THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It is, however, our misfortune here to have Mr. Collier once more our adversary in the article of the Pope's supremacy; which he pretends to have been disowned by the Britons. But we must here distinguish between Mr. Collier as an historian, and as a disputant. As he is a disputant, we will endeavour to give satisfactory answers to his arguments.. But as he is an historian, we think he has not acted with the sincerity he ought in relating the articles insisted on by St. Augustin, otherwise than they are set down in Bede. For he tells his reader, p. 76, that the articles insisted on were, that they (the British bishops) should keep Easter, and administer baptism according to the usages of the Roman Church, and own the Pope's authority. Now there is not a word of this last article in Bede. For the third, according to this author, was, that the British bishops should join with St. Augustin in preaching to the Saxons; and the Pope is not so much as mentioned in any of the three Articles. Neither do we find that Geoffrey of Monmouth, an ancient historian, in his relation of the conferences between St. Augustin and the British bishops, makes any mention of their disowning the Pope's supremacy. He speaks indeed of Dinooth, the Abbot of Bangor, as a prolocutor of the assembly on the British side; and tells us, that the answer he gave to St. Austin's proposals was, That the Britons owed no subjection to him, as having an archbishop of their own; nor would they give themselves the trouble to preach to their enemies. That the Saxons had taken their country from them, for which they hated them extremely, and cared not what religion they were of nor would they communicate with them any more than with dogs. L. II. c, 7. This was the substance of Dinooth's answer, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth; in which there is not the least insinuation, that St. Augustin had insisted on their owning the Pope's supremacy: but the most that can be gathered from it, is, that in the conference he had made some mention of his being their archbishop and superior. And even that is not a necessary consequence; because the hot Dinooth, speaking from the abundance of his galled heart might sally forth into that warm expression of owing no subjection to St. Augustin, on purpose to affront him, though he had not claimed any jurisdiction over them in quality of their archbishop, in express terms; because we may easily suppose they had been informed of it before their second meeting. But, it may be asked, what object could Mr. Collier have had in view in asserting that article concerning the Pope, since there is no mention of it in Bede, who is the most ancient recorder of that celebrated conference? We reply, that it cannot be questioned, but he intended it as an innuendo, that the British bishops did not own any subjection to the see of Rome. It is true he has produced a Welsh manuscript to make this suspected article pass for current. But it appears somewhat singular, that after having followed Bede's history step by step in everything relating to St. Augustin, he should on a sudden give his venerable guide the slip in so critical a passage, to take up with a manuscript, which has neither date nor name set to it to recommend it, as he observes himself, and is of a doubtful authority, as appears from the arguments he has alleged for and against it. For the testimony of Bede is surely of greater weight than any anonymous manuscript which may be a spurious piece for ought we know. But it may be objected that St. Austin had no sooner proposed to the British bishops the three conditions he required of them, but they answered him peremptorily that they would do none of those things, nor receive him as their archbishop. And the same is confirmed by Geoffrey of Monmouth, as was stated above, a moment ago. Now this seems to imply their disowning the authority of the Pope, who had constituted St. Augustin their archbishop, and had given him jurisdiction over them. This, to be sure, is the ground of Mr. Collier's argument, when he turns disputant upon the point. And lest it should lose any grains of its weight, we shall deliver it to you in his own words. "But further," says he, "the certainty of the British Church's rejecting the Pope's authority, and Augustin the monk's jurisdiction, does not depend on the credit of this Welsh manuscript. For this point is sufficiently cleared from Bede's own words; where the British clergy declare against Augustin for their archbishop. Whereas had they owned the Pope's authority, they ought to have submitted to Augustin, who acted by the Pope's commission, and had his orders to be their superior. Now, it was not possible for them at such a distance from Rome to express their disowning the papal authority more effectually than by rejecting him whom his holiness had sent to be archbishop So writes Mr. Collier. But his arguover them." p. 76. ment will not hold good. For though it be true indeed that the Britons refused to receive St. Augustin for their archbishop, it does not follow from it, that therefore they disowned the Pope's supremacy, which we presume is the point Mr. Collier drives-at-for otherwise he says nothing to the purpose. Oh! our opponents say, with Mr. Collier, that had the British bishops owned the authority of the Pope, they ought to have submitted to Augustin, who acted by the Pope's commission, and who had his orders to be their superior. And many Protestants, no donbt suppose, that he had reason and truth on his side. But hear our reply:-If they had owned that the su premacy of the Pope extended to the placing one as an ordinary superior over their own archbishop, they ought in consequence to have submitted to St. Augustin. But there was no incoherence in their acknowledging Pope St. Gregory-supreme head of the universal church, and their refusing to pay obedience to a person sent by him in quality of an ordinary superior over themselves and their archbishop. Because they might think that the Pope had carried his pretensions too high, in degrading as it were their own archbishop, and subjecting both him and them to a foreign jurisdiction, And we really believe, that, though there is not a Catholic nation upon the earth that does not acknowledge the divine right of the Pope's supremacy, yet if he should take upon him to send over a foreign archbishop with a commission to exercise an ordinary jurisdiction over the Bishop of Waterford or the Archbishops of Toledo, Paris, or Armagh, for example, he would be as vigorously opposed now as St. Augustin was by the British bishops and clergy, and in all likelihood be sent back with the same answer as that prelate was, viz.: That they would not receive him as their archbishop. But would any man interpret this as a disowning of the Pope's supremacy? No, surely; for all that could be legally inferred from it would be, that it was their judgment, that the Pope had exceeded the just limits of his authority: there being a large difference between disowning a person's just authority, and his declaring against the real or supposed excesses committed by him in the exercise of it. And therefore Mr. Collier argues but weakly, in adding, that it was impossible for the British clergy to express their disowning the papal authority more effectually than by rejecting him whom his holiness had sent to be archbishop over them. For they might have expressed it much more effectually by telling St. Augustin that the Pope who had sent him had no authority at all to exercise any jurisdic. tion over their church, much less to intrude a foreign archbishop upon them. This would have been an obvious and natural answer, had they disowned the Pope's supre macy. But they did not so much as mention him (the Pope) in their answer; and their refusing to receive St. Augustin for their archbishop implied no more than that they were convinced, in their judgment, that the Pope had exceeded the just bounds of his authority, in placing him (St. Augustin) over them, and that they were resolved to contradictory to those of to maintain the liberties and privileges which their church | words of the apostle would be contradictory to had possessed by a long prescription. We only add, that there are innumerable instances in ecclesiastical history of particular churches maintaining their privilege against the see of Rome; and that, without derogating any more from the divine right of the Pope's supremacy, than a subject is supposed to derogate from the just prerogative of the crown, when he goes to law with his sovereign; or a son to disown the authority his father has by nature over him, when he refuses to obey a command, that appears unreasonable to him. CORRESPONDENCE, (CONCLUDED FROM OUR LAST.) But the time when he was to fulfil his promise has arrived. At his last supper it, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying; take and eat, this is my body, and taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many to the remission of sins." St, Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, "Jesus took bread and blessed 28 vers. Christ, to imagine which, would be the summit of rash- Here the word this positively expresses the substance of his body, and that the bread was no longer bread, but his real body, for if the substance of the bread remained, surely our Lord would not have expressed himself—" This is my body." The same argument refers to the blood. Again he tells his apostles that the chalice of which he gave them to drink, was the same blood that should be shed upon the cross for the sins of the human race. Who then art thou O man! who refuseth to believe after proofs so sublime and uncontrovertible? Surely the words which is one God in three persons, at the same time we cannot fell from the lips of our blessed Saviour himself are suffi-justify it by the aid of reason, neither can we reconcile the cient to convince any mortal not labouring under an obliquity of intellect, that the substance of the bread and wine no longer exist in the sacrament after the consecration. He spoke in language the most clear and explicit. Nothing appears so palpable in the Holy Scripture as the doctrine of the real presence,—a fact clearly admitted by Dr. Forbes, an eminent Protestant divine. God in his unsearchable goodness and mercy veils himself under the plain and simple form of bread, as he in his inconceivable humility once clothed himself in the form of a shivering babe, in the bleak and crumbling stable at Bethlehem. justice of God with the attribute of mercy, or the proces. sion of the son from the Father only, and of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. These, as well as the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ elude our conception, and baffle all our attempts at their solution. Nay the angels, those beautiful and impassible beings, cannot conceive, nor the seraphs tongue describe these mysteries, so incomprehensible are they to human or angelic understanding. They are mysteries the most sublime and inconceivable, yet they are believed explicitly by Bible-reading Protestants-why then so blindly and obstinately refuse to captivate their understanding to the obedience of FAITH in the real presence and transubstantiation? But there is a very unmeaning objection frequently In it we find a chain of evidence that must carry convie- May 1st, 1950. Yours respectfully, W. S. D. ADMIRABLE DISPOSITIONS AND HAPPY SEN TIMENTS OF A DYING PEASANT. When St. Francis of Sales was making a visitation of his diocese, he was informed that a good peasant who was sick wished to receive his benediction before he died. The Saint immediately went to his cottage, and found the man very ill, but perfectly sensible. After having testified his joy at seeing the Bishop, the good peasant expressed a wish to make his confession, upon which every one retired. When he had made his confession, being alone with the holy Prelate, he said to him, "My lord, do you think I shall die?" The Saint, supposing the question was dictated by fear, assured him that he had seen many persons recover who had been much worse, and advised him to place all his confidence in God, who is the sovereign mas ter of life. "But, my lord," replied the peasant, "do you think I shall die ?" "My child," said the prelate, "a physician can tell you that better than I; all I can say is, that your soul is in a good state, and perhaps at another time you would not be in such good dispositions. Commit yourself entirely to the providence and mercy of God, that he may dispose of you as he pleases." "Oh! my lord," said the peasant, "It is not the fear of dying, but the dread I have of a longer life, that makes me desirous of knowing whether I shall recover from this illness." The saint was surprised at this language; and knowing that either great virtue or extreme sorrow generally produces the desire of death, asked the sick man why he had so great an aversion to life. "My lord," answered the good man, "this world is so contemptible that I know not how so many people can love it. If God had not commanded us to remain in it as long as it was pleasing to his divine will, I should long since have been no more.' The saint thinking he had met some great trials which made him so eagerly wish for death, asked if it were sufferings or poverty that made him weary of life. "No," replied he, I am seventy years of age, and have always enjoyed good health, and through God's assistance, have never known poverty." (To be concluded in our next.) TO PARSON STOWELL. Sir, We now redeem the pledge which we gave at the close of our last letter, and we call the public attention to the following words of the great St. Austin. " The word of God," he says, " most commonly reprehends the wicked people of the church in such a manner, as if all were so, and as if there remained not so much as one man of piety. Now if these (the Donatists) either of ignorance or malice, (we wish the admirers of Mr. Lesley may not here be concerned with their old friends,) "gather such texts from Scripture as are found to be spoken against the wicked, who will continue mixed with the good to the world's end; or else, of the desolation of the former people, the Jews: and these they endeavour by a forced construction to urge against God's church, that she may seem in a manner to have failed, and perished throughout the world. But if they will answer these writings, I desire them to lay aside such texts." Lib, de Unit. Eccl. c. 13. that supposition, there would be nothing but tares, and no wheat at all? However, if Mr. Lesley will understand some of those texts to be also predictions of the future failing of the Jewish Church, we shall agree to it. But what advantage will this be to his cause? For we have St. Austin again, in the same book and chapter, pronouncing against the Donatists, that from the failure of the old Church, which had not the evangelical promise made to her, no consequence can be drawn to prove the failure of the present (or Christian) church. "For now there is a mediator of a better covenant, which is established upon better promises." Heb. viii. 6. We now come to this text out of St. Luke: "When the son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth " Luke xviii. 8. This doubtful interrogation is by Mr. Les'ey changed into a positive affirmation; and he makes Christ declare peremptorily, that at his second coming, "he will not find faith upon earth," p p. 45, 91. Whence he concludes that the whole Christian church will then fail, as the Jewish church failed at his first coming. But let us see whether St. Austin understood this text as Mr. Lesley does in his "Case Stated." For we own that we are always proud of being instructed by so eminent a doctor, and we think ourselves quite safe, when we follow so good a guide. His words are these: "They (the Donatists) pretend that these words of our Lord, When the son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?' were spoken of the whole world's apostacy. But we understand them of that perfection of faith, which is so hard to be attained by man, that in the very saints, whilst they continue in this state of mortality, as in Moses himself, there is something that makes them tremble, or gives them cause to do so. Or else we understand them of that abundance of wicked, and scarcity of good men, concerning which enough has been said already. And therefore our Lord expresses himself under a doubt; for he says not, when the son of man cometh, he will not find faith upon earth;' but, do you think he will find faith upon earth? Now surely this knowledge and foreknowledge of all things is inconsistent with any kind of doubt. But it was our doubt he designed to express by his own, because the many scandals which will arise towards the end of the world will occasion human weakness to speak in that manner." Lib. de Unit. Eccl. c. 15. We will not pretend to add anything of our own to so full and solid an answer to the forementioned text, upon which Mr. Lesley was pleased to lay a great stress as his ancient friends the Donatists did, pretending it to be a clear prediction of as general a failure of the Christian church at the second coming of Christ, as that of the Jewish church was at his first. We shall only propose a few questions relating to this matter. First, then, we ask the friends of Mr. Lesley, whether the wheat and tares will not grow together till the harvest, and whether the persons marked out by the wheat, will fall from their faith? Secondly, Whether before the second coming of Christ the true church will not be persecuted by ANTI-CHRIST, and whether the true church can be persecuted without having a visible being? Thirdly, Whether the elect will not be preserved from being seduced by Antichrist? And if they be not seduced, whether they will not then continue to be members of the true church? These questions are somewhat troublesome, because Mr. Lesley and his admirers are too reasonable to refuse to own, We hope the friends and admirers of Mr. Lesley will First, That the wheat and tares are to grow together till have so much respect for St. Austin's judgment, as to lay the harvest, and that the persons marked out by the wheat them aside for the future, For what service can they do will not fall from the true faith. Secondly, That the true them, since it is apparent that they only contain a vehement church will be persecuted by Antichrist, and that a persereprehension of the general wickedness and corruption that cuted church must have a visible being. And, Thirdly, had spread themselves over the Jewish nation? As we That the elect will be preserved from being seduced and, by may now justly complain of the looseness reigning among consequence, persevere to the end to be members of the the generality of Christians. Which however, as St.Austin true church. All this, we say, Mr. Lesley's friends must remarks, never was, nor ever will be so universal, but the admit. And therefore we shall, by way of conclusion, ask good and wicked will be mixed together to the end of the one question more, viz.: How all this is consistent with a world. For if wickedness should ever become the universal total defection of the true church? or with his saying, practice of mankind, how would it be true," that wheat" that at the second coming of Christ there will be no faith and tares shonld grow together till the harvest" since in upon earth?" We leave him or them to answer this as well as they can, and we now come to his last text, Rom. xi. 22, 23., where the apostle writes thus to the converted Gentiles at Rome: "Thou shalt also be cut off if thou continuest not in the goodness of God." And in reference to the Jews, he adds: "if they abide not still in unbelief, they shall be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again." Upon which Mr. Lesley makes this weighty and sage remark, p. 30: “ And of all the Gentile churches this is said more particularly to the Church of Rome. For this is in the epistle written to her. And to her it was said, "thou shalt be cut off." This the poor man imagined to be a cutting stroke against us. We hope we may easily be pardoned this little quibble; which is the only one of which we shall be guilty. But his poor equivocation relating to the Church of Rome, set -forth as it is with an air of importance, is not, we think, altogether so unpardonable an affair, in a dispute of such serious interest. However, to give it a serious answer, we have already shewed the difference between the particular church or diocese of Rome, and what is properly meant by the Roman Catholic Church. Now no man ever doubted but that one particular church may fall from the true faith as well as another. For the promises of infallibility were not made to any particular church or diocese, but to the church in general, which Christ came to establish, and of which each particular. diocese or even nation is but a part. So that the quoted words of St. Paul to the Romans would have had the same meaning, and would have been equally as true, had they been written to the converted Gentiles living at Jerusalem or in any other city. But the whole epistle out of which they are taken, was particularly addressed to the converted Jews and Gentiles at Rome, because there were disputes amongst them; each party arrogating to itself an advantage over the other. And the apostle interposing as a mediator between them, took care to manage the whole matter with such an equal hand that neither-party should have any reason to reproach or despise the other. And therefore, amongst other things, he told the converted Gentiles who despised the Jews as an abandoned people, "that they should also be cut off, if they continued not in the goodness of God." Which was certainly said with no other view than to humble them, by putting them in mind that as God had cast off the Jews for their wickedness, so he would also abandon them, if their lives did not answer the holiness of the faith they professed; and that if the Jews returned to God by a sincere faith and repentance, they should be grafted in again." And what can this make against the infallibility of the church established by Christ, since it only shows, that the true faith may be removed from one people to another? Does the Church of Christ cease to have a being, because it is no longer in Africa or Egypt, or is but little known in those places, in which it once flourished most? Or, if one nation (like. England) be abandoned, and another (like South America) be converted to the faith of Christ, will not those, upon whom the Almighty God bestows this favour, become as true members of the Church, as the others were before they were rejected? Or, is it anything to the purpose, whether those who are cut off live at Rome or at Constantinople? But Mr. Lesley thought it a very material point to adver tise his reader, that St. Paul's epistle to the Romans was written to the Christians who lived at Rome. Wonderful discovery! So that if those converted Christians and Jews, amongst whom there were disputes, had unluckily lived at Jerusalem, or in any other town than Rome, and if St. Paul's epistle had been addressed to them, Mr. Lesley's learned remark would have been, utterly disappointed; and he would not have had even an equivocation with which to furnish out an argument. Thus we see how Mr. Lesley has laboured to pick up texts with which we suppose to make a flourish, and to give some colour to his cause. For truly any other six verses in the Bible might have been equally to his purpose. In the meantime we remain, yours, &c. &c. THE EDITOR. Manchester, May 11th, 1850. POETRY. SACRED POETRY OF ST. ALPONSUS LIGUORI. THE SOUL THAT SIGHS FOR HEAVEN. My strong desire, O God! to view thee, Here on earth 'tis anguish to me Another hour to stay. To live so long from thee apart What but pain can earth bestow All is misery-all is show And lasts but short at best. Judge, then, ye souls that love your Lord, With what deep rents my bosom's gored, While death release denies, But buoyant still with hope and love I cry, the while I gaze above, O Paradise! O Paradise! Thou can'st ravish soul and sense- To those that for them sigh. Ye guilty pleasures-pageants hollow- I hate you and despise; Clime of bliss, where love's the meed Where our sweet Saviour's face. we read, Oh! when shall I behold the day Notices to Readers and Correspondents. A Report (to be continued) of the Discussion at Ashton-under-Lyne; of the Catholic Tea-party at Edgeley, Stockport; and of Mr. Clearys two lectures against Dr. Achilli, delivered at St. Patrick's Hall, Manchester, shall appear in our next. If parties in the country will give timely notice of Dr. Achilli's appearing among them for public purposes, Mr. C. pledges himself to go and oppose him. He challenges Parson Stowell and the rest of the bigots to justify their conduct in bringing Dr. Achilli before the publicand he denounces the whole affair as a conspiracy against truth, as a barefaced lie, and an impudent imposture. AGENTS, Manchester-Mr. A. Heywood, Oldham street. ...Stalybridge-Mr. Ridle; Mr. Harrop. Printed and Published by EDWARD STAVELET, 117, Bedford-street, Hulme, in the borough of Manchester, Saturday, May 11th, 1850. TRUTH. ST. IRENEUS, BISHOP OF LYONS, M. (Continued from our last.) St. Gregory of Tours informs us that St. Polycarp himself sent St. Irenæus into Gaul, perhaps in company with some priest. He was himself ordained priest of the church of Lyons by St. Pothinus; and in 177, he was sent deputy in the name of that church to Pope Eleutherius to entreat him not to cut off from the communion of the Church the Orientals, on account of their difference about the celebration of Easter, as Eusebius and St. Jerom take notice. The multitude and zeal of the faithful at Lyons stirred up the rage of the heathens, and gave occasion to a tumultuary and most bloody persecution. St. Irenæus gave great proofs of his zeal in those times of trial; but survived the storm, during the first part of which he had been absent in his journey to Rome. St. Pöthinus having glorified God by his happy death in the year 177, our saint upon his return was chosen the second bishop of Lyons, in the heat of the persecution. By his preaching, he in a short time converted almost that whole country to the faith, as St. Gregory of Tours testifies. Eusebius tells us that he governed the churches of Gaul; but the faith was not gene. rally planted in the more remote provinces from Marseilles and Lyons before the arrival of St. Dionysius and his companions in the following century. There lived at Rome, about the beginning of the fourth century, a certain lady called Aglaë, young, beautiful, and well born, and so rich and fond of making a figure in the world, that she had entertained the city three several times with public shows at her own charge. Her chief steward was one Boniface, with whom she entertained a criminal commerce. This man, though addicted to wine and all kinds of debauchery, was however remarkable for three good qualities, hospitality, liberality, and compassion. Whensoever he saw a stranger or traveller, he would assist him very cordially; and he used to go about the streets and into the public places in the night time, and he relieved the poor according to their necessities. After several years' commerce in the vicious way already mentioned, Aglaë, touched with a motion of divine grace, and feeling some compunction within herself, called Boniface to her, and thus opened her mind to him: "You are sensible how deeply we are plunged in vice, without reflecting that we must appear before God to give an account of all our actions. I have heard say that they who honour those that suffer for the sake of Jesus Christ, shall have a share in their glory. In the East the servants of Jesus Christ every day suffer torments, and lay down their lives for his sake. Go thither then, and bring me the relics of some of those conquerors, that we may honour their memories, and be saved by their assistance." Boniface came into the proposal; and having raised a considerable sum of money to purchase the bodies of the martyrs from their executioners, and to distribute among the poor, said to Aglaë on his departure, "I won't fail to bring back with me the relics Commodas succeeding his father Marcus Aurelius in the of martyrs, if I find any; but what if my own body should empire in 180, though an effeminate debauched prince, be brought to you for that of a martyr?" She reproved | restored peace to the Church. But it was disturbed by an him for jesting in a matter so serious. The steward set execrable spawn of heresies, particularly of the Gnostics out, but was now entirely, a new man, Penetrated with and Valentinians. St. Irenæus wrote chiefly agaist these sentiments of compunction, in all that long journey from last, his five books against heresies. The original Greek Rome into the East, he neither eat meat nor drank wine; text of this work was most elegant, as St. Jerom testifies. and his fasts he accompanied with prayers, tears, and peni- But, except some few Greek passages which have been pretential works. The Church, at that time, enjoyed peace served, only a Latin translation is extant, in which the style in the West, but in the East the persecution, which had is embarrassed, diffusive, and unpolished. It seems to have |