The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1879-04-23
UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,

Riqht ReU. John j. Keaae, Bishop Of Richmond
Dear Sr,-Your favor of the 2nd inst. was
received last night at this place, to which omoisl
duties connected with the annual meeting OF the
trustees of the Seminary had called me.
1t would be uaite unsuitable, as a general rule,
to omen the columns of religious journal to all
parties who might dissent from the views 1t ex-
pressed. But you think my editorial comments
on your recent brief communications contain
serious misaDpreheusions OF Catholic doctrine
Under this view Of the case it will give me sincere
pleasure to extend to you all such hospitality as
may be necessary for the purpose indicated IN your
letter. Yours truly, WILLIAM Brown,
Bishop Of the Central Presbyterian.
The communication referred to will be found on
the fret page of this paA
REPLY TO - kEANn.
Right Req JEa sp Of Richmond
Dear Sir,-As SsT editorial plurality is
often cumbersome, especially in case like
this, lay it aside for the direct style of ad-
dress found in your communication. You
think nay brief comments upon your state
ment in the Central Presbyterian, in answer
to an Honest Inquirer, have done iDjus-
tice to Catholic doctrine concerning the
Virgin Mary. Wilful misrepresentation is a
sin; and if unwilful, it is still misfortune.
In either case it is an injury which should
be repaired. | therefore cheerfully accede
to your request for an opportunity " to ex-
plain the points in question" and to " offer
corrections" Of what you consider my ''mis-
take" That you should regard my entire
criticism of your doctrine as mistake, is no
more than was expected. But you speak OF
some parts Of it as presenting points thai are
strange; ;" aud of one point as 80 ''Strange"
that you have no words to exoreSs your
"amazemens" that ''the Central Presbyterian
could admit such statement into itS col
umns." Whether you have good reason for
such statement will DO considered in due
time. But allow me to say 10 return for the
compliment, that we do not seem to stand
Just here exactly upon even ground. fad
myself unable to express any ''amaz auent,
or even surprise touching anything in your
Communication, Gas though some strange
thing had happened unto you" With hardly
the slightest exception the arguments are
what 1 supposed they would be, aud those
with which Protestants have long been fs'
milisr. It is now proposed to notice them in
their order.
l. Distinction betVesH authoritative teach
ings and individual opinions. The diStinc
ton is legitimate, but does not meet the diff
fculty. Take the precise question of ''Hon
est Inquirer" as you state it, yet my remarks
related chiefly to the inherent character Of
certain expressions which abound in Roman
Catholic Prayer Books, and to which your
attention was called. These books are moi
indeed formal symbols of faith, but they are
formally approved by Bishops and Arch
bishops, and are used in the public and
private worship of the people. II is impOs
sible, therefore, to escape responsibility fol
the teachings of such works. Under this
view the suggestion was not without more
point than was at all comfortable, that the
Bishops explanation about Catholic and
nom Catholic sense in reference to the ex
pressiODs quoted was an evasion.
2. Worship" latria, dGlia, hyperduEa
am aware that both the Hebrew and the
Greek word translated sOOrshtp, mean sim
ply to bow down or PROSTATE ones self. Oul
English word worship" means properly
respect or honor, and Includes both the in
ward sentiment aud its outward manifesto
ton. 1t is widely used, having reference
God himself, or to an earthly equal, or to an
earthly superior.
an also asare of the distinction made by
your theology between the latria-the wOr,
ship or honor due to God alone, on the one
hand, aud on the other the daLa-the Wor.
ship Or honor due to saints and angels, and
the 6ypsrdula-the higher degree of WOr'
ship or honor due to the Virgin Mary.
beg leave to submit in reply the follow
ing remarks:
~ This distinction hes never been clear
" defined. Who can clearly state the diff
ference? Tne language being indefinite,
consequently each worshipper is left to de-
tarmine for himself IA degree of honor due
to his patron sails 4 the history of the
world shows that w tendency of human
nature has ever been to "worship and serve
the creature more than the Creator"
o. The character of the mediation which
Romanism ascribes to the saints, is precisely
the same as TIA: which heaihenism-such as
the classic mythology of Greece and Rome
ascribed to its demigods. Ii was believed
among them that when man became illus
trious 30 bsnefacs0r, he could, after his de-
cesse, be oanouized among the inferior di-
whites. lie thus became mediator, whose
sympathies With his fellow men on the one
hand, and whose merits with the gods on the
other. fitted him for the mediatorial Office Of
bearing the prayers and the wants Of mOrtalf
to the presence of the gods. One of theil
philosophers, Roman, states it thus: "They
are Intermediate intelligencers, by whom our
prayers snd wants pass unto the gods
They are the mediators between the inhabi
tsnts of the earth and the inhabitants o.
heaven, carrying thither our prayers, and
drawing down their blessings. They beal
back and forward prayers from us, and sup