ministry; which, though according to Christ's command, is not a sacrament; not being necessary for all to receive. Upon the same principle the Eucharist would not be a sacrament, for "not being necessary for all to receive." I was not before aware that "being necessary for all to receive," entered into the definition of a sacrament. The usual definition which I found in your Catechism and other works, only gave two requisites. 1. "An outward and visible sign. 2. Of an inward and spiritual grace" and it has sometimes been added, "instituted by Christ." But I was not led to believe, nor am I as yet under the belief that, "necessary for all to receive" is essential to the notion of a sacrament according to your doctrines. Indeed I think I see the contrary in "The Familiar Exposition," p. 40, part v. sec. 1, A. 2. 30. p. 15. Q.81. Is matrimony a sacrament?

A. Matrimony is a holy and honourable state of life, and was ordained by God between our first parents, in the time of our innocency; but being so long before Christ, cannot be deemed a sacrament of his church.

I am of opinion, sir, that this is a very insufficient reason, because an outward and visible sign which existed before Christ, might by his institution be enriched with grace which it previously had not, and thus become what it had not previously been, viz., a sacrament. For instance, baptism, or the ceremony of washing, existed long before Christ, yet he constituted baptism to be a sacrament; so therefore might he constitute matrimony. And if your little book gives a sufficient reason for making it impossible that matrimony could be made a sacrament, can we consistently say that he could make baptism a sacrament? I believe, sir, the Israelites had also a sort of family communion in bread and wine, and the custom still subsists amongst them in some families even in this city; it is derived from a period long before the Christian era; will it then be consistent, if this principle be correct, to say that Christ made bread and wine a sacrament? I should hope, therefore, that you did not approve of

this answer.

31. p. 15. Q. 82. What do you think of the obligation which the clergy, and all the nuns and friars, and others of the Church of Rome are under not to marry?

A. It is so far from being commanded by God, that forbidding to marry (1 Tim. iv. 3) is set down as one of the marks of them who depart from the faith; and it is often found to be a

dreadful snare to the conscience, and an inlet to the most abominable wickedness.

You might without inconsistency approve of this answer. But, sir, was it not very strange that it should be given in a country where the statutes of several of the colleges lay an obligation upon the officers not to marry? Nor are those, sir, the statutes of Roman Catholics in every instance. They are those of Queen Elizabeth, the great foundress of the Protestant Church in Great Britain; and the Parliament has in several instances declined repealing them, and thus this great Protestant Council forbids to marry. Was it not something more than strange for the English compiler to act as he has done?

32.

p. 15. Q. 83. Why is the distinction of meats, as practised in the Church of Rome, unlawful and superstitious?

A. To abstain from meats is another of the marks of them that depart from the faith (1 Tim. iv. 3). The practice hath, in fact, destroyed the moral use of fasting, by teaching that luxury and drunkenness are consistent with fasting, provided particular meats are abstained from.

Your

Still more extraordinary is this answer from a member of the Church of England, whose Common Prayer-book contains Tables and rules for the movable and immovable feasts, together with the days of fasting or ABSTINENCE throughout the whole year. You, too, sir, have such a prayer in your Common Prayer-book, with this difference, that therein the designation is days of fasting and ABSTINENCE. And you have considerably diminished the number of days. American Table also states, after specifying two fast days, viz., Ash-Wednesday, and Good-Friday, "other Days of Fasting: on which the church requires such a measure of abstinence, as is more especially suited to extraordinary acts and exercises of devotion." It then enumerates for us, 1st. The season of Lent. 2d. The Ember days. 3d. Rogation days. 4th. All the Fridays in the year, except Christmas-day. And in fact, several pious members of your church do even now observe several of those days by abstaining from meat as your "church requires." The practice was much more general amongst them about fifty years ago, and still it is religiously observed by great numbers at the other side of the Atlantic. Good sir, if "to abstain from meats is another of the marks of them that depart from the faith," how deplorable is the situation of the most pious portion of your flock? They who despise the requisition of your

it, have departed from the faith!! I recollect the difficulty of a young gentleman who declared that abstinence from sin and not from meats was the intent of the Rubric, upon being asked by a lady. "Then sir, am I to understand that the church to which you belong, commands a total abstinence from sin on Ash-Wednesday and Good-Friday, permits a more moderate indulgence in sin during the season of Lent, on Ember and Rogation days, and Fridays, but sets no limit to crime on the other days of the year?" It was an annoying repartee; but God forbid that such a calumny should be seriously uttered against your church, even by one who is accused of trafficking in licenses to commit sin. No, sir: your church, whatever her doctrinal errors might be, teaches a high morality, and does not grant a license to sin.

I shall conclude this letter and my enumeration of the inconsistencies with the following extract from the second part of the Homily on Fasting, Book II. pp. 240, &c.

"For the better understanding of this question, it is necessary that we make a difference between the policies of princes, made for the ordering of their common weals, in provision of things serving to the most sure defence of their subjects and countries, and between ecclesiastical policies, in prescribing such works, by which, as by secondary means, God's wrath may be pacified, and his mercy purchased. Positive laws made by princes, for conservation of their policy, not repugnant unto God's law, ought of all Christian subjects with reverence of the magistrate to be obeyed, not only for fear of punishment, but also, as the Apostle saith, for conscience sake. Conscience, I say, not of the thing, which of its own nature is indifferent, but of our obedience, which by the law of God we owe unto the magistrate, as unto God's minister. By which positive laws, though we subjects, for certain times and days appointed, be restrained from some kinds of meats and drink, which God by his holy word hath left free to be taken and used of all men, with thanksgiving, in all places, and at all times; yet for that such laws of princes and other magistrates are not made to put holiness in one kind of meat and drink more than another, to make one day more holy than another, but are grounded merely upon policy, all subjects are bound in conscience to keep them by God's commandment, who by the Apostle willeth all, without exception, to submit themselves unto the authority of the higher powers. And in this point, concerning our duties, which be here dwelling in England, environed with the sea, as we be, we have great occasion in reason to take the commodities of the water, which Almighty God, by his divine Providence, hath laid so nigh unto us, whereby the increase of victuals upon the land may the better be spared and cherished, to the sooner reducing of victuals to a more moderate price, to the better sustenance of the poor.

Englishman, who, considering the great commodities which may ensue, will not forbear some piece of his licentious appetite upon the ordinance of his prince, with the consent of the wise of the realm. What good English heart would not wish that the old ancient glory should return to the realm, wherein it hath with great commendations excelled before our days, in the furniture What will more daunt the hearts of the adversaries, than to see of the navy of the same? us well fenced and armed on the sea, as we be reported to be on the land? If the prince re quested our obedience to forbear one day from flesh more than we do, and to be contented with commodity thereby persuade us to subjection? one meal in the same day, should not our own But now that two meals be permitted on that day to be used, which sometime our elders in very great numbers in the realm did use with one only spare meal, and that is fish only; shall we think it so great a burthen that is prescribed?

"Furthermore, consider the decay of the towns nigh the seas, which should be most ready by the number of the people there to repulse the enemy; and we which dwell further off upon the land, having them as our buckler to defend us, should be more in safety. If they be our neighbours, why should we not wish them to prosper? If they be our defence, as nighest at hand to repel the enemy, to keep out the rage of the seas, which else would break in upon our fair pastures, why should we not cherish them? Neither do we urge that in the ecclesiastical policy, prescribing a form of fasting, to humble ourselves in the sight of Almighty God, and that order, which was used among the Jews, and practised by Christ's Apostles after his ascension, is of such force and necessity, that that only ought to be used among Christians, and none other; for that were to bind God's people unto the yoke and burthen of Moses' policy; yea, it were the very way to bring us, which are set at liberty by the freedom of Christ's Gospel, into the bondage of the Law again, which God forbid that any man should attempt or purpose. But to this end it serveth, to show how far the order of fasting now used in the church at this day differeth from that which was then used. God's church ought not, neither may it be so tied to that or any other order now made, or hereafter to be made and devised by the authority of man, but it may lawfully, for just causes, alter, change, or mitigate these ecclesiastical decrees and orders, yea, recede wholly from them, and break them, when they tend either to superstition, or to impiety; when they draw the people from God, rather than work any edification in them. This authority Christ himself used, and left it to his church. He used it, I say, for the order or decree made by the elders for washing oft times, which was diligently observed of the Jews; yet tending to superstition, our Saviour Christ altered and changed the same in his church, into a profitable sacrament of our regeneration, or new birth. This authority to mitigate laws and decrees ecclesiastical, the Apostles practised, when they, writing from Jerusalem unto the congre gation that was at Antioch, signified unto them, that they would not lay any further burthen upon them, but these necessaries: that is, that they should abstain from things offered unto idols,

from blood, from that which is strangled, and from fornication, notwithstanding that Moses' law required many other observances. This authority to change the orders, decrees, and constitutions of the church, was after the Apostles' time used of the fathers about the manner of fasting, as it appeareth in the Tripartite History, where it is thus written-Touching fasting, we find that it was diversely used in divers places, by divers men. For they at Rome fast three weeks together before Easter, saving upon the Saturdays and Sundays, which fast they call Lent.' And after a few lines in the same place it followeth: They have not all one uniform order in fasting. For some do fast and abstain from both fish and flesh: Some, when they fast, eat nothing but fish. Others there are, which, when they fast, eat of all water-fowls, as well as of fish, grounding themselves upon Moses, that such fowls have their substance of the water, as the fishes have. Some others, when they fast will neither eat herbs nor eggs. Some fasters there are, that eat nothing but dry bread. Others, when they fast, eat nothing at all, no, not so much as dry bread. Some fast from all manner of food till night, and then eat, without making any choice or difference of meats.' And a thousand such like divers kind of fasting may be found in divers places of the world, of divers men diversely used. And for all this great diversity in fasting, yet charity, the very true bond of Christian peace, was not broken, neither did the diversity of fasting break at any time their agreement and concord in faith.

To abstain sometimes from certain meats, not because the meats are evil, but because they are not necessary, this abstinence, saith St. Augustine, is not evil. And to restrain the use of meat when necessity and time shall require, this, saith he, doth properly pertain to Christian men. "Thus ye have heard, good people, first that Christian subjects are bound even in conscience to obey princes' laws, which are not repugnant to the laws of God. Ye have also heard that Christ's church is not so bound to observe any order, law, or decree made by man, to prescribe a form in religion, but that the church hath full power and authority from God to change and alter the same, when need shall require; which hath been shown you by the example of our Saviour Christ, by the practice of the Apostles, and of the fathers since that time."

This contains a curious specimen of the principle upon which the first Protestants of the Church of England were encouraged to abstain from meats, and also shows that it was an ancient Christian custom. The text does not regard our abstinence, but that of the Gnostics, Manicheans, and others.

I shall take another view of the little book. I remain, Right Reverend Sir, Yours, &c., Charleston, S. C., Sept. 16, 1828.

LETTER X.

B. C.

To the Right Reverend Doctor Bowen, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina, &c. &c. &c.

more views of the little publication, before I close this series of letters. The first will be to examine the truth of its historical statements.

1. p. 3. Q. 15. How do you prove that none of these are infallible?

A. From many great errors into which several Popes and councils have fallen, and from the contradiction of their decrees: one Pope condemning what his predecessor had approved, and one council rejecting the decrees of another council.

those errors and contradictions are. Indeed, It would have been as well to state what sir, the simple statement would at once silence Roman Catholics. How stands the case? We say, that though the Pope might in his soul be an heretic or an infidel, though he as an individual, or even in his official capacity, might teach error or heresy, still the church, which is not represented by the Pope alone, but by the Pope and a general council united, will infallibly teach us the true doctrine of Christ. Now, sir, in this point of fact, it is untrue that any Pope and general council conjointly have taught any error. This is the first historical mistake.

2. It is not historically true that any one general council contradicted any doctrinal decree of any other general council.

3. It is not historically true that any one general council rejected any doctrinal decree of any other general council. If my assertions are not correct, you can easily show their falsehood by producing the contradictory facts together with their proof; you have my pledge, which I here renew, that if you adduce such proof, I shall renounce at once the communion of the Roman Catholic Church, and immediately avow that it is erroneous.

I am not required by my principles to hold that the Pope is infallible, and will not volunteer to wage an unnecessary war; but, Right Reverend Sir, I believe it would be a task not easily performed, did you undertake to prove that one Pope condemned a doctrine which his predecessor had approved.

The original Catechism has by the kindness of the editor some notes added, and amongst them is one which asserts that some Popes have been heretical, and to support the assertion he makes two statements.

4. That Pope Liberius in the fourth century joined the Arians.

If by this the editor intends to assert that he joined in their heresy, I beg leave dis

5. That Pope Liberius subscribed an heretical creed.

That this has been frequently asserted and falsely asserted, I admit: but I distinctly deny that it is a fact. You, Right Reverend Sir, and perhaps some of the good ladies who publish this statement, will admit that a creed is not heretical merely because the word μovotov is omitted, and if you will have the goodness to examine the testimony a little closely, you will perceive that before he left Sirmium this Pontiff published a distinct and precise condemnation of the Arians. Indeed, sir, though I might not expect from the ladies a full investigation of the testimonies of SS. Athanasius, Jerome, Ambrose, Basil, and Epiphanius, as well as those of Ammianus Marcellinus, Ruffinus, Sulpitius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Nicephorus upon those subjects, still I must suppose you to be acquainted with them, and therefore incapable of approving the above assertion as historically correct. I have not just now at hand the Centuriators of Magdeburg, but I believe even they do not attempt to hazard their reputation, such as it is, by making any such assertion. This, sir, is the fifth historical blunder in eight lines.

The editor next very sapiently tells us that "at times there have been two and three claimants of the papacy, each of whom had the support of no small portion of the Christian world." I admit the fact, and draw from it the same conclusion that I would from one of daily occurrence: that "at times there have been two and three claimants of an estate, each of whom had either a good title or a specious pretext." My conclusion is, that the estate probably belongs to one of them, and the proper tribunal will decide who is the true owner. The great body of the Church, whether assembled in Council, or scattered through the world, have decided which was the true Pope and which was an usurper; but the office continues, and now we all agree that Hannibal della Genga, commonly known as Leo XII., is lawfully and validly and rightfully the unquestioned incumbent.

6. No general council was held during the first three centuries, says our editor, in page 4, note-though the Catechism tells us in A. 19 of the same page, that St. James presided at the general council of Jerusalem

7. Three general councils were held in the fourth century, as the editor informs us. You of course call that held at Nice, in 325, and that held at Constantinople, in 381, general councils: they make two; but I suspect you will be equally at a loss as I am, to find another in that same century. Thus my respect for your information upon a subject which must be familiar with every tyro in theology, led me to doubt that you had approved of what Bishop White had sanctioned. 8. The Bishops of Rome did not call those three councils in the fourth century, says your editor.

I very willingly allow that they did not call three, for they called only two general councils in that century. The first, that of Nice, was called by Pope Sylvester, who having given his authority, the summonses were sent and the expenses paid by Constantine the Emperor, in fulfilment of Sylvester's desire. I should hope, sir, that you would not be disposed to question this fact, and therefore I do not enter into proofs, which are, I believe, quite abundant, and shall be at your service if desirable. In like manner, sir, Theodosius the Emperor sent the letters of indiction issued by Pope Damasus to the bishops who assembled at the second at Constantinople; and that they assembled by the call of the Pope, is the acknowledgment of those bishops themselves.

9. The Bishops of Rome did not preside in either of those councils, we are told. It is quite true, sir, that the Bishop of Rome was not personally present; but it is equally true that he did preside at Nice by his deputies, who were Osius, Bishop of Cordova, in Spain, who certainly could not in his own right take precedence of older bishops, of the metropolitans and patriarchs who sat under him, and not only under him, but also under his two associates, who were not even bishops, Vitus and Vincent, priests of the diocess of Rome. Thus, Sylvester presided at Nice, not in person, but by his legates.

By looking to the history, the special fact regarding the Council of Constantinople will sufficiently explain why the Pope did not preside. The bishops of the East were to have proceeded in a body from Constantinople to Rome, in which city they were to join the bishops of the West, and then sit together, with Damasus, the Bishop of Rome, at the head of both; but when they met at Constantinople, they proceeded, under the presidency of Nectarius, to examine the business for which they were assembled.

They found the decision easy, and sent their proceedings to the Pope, together with a request that he would excuse them from the journey to Italy, for several causes which he judged to be sufficient, and he complied with their request: and the Western bishops, having received and confirmed their decrees, and they having been acquiesced in by the Pope, they had the full sanction of the whole church, of which Damasus, Bishop of Rome, was the head, and over whose councils he presided. Of the facts here stated there exist abundant proofs, so that in five lines more the editor has committed four new historical

blunders.

10. p. 4. Q. 17. On what pretence does the Pope claim to be supreme head of the church?

A. As successor to St. Peter, whom

their new creed asserts to have been Bishop of Rome.

Upon this the note-maker again hangs his appendage. During 600 years the Bishop of Rome did not claim jurisdiction over the Christian world." To meet this, it is altogether unnecessary that I should prove that within that period the Popes had this jurisdiction; it would suffice for me to show that it was claimed by any one of them. I shall, in a very few instances, show its claim and its exercise.

Now, sir, I shall state why I do not adduce the claims of any of the Bishops of Rome during the first three centuries, such as Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Pius, Victor, and so many others, which are full and to my purpose. I originally stated that I did not wish these letters to be controversial; and a very short mode having been taken by gentlemen on your side of the question to extricate themselves from the unpleasant situation in which they would be placed by those early witnesses, by deny ing the authenticity of their works, I would now prefer giving up a vast fund of documents, which I could prove to be genuine, rather than enter into any controversy. I therefore shall content myself with the production of a few of a later period.

Pope St. Julius I. sat from 337 to 352. In his epistle to the Eastern bishops, quoted in the 2d apology of St. Athanasius, was the following passage :

"Are you ignorant that it is the custom, that we should be first written to, in order that hence you might have the definition of what was just? Wherefore if any such suspicion regarding a bishop had occurred there, it ought to have been referred hither to our church.

*

"Wherefore we make known to you those things which we have received from the blessed Peter the Apostle; not otherwise disposed to

"Since your charity hath given to the Apostolic See the due reverence, by you, dearly beloved children, as much as possible hath been given."'+

In his fourth epistle to the bishops of Numidia, we read:

"You ought not to desist from sending to us the head, according to what hath always been the custom, those matters which might create any doubt."‡

Pope Siricius sat from 385 to 398. In his epistle to Himericus, Bishop of Tarragona, in Spain, he writes thus:

"Because of our office we have no liberty to dissemble nor to be silent, for upon us lies a greater care of the Christian religion than upon all others. We bear the burthens of all who are loaded: or rather in us they are borne by the blessed Peter the Apostle, who we trust protects and guards us, his heirs in all the matters of his administration.Ӥ

In another place:

"We think, most dear brother, that we have explained all those things which have been lodged in the complaint: and all the causes which thou hast brought before us and the Roman church, as the head of your body, by our son, Bassanius the priest."'ll

The epistle then directs the Bishop of Tarragona to make known the decision to the other bishops.

Pope Zozimus sat from 417 during one year. In his letter to Heschius, Bishop of Salonita, which he orders him to extend to his other brethren, he says:

"Be it known, that whosoever, disregarding the authority of the fathers and of the Apostolic See, shall have neglected those things, will be very strictly punished by us: as that he shall be in no doubt of the loss of his place, if he thinks those things can be attempted after so many prohibitions."¶