[3] Analysis of Divine Faith, p. 359.[4a] Omnes libros quos Protestantes, &c. De verbo dei. lib. 1. cap. 10.[4b] 2 Es. viii. 33. Eccles. iii. 3, 30. Comp. Eccles. vii. 20. Rom. iii. 20. 1 John i. 8. Tobit. vi. 16, 17. 2 Mac. xiv. 41, 46. Comp. Tobit. v. 12 and xii. 15. While the books of Maccabees seem to represent Antiochus to have died three times! 1 Mac. xvi. 6. 2 Mac. i. 16. ix. 28.[4c] Cardinal Cajetan also rejects the Apocrypha. Com: in Om: authen: vet: testam. Paris, 1546. p. 481–2.[5a] Cardinal Cajetan in 2 Thess. 2. speaks of the “Sacrificum altaris” as a matter merely of traditionary authority, while, your Bourdeaux New Testament wishes to make it Scriptural also, as appears by its horrid falsification of Acts xiii. 2. by rendering it—“as they offered to the Lord the Sacrifice of the Mass.” le Sacrifice de la Messe. What will not Popery do, to gain a point? Your Catechism of the Council of Trent says—“Our Lord himself, at his last Supper, offered to his Eternal Father his precious body and blood, under the appearances of bread and wine, at the same time declaring himself ‘a Priest for ever according to the Order of Melchisedec.’” Was a greater falsehood every uttered?[5b] “The Ministers whom we call Deacons, distribute to each one present, a portion of the blessed bread and the wine and water.” Justin Martyr, Apol. 1.[5c] “Cum ea geminÆ interpretationis opulentia de S. Johannes testimonio Ecclesia frueratur, quarum utraque probationem ab hoereticis inde deductum impugnabat, ad unius tantummodo paupertatem non esse redigendam.”[5d] St. Augustine’s Commentary on this is well worth your reading.[7] Dr. Milner tells us Letter 12—that “the English Testament puts the word ‘Ordinances’ in 1 Cor. xi. 2. instead of ‘Traditions,’ contrary to the original Greek,” &c. It is remarkable that, notwithstanding this, in the edition of the Rhemish Testament printed by Coyne in Dublin in 1825, “Ordinances” is found, and not “Traditions.” So much for the authority of our titulars.[8a] Second Book of Homilies.[8b] Reply to the Appendix of the Bishop of Fern’s Charge—p. 7.[9] The Achilli trial is fresh in the recollection of all. View this matter as you may,—whether Dr. Newman was a libeller, or Dr. Achilli a debauchee,—it proves your system to be what your own celebrated Espenseus long ago called it—“A Custom House of sin.” Ubi sup.[10a] Is not this at variance with the Blessed Virgin Mary’s own confession? St. Luke i. 46, 47.[10b] Warden Neale’s Lectures. Lond. Cleaver. 1852.[10c] On the subject of angel worship, so fearfully practiced in your Church, against the express command of St. Paul, Coloss. ii. 18, 19, I will here remark that your authors, are horribly reckless in quotation. Titular Bishop Doyle actually refers to St. John’s PROHIBITED angel worship,—Rev. xix. 10. xxii. 8–9.—in proof of its propriety,—and the Catechism of the Council of Trent says—“Jacob invoked the blessing not only of the angel whom he saw, but also of him whom he saw not. Gen. xxxii. 26. xlviii. 16.” pretending to be ignorant of the fact that it was the same angel—the Angel of the Covenant—the second Person of the blessed Trinity—“God whom he saw face to face”—“even the Lord God of Hosts.”[11a] Vide Arnob.[11b] In Dr. Wiseman’s reply to Dr. Turton’s work on the Eucharist I find the following—

“I quoted the Meletamata Sacra—I suppose the learned Professor (Dr. Turton) was unacquainted with the work; so, like a good controversialist—certainly, not like a good scholar—he goes to another work of Titman’s, and from that attempts to confute me. This is his Commentary on St. John. * * * * The words from the Meletamata Sacra are as clear as those from the Commentary; nor will any quotation from the latter obscure or invalidate the former, p. 186.

“There are readers who, without any intimation from me”—writes Dr. Turton—“will be aware of my astonishment at the sight of the foregoing extract from the reply; and every reader will be enabled to form some judgment on the subject, when I state, that the Meletamata Sacra and the Commentary on St. John are the same work. And thus Dr. Wiseman, after treating familiarly of “the learned Titman”—after quoting the Meletamata Sacra—after supposing that the Cambridge Professor was unacquainted with that work—Dr. Wiseman, I say, after all this—writes himself down, either as a person who did not know that the work, called Meletamata Sacra, is a Commentary—the Commentary—Titman’s Commentary—on St. John—or as one who aimed at inducing people to believe that the Meletamata Sacra and the Commentary are different productions. * * * Now, whether this misrepresentation proceeded from ignorance or design, there is something about it so wrong—wrong in such a manner and to such a degree—that I have the greatest difficulty in deciding upon my future course. If I could persuade myself that Dr. Wiseman had ever had the Meletamata Sacra open before him, I should certainly stop here. No earthly consideration could induce me to add another sentence to these observations. * * * * If Dr. Wiseman was—as he professed to be—acquainted with the Meletamata Sacra, he has used language, respecting that work, and myself, which, as I have already intimated, must effectually preclude all further attention, on my part, to his Reply. If, again, he really was not—as he professed to be—acquainted with that work, still his language cannot but raise great doubts with regard to the course that ought to be pursued. In truth Dr. Wiseman’s proceeding, even when viewed in the most favorable light, is so marked by every thing that is contrary to propriety, and excites so much suspicion as to the rest of his book, that my undertaking has now become irksome beyond expression.” Dr. Turton’s Observations on Dr. Wiseman’s Reply. p. 130 to 135.

I will here add that Dr. Turton’s “suspicions” have been more than realised as regards Dr. Wiseman’s performances. Dr. Wiseman tells us in the preface to the first edition of his “Lectures, p. viii.” that “he has in general drawn his quotations of the fathers from the useful compilation of Messrs. Kirk and Barrington.” In the address “to the reader” in the second edition of this work we are informed that “the venerable Prelates (Dr. Poynter and Dr. Trevern) and many other Catholic writers, have made use of the Faith of Catholics in their publications.” p. p. vii. viii. Now what is the fact, as regards this Romish text book? Let the title of the following book give you some idea—“Romish Misquotation: or certain passages from the Fathers, adduced in a work entitled—“the Faith of Catholics,” &c., brought to the test of the originals, and their perverted character demonstrated, by the Rev. Richard T. P. Pope.” A work which verifies its title beyond the possibility of refutation.

Since the above went to press I have looked into titular Bishop Doyle’s “Analysis of Divine Faith.” I find that he also used Barrington’s Compilation. His words are: p. 176: “The testimony of these witnesses”—the fathers—“I shall insert here, copied or translated from the original records, by the late Rev. Joseph Barrington, whose fidelity and accuracy in this respect, has never, to my knowledge, been impeached or even suspected.” I will only say here, that a more gross and unprincipled misrepresentation and perversion of the testimony of the Ancients was never published. See Pope’s Roman Misquotation. London. Holdsworth. 1840.

Mr. Faber in his last edition of “the Difficulties of Romanism” has left little for any one else to say in proof that the Fathers are opposed to the peculiarities of the Latin Church. ’Tis true that Mr. Husenbeth has published a ponderous reply—approaching to a thousand pages. Mr. Faber’s little pamphlet demolishes the huge affair. Its title is: as well as I remember—“An Account of Mr. Husenbeth’s refutation of the argument of the Difficulties of Romanism, upon the entirely new principle of a refusal to meet it.”

The testimony of the Syrian Fathers alleged by Dr. Wiseman in favor of the doctrine of transubstantiation in particular, is shown to be thoroughly adverse to it by the great and good Doctor Lee. See his Visitation Sermon. I am really surprised that Dr. Wiseman could ever have appeared in public after the publication of Dr. Lee’s Sermon: yet, perhaps, one might have been prepared for such want of common propriety, by his previous conduct, after Dr. Turton’s triumphant exposure of him and of his arguments.[13a] Your French Testament of Bourdeaux, 1686—most disgracefully has here—“he shall be saved, yet so as by the fire of Purgatory”—ainsi toutefois comme par le feu du Purgatoire.[13b] Discussion with Mr. Pope. Report, p. 150. Comp. p. 158.[14] The Canons of your Council of Trent on these are as follow—

“If any one shall say that Confirmation is not a true and proper Sacrament—let him be damned.” Can. 1. De Confirm.

“If any one shall say that Penance is not truly and properly a Sacrament—let him be damned.” Can. 1. De pÆn. Sac.

“If any one shall say that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament—let him be damned.” Can. 1. De Sac. Ex. Unc.

And so of the others. I will here just say that this Canon adds “instituted by Christ”—institutum.—We shall presently see that this is an advance from the “insinuatum” of the Council.[15a] Where did your Testament get “ease him?”[15b] You are aware, perhaps, of the gross mistranslation of your Testament, in Eph. v. 32. to support this notion.—?st????? is mystery, not sacrament. But your French new Testament is bolder still, and actually foists in the words—le Sacrement de Mariage in 1 Cor. vii. 10.—and again in 2 Cor. vi. 14. and in 1 Tim. iv. 3. This is a very rare book,—a small thick octavo of 774 p. p.: I have examined it, but believe that there are now very few copies to be found. I saw one purchased by the present Lord Bishop of Cashel, at a public auction, for the enormous sum—if my memory does not fail me—of £40. Bishop Kidder, I think first called public attention to it—next Mr. Grier—and Archdeacon Cotton, in 1827, republished Bishop Kidder’s tract, with notes. I add here, that the book was published—“avec approbation et permission,” abundantly.[16] I need scarcely say, however, to any one but moderately acquainted with the controversy, that the mere titles of the points of difference would occupy ten times the space of Bishop Doyle’s whole letter to Mr. Robertson. Willett’s Synopsis Papismi will afford a fair specimen to those desirous of one.