A Letter to Lord Fielding suggested by the late proceedings at the New Church at Pantasa, by George Luther Stone

Transcribed from the [1852] Whittaker and Co. edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org

A
LETTER
TO
LORD FIELDING.

LONDON:
WHITTAKER AND CO.; CHESTER, PRICHARD; MOLD, PRING AND PRICE;
HOLYWELL, MORRIS; WREXHAM, PAINTER.

p. 3LETTER, &c.

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. 4God, 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.

Your great Cardinal Bellarmine considers this essential to Christianity. Yet I will venture to assert that no professing Church would entertain the awful notion of a propitiatory sacrifice to the Almighty now—since the atonement made by the holy one and the just once for all on Calvary,—unless with the determination to outbrave the direct testimony of inspiration that “there is no more offering for sin.” p. 5Heb. x. 18. [5a]—With this intention it may be, my Lord, that the Latin Church now receives the Epistle to the Hebrews,—just as, receiving the Gospels in which our Lord commands “Drink ye all of this” wine in the Lord’s Supper, she “notwithstanding”—it is her own word—(“non obstante” in the Council of Constance) prohibits the people from receiving it, and thus, in palpable opposition to Christ’s command, robs them of that “Cup which we bless,” and which “is the communion of the blood of Christ.” [5b] But this doctrine of the mass must stand or fall, according to your own confession, with the Romish figment of transubstantiation. Now, my Lord, what is the proof of this doctrine? We are referred by Romish writers to Matt. xxvi. 26. seq. and John vi. 63. seq. But hear what some of the ablest writers, on your side of the question, acknowledge with respect to these alleged proofs. Your celebrated Dr. Lingard, ’tis true, tells us that the latter place, viz., “John vi. contains the clearest proof of the Roman Catholic doctrine.” But what say Doctors equally celebrated in their day, and no less anxious advocates for the peculiarities of Romanism? Biel, a well-known Romish authority, in Can. mis, and Cusan and Cajetan, both Cardinals, and Thomas Aquinas, your “Angelic Doctor,”—declare, that this “clearest proof,” does not refer to the subject at all! I will add, my Lord, because Romanists—however loud in their call “tell it unto the Church”—the Church with them always meaning their particular Priest—seem again unwilling to be guided by the opinion of individual Ecclesiastics. I will add, I say, that your own “infallible” Council of Trent, while luxuriating in a “twofold interpretation” of this passage, and scorning to be “reduced to the poverty of one,” does not dare to pronounce that it refers to the Lord’s Supper. [5c] But—supposing that it has that reference,—which I believe it has prospectively,—surely our Saviour’s own commentary upon the discourse is worth a thousand glosses of all the Schoolmen—“It is the Spirit that quickeneth,” He says, “the flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are life.” John vi. 63. [5d]—But we are also referred to p. 6the words of institution in Matt. xxvi. 26.—seq. Now if I do not very much mistake, your friend, Cardinal Wiseman, decides that this place is destructive of the tenet for which he adduces it. He says in his “Lectures on the Eucharist” that in a sentence where “two material objects are represented as identical, we must plainly understand the passage figuratively.” But the Catechismus ad Parochos—otherwise called the Catechism of the Council of Trent, says, “When instituting this Sacrament our Lord himself said ‘this is my body;’ the word ‘this’ expresses the entire substance of the thing present; and, therefore, if the substance of the bread remained, our Lord could not have said, ‘this is my body.’” Undoubtedly it was what Christ held in his hand that he designated by the word “this.” But, independent of the consideration that it was impossible for our blessed Saviour to hold His Own Body in His Own Hand, I ask what was that? The Romish opinion is—that the bread was not changed until our Saviour had pronounced the last of these words—“this is my body.” If this be true, then, it was bread when the word “this” was used, and consequently the bread must have been referred to by that word. Apply then to this reasoning the indubitable Canon of Dr. Wiseman—Lec. p. 180.—That “it is obviously necessary to fly from the literal meaning of texts which represent two material objects as identical.” I will detain your Lordship for a moment or two longer on these words of institution. Do you rest your faith in transubstantiation on these words? I ask, then, my Lord, by what process you conclude that the words “This is my body,” mean “Let this be my body.” The latter clearly denote conversion,—the former, according to all phraseology, can denote nothing of the sort. Or again—with all reverence let me ask it—whether does your Lordship profess to eat the mortal or the immortal body of your Saviour in participation of the Eucharist? If the former, I suppose St. Paul is explicit in refutation, for he tells us that “Christ dieth no more.” Rom. vi. 9. If the latter, I presume the words of institution will not much help you, for when they were spoken Christ had no immortal body to bestow. On this “point” I will add no more but that your Prince of Controversialists, the author of what Dr. Wiseman calls “Magnificent Controversies,” plainly confesses that “most learned and acute Romanists believe that there is no place of Scripture so express as without the authority of the Church evidently to compel a reception of transubstantiation.” De Sac: Euc: 1. iii. c. 23. The value of the “authority” of the Latin Church will not be very highly estimated by any unprejudiced person moderately acquainted with her principles and practices.

I pass on to the third “point,” viz.—Tradition. Read the following description of your traditions by your own celebrated Dr. Milner, of the “end of controversy” notoriety. In the twelfth letter of his conclusive work he says—“There are among Catholics divine traditions * * * and there are among many Catholics historical and even fabulous traditions.” On this point I need add no more except to assure you that no sensible Anglican will ever question that written tradition is a valuable auxiliary in the interpretation of Scripture; while p. 7any one acquainted with the wretched fables of oral traditionary transmission in the Church of Rome will heartily unite in the language of Archdeacon Jortin, that “it is a muddy stream of everlasting nonsense.” [7]

I come now to the Authority of Councils:—and here, what Councils are meant? If I mistake not the Pope, as you call him, is bound by the decrees of only eight. And surely what are sufficient for “His Holiness” might well be deemed quite enough for his “Subjects.” Yet De la Hogue tells us that there are eighteen. There may have been this number, or twice as many, if the Doctor pleases; but can he, or Dr. Wiseman, or any other Doctor induce you or any reasonable man to believe that Councils which contradict each other have all emanated from the spirit of unity and truth? Do I misrepresent them? Let us see,—and to be as brief as I can, let one instance suffice. The Council of Ephesus decreed—“That it should not be lawful to utter, write, or compose any other faith than that which had been defined by the Nicene Fathers; and that if any dared to offer any other Creed, if Ecclesiastics, they should be removed from their office; if laics, that they should be anathematised.” Labb. et Coss. Concil. t. 3. p. 688. Compare with this, my Lord, the Creed of Pope Pius, according to the Council of Trent, and then I ask you to answer to your own conscience whether the assembly at Trent, which you call a General Council, was not in direct and irreconcilable opposition to one of the four universally received General Councils of the Church? Let this suffice on the subject of Councils,—and now we approach the so called “Pope”—not, you may rely upon it, to kiss his toe, or to join in “his adoration;” for who is the Pope, my Lord? You say he is the Vicar of Christ, and the successor of St. Peter. But let St. Bernard correct this rashness—“They have not the inheritance of St. Peter,” he says, “who have not the faith of Peter.” I should like to know which of St. Peter’s writings or which of his traditions contains the twelve New Articles of the Creed of your Pope’s Church. And as to his being the Vicar of our holy Redeemer let me recommend to you the following passage from the book of Homilies of that Church which you have so unaccountably forsaken—“As the Lion is known by his claws, so let us learn to know these men by their deeds. What shall we say of him that made the noble King Dandalus to be tied by the neck with a chain, and to lie down before his table, there to gnaw bones like a dog? Sabel. Ennead. 9. lib. 7. Shall we think that he had God’s holy Spirit within him, and not rather the Spirit of the devil? Such a tyrant was Pope Clement the Sixth. What shall we say of him that proudly and contemptuously trod Frederic the Emperor under his feet, applying that verse of the Psalm unto himself, thou shall go upon the lion and the adder, the young lion and the dragon thou shalt tread under thy foot. Ps. 91. Shall we p. 8say that he had God’s holy Spirit within him, and not rather the Spirit of the devil? Such a tyrant was Pope Alexander the Third. What shall we say of him that armed and animated the son against the father, causing him to be taken and cruelly famished to death, contrary to the law both of God and also of nature. Shall we say that he had God’s holy Spirit within him, and not rather the Spirit of the devil? Such a tyrant was Pope Pascal the Second. What shall we say of him that came into his popedom like a fox, that reigned like a lion, and died like a dog? Shall we say that he had God’s holy Spirit within him, and not rather the Spirit of the devil? Such a tyrant as Pope Boniface the Eighth. What shall we say of him that made Henry the Emperor, with his wife and young child to stand at the gates of the city in the rough winter barefooted and bareleged, only clothed in linsey woolsey, eating nothing from morning to night, and that for the space of three days? Shall we say that he had God’s holy Spirit within him, and not rather the Spirit of the devil? Such a tyrant was Pope Hildebrand, most worthy to be called a firebrand, if we shall term him as he hath best deserved. Many other examples might here be alleged, as of Pope Joan the harlot, that was delivered of a child in the high street going solemnly in procession; of Pope Julius the Second, that wilfully cast St. Peter’s keys into the river Tibiris; of Pope Urban the Fifth, that caused five Cardinals to be put in sacks and cruelly drowned; of Pope Sergius the Third, that persecuted the dead body of Formosus his predecessor, when it had been buried eight years; of Pope John the Fourteenth of that name, who, having his enemy delivered into his hands, caused him first to be stripped stark naked, his beard to be shaven, and to be hanged a whole day by the hair, then to be set upon an ass with his face backwards towards the tail, to be carried round the city in despite, to be miserably beaten with rods, last of all to be thrust out of his country, and to be banished for ever.” [8a] Were these, let me ask you, my Lord, successors of St. Peter, and Vicars of our Lord Jesus Christ? Oh the blasphemy of such a thought! Oh the strong delusion which must produce such a notion! I ask, again, were these the infallible heads of the Church of Rome? But you perhaps do not believe in the Infallibility of the Pope: you only assert his Supremacy. Each being equally unfounded, I only now remind you of the words of your famous Bishop Doyle—“Whether we believe the Pope to be infallible or not to be infallible, we are equally good and orthodox Catholics.” [8b]

The next “point” upon our list is the Celibacy of the Clergy. It is very true that St. Paul said that he would that all men were even as he—that is single. But this was during a time of persecution when families would have been irksome and injurious to Christian Missionaries. But the same Apostle when giving permanent instructions concerning the Clerical body directs—“a Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife.” 1 Tim. iii. 2. “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.” v. 4. p. 9And again v. 12—“let the Deacons be the husband of one wife.” Indeed, my Lord, did your fallen Church labour to be identified in Apostacy with the heretics of the first centuries, how could she have better succeeded than in “forbidding to marry?” 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2, 3. And now, hear, from your own authors, the fearful consequences of a celibate Clergy.

Claud D’Expence a very celebrated Parisian divine, writes thus—“Shameful to relate they give permission to Priests to have concubines, and to live with their harlots, who have children by them, upon paying an annual tribute, and in some places they oblige Priests to pay this tax saying they may keep a concubine if they please.” Espen: Com: ad Cap. 1. ad Tit. Dig: 2.

Hear again, how your Cardinal Baronius writes—“What then was the face of the Roman Church? How very filthy when the most powerful and sordid harlots then ruled at Rome, at whose pleasure Sees were changed, and Bishopricks were given, and what is horrible to hear and most abominable—their gallants were obtruded into the See of Peter, and made false Popes; for who can say they could have been lawful Popes who were intruded by such harlots without law? There was no mention of the election or consent of Clergy, the Canons were silent; the decrees of Popes suppressed; the ancient traditions proscribed,—lust, armed with the secular power, challenged all things to itself.” Bar: Ann: A.D. 912.

This is the system of a celibate Clergy for which you, my Lord, have forsaken that Church which honors “holy Matrimony”—knowing that the Apostle declares that “Marriage is honorable in all.” Heb. xiii. 4. [9]

Our next “point” is—Prayer in the Latin language, of which I presume there was a fair specimen at your late proceedings at Pantasa. It would be a waste of words to write much upon this subject. I will therefore merely remind you of the statement of St. Paul in 1 Cor. xiv. 19. “In the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue,” which compels Cardinal Cajetan to acknowledge—inloco—that “it is more for edification that prayers should be offered in a language understood by Clergy and people, than in Latin.”

Our next point is—the Invocation of Saints. All Romish writers of the present day seem unanimous in asserting and practising this awful idolatry. There were some few before who seemed to shrink from it. Your Dr. Milner does not found the practice on holy Scripture but tradition. ’Tis true that he refers to Scripture—Letter xxxvi. but suddenly,—evidently from seeing the weakness of his references,—says,—“The Church, however, derived her doctrine on this subject from the Apostles, before the New Testament was written.” Alas, my Lord, how you “make void the word of God by your tradition!” What saith our Lord and Master? “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him p. 10only shalt thou serve.” Am I to be told that it is only forbidden to give latria, or supreme adoration, to any but the Almighty? Your words latreia and douleia are indifferently used in the Bible. Here you are forbidden to give the one to any being except God. In 1 Sam. vii. 3. you are forbidden to give the other to any creature. How then can you reconcile, with the orders of your God, the following most awful prayers?

“We fly to thy protection, O holy Mother of God; despise not our prayers in our necessities, but deliver us from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin.”—Bishop Riley’s Catechism, Dub. 1830. p. 10.

“Most pure Virgin, conceived without sin, [10a] Thou art the sure refuge of penitent sinners, with reason therefore, I have recourse to Thee.”—Novenas of the B. V. Mary. Dub. 1833. p. 4.

“Most prudent Virgin, who by redeeming thy Son Jesus Christ, according to the law, didst co-operate in the salvation of the world; rescue our poor souls from the slavery of sin, that we may be always pure before God. Hail Mary.”—Ib. p. 21.

St. Joseph, who for so many centuries had actually no commemoration in the Roman calendar, is now exalted to a height of glory, from which the rest of the blessed company are excluded—

Oh! my Lord, as you value His glory who is a jealous God, cease from such refuges of lies as Popery holds out to you.—As you value the Salvation of your soul continue not to serve the creature beside, yea more than, the Creator who is blessed for evermore. Pray to him whose attribute it is that He hears prayer, and whose gracious promise is that He will answer it. Dare to show yourself inconsistent, by flinging off the trammels by which you are bound. And may God direct you by his blessed Spirit to the frame of mind of him who cried—“Whom have I in heaven but Thee, and there is none upon earth that I desire in comparison of Thee.” Ceasing to look to Saints or Angels or deified men and women, may you be directed to the one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, and may your attitude be, while here below, not looking to Saint Mary, or any other creature, but “looking unto Jesus.” [10c]

p. 11Our next “point” will be, “respect for images.” Bishop Doyle worded this very cautiously. But do you pay no more than “respect” to your images? My Lord, if words have any meaning, Romanists worship images—they give them religious service. Let us see for a moment. The Second Council of Nice says—“The honor paid to the image passes to the prototype: and he who adores the image, adores in it the person of him whom it represents.” Labb: vol. vii. p. 556.—Here is an evident assertion of the “adoration of images.” While you cannot, my Lord, fail to observe the striking identity of language of this so called Christian Council with that of the heathen idolaters—“not that gold and silver”—say they,—“when fashioned into statues are gods, but that through these images the invisible Gods are honoured and worshipped.” [11a] And Cardinal Bellarmine, if I remember rightly—says, that “it is most certain that the Nicene Council decreed that images are to be adored with the highest worship.” Now, my Lord, this Council is one of your eighteen General Councils. Oh how, then, shall I characterise this idolatry? We pity the poor heathen who bow down to stocks and stones, but what is their guilt when compared with that of members of Christ’s baptized family committing the same crime? I may be threatened by those who know no better with the anathema of your “holy Æcumenical Council,”—for verily it does curse enough,—“cursed be the breakers of images,”—“cursed be they who refuse to salute the holy and venerable images.” But, my Lord, this antiscriptural and irrational anathema will only turn tenfold into the bosoms of its impious pronouncers, while I would with all earnestness call your Lordship’s attention to a curse which I pray God you may never experience, although you are in the fair way for earning it—viz.—Deut xxvii. 15. “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.”

The next “point” is—“Prayers for the Dead.” Your lately appointed Cardinal—Dr. Wiseman—connects this “point” with the doctrine of Purgatory thus—“the practice is essentially based on the belief in Purgatory.” Lec. ii. Now although it is quite evident that Dr. W.’s learning is to a great extent second hand, [11b] there can be no p. 12question of his learning by any one who has read his “profoundly learned work,” as I think Mr. Hartwell Horne calls his Horæ Syriacæ; yet it does appear strange that he should, as here, completely confuse things so very different. Dr. Wiseman must be aware, as every tyro in such matters is, that prayers were offered for the dead long before a Purgatory was dreamed of. One of the Doctor’s own references proves this, viz.—1 Maccabees xii. 43.—where we read that that prayer was made in reference to the resurrection,—not to release from purgatory. On the contrary, it is said, that if Judas had not hoped that the dead should rise again, it had been a “superfluous thing to pray for the dead.” Prayer for the dead in the early Christian Church had a reference to the same, or to an augmentation of their glory—for they prayed even for the saints and martyrs. Such prayers for the dead, then, could have had no reference to the doctrine of Purgatory, the fire of which, Bellarmine, if I remember, states to be the same as that of hell, differing only in duration. I therefore dismiss such a PRACTICE, and will say a little on the doctrine upon which, according to Dr. Wiseman, it is founded. That is—the doctrine of Purgatory.

On this “point” I will first observe, that your most able men have declared it utterly incapable of proof from the holy Scripture, and also that it is in opposition to the doctrine of the ancient Church. Let us hear a few on each statement. It is incapable of proof from holy Scripture. As to this general statement we have the following among others. “Purgatory was for a long time unknown, and either never, or very seldom mentioned among the ancient fathers.” Bishop Fisher—in refut: Luther.—And, a Romish Bishop whose “discussion amicale” you are no doubt well acquainted with, observes, that, “Jesus Christ has not revealed the knowledge of Purgatory, so that we can, therefore, only form conjectures on the subject, more or less probable.” Vol. ii. p. 242. As to the Scripture proofs alleged by Dr. Wiseman, and others, your own writers plainly assert their insufficiency. The places usually quoted p. 13are: Matt. v. 25, 26. and Matt. xii. 32., 1 Cor. iii. 15. [13a] and 1 Pet. iii. 18, 19. Now, my Lord, without at all entering into an examination of those places, which my limits will prevent, and which has been unanswerably done a thousand times, I simply remark—That St. Matt. v. 25, 26. has been given up as a proof by your great Maldonatus who says the prison spoken of is hell. St. Matt. xii. 32. has been abandoned by Card: Bellarmine who confesses that the sin there spoken of was never to be forgiven. He also confesses that the fire spoken of in 1 Cor. iii. 13. is not meant of Purgatory,—by what process he extracts it, then, from the 15 v. was perhaps best known to himself: and 1 Pet. iii. 18, 19.—has been given up by Father Maguire, a great champion among you. [13b] This being the case, may we not well conclude that there is no foundation in holy Scripture for the doctrine of Purgatory—the acknowledged foundation of prayers for the dead, according p. 14to Dr. Wiseman,—and which, therefore, fall with it. I am happy in adding the testimony of your celebrated Picherellus that St. John by the one text—Rev. xiv. 13.—“put out the fire of Purgatory.” In fact, my Lord, as Meagher observes—“The doctrine of Purgatory is of heathen origin, intended to cheat the simple out of their money, by giving them bills of exchange upon another world for cash paid in this, without any danger of the bills returning protested.”

And now, my Lord, I call on you, as a man of sense, as a man of honesty, as a man wishing the salvation of your neverdying soul, to reject a doctrine “which would rob the believer of his peace, which would throw around the glorious attributes of Heaven’s Sovereign the funereal pall of darkness, and obscurity, which would transform a God of love into a God of terror, mingle our paltry satisfactions with the agonies of Calvary, and attach to the seamless robe of Christ’s righteousness woven from Bethlehem to the Cross, the tattered vestments of personal suffering.”

The Sacraments are another “point” of difference mentioned by Bishop Doyle. You say that there are seven,—we say that there are “two only as generally necessary to salvation.” Our two Sacraments are, as you are aware—“Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.” Your five additional Sacraments are: Confirmation, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. [14] On these, little need be said. The universally received definition of a Sacrament excludes all of them. For what is a Sacrament my Lord? Our Church Catechism defines it thus, in accordance with St. Augustine—“an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.” A like definition is given by your own writers. Thus the Catechismus ad Parochos—de Sac. and Bishop Bossuet—Expos: de la doc. de l’ Egl: Cath. cap. ix.

Confirmation is a sacred rite and of Apostolic origin. But where did Christ institute it? No where. It, therefore, is not a Sacrament. Penance is a godly discipline, if practiced after a godly sort, but it was never instituted by Christ, and consequently is not a Sacrament. One of the parts of Penance, according to your Church, is Confession. And here, one feels a difficulty in addressing a married nobleman of your persuasion, or a bachelor with female relations and friends. Oh my Lord are you aware of the filthy questions to which married ladies are subject in the Confessional of the Church of Rome? They may not yet have been proposed to any of p. 15your friends: policy, on the part of the wily party with which you have connected yourselves, may have hitherto prevented it. But you ought to be informed that there is a printed catalogue of the questions which bachelor Priests of your unholy system are in duty bound to propose to married, as well as unmarried, females. Have you read this catalogue, my Lord? If you have, your common decency is for ever obliterated from the annals of your family, if any female friend of your’s, under your control, ever confesses to a Romish Priest. If you have not, as you value even a respectable position in society, read the instructions given to Priests, for hearing Confession, as given in Dens and Baillie, the Maynooth Class books, before you allow any female friend of your’s to attend such Confession. I will not pollute these pages by giving you even an abstract of them. They are filthy—they are loathsome, they are beyond description disgustingly offensive. Break the shackles, my Lord, with which you have voluntarily bound yourself: dare to assert yourself a free man. Were you chained to the plough as a slave, your mind might be free; but your soul is enchained by the Church of Rome.

Extreme Unction is your next Sacrament. The Council of Trent goes no farther—except in its Canon as before shown—than to say that Christ “insinuated” this “as it were” a Sacrament.—“INSINUAVIT”—“TANQUAM”—while their reference to James v. 14. is suicidal, for the words—“the Lord shall raise him up”—εγερει [15a]—show that it has no reference to the dying, which indeed your Cardinal Cajetan confesses—inloco—where he also denies the Tridentine “insinuation” of our Lord. Titular Bishop Doyle informs us also—p. 101.—of his “Abridgement of the Christian Doctrine”—or rather his edition of. Tubbervill’s older work—“the time is uncertain” when Christ “instituted Extreme Unction.” Uncertain! I had thought that nothing could be uncertain to an “infallible” Church.

Your next additional Sacrament is: Holy Orders. Now, my Lord, although “it is evident unto all men diligently reading the holy Scripture and ancient authors that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church—Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,” yet it no where appears that Christ himself instituted them. I call upon you, then, either to reject Holy Orders as, or refuse your definition of, a Sacrament. The last of your additional Sacraments is Matrimony. [15b] I had thought that Matrimony was instituted p. 16in the time of man’s innocency; but your infallible Church, by her definition of a Sacrament, and by pronouncing this one, decides the contrary. I will only further remark here, that it is most marvellous that a Church which so honors and exalts Matrimony as to make it a Sacrament, should deem it too polluting for those whom she exclusively calls “Spirituals!”

“Faith and justification” are the only other points of difference alluded to by Bishop Doyle. [16] On these I prefer to give you the decisive statements of the Bible. “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark xvi. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Acts xvi. 31. “We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Rom. iii. 28. “By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Gal. ii. 16. My Lord, “there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved, but the name of Jesus Christ.” He died, the Just One instead of the unjust ones, that he might bring us to God. His blood cleanseth from all sin. And although to you “there be Gods many, and Lords many,” to us there is but One—The Father, the Creator,—the Son, the Redeemer,—the Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier, for “these three are one.” 1 John v. 7.

And now, my Lord, I have done. I offer no apology for addressing you. I trust you may be enabled to thank me, however unworthy, for having done so. I offer no apology for my manner of writing to you. I have endeavoured to show you “the error of your way,” and if I have used “great plainness of speech” “it is what I could attain unto,” and what I desired. That God may show you the fearfulness of the step you have taken—the grovelling bondage under which you have placed yourself, and rescue you from that bondage, before it be too late, when your eyes shall have closed upon everything of earth once and for ever, is my fervent prayer; and with every good wish for you, and for the unconscious partner in your guilt,

I beg to subscribe myself,
My Lord,
Your well-wisher, and obedient humble servant,

Some readers of the foregoing Letter may have expected to find in it some allusion, at least, to what Gavazzi calls “the broken faith of Lord Fielding.” I have purposely avoided any remarks on the subject; and do not think it necessary to account for the omission.

FOOTNOTES.

[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 hœreticis inde deductum impugnabat, ad unius tantummodo paupertatem non esse redigendam.”

[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.

[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.

[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.”

[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.

“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.

[15b] You are aware, perhaps, of the gross mistranslation of your Testament, in Eph. v. 32. to support this notion.—μυστηριον 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.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A LETTER TO LORD FIELDING. SUGGESTED BY THE LATE PROCEEDINGS AT THE NEW CHURCH AT PANTASA ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

The Project Gutenberg eBook of A Letter to Lord Fielding. Suggested by the late proceedings at the New Church at Pantasa

A
LETTER
TO
LORD FIELDING.

p. 3LETTER, &c.

FOOTNOTES.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE