of your writers, respecting " Catholicity," as they are pleased to call it, and the want of clear notions on the subject, which too commonly prevails,

ROM AX-CAT II O LICS.

must be my excuse for stating some considerations, which to yourself, and to those who have ever studied the point, may justly appear trite and common-place.

Our judgment then of the Catholic Church is briefly this : That Catholic Church (as the name, you know, expresses) is the Universal Church, containing within it many particular Churches, even all congregations which retain " the faith once delivered to the saints/' and contained in the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. Every particular Church, which holds the fundamental points of that faith, and " in which the sacraments are duly administered according to Christ's ordinance in all things necessary to the same,"* is a branch of the Catholic, or Universal Church. Even if it have introduced the most dangerous corruptions of doctrine and of worship, yet if it still hold the foundation, still agree in essentials, it is not wholly cut off. Those among us, who think, as at the present day most members of the Church of England rejoice to think, that the corruptions in your communion, grievous as they are, do not amount to a departure from the foundation, to an utter

* XlXth Article of the Church of England.

abandonment of essentials ; all such recognize your Church as still a part, though I am compelled to repeat, a most corrupt part, of the Catholic Church. The phrase, Roman-Catholics, therefore, may be tolerated, both as recognizing the distinction of particular branches, and as especially distinguishing members of the Roman branch of the Catholic Church; just as English-Catholics might be a fit denomination, if it were necessary to adopt it, of members of the Church of England. Beyond this, courtesy itself must not induce us to go. We must protest against that sense of the phrase, which implies that they only are Catholics, who M believe the Bishop of Rome to be the head " of the Catholic Church, and that for that " reason the Catholic Church may fitly be " styled Roman-Catholic, being an universal t( body united under one visible head."

Letter II

Authorities for Doctrines of the Roman Church. — Devotion to the Virgin Mary and other Saints.

From the title of your system, I proceed to the system itself.

But first, it is necessary to remark on what you say of the authorities on which you wish that the doctrines of your Church should be taken. You require that the following rule be rigidly observed: " That no doctrine should be " ascribed to the Roman-Catholics as a body, " except such as is an article of their faith;"* and you give the creed published by Pius IV. as " an accurate and explicit summary of the " Roman-Catholic Faith." | Since, however, several of the articles of that creed are '< expressed in general terms,"^ you admit that it is necessary to look elsewhere for an explanation of the sense in which these articles are to be understood : and you particularly refer to the ** Catechism of the Council of Trent," as an

* Book of the Roman -Catholic Church, p. 9. f lb. p. 5. % lb. p. 8.

C

AUTHORITIES FOR DOCTRINES authoritative publication of your Church. You also mention some other works, which, however, cannot be received as of equal authority ; such are Bossuet's " Exposition of Faith;" Mr. Gother's (i Papist misrepresented and represented ;" Dr. Chaloner's " Three short summaries of Catholic Faith and Doctrine," and his " Garden of the Soul."* But, above all, you recommend to us Dr. Milner's " End of Controversy," as " the ablest exposition of the " doctrines of the Roman-Catholic Church, " on the articles contested with her by Protes- " tants ; and the ablest statement of the proofs " by which they are supported, and of the his- " torical facts with which they are connected, " that has appeared in our language."! This is high commendation, and will fully justify the particular attention I shall feel it my duty to pay to this writer in the sequel. But, meanwhile, I must object to all these works, except the Trent Catechism, as of insufficient authority, on which to pronounce what is the doctrine of the Church. That they contain your own particular creed, after the declaration made by you, cannot be doubted : we might look to them, therefore, with entire satisfaction, in any

* Book of the Roman-Catholic Church, p. 10. t lb. p. 192.

OF THE ROM AX CHURCH.

enquiry respecting the religious tenets, for which you are individually answerable. But I need not remind you that our real question is respecting the doctrines speculative and practical, which are to be ascribed to your Church; such, in short, as may fairly be considered as making up its System.

And here I must protest against being tied down to a consideration of those doctrines only, which are now delivered as articles of faith. These alone, it may be, are to be ascribed, as a matter of course, to you, and every one else who adheres to the communion of your Church; but the Church itself is answerable for all those doctrines, which having been promulgated by high authorities within it, by popes or councils, or writers under the immediate direction of such authorities, and having been long and extensively acted upon, are still undisclaimed, much more those which are still retained with favour at Rome. Let me not be misunderstood. I fully admit that, in general, a full and plain disclaimer of such doctrines by individuals may fairly be considered in relation to those individuals, the same as if the doctrines themselves had never been maintained. But they must, I contend, still be regarded as forming a part (though not equally with articles of faith

c2

DEVOTION TO THE SAINTS a prominent part) of the system of the Church of Rome, so long as they are cherished or retained at the seat of government, and by the highest authorities of that Church.

Still, it is my purpose, and I will not intentionally depart from it, to confine myself to such authorities, as cannot, I think, on any fair ground be objected to, and such as, I expect, you will not yourself venture to reject : the Boman Breviary, for instance, " restored ac- " cording to the decree of the Council of Trent, " and published by command of Pius V." possessing, therefore, exactly the same authority as the catechism of the same council, set forth by the same pope,— the acts of other general councils, the bulls of popes, and the works of writers, to whom you yourself, or your own admitted authorities, expressly refer. I shall also not scruple to cite one or two other authors of high reputation, not for the purpose of making your Church responsible for the tenets held by them, but as witnesses of the fact that certain tenets were held at the time they wrote.

Having premised thus much, I proceed to follow you in your own order.

The first particular, on which you undertake to state the doctrine of your Church, is " De- (< votion to the Virgin Mary, the Saints ; -re-

AND VIRGIN MARY.

" spect to the Cross, and to the Relics of the " Saints." #

I shall beg leave to divide this particular into two, making the "devotion to the Virgin Mary " and the Saints," the subject of my present letter, and reserving " the cross, relics, and * images," for that which will next follow.

On " devotion to the Virgin Mary and the " Saints," you first give us a quotation from the council of Trent, and from the catechism published in pursuance of its decrees, and then cite other more popular works conformed to the same authorities.

The following is your statement of the doctrine of the council.

" The Saints, reigning with Christ, offer up " their prayers to God for man. It is a good " and useful supplication to invoke them," (surely, Sir, this is not quite an adequate translation of bonum atque utile esse supplicitbr eos invocare, it is good and useful suppliant ly to invoke them,) " and to have recourse t- to their " prayers, help, and assistance, to obtain fa- " vour from God, through his son Jesus Christ " our Lord, above, who is our Redeemer and

* Book of the Roman-Catholic Church, p. 1 00. f Confugere.

DEVOTION TO THE SAINTS

" Saviour."* " This," you say, "is the decree " of the council of Trent."

Now from this the natural conclusion to be drawn (it has, in fact, been drawnf) is, that your Church gives to its members only a recommendation, not an express command, "sup- " pliantly to invoke the Virgin and the Saints." I can discover nothing more imperative in what you further say on this particular, for the Trent catechism is cited by you only to show that " God and the Saints are not to be prayed " to in the same manner." I must, therefore, consider you are stating this to be all for which your Church is here responsible : it recommends its members to make this invocation.

Dr. Milner, indeed, in his " End of Controversy, "J has been bold enough to affirm, that the " council of Trent barely teaches that it is " good and profitable to invoke the prayers of " the Saints;" and he adds, " hence our di- " vines infer, that there is no positive law of the " Church, incumbent on all her children, to " pray to the Saints." Bossuet in like manner declares that " the council of Trent contents " itself with teaching the faithful that this

* Sess. XXV. de Invocatione Sanctorum, f Vid. infra | Page 252.

AND VIRGIN MARY.

" practice is good' and useful to them, without " saying any thing more."*

It must be my business, therefore, to prove that your Church is responsible for a good deal more ; and I will prove it from authorities acknowledged by yourself.

Now the very decree of the council of Trent from which you, and Dr. Milner, and Bossuet, have made the extract cited above, (which extract you are pleased to call the Decree,) nay the very words, which immediately follow your quotation in the very same sentence, denounce as impious the denial of the position, " that " the saints enjoying eternal happiness in hea- " ven are to be thus invoked. "f Is this ie barely teaching that the practice is good and " profitable ?" Does this justify the inference " that there is no positive law of the Church, " incumbent on all her children to pray to the " saints ?"

Again, the Creed of Pope Pius IV. to which you refer as " an accurate and explicit summary " of the Roman-Catholic faith, "J and to which Dr. Milner has subscribed under the sanction

* Exposition of Faith, sect. V.

f Sess. XXV. " Illos, qui negant sanctos, &c. invocandos esse, impie sentire."

% Book of the Roman-Catholic Church, 5.

DEVOTION TO THE SAINTS of an Oath, declares expressly " that the Saints " reigning together with Christ, venerandos atque " invocandos esse." Is it stilt doubtful, whether your Church commands, or only recommends, the practice ?