A Letter to Lord Fielding suggested by the late proceedings at the New Church at Pantasa

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 

p. 4

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 16th 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.