Transcribed from the [1852] Whittaker and Co. edition by David Price,
email ccx074@pglaf.org

                   [Picture: Public domain book cover]





                                    A
                                  LETTER
                                    TO
                              LORD FIELDING.


                               SUGGESTED BY
                  THE LATE PROCEEDINGS AT THE NEW CHURCH
                               AT PANTASA.

                                    BY

                        THE REV. G. L. STONE, A.B.

                               INCUMBENT OF
                          ROSSETT, DENBIGHSHIRE.

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
       WHITTAKER AND CO.; CHESTER, PRICHARD; MOLD, PRING AND PRICE;
                   HOLYWELL, MORRIS; WREXHAM, PAINTER.

                                * * * * *





                               LETTER, &c.


MY LORD;—

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_ 16_th_ _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}

Our next “point” is—_Prayer in the Latin language_, of which I presume
there was a fair specimen at your late proceedings at Pantasa.  It would
be a waste of words to write much upon this subject.  I will therefore
merely remind you of the statement of St. Paul in 1 Cor. xiv. 19.  “In
the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding that by my
voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown
tongue,” which compels Cardinal Cajetan to acknowledge—inloco—that “it is
more for edification that prayers should be offered in a language
understood by Clergy and people, than in Latin.”

Our next point is—_the Invocation of Saints_.  All Romish writers of the
_present_ day seem unanimous in asserting and practising this awful
idolatry.  There were some few before who seemed to shrink from it.  Your
Dr. Milner does not found the practice on holy Scripture but tradition.
’Tis true that he refers to Scripture—Letter xxxvi. but
suddenly,—evidently from seeing the weakness of his
references,—says,—“The Church, however, derived her doctrine on this
subject from the Apostles, _before the New Testament was written_.”
Alas, my Lord, how you “make void the word of God by your tradition!”
What saith our Lord and Master?  “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and _Him __only shalt thou serve_.”  Am I to be told that it is only
forbidden to give latria, or supreme adoration, to any but the Almighty?
Your words latreia and douleia are indifferently used in the Bible.
_Here_ you are forbidden to give _the one_ to any being except God.  In 1
Sam. vii. 3. you are forbidden to give _the other_ to any creature.  How
then can you reconcile, with the orders of your God, the following most
awful prayers?

“We fly to thy protection, O holy Mother of God; despise not our prayers
in our necessities, but _deliver us from all dangers_, O glorious and
blessed Virgin.”—Bishop Riley’s Catechism, Dub. 1830. p. 10.

“Most pure Virgin, conceived without sin, {10a} Thou art the sure refuge
of penitent sinners, with reason therefore, I have recourse to
Thee.”—Novenas of the B. V. Mary.  Dub. 1833. p. 4.

“O Lady of Heaven and earth,” &c., Ib. p. 12.

“Most prudent Virgin, who by redeeming thy Son Jesus Christ, according to
the law, didst co-operate in the salvation of the world; rescue our poor
souls from the slavery of sin, that we may be always pure before God.
Hail Mary.”—Ib. p. 21.

St. Joseph, who for so many centuries had actually no commemoration in
the Roman calendar, is now exalted to a height of glory, from which the
rest of the blessed company are excluded—

    “There is no saint in heaven I worship like Thee,
    Sweet spouse of our Lady!  O deign to love me.”

And St. Mary is actually made our mediatrix with him—

    “With her babe in her arms surely Mary will be,
    Sweet spouse of our Lady! my pleader with Thee.” {10b}

Oh! my Lord, as you value His glory who is a jealous God, cease from such
refuges of lies as Popery holds out to you.—As you value the Salvation of
your soul continue not to serve the creature beside, yea more than, the
Creator who is blessed for evermore.  Pray to him whose attribute it is
that He hears prayer, and whose gracious promise is that He will answer
it.  Dare to show yourself inconsistent, by flinging off the trammels by
which you are bound.  And may God direct you by his blessed Spirit to the
frame of mind of him who cried—“Whom have I in heaven but Thee, and there
is none upon earth that I desire in comparison of Thee.”  Ceasing to look
to Saints or Angels or deified men and women, may you be directed to the
one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, and may your
attitude be, while here below, not looking to Saint Mary, or any other
creature, but “looking unto Jesus.” {10c}

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.

{16}  I need scarcely say, however, to any one but moderately acquainted
with the controversy, that the _mere titles_ of the points of difference
would occupy ten times the space of Bishop Doyle’s _whole_ letter to Mr.
Robertson.  Willett’s Synopsis Papismi will afford a fair _specimen_ to
those desirous of one.