and also they who say that the righteous do sin in all their good works, if in them, by rousing their sloth, and exhorting themselves to run in the race, they do also look for an eternal reward, besides this, that in the first place God should be glorified; since it is written.(r) I have inclined my heart to do thy justifications for ever, for the reward. And the Apostle saith concerning Moses (s) that he looked unto the reward. (a) 1 John v. 3. (b) 1 John v. 14, 15. (c) At sup. (d) Matt. xi. 30. (e) 1 John v. 1. (ƒ) John xiv. 15, 21, 23, &c. (g) Luke xi. 9, &c. (h) Matt. vi. 12; Luke xi. 4. (i) Rom. vi. 16 to 22. (k) Tit. ii. 12. (1) Rom. v. 2. (m) Rom. v. passim. (n) Rom. viii. 17; Philip. i. 29. (0) Heb. ix. 8. (p) 1 Cor. ix. 24, &c. (q) 2 Peter i. 10. (r) Psalm cxviii. 112.; Prot. vers. Ps. cxix., the word reward is omitted, and the words the end substituted. (s) Heb. xi. 26. CHAPTER XII. That the rash Presumption of Predestination is to be guarded against. No one, either, so long as he liveth in this mortal state, ought so far presume concerning the dark mystery of divine predes tination, as that he would with certainty declare that he is in the number of the predestined; as if it was true that the righteous(a) could not sin any more, or if he should have sinned ought to promise himself undoubted repentance: because he cannot know except from special revelation those whom God hath chosen unto himself. (a) Ezek. xviii. 24, &c.; Galat. iii. 1, 2, 3, &c. CHAPTER XIII. Concerning the Gift of Perseverance. In like manner, concerning the gift of perseverance: respecting which it is written:(a) he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved; which indeed cannot be had from any other source except from him who is able(b) to make firm him who standeth that he might perseveringly stand, and to restore him who falleth; let no person promise himself anything with absolute certainty; nevertheless, all persons ought to place and repose a most firm hope in the help of God. For God, unless they shall fall off from his grace, as he(c) began a good work, will perfect it, working both that they should will and accomplish. Wherefore, let them that seem to stand, take heed lest they fall, and(f) with fear and trembling, work out their salvation, in labours, in watchings, (g) in alms deeds, in prayers and oblations, in fasting and in chastity because they ought to fear, know ing that they are regenerated(h) to the hope of glory, but not as yet, to glory itself, from that contest which remains with the flesh, with the world, with the devil, in which they cannot be conquerors unless by the grace of God, they obey the Apostle, saying,(i) We are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live. (a) Matt. x. 22. (b) Rom. xix. 4; 1 Cor. i. 6; Philip. ii. 13. (c) 1 Cor. x. 12. (f) Philip. ii. 12. (i) Rom. (2 Cor. vi. 4, &c. (h) 1 Peter i. 3 viii. 12, 13. CHAPTER XIV. Concerning those who have fallen, and their But they who having received the grace of justification, have fallen therefrom by sin, can be again made righteous, when by the exciting of God they shall have succeeded in recovering, through the merit of Christ, their lost grace, by means of the sacrament of Penance. This mode of justification is a reparation for the fallen; called the second plank of lost grace, after which the holy fathers have properly the shipwreck. For indeed Christ Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Penance for those who fall into sins after Baptism, when he said :(a) Receive you the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose you shall retain, they are retained. Whence it is to be taught that the penance of a Christian man, after his fall is very different from that for Baptism and that therein is contained, not only a desisting from sins, and their detestation, or a contrite (b) and humbled heart: but moreover, a sacramental confession thereof, at least in desire, and to be made at its proper time, and the absolution of the priest; and also satisfaction by fasting, by alms deeds, prayers and other exercises of a spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment which is removed together with the guilt, by the sacrament, or the desire of the sacrament; but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always as happens in Baptism, entirely remitted to those, who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved(c) the Holy Ghost, and feared not to violate(d) the temple of God. Concerning which penance is written :(e) be mindful from whence thou hast fallen: and do penance, and do the first works: and again :(ƒ) for the sorrow which is according to God, worketh pen That by every mortal sin grace is lost, but not faith. It must also be asserted in defending the doctrine of the divine law, against the cunning ingenuity of some persons who(a) by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent: that not only by infidelity, by which even faith itself is lost; but also by any other mortal sin, although faith should not be lost, the received grace of justification is lost: which doctrine excludes not only (b) infidels from the kingdom of God; but also the faithful (c) fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, sodomites, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins, from which, with the aid of divine grace they can abstain, and on account of which they are separated from the grace of Christ. (a) Rom. xvi. 18. (b) 1 Tim. i. 19, 20. Cor. vi. 9, &c. CHAPTER XVI. (c) 1 Of the fruit of justification, that is, of the merit of good works, and concerning the meaning of merit. Upon this ground therefore, whether they shall perpetually have preserved the grace which they received, or recovered that which they lost, the words of the Apostle are to be placed before justified men.(a) Abound in every good work, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord:(b) for God is not unjust that he should forget your work and the love which you have shown in his name. And, (c) Do not lose your confidence which hath a great reward. And, therefore, to those doing well(d) unto the end, and hoping in God, eternal life is to be proposed as being as well, that grace mercifully promised through Christ Jesus(e) to the children of God: as also, as the reward to be faithfully given as a recompense(f) by reason of the promise of God himself to their good works and merits. For this is that crown of justice,(g) which the Apostle said was laid up for him, to be given to him by the just judge, after his fight, and course; and not only to him, but also to all that love his coming: for since he, Christ Jesus himself, as a head into the members, and as a vine(h) into the branches, continually infuses virtue into those justified (which virtue always precedes their good works, and accompanies and follows them, and without which, they could on no account be agreeable to God and meritorious); it is to be believed that nothing more is needful for those justified, but that they might be considered, indeed, by those works which are done in God, to have fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life; and have truly merited (if indeed (i) they shall have departed in grace) to obtain eternal life also in its proper time; since Christ himself says,(k) If any one shall drink of the water which I will give him, he shall not thirst for ever: but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life. So neither() is our own proper justice established as our own, proper from ourselves, nor is the justice of God overlooked or rejected; for that justice which is called ours, because we are justified by its inhering in us, is that same justice of God; because it is poured into us by God, through the merit of Christ. Nor is that either to be omitted that although in the sacred letters so much is attributed to good works, that even Christ himself promises (m) that whosoever will give a drink of cold water to one of those least ones will not lose his reward: and the Apostle testifies(n) that what in the present is but for a moment above degree exceedingly on high, an and light for our tribulation, worketh in us eternal weight of glory: far be it from us however that a Christian man should so confine (0) or glory in himself, and not in the Lord whose goodness towards men is so great, that he wishes those things which are his gifts to be their merits. And because(p) we all offend him in many things, so each one of us ought to have severity and judgment before his eyes, as he has mercy and goodness; nor ought any one judge himself (9) even though he should not be conscious to himself of anything: for all the life of man is to be examined not only by human judgment, but by that of God:(r) who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise from God; who as it is written will render to every man according to his works.(s) (a) 1 Cor. xv. (b) Heb. vi. (c) Heb. x. (d) Matt. x. and xxiv. (e) Ps. cii. (f) Rom. v. (g) Tim. iv. (h) John xv. (1) Apocal. xiv. (k) &c. (n) 2 Cor. iv. (0) 1 Cor. i.; 2 Cor. x., &c. John iv. (1) Rom. x. (m) Matt. x.; Mark ix., (p) James iii. (q) 1 Cor. iv. (r) 1 Cor. iv. (5) Rom. ii., &c. LETTERS ON VARIOUS MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THE CATHOLIC RELIGION. ADDRESSED TO THE REV. WILLIAM HAWLEY. [The following Series of Letters, occasioned by a violent attack upon the members of the Catholic Church, made in the columns of a periodical published in Washington, and conducted by several clergymen of the Protestant Episcopal Church, appeared in the United States Catholic Miscellany," Vols. III. and IV. for 1824-5, and were afterwards published in a pamphlet form.] LETTER I. To the Reverend William Hawley and his associates, Clergymen of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. 64 |land and yours to be what they are not, the same; when, where, or how have the Roman Catholics of the United States offended your church in Europe? What is the pretext, then, of your attack? You may, sirs, SIRS-In your Theological Repertory for recollect the fable of the lamb drinking at November, 1824, is an article headed "Ro- the stream, and asked by a wolf who drank man Catholic Doctrines." After a most at the same rivulet, though much higher up, patient reperusal of this piece I find it to why he made the water so muddy as to be a gross misrepresentation of Roman Ca- render it unfit for the majesty of the wolf; tholics, conveyed to your readers in unbe- " Do you not perceive that the water cancoming language, and a most unfounded not flow up the stream?" replied the lamb. calumny of my persecuted fellow-country-"Perhaps so," rejoined the wolf, "but men wantonly introduced, together with some historical blunders. But your twelve months ago you made it muddy in Were this the first time that you exhibited your zeal to attack an unoffending church, and a meritorious people, I should have perhaps been satisfied to warn you of your errors in the hope that your zeal and your ignorance might plead your excuse. But the result of your late efforts being your total discomfiture, your zeal should have given way to Will you, sirs, point out any persecuprudence, and you ought to have studied to tion of the English Church by Roman Calearn whether your statements were correct tholics of America? You know, sirs, that before you ventured to appear before a dis- the massacre of St. Bartholomew's, about cerning public. Sirs, I shall prove those which you have written so much falsestatements to be totally devoid of truth, and hood in so few lines, was not committed you then will be left to choose between by American Catholics nor upon Protestant want of information and want of honesty. Episcopalians. Sirs, in this happy country, In either case you will be proved unquali- Protestants and Catholics are united in fied for editors of a religious publication. bonds of amity, their intercourse is unreI stated, sirs, that you attacked an unof-strictedly affectionate. I, therefore, am tofending church. I now ask you, what of fence has the Roman Catholic Church of this Union given to you? What offence has the Roman Catholic Church of the United States, given to the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States? Do you answer, sirs, for I am at a loss to know what answers you can give. Will you have recourse to the old differences at the other side of the Atlantic? Sirs, your church is not there to be found. There is a church like yours it is true. But, sirs, no theologian who had any respect for his character, would assert that and yours to be the same church, however similar they may be. However, this is not now matter for our inquiry. But suppose the Church of Eng tally at a loss for any reason why you and writers of your description, should be so anxious and so unremitting in their endeavours to interrupt this harmony, to create jealousy, to produce in America the miseries of European dissensions. The Roman Catholic Church of America has too long permitted herself to be assailed with impunity by every essayist in an unmeaning religious cant; it is time to exhibit their deformity. You must show, not by declamation, but by facts, in what your church has been offended by ours in these United States, or you stand convicted of having attacked an unoffending church. You have, sirs, charged a meritorious people with crimes of which they are not And is this the language of American citizens? Is this the liberality of an Association of Clergymen of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States? I solemnly assure you that such a possibility could not be conceived in Europe; and what is the crime of those TRAITORS Who are placed on a level with the WRETCHED CRIMINALS who are banished to New Holland? They will not swear that the King of England is the visible head in earth of God's Church!!! This is the head and front of their offence. Will the Quaker swear it? Will the Presbyterian swear it? Will the Congregationalist swear it? Will the Unitarian swear it? Will the Baptist swear it? Will Mr. Hawley swear it? Will any Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church now swear it? And are all THOSE TRAITORS to be now sent as WRETCHED CRIMINALS to New Holland? And their banishment will not be an act even of illiberality!! guilty. You have accused the hereditary | cuse that government of cruelty, for banishing Earl Marshal of England, the premier peer the wretched criminals to New Holland; or of ilof the realm, the Duke of Norfolk, of being liberality, for punishing the man who traitorously in principle a traitor to his government, al- conspires against his country." though that government, with the exception of about ten bigots in the House of Lords, has in the last session of Parliament, directly contradicted you. What is his crime? He refuses to swear that the King of England is the supreme head of his church? Is this a crime? Will you swear that he is the head of your church? Will Bishop White swear that the King of England is the supreme head of your church? Is Bishop White a traitor? Can the venerable eldest prelate of your church be in principle a faithful citizen of this country, though he should refuse to swear that the King of England is the supreme head of his church? But, sirs, that Bishop did once swear that the King of England was the head of his church, and he afterwards rejected that headship; yet will you dare to call him a traitor? Why, then, call men traitors who never believed, never professed, never swore to any such headship; whose ancestors were plundered of their property, many of them dragged out their lives in prisons, several of whom were put to death because they would not swear what they did not believe to be true. Though you should even look upon those men to have erred in faith because they did not swear that the King of England was the visible head of God's church, yet you must allow them the merit of having suffered for conscience sake. Yet, sirs, in the plenitude of your liberality, and with singular consistency, you who do not acknowledge it to be necessary for salvation, to swear the oath of supremacy, tell us that the British and Irish Catholics who refuse to swear it ought to be persecuted, that they are on a level with the wretched criminals who are sent to New Holland. What has the Duke of Norfolk done, what has the Earl of Shrewsbury done, what have the millions of Catholics whose grievances resound through Europe done to provoke your ire, that you, claiming to be American citizens, should thus sentence them to transportation because they follow the conviction of their consciences? Look at your words: when you can produce no charge against the Roman Catholics of the United States, you arraign the Catholics of Great Britain. These are your expressions: Such are the doctrines of a church, the members of which have raised such an outcry against the intolerant spirit of the English government for not receiving them to a full share in its administration. They might as well ac No! Mr. Hawley and his associates will not banish those good men; none deserve banishment as WRETCHED CRIMINALS and TRAITORS, but those IRISH PAPISTS. Is this the language of gentlemen? No, sirs, it is not. Is this the language of scholars? Is it the language of Christians? No, sirs; but I shall leave to the people of America to designate your characteristic. What is the head and front of the charge? No oath can bind IRISH PAPISTS to heretics. you the facts; I shall then take up your What are the facts of your special case? The English government tells its Catholic subjects, (( you must be disfranchised until you swear that you believe the King of England is head of the church, and that no foreign prelate has or ought to have any spiritual or ecclesiastical authority in this realm." The Catholic answers, "I do not believe either of the propositions to be true." The government answers, "I do not care what you believe, I only want you to swear." To show that I state the case well-known persons who did not believe fairly, I could produce several instances of the truth of the doctrines required to be sworn to, but who, pressed by the danger of losing their property and their rights, did in a moment of temptation go into the Pro- | Britain, during the last eight or ten years, testant Churches and read the forms, and or you must be the most careless of reputainto courts and take the oaths, and publicly tion or credit of any public writers that ever declare, as soon as they received their certifi- ventured to brave an enlightened public. cates from the minister and the clerk of the The greatest bigot on the benches of the crown, that they did not believe, but merely House of Peers, the most infatuated old went through the form to comply with the simpleton who peruses Fox's Martyrology, law and to save themselves from ruin; and the most unblushing declaimer against Poyet they were ever after considered good pery, the most degraded hawker of a paraand lawful Protestants. Those disgusting graph for an Orange publication in the recitals are painful to me: but, sirs, you British islands, would feel himself overhave wantonly, I was about to add another whelmed with shame and confusion, did expression, provoked them, and I suppress he venture to express, within the last few much which I would wish to forget. I was years, so gross a falsehood; though it was, right, then, when I stated the answer of the for party purposes, imposed as unquestioned British government to be, "We care not truth upon the people of Great Britain, for for your belief, we only want you to swear." upwards of two centuries before. This atroThe Catholics who continued faithful, that cious calumny, like the depositions of THE is the IRISH PAPISTS, said, "We will not REV. Titus Oates, has long since been treatswear what we do not believe," and their ed with its well-merited reprobation in the property was swallowed up by the men British Parliament. Lord Stafford has been who swore. Yet Mr. Hawley and his asso- replaced in his rank, and, notwithstanding ciates are kind enough to say those men the opposition of the following bigots, the had no regard for their oaths!!! Yes, the Premier Earl of England has been restored men who gave up their estates, their liber- to his honours, though not to his rights, ties, their homes, many of them their lives, without requiring him to swear what he and who could at once emancipate them- could not believe: selves by merely taking an oath which Mr. Hawley proclaims they do not consider binding, but which is all that the British government requires!!! Did I take that oath, I would have avoided many of the ills of life. Did my ancestors take it, my lot would not have been poverty and the contemptuous oppression of the plunderer of my patrimony, who, to gain what I lost, swore what, perhaps, he did not believe. But my conscience has no sting, and in this free country I may meet Mr. Hawley and his associates as they deserve. In the name of common justice, in the name of common sense, I ask, is it probable? Is it possible that those men who, sooner than swear one false oath to Protestants, permitted those same Protestants to run riot with their estates, their liberties and their lives, and those of their descendants did not believe an oath to heretics was binding, or ought to be observed? Why were the Catholic Bishops turned out of their sees by Queen Elizabeth? because they would not swear what they did not believe. Why was Bishop Fisher beheaded? Because he would not swear that oath. Why was Archbishop Plunkett hanged, drawn, and quartered? Because he would not take that oath. Sirs, I will not increase the disgusting catalogue which I could swell to thousands, in whose blood the contradictions to your libels might be written. You must be either totally uninformed as to the proceedings in Great Minority in the House of Lords against the Bill for allowing the Duke of Norfolk to execute the office of Earl Marshal, June 18, 1824: Dukes, York and Beaufort-Earls, Eldon, Macclesfield, Shaftesbury, Abingdon and VerulamArchbishop of Canterbury-Bishops, Gloucester and Raphoe-Lord Gifford." The King of England, the remainder of the Peers, and the House of Commons, with unanimity voted that he should, though a Roman Catholic, be permitted to do the duties of an office from which his ancestors and he had been excluded during two centuries under false pretences. Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, Mr. Percival, Lord Liverpool, Lord Sidmouth, Mr. Grattan. Mr. Canning, Mr. Brougham, Lord Grenville, Lord Grey, Lord Erskine, and hundreds of men like these, pronounced, after close examination, your virulent charge to be an atrocious calumny. Good God! Then is America fallen so low? Is her intellect so debased? Are these states become such a sink of ignorance, as that all the rejected falsehoods of Europe are to find this as their asylum? Are we, who have led the way in the career of rational well-regulated liberty, to crawl after the bigots of Europe, sucking in what they disgorge, that we may vomit it upon each other? I protest, I cannot describe my feelings whilst I write; I thought that I had flung the Atlantic between me and this necessity. I imagined that the testimony of George Washington would have had weight with the people of this |