no term that was not strictly sober and correct, and in full accordance with the letter of his creed? Is it to be supposed that Catholics mean to make, whenever they pray, a full and detailed theological profession of their faith? Is it to be thought that they, on all occasions, take precautions against the captious cavils of cynics, or that they pray as if they believed themselves under the constant espionage of envenomed critics, ready to catch up every incautious word they may utter, to tear it from its connection, and to extract from it, with a sneer of triumph, something like a plausible proof of idolatry? If Mr. Palmer looks for all this in Catholic worshipers, he expects more than we would wish to find in them, and more than is compatible with human nature itself. Give us warm devotional feeling, even if it sometimes appear to become exaggerated, rather than that cold, caviling piety, which seems always uneasy and trembling, lest it should be transported too far, and be led to say or do too much. Give us rather the religion of the heart, than that of the head. Give us too much, rather than too little piety. Let our religious thermometer be rather at boiling heat, than stand freezing below zero. Give us even an exaggerated reverence for the saints and for the blessed Mother of God, rather than no reverence at all. The land which produces luxuriantly and superabundantly, is a good and rich soil; but that which produces nothing but thorns and thistles, is barren, and "nigh to a curse.”

One great proof to our minds, that Protestantism is not the religion of Christ, and that it has not the spirit of Christ, is the notorious fact, that Protestants have no love, no tender feeling of reverence for the saints or for the blessed Mother of Christ. Protestantism will not only not aid in fulfilling the prediction of the inspired Virgin, "That henceforth all generations should call her blessed," but they are in the habit of sneering at those who alone fulfill it! They have not a particle of that deep and filial reverence, which the beloved disciple of Jesus ever cherished towards the blessed Mother of his dear Lord, who had been given to him, and, in his person, to all the cherished friends of Jesus, as a tender and loving Mother. Which, we would ask, exhibits itself the true Church of Christ; the one that tenderly loves and reverences His mother, or the one that treats her with coolness and contempt, and can scarcely hear her name even pronounced, without an involuntary shudder of horror? We put this question to all Protestants, and especially to the admirers of Mr. Palmer. And, to enable them the more readily to answer it, we commend to their serious reflection the following beautiful passage from the pen of the distinguished champion of Catholicity, against whom Mr. Palmer wrote his letters:

"It has often struck us, that many who, in latter times, have not scrupled to use the coldest and even disrespectful language respecting her, would shrink from the idea of acting similarly towards her, had they lived in her day, and had her near. When, particularly, we have heard the indignation of fancied zeal break from female lips, against any respect being paid, or devotion expressed towards her who is the peerless glory, the matchless jewel of her sex, we have been led to think how differer tly the heart that gave the tongue such utterance would have felt, had its

compassion been claimed by the venerable matron, whose bereavement of the best of sons had been caused for its sake. Many who can speak unkindly of her in heaven, would have melted with compassion over her on earth; would have kissed with deep reverential awe the hand that had lifted from the ground, and received into the maternal embrace, the same sacred body, just born, and just dead-the infant and the corpse and would have deemed it a privilege inestimable, if granted them, to listen, low upon the ground, to her many tales of joy and of sorrow-glowing in her delight, and softening in her griefs, and exulting in her triumphs. That some holy souls partook of such happiness, there can be no doubt. During the years that she survived her Son, she conversed with His and her friends, an object surely of affectionate regard and deep veneration. And of what would she discourse so willingly, or so well, as of Him of whom her breast was ever full? Or how could they express their love better than by making Him their theme? How easily does the imagination depict the scene of some faithful follower, like Luke, anxious to have accurate knowledge of all things from the beginning, making inquiries concerning the earlier period of our Lord's life; and then listening to the marvelous history most sweetly told how fair and reverent the archangel came, and how her heart fluttered when she heard his salutation, and her soul overflowed with consciousness of unheard of grace as she accepted his errand: how wonderfully Elizabeth greeted her; and how their infants mysteriously rejoiced in mutual recognition; how that cold December night was warmed and brightened by the first appearance of her God-like Child, and her breast was enraptured with heavenly delights as He thrice drew forth His first early nourishment; how holy Simeon proclaimed His dignity, and showed Him honor in the temple; and how her three days' tears were dried up, when she found her lost Son sitting, mild and radiant with celestial wisdom, amidst the old men of the law. What looks, what emotions accompany the recital? With what breathless respect is it drunk in by the future evangelist? Or we may fancy John, more privileged to tread upon that tenderer ground, on which both have walked together the path of the cross-on some sad anniversary, dwelling with her on each afflicting event, recalling faithfully every sacred word, till she voluntarily felt, over again, the sword of grief which had pierced her soul. And then would he not change the theme, and pass over to the bright Sunday morning, which saw Him rise from the grave to comfort the sharers of His sufferings, and how He mounted before them all to His proper seat at the Father's right hand, and thence sent down His Holy Spirit on them? And who would now restrain her thoughts from following Him in spirit thither, and casting up a wistful glance towards the resting-place for which she longed, in which she saw Him, her Sovereign Love, prepared to receive and crown her, when the fullness of her time shall be complete, and the perfection of her patience manifested?"

We do not deny the possibility of the devotion to the Blessed Virgin and the saints being carried too far, in some particular instance; but we maintain that such excesses, while they presuppose a sound religious feeling, are wholly unauthorized by the Catholic Church, which is surely not to be held responsible for the mistakes or the exaggerated piety of individuals. We do not deny that some abuses may exist, but we maintain that they do not justify the charge of idolatry or superstition against the

1 Dublin Review Art. Minor Rites and Offices.

Church, and that those "who strain at such gnats of abuses (taking them at the very worst), and justify themselves for swallowing the camel of schism, aye, and with a good haunch of heresy on it," act, to say the least, very unwisely. Such persons might have been scandalized in Christ himself because of the weakness and imperfections of His early disciples, and they might have abandoned Him altogether, in consequence of the treachery of Judas! This bitter caviling spirit is as unchristian and

pharisaic, as it is unreasonable and absurd.

III. Such, however, is precisely the spirit which guided Mr. Palmer in preparing his Letters against Dr. Wiseman, on the "Errors of Romanism." We will now proceed to prove, that this champion laureate of Anglicanism is as inconsistent, as we have already shown him to be illogical. To answer the arguments of Dr. Wiseman in support of Catholic doctrines and usages, and to explain away the strong passages alleged by him from the holy Scriptures and the fathers, he employs the very same method of interpretation, which he so strongly reprehends in Catholics in explaining the meaning of their own prayers to the Virgin and the saints! Who would have believed the redoubtable clerical knight of Oxford capable of this paltry manoeuvering and of this disingenuous double dealing? Yet such is undoubtedly the fact, as we now proceed to show by a few specifications.

Mr. Palmer had strongly objected to addressing God and the saints in the same form of prayer, and he had unhesitatingly pronounced this practice idolatrous. To meet the objection, Dr. Wiseman alleged the remarkable passage from the Old Testament, in which the following words occur: "And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads and worshiped the Lord and the king,” (David). This was a case precisely in point. Had the congregation been Catholic, or had the writer who recorded the incident, been a Catholic, Mr. Palmer would have greedily seized on the words of the passage as a first rate specimen of "Romish" idolatry. The Catholic would have answered: "You do us injustice; we did not mean to render the same honor to the king as to the Lord." "It matters not," the Oxfordite would have answered; "what right had you to employ the same act of worship for both?" And yet, would you believe it, gentle reader, Mr. Palmer, to explain away the difficulty presented by this text, refers to the context, and, in a word, resorts to the very species of interpretation which he will not suffer Catholics to adopt in explaining their own present meaning, and in defending themselves from the odious charge of idolatry! What are we to think of the logic and consistency of such a controversialist?

He falls into the same glaring inconsistency, in attempting to explain away the following strong passage from St. Justin Martyr: "Him (God) and his Son who came from him, and taught us those things, and the army of good angels who follow and resemble him, and the spirit of prophecy,

1 Paralipomenon or Chronicles xxix, 20, 21

2 Letter V, pp 20, 21.

we venerate and adore." True, he suggests another, and we think a very unwarrantable translation of the passage; but the burden of his answer is, "the angels are not really joined 'under the same form of expression' with God; for, as the Benedictine editors remark, the word venerate refers to the angels, and adore (xposxvv8μev) to God." That is, he, following the Bendictine editors, felt that such must have been St. Justin's meaning,— though this is not clearly implied in the context,—because the philosopher martyr proved himself in his other writings to be entirely averse to every species of idolatry. What a pity that he did not think of this canon of interpretation, while he was so fiercely expounding the idolatrous language of Pope Gregory XVI., and of St. Liguori! We venture to say that no modern Pope, nor saint, nor Catholic divine, has ever employed language half so strong or so offensive" as that of St. Justin; and that if he had been a modern instead of an ancient "Romish" saint, Mr. Palmer would scarcely have let him off so easily.

66

Again Dr. Wiseman had alleged the following passage from St. Basil's homily on the forty martyrs: "These are they who, having obtained a place amongst us (their relics were deposited in the church of Cæsarea), like continual towers, afford security from the incursions of the enemies." Mr. Palmer expounds it:

"That is, their memory and example was calculated to encourage Christians against the assaults of heresies and evil spirits.”2

We suppose the father meant something more than this; at any rate the Oxford divine softens down his literal meaning to suit his own views, and in doing so unwittingly applies the very mode of explanation which he will not allow Catholics to use in much more obvious cases.

In a similar way he responds to almost every passage adduced by Dr. Wiseman from the fathers. If an epitaph, placed on the tomb of a martyr, solicits his prayers or his intercession for his friends yet on earth, it is a mere poetical fiction, not designed to mean any thing; or a pious exaggeration of tender friendship! If such ancient writers as Gaudentius, Venantius, St. Leo, St. Chrysostom, and St. Maximus, frequently employ the terms patronage and protection, in reference to the prayers of the saints for their earthly petitioners, they must have meant to convey no reprehensible idea; but if modern Catholics dare use the same expressions in precisely the same connection, they are clearly guilty of superstition and idolatry! If St. Gregory of Nyssa assures us that a person, by saying, holy Ephrem, help (assist) me,' escaped from a dangerous position," Mr. Palmer tells us, that "such an expression does not interfere with the divine attributes ;" but if a Catholic of modern times dare employ such language, or if a Catholic writer dare record such a miracle, we would probably never hear the end of it! If St. Gregory Nazianzen employs strong language on the invocation of saints, "it is plainly rhetorical;"" and if St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, and St.

6 Ibid.

1 St, Justin M. Apologia I. p. 11, ed. Thirlby, apud Palmer, Letter V p 22 2 Letter V, p. 26. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. p. 27. 5 Palmer ib.

7 Ibid. p. 28.

Ambrose, all strongly advocate the honor and invocation of saints,' it all proves nothing; for they did not intend, like modern "Romanists," to give divine honors to any but God, and they clearly laid down the distinction (which "Romanists," now-a-days, as clearly do) between the veneration to be paid to saints, and the adoration to be rendered to ed alone! Such is the logic, such the consistency, such the fairness, such the justice of Mr. Palmer!

We might comment on many more instances of a similar kind; but these will suffice for our present purpose, and we must hasten on. From what we have thus far said, our readers will be able to form an opinion on Mr. Palmer's merits as a logician; from what we will now proceed briefly to show, they may judge of his candor and honesty in stating facts and in quoting authorities. We might produce many instances of his utter recklessness in these respects; many are produced by the author of “his character as a controversialist; " but we must be content with two to which that writer does not refer.

The first of these is a glaring, though we do not say, a willful mistranslation of a passage of Origen. The error consists in substituting in the translation angels for demons, in order to wrest the words of the author into a meaning opposed to the veneration of angels. If he read Origen in the original, he must have perceived that he draws a broad distinction between good angels, whose office is the guardianship of mankind, and bad angels or demons, such as the pagans worshiped. His pagan opponent Celsus advocated this latter species of worship, and Origen argues against it with force and severity. According to Mr. Palmer's translation, his argument would have neither point nor meaning. What are we to think of a man who thus glaringly perverts the meaning of the plainest language? The other instance consists in a very disingenuous reference to Bellarmine, to prove

"That people may, according to the doctrine of Alexander de Hales, Thomas Aquinas, Čajetan, Buonaventura, Marsilius, Almayn, Carthusianus, Capreolus, Vasquez, and a host of our most approved writers, pay the worship of latria or divine honor to the images of Christ."

Now, what will be thought of his accuracy, when on turning to Bellarmine we find no mention whatever of Vasquez; and what of his candor when we find that Bellarmine explains this very opinion in such a way as to exclude all shadow of idolatry,' and that moreover he refutes it at considerable length in two successive chapters! Why did he conceal these important circumstances? Is this manner of quotation either fair

I Palmer, p. 28.

5

2 Contra Celsum, lib. viii, 26. The original of the passage referred to is: Anatɛ in TηY TOV

Κελςου συμβουλην λεγοντος προςευχτεον είναι ΔΑΙΜΟΣΙ, which he translates : “Away

with the advice of Celsus, saying that we should pray to angels." (Lett. V, p. 42.) We apprehend that Celsus never could have given such advice. See Dublin Review, vol. xvi, pp. 344, 345.

3 Letter I, p. 23. His reference to Bellarmine is-De Imag. II. 20.

4 C. xxiii, where he proves that the advocates of this opinion mean by the worship of latria paid to the images of Christ, a worship improprie dictum et per accidens. Vol. ii, p. 409. Edit. Venetiis, 1721, in 6 vols folio. 5 Ch. xxii and xxiv.