of his Church, and who would not raise the outcry of misrepresentation against me like B. C. when I would state the naked truth. Thus they conceal many of the absurdities and abominations of Popery, and daub the faces of Protestants and their doctrines so notably, that the minds of their deluded adherents are quite inaccessible to the light of the Gospel, and even to their own doctrines, which they conceit they know thoroughly, although they are generally ignorant of the worst parts of their system."

To me it appears very strange that those Catholics should have in their hands the very books from which Mr. Waddell makes his quotations, should have in their childhood been instructed in their doctrine from those very books, and yet not understand them. Some of them, as for instance, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Shiel, Mr. Wyse, Mr. Coppinger (for Mr. Waddell seems to confine himself to Ireland), might be supposed to have as much understanding as Mr. Waddell, and have, we should suppose, at least as much information as the common people who learn the abridgment. Really, it is difficult to suppose that there are not laymen amongst the Romanists who do know their own doctrine of intention, though they might not have the honor of Mr. Waddell's acquaintance. Now, there is only one circumstance which I shall state hereafter which prefrom asserting that Mr. Waddell contradicted himself when he asserted they did not know their own doctrine, and yet that it was contained in the books from which they were taught.

vents

Mr. Waddell has charged our laity with stupidity, ignorance and carelessness. It would indeed almost take a reprint of his whole production to exhibit the manner in which he libels our clergy. The following extract respecting the venerable Doctor Challoner, Bishop of Debra, and one of the most eminent, learned and pious of the English Vicars-Apostolic, may be taken merely as a specimen. It is found in pp. 15 and 16 of his production:

"But this magic charm, whatever power it may possess in laying their difficulties and doubts asleep, has never yet

been sufficient to enable their writers to maintain their cause by giving a fair and solid answer to those who have not tasted of the powerful opiate. To illustrate the above remark, that their priests and people overlook the import of this doctrine and are blind to the danger implied by it, I shall produce the opinion of their great Dr. Challoner on this subject, who sings one note with his brethren.

666

"Q. Is there no danger of idolatry in this practice (the divine worship of the Host)?

66

"A. No, certainly; because this honor is not paid to the outward veil or the sacramental signs, but to Jesus Christ who lies hidden there. Now Jesus Christ is idol, but the true and living God.'

no

"Q. But if the doctrine of the real presence and transubstantiation should not be true, should we not then at least be guilty of idolatry?

"A. We are as positively certain, by divine faith, of the truth of the doctrine of the real presence and of transubstantiation, as Protestants can be of the divinity of Jesus Christ; and therefore we are as much out of the reach of the danger of idolatry, in worshiping Christ in the sacrament, as they are of worshiping Him in heaven.'1

"Throughout the above questions the writer pretends to justify the worship of the Host only by the doctrine of transubstantiation; and argues that as that doctrine is true, he is as far out of the reach of the danger of idolatry in the divine worship of the Host, as Protestants can be in worshiping Christ in heaven. Now, if he does not overlook the above canon, he tells a willful falsehood: and if he does not contradict his Missal, there is no contradiction between the Council of Trent and the articles of the Church of England; for the greatest of books asserts positively that 'Mass may be defective.'

"Thus Dr. Challoner and the general body of their authors write, speak and act as if this canon had never existed. It is only therefore by this fact that they do not sincerely believe this doctrine of intention that I can

1" Catholic Christian Instructed," p. 77.

account for their inconsistency, and the honesty and sincerity of their conduct in the worship of their Host, and in speaking with such certainty of their consecrations, absolutions, etc., and for their stupidity in being blind to the danger to which they are exposed from all quarters if the above be not true. Nothing but a fond conceit in their infallibility can make them capable of thus receiving the doctrines implicitly without attending to their obvious, plain. import. As, therefore, they do not sincerely believe this doctrine, we charitably hope their practice may be sincere in the divine worship of the Host, if they believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation; and that as their mistake extenuates their guilt, the Lord will forgive them. 'as they know not what they do.'"

It is in perfect keeping with this that Mr. Waddell had previously asserted: "But their priests and people, notwithstanding this awful uncertainty and danger, seem to be quite easy in their minds, and talk as confidently about their absolutions, baptisms, marriages, ordinations and consecrations, as if the above canon had never existed. How shall we account for this stupid inconsistency? Only by the fact that they do not sincerely believe this doctrine and attentively consider its import and ruinous consequences."

Hence he asserts in p. 39, that we do not sincerely believe the doctrine: "The conclusion also, that Roman Catholics must be at least in a state of doubt and anxiety about all their sacraments:" I believe is not in the catechism, though it is also implied: "Did they sincerely believe their doctrine which, if we can credit their most eminent writers, is not the case." I could continue extracts of this description as I pleased; but I am disgusted and tired, and hasten to an obvious conclusion, which is this: Mr. Waddell declares that he never yet met a layman of our Church who understood his own doctrine of intention; and that our most eminent divines do not sincerely believe our doctrine. It is clear that a man must believe his own doctrine and that another might mistake it.

Mr.

Waddell and other Protestants impute to us a doctrine which is not ours, by giving to the doctrine of intention a meaning which our most eminent divines do not admit, which our laity do not know, which our Missal contradicts; and from this imputed doctrine they draw consequences which do not follow from what we believe; and when they impute the consequences to us and to our doctrine, we complain that they do us injustice and misrepresent our tenets. I leave to any rational being to decide whether this is not a more natural conclusion, than to assert that our laity do not know a doctrine which they are taught and that our clergy do not believe the truth of what they profess and teach. Nor is this a singular instance of the pertinacity with which men like Mr. Waddell will endeavor to fasten upon us follies which we disclaim. All the religious papers of the different Protestant Churches continually bear false witness thus against us. And when we complain of the calumny, like Mr. Waddell, they call us knaves, poor theological cowards, liars, deceivers, and every other vile epithet which the decorum of society would not permit in any other case; but here, unfortunately, the public taste is vitiated, and public justice has yet to awake in these United States, to protect the feelings of a large body of citizens who have been the unpitied butt of every drawcansir, whose ambition for polemic fame urged him to pick up and use the poisoned arrows which defeated men of prowess had cast away, when they left the field with blushes other than those of honor and of fame.

PENANCE AND CELIBACY.1

I.

"OUR Lord enjoined no austerities. He not only enjoined none as absolute duties, but He recommended none. as carrying men to a higher degree of divine favor. Place Christianity, in this respect, by the side of all institutions which have been founded in fanaticism, either of their author or of his first followers; or rather compare, in this respect, Christianity as it came from Christ, with the same religion after it fell into other hands; with the extravagant merit very soon ascribed to celibacy, solitude, voluntary poverty; with the rigors of an ascetic, and the vows of a monastic life; the hair shirt, the watchings, the midnight prayers, the obmutescence; the gloom and mortification of religious orders, and of those who aspired to religious perfection."a

I must premise that frequently a short objection requires a long answer, and Dr. Paley's charge upon the Church, in this paragraph, though comprised in a few words, contains a great deal of matter; it will necessitate many paragraphs in return. I do not recollect to have seen any work by a Catholic divine in answer to the doctor's charges. I have not for the doctor all the respect which some persons appear to feel. But the question for examination is not, whether Paley did or did not know the practices of our of our communion communion-nor whether the Church of England or the Protestant Episcopal Church of America is more rational, more pious, more sober than ours: the only question to be examined, I believe, is, whether the doctor's assertions are true in fact. To that I shall confine myself.

This essay was written in reply to a letter from a Protestant correspondent requesting an answer to the reasoning of Dr. Paley, in his "Evidences of Christianity," respecting austerities.

* Paley's

"Evidences of Christianity," part II, c. ii, division 3, paragraph ii.