Now, sir, the eminent divines of the English Protestant Church understand this part of the writings of St. Paul in the same sense as does the Roman Catholic Church, so that the miserable garbling is not in accordance with their exposition. In the Roman Catholic Church, when they come together, "ALL" DO NOT "speak with unknown tongues;" therefore, even unbelievers could not say "to them, are ye ALL mad?" but suppose an unbeliever went into an assembly of the Corinthians, where all were speaking aloud in different languages, he might be tempted to make the remark; and a similar one was made upon the conduct of a more sacred assembly. (Acts ii. 1.) After the enumeration of the various congregated nations, v. 11, &c.: "We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, what meaneth this? others mocking, said, These men are full of new wine." In the Roman Catholic Church only the clergyman uses the common well-known language in the church; and from their childhood, the faithful have it interpreted, translated, and explained: and they pray not only with the spirit, but with the understanding also. Their assembly is not such as the Apostle describes. The text in the answer, even garbled as it is, does not then bear upon the case of Roman Catholics, as put in the question: and I hoped that you knew too well the meaning of the Apostle, to suppose it did. The succeeding question will oblige me to continue this topic in my next. cessary. This gift of tongues was at first rather extensively diffused amongst the believers, as evidence of which I might refer to Acts, x. 46, and several other places. It sometimes occurred that one person under the influence of the Spirit spoke or prayed, but could not interpret his own words for , those present; and others who were previously ignorant were able to give the interpretation, though they were not inspired to speak the language, as St. Paul testifies in chap. xii. of the Epistle which we consider, v. 10: "To another divers kinds of tongues: to another the interpretation of tongues." In this chapter the Apostle draws a marked distinction in verses 28, 29, 30, between apostles, prophets, teachers, and those who, though not in the ministry, still exhibited the influence of the Spirit in divers tongues, &c., as well as the interpreters, so that this speaking and interpretation were not the public services. After an exhortation to charity in chap. xiii., he proceeds in chap. xiv. to inform us that the person who speaks in this other tongue, speaks to God, though men should not understand him; but he who prophesieth, or instructs, speaks to men to edify, to exhort, to comfort (verses 2, 3). It was usual at the assemblies of Christians in Corinth, as well as in other places, that they who received the gifts of the Holy Ghost should occasionally manifest or exhibit them: and an abuse was becoming pretty general, that the gift of tongues was exhibited for ostentation, and without the presence of an interpreter. The Apostle's object is then to correct or remove this, and for that purpose he states that instruction or prophecy is better, unless where there is an interpreter: yet even this he does not command, nor does he forbid expressly even the prayer in this tongue; on the contrary he says, v. 14, "If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." That is, when the very person who prays uses words which he does not himself understand, his spirit prays, his soul is lifted up to God in aspiration, adoration, desire, and affection, and it is good; though certainly he prefers adding to this a knowRIGHT REVEREND SIR-In my last, I exledge of what is said. Now the Roman Catholic Church holds this very principle, amined whether the discipline of the Roman and acts upon it: and perhaps, Right Reve- Catholic Church of using in her Liturgy, in rend Sir, it will be news to you to learn that some places, the "Latin, where that lanthe English Protestant Church has ordered guage is not generally understood by the and acted upon the order, to have her liturgy people," was "expressly forbidden" by the read in English for people who understood Apostle St. Paul; and I concluded by statonly Irish, and that in such a case she de-ing, that in this letter I would examine the sired it might be read even in Latin for the correctness and consistency of the succeedIrish peasantry, but not in Irish, as the ob- ing assertion. ject was to destroy what she was pleased to call a barbarous dialect. I remain, Right Reverend Sir, LETTER VI. B. C. To the Right Reverend Doctor Bowen, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina, &c. &c. &c. 18, p. 11, Q. 51. Is that practice consistent with reason? A. No: the duty of prayer is ordained for the improvement of our souls, and increase of grace; but repeating a set of words by rote, without understanding what we say, cannot possibly answer that end. Allow me, sir, to commence by stating that you, I believe, do not look upon a sermon or an exhortation to be prayer: I am under the impression, that a man might preach and give instruction during an entire day, and still not have prayed. Roman Catholics define prayer to be a lifting up the heart or mind to God, to thank him for his favours, to praise him for his perfections, to entreat his mercy, or to obtain his blessing. I have looked into the "Familiar Exposition of the Catechism," for your definition; I could not find it: but in Part IV. p. 38, Q. 3, I found reference to the following question and answer of the Catechism, following the Lord's Prayer: "Q. What desirest thou of God in this prayer? "A. I desire my Lord God, our heavenly Father, who is the giver of all goodness, to send his grace unto me, and to all people; that we may worship him, serve him, and obey him, as we ought to do: And I pray unto God, that he will send us all things that are needful both for our souls and bodies; and that he will be merciful unto us, and forgive us our sins; and that it will please him to save and defend us in all dangers both of soul and body; and that he will keep us from all sin and wickedness, and from our spiritual enemy, and from everlasting death: And this I trust he will do of his mercy and goodness, through our Lord Jesus Christ; and therefore I say, Amen. So be it." This, sir, substantially agrees with the Roman Catholic definition, and calls prayer a desire. Prayer is a spiritual act: language is only an expression of the sentiment which is felt, or of the desire which is entertained. Instruction is generally conveyed by language, but not always, nor necessarily; for it might be, and has been communicated by painting, by signs, and by letters, which are the symbols of language. Having now seen the palpable distinction between prayer and instruction, I come to the exhibition of the inconsistency of the answer. It states the object of prayer to be the improvement of our souls. This phrase is ambiguous. Our souls may be improved by obtaining the grace of God, such improvement is indeed the object of prayer; they may be improved by receiving instruction; such is not the object of prayer, though such might be its accidental effect. When I repeat the Lord's Prayer, I do not increase my knowledge; yet I raise my heart to our Father who is in heaven, and I pray. I obtain an increase of grace, but no new in struction; such, too, will be the case, if I excite and indulge spiritual desires, without using any words to express them; and this fervid homage in the heart, whereby our spirits adore God, who is a Spirit, in spirit and in truth, is the best and most acceptable. If such sentiments can be excited in the minds of a congregation, the best, mode of leading them to pray, will be that which best secures this object. I submit, sir, that our mode is admirably calculated for this end. Now, sir, I know not if you were ever present at our service, and cannot therefore appeal to your experience: but, if you were, you would have observed that the people do not "repeat by rote a set of words, without understanding what they say." The celebrating clergy use a Latin Liturgy, which they repeat; and surely it will not be supposed that Bishop Bowen would venture to assert that the Roman Catholic clergy do even Blanco White acknowledged that they not understand the Latin language! Why, learned, and preserved as much as enabled them to understand the Liturgy. Now, they who do read do understand; and therefore the assumed ground, that they repeat a set of words by rote, without understanding what they say," is here untenable; and, as this was the basis of the conclusion, so far as regards the clergy, the position must be abandoned, which asserted that the practice is not consistent with reason. As regards the laity, some of them do understand the language: so far as they are concerned, it is not tenable. The others do not repeat Latin words by rote, but they have translations in their several vernacular tongues, and other books with appropriate prayers, which, if they can read, they do understand; the conclusion fails here too. Respecting those who cannot read, they have been carefully instructed in the meaning of what is said and done: so that when the Liturgy is performed, they also do understand; although probably a learned Protestant could not comprehend what he never was taught, and would not stoop to learn: those unlettered people recite, with understanding and with piety, certain forms of prayer which they have committed to memory: the paintings in the churches are their books; the beads which they use, are to them the intelligible indication of the order of the service; the ceremonial which they behold, and its various accompaniments, are equally eloquent monitions of instruction for the mind, and devotion for the heart, to the Chinese and the American, to the Italian and the Tartar, to the Egyptian and the Laplander; they are members of the same church, chil dren of the same family, acquainted with the same rite, trained to the same ceremonial, using the same Missal, viewing the same vestments; and, from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof, their clean and holy oblation is offered in the same common language, beyond the frozen Arctic, and on the glowing banks of the Amazon. The preservation of our common language, in our common service, tends to preserve and to strengthen the extended union of our holy brotherhood; it enables our clergy to officiate at every altar, and makes our laity to find a home in every church of our communion: all tongues, and tribes, and nations are thus united together, and become one people, adoring one common Father, grateful to one common Redeemer, beseeching sanctification from one sacred Spirit; this wholesome discipline unites ages, as it binds nations; for the Liturgy which we use, has descended to us from the primitive days of our religion; the very words and prayers, in which an Ambrose, an Augustin, a Basil, a Gregory, and a Chrysostom officiated, and whose substance they received from a Peter, from a Mark, from a James, are now repeated at our altars, in a language, the meaning of whose words, and phrases, and idioms, is now as unchanging as is that faith which they through this channel conveyed to us; thus the faithful are taught to understand and to value this most reasonable practice. The assumed inconvenience, or, as the Catechism calls it, inconsistency with reason, does not exist: but the most salutary effects practically follow from this most wholesome discipline. I am fully aware that several very respectable Protestants, because of their want of information on those points, think as the Catechism expresses: I know that frequently they retire from beholding our service with the most strange and erroneous impressions; they reason, if reasoning I may call it, most injudiciously, that because they have intelligent minds and general information, and cannot comprehend what they never sought to learn, that those who have been brought up in its knowledge are as ignorant upon the subject as they are themselves. I recollect, sir, two highly educated and respectable ladies of my acquaintance who had expended, where English was the common language, a large share of money, of pains, and of time, to learn the language of France; to which country they afterwards proceeded to perfect their education. Upon landing at Havre, one of them turned to her companion to remark with astonishment how fluently the fish-women and porters spoke French. Being reminded that she was now in France, she instantly remarked how thoughtless she had been in not adverting to the circumstance of these people having been familiar from their earliest moments of observation with what, because of the want of opportunity, it had cost her so much to acquire. Let, sir, the Protestants who do not know the grounds of our prac tices be more cautious in their decisions: some occasional opportunities are afforded of hearing their remarks, and it is with regret I state that there exists much less occasion of being by them reminded of the amiable lady to whom I alluded, than of the exceedingly wise personage who once crossed the British Channel and returned within the same week, and honestly declared that he was always prejudiced against the French, but now that he had seen and known the true state of the case he was confirmed in his dislike, for he found them so ignorant, so unreasonable and so obstinate, that they could not be induced even to call things by their right names; it was as bad to be amongst them as at Babel; for if you asked for a shovel they brought you a horse, they called a hat chopper, and gave the nick-name of ding dong to turkeys. Indeed, sir, it would be desirable that our separated brethren could be more generally induced to believe, that our common Creator gave to the members of our church an equal share of intellect as he gave to themselves; that we have had amongst us men of genius, men of learning, men of piety, and men of common sense; it does not raise our estimate of their investigating powers, of their impartiality, or of their judgment, when we find them superciliously pronouncing upon what they have never studied, and upon subjects which we know it is impossible they can, circumstanced as they are, even understand. This is a painful topic, sir, but it has been forced upon me. By your own definition of prayer, you perceive that though our liturgy, for sufficient reasons, is in the Latin language, yet our clergy, our learned and our unlearned laity, can and do most devoutly pray with the spirit, with the tongue and with the understanding, and not only is the practice not forbidden, but it is more than lawful; it is productive of the most extensive benefits, some only of which I have enumerated. As this subject is one upon which as a matter of discipline there might be a change, and as all that the Roman Catholic Church requires is conformity with the general law until it shall be repealed by the constitutional authority, even her own children may freely though respectfully differ, and express that sistent with reason" to believe a revealed truth which does not fall in with his metaphysical speculation, are, each in his own estimation, very great men. I like to study our common weakness in their exhibition. I do it by trying how the assertion can be shaped like an argument. I shall do so here. Premises. We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Conclusion. THEREFORE, "it is inconsistent with reason" to think that the dead can be helped by our prayers. difference of opinion as to its expediency. declares that it is "inconsistent with reaIs it not then a little presumptuous for per- son" to believe a manifest fact, because it sons who perhaps have never viewed the does not agree with his theory, and a relisubject as they ought, to condemn as "in-gious writer who protests that it is "inconconsistent with reason," a practice which millions of the most learned and pious men in all ages who were fully acquainted with it in all its bearings have approved, upheld, defended and recommended? Of course, sir, you know that there exists a vast difference between a society existing where only one or two languages, indeed I may say where only one language is spoken, and the Church of all nations, and tribes and tongues. When you deduct from the Protestant Episcopal Church all those who have and use the English liturgy, the remaining members are easily counted through. Not so with us. Do then avow with me that it is not unreasonable to have a common language for the professors of a common faith: and be assured that although some very thoughtless persons might imagine that we know as little of our service as do they who never inquired as they ought upon the subject, such is not the fact; we have no repetition of "a set of words by rote, without understanding what we say," and we do not act unreasonably because our separated brethren are uninformed, neither do we by our practice, act against the injunction of the Apostle, because they who choose to condemn us know how to clip, to garble, and to fill up a text, until after this process it shall no longer mean what it originally was intended to convey. 19. p. 10. Q. 49. Is not praying for the dead another Roman Catholic error? A. Yes: the Scriptures give no countenance to that practice, and it is inconsistent with reason, to think they can be helped by our prayers. For, "we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (2 Cor. v. 10.) This is like turning back upon my way; or as some people would call it "advancing backwards," however, I shall not detain you long with the subject itself. I do not intend to enter into the controversial question as to whether it be a useful and orthodox practice to pray for the dead. I merely wish to exhibit the logic of the answer. The words "inconsistent with reason" caught my eye, and I found the attraction irresistible; no poor fluttering little bird was ever more fascinated by the eye of a serpent than I am bewitched by such a phrase, especially in such a book. A philosophic historian who I really cannot perceive that this conclusion is contained in these premises. I look upon the conclusion to be, that each person shall be judged and treated by the judge, according to his conduct on earth. Suppose a man appears before that awful tribunal guilty of a very trivial offence, and that for this bad thing done in the body he is sentenced to receive punishment, for a certain time, or to a certain amount, which punishment might be mitigated by the mercy of God in accordance with prayer offered through the merits of Christ on behalf of the sufferer: does the text say that this is "inconsistent with reason"? Does reason say it is inconsistent? In fact such might not be the case; but even then the supposition would not be inconsistent with reason, for it is not absurd, but is perfectly reasonable. But it is said there is no Scripture to countenance the practice. Suppose that to be so, still it is not "inconsistent with reason. "Now, sir, I will say, such in fact is the case, and the Scriptures of the old and of the new law do countenance the practice, and my assertion on one side is as good as that of the Catechism on the other. I have, sir, embodied the Scriptural argument, in a letter which has been published in the last volume of the Miscellany: so that the semblance of argument from this text for this position, resembles pretty nearly, I believe it was Friar Gerund's argument, to prove that there existed seven species of sins, for which he quoted v. 4, of what you number as Psalm xlv., we as xliv., " Specie tua et pulchritudine tua, intende, prospere, procede et regna." A. They are vain and superstitious. The worship of the crucifix, or figure of Christ upon the cross, is idolatrous; and the adoring and praying to the cross itself, is, of all the corruptions of Roman Catholic worship, the most gross and intolerable. charm, or with the same certain efficacy as a sacrament, to secure or protect them, it makes an untrue allegation: but if they use it, as they do, in token that they are not ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and as exciting their hope of a blessing from one God in three persons to aid them through the merits of Christ's death In this there are three assertions, first, that Roman Catholics use the sign of the upon the cross to be his faithful soldiers and servants, protected by him in sickness cross; next, that they do so frequently; against ill accidents, surely you will not and, thirdly, that it is done for security call it vain and superstitious, or you must against sickness and ill accidents. Now, condemn your own prayer and ceremonial. sir, I could never suspect you of having Here, sir, is the Roman Catholic explanaapproved of calling this a vain and super- tion. stitious practice, because I know that you could not do so without condemning yourself and your church. I write with certainty when I state that you have more than once made the sign of the cross upon persons whom you have baptized. I could name the persons. Your church has the following direction upon the subject in the ministration of public baptism of infants. We receive this child into *Here the mi- the congregation of Christ's nister shall make flock, and do sign him with a cross upon the the sign of the cross; in tochild's forehead. ken that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ cruci fied, and manfully to fight under his banner, against sin, the world, and the devil; and to continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant unto his life's end. Amen. The same is said and done in the service of private baptism of children, and also in the baptism of those of riper years. The Church of England differs with you only in having the word Priest, for which you have substituted Minister, and leaving no discretion as to its omission, whereas to conciliate such as do not love to use this symbol of man's redemption and the Saviour's love, you have adopted the following rule. If those who present the infant shall desire the sign of the cross to be omitted, although the church knows of no worthy cause of scruple concerning the same, yet, in that case the minister may omit that part of the above which follows the immersion, or the pouring of water on the infant. Thus, sir, I could not expect in your Catechism a declaration that the use of this sign was vain and superstitious. There is none, I presume, in its repetition. You know that Tertullian, about the year 250, informs us that Christians were at and before his day very fond of its use and repetition, whether they walked or rode, or eat or drank, on ordinary occasions, but specially at the divine offices. Now, sir, if the Catechism charges Roman Catholics with considering this sign as a security, like a Extract from Lesson X. Of the Catechism of the Diocess of Charleston. Q. Why do we make the sign of the cross? A. To beg that Jesus Christ, by his Cross and Passion, may bless and protect us. Q. Should we frequently make the sign of the Cross? A. Yes; particularly in all temptation and dangers, and before and after prayer; but always with great attention and devotion. Q. What does the sign of the cross signify? A. It signifies and brings to our minds, the principal mysteries of religion. Q. What mysteries of religion does the sign of the cross recall to our minds? A. The Unity and Trinity, and the incarnation and death of our Saviour. Q. How does the sign of the cross remind us of the Unity and Trinity? A. Because in making the sign of the cross, we invoke one God in three divine Persons, saying, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Q. How does the sign of the cross bring to our minds the incarnation and death of our Saviour? A. Because as he suffered death in human flesh on a cross, the sign of the cross must naturally remind all true Christians of his incarna tion and death. As regards the conclusion or indeed the main body of this answer, imputing to us the adoration of the crucifix; I have too much respect for you to suppose, even now, that you could possibly have given it your approbation, and I do sincerely assure you that when I look at the respectable list of amiable ladies which lies upon my desk, and view this wretched little production, Í In plain words, I cannot am bewildered. conceive that it was possible for you to sanction it if you read it. Since I have commenced these letters, I have been informed through the Miscellany office, that Bishop White, of Pennsylvania, had previously approved the publication, and that in all probability you considered that what he sanctioned, did not need your review. It is useless to waste time upon conjectures. The publication has been made with prima |