rationem] as considered in themselves, and not only as they are copies." De Imagin. lib. ii. c. 21.

Again, in the Pontifical we are instructed that to the wood of the Cross "divine worship (latria) is due;" and that saving virtues for soul and body proceed from it; which surely agrees with the doctrine of Bellarmine as contained in the above extract, not with that of Bossuet.

4. The Vindicator of Bossuet speaks of the Mass to the following effect:

"The council tells us it was instituted only to represent that which was accomplished on the Cross, to perpetuate the memory of it to the end of the world, and apply to us the saving virtue of it, for those sins which we commit every day...... When we say that Christ is offered in the Mass, we do not understand the word offer in the strictest sense, but as we are said to offer to God what we present before Him. And thus the Church does not doubt to say, that she offers up our Blessed Jesus to His Father in the Eucharist, in which He vouchsafes to render Himself present before Him."

But the Tridentine Fathers say in their Canons that,

"the Mass is a true and proper sacrifice; a sacrifice not only commemoratory of that of the Cross, but also truly and properly propitia. tory for the dead and the living."

And Bellarmine says,

"A true and real sacrifice requires a true and real death or de. struction of the thing sacrificed." De Missa, lib. i. c. 27.

And then he proceeds to show how this condition of the notion of a sacrifice is variously fulfilled in the Mass.

Leaving Bossuet, let us now turn to the history of the controversy in our own country, whether in former or recent times; and here I avail myself of an article of a late lamented Prelate of our Church, in a periodical work ten years since.* As to the particular instances adduced, it must be recollected that they are not dwelt on as a sufficient evidence by themselves of that difference of view between members of the Roman Church at various times and places, which is under consideration, but as mere illustrations of what is presumed to be an historical fact.

The following extract is from Dr. Doyle's Evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons on the subject of the Roman Catholic doctrines :

"The Committee find, in a treatise called A Vindication of the Roman Catholics,' the following curse: Cursed is every goddess worshipper, that believes the Virgin Mary to be any more than a creature, that honours her, worships her, or puts his trust in her more

British Critic, Oct. 1825.

than in God; that honours her above her Son, or believes that she can in any way command Him.' Is that acknowledged; Ans. That is acknowledged; and every Roman Catholic in the world would say with Gother, Accursed be such person.”

Such is the received Romanism of the English Papists at this day; and accordingly Dr. Challoner has translated the famous words in the office of the blessed Virgin:

On the other hand, consider the following passage in the controversy between Jewell and Harding. Jewell accused the Roman Church with teaching that the blessed Virgin could command her Son. Harding replies as follows,

"If now any spiritual man, such as St. Bernard was, deeply considering the great honour and dignity of Christ's mother, do in excess of mind, spiritually sport with her, bidding her to remember that she is a Mother, and that thereby she has a certain right to command her Son, and require, in a most sweet manner, that she use her right; is this either impiously or impudently spoken? Is not he, rather, most impious and impudent that findeth fault therewith ?"

Again, we find in Peter Damiani, a celebrated divine of the eleventh century, the following words:

"She approaches to that golden tribunal of divine Majesty, not asking, but commanding,-not a handmaid, but a Mistress."

Albertus Magnus in like manner,

"Mary prays as a daughter, requests as a sister, commands as a mother."

Another writer says,

"The blessed Virgin, for the salvation of her supplicants, can not only supplicate her Son, as other saints do, but also by her maternal authority command her Son. Therefore the Church prays, Monstra te esse Matrem ;' as if saying to the Virgin, Supplicate for us after the manner of a command, and with a mother's authority."

After these instances, the article from which I cite asks, not unreasonably, "Upon whom does the anathema of Gother fall?” Another instance of this unsteady, and (if it may so be called) untrustworthy, conduct of the Roman Church, occurs in respect to their doctrine of Repentance; which is well pointed out by a recent writer in the British Magazine. His account is as follows.

"The Roman tenet most pregnant with moral mischief is, probably, that which promises salvation to mere Attrition [i. e. sorrow for sin arising from a view of its turpitude, or fear of punishment]..... Now it should be generally known that a Romish divine pressed in argument is very likely to pronounce salvability from Attrition only, as nothing more than a Scholastic doctrine, to which his Church does not stand committed. He might be reminded of the Trentine Catechism, which declares real Contrition [i. e. hearty sorrow for sin proceeding immediately from the love of God above all things, and joined with a firm purpose of amendment,] to be found in very few; and hence deduces the necessity of an easier way for the salvation of men in general. His answer would be, that the Catechism is not a decree of the Council, and, therefore, not like one binding as an article of faith. It is indeed true, that the Council here has spoken more vaguely and guardedly than the Catechism. Pallavicino represents the Trentine Fathers accordingly as intending merely to condemn an opinion of their adversaries, which branded the fear of punishment with baseness. . . . . . However a nice scrutiny may dispose of this doctrine, it is in fact broadly asserted in the manual drawn up for instructing ordinary clergymen, under authority of the Trentine Council, though not completed till that body was dissolved. This manual too was promulged under papal sanction, expressly conferred upon the Roman see for that very purpose by the Council. The Catechismus ad Parochos has been accordingly ever since, what it was intended to be, a text book for the Romish clergy...... Nor is it doubtful that it speaks the feeling and intention of this council upon the question of Attrition; only the Trentine Fathers here knew themselves to be upon treacherous ground, and therefore they discreetly left a vague outline which might be filled up by better, because less responsible hands."*

The following are further illustrations of the distinction observed in the Roman Church between Catholic verities and the opinions of the schools. In presenting them to the reader, I have no purpose of denying that there is a distinction really, and that it may properly be insisted on, but I deny it exists in the particular cases; in which what is professed to be but an opinion, is more or less the genuine practical meaning of the Tridentine decrees.

"It is de fide to believe that there is a purgatory; it is not de fide to believe that the fire of purgatory is true and proper, or of the same species as the material element,—or that it is in this or that place, or that it lasts for this or that period. It is de fide that the saints may well and profitably be invoked; it is not de fide that they hear our prayers, though it be certain and true. It is de fide that the relics of the saints should be venerated; it is not de fide that these or those relics are genuine. It is de fide that man is justified by

*British Mag. Feb. 1836.

inherent righteousness; it is not de fide that justifying righteousness is a habit or quality."*

Enough, perhaps, has now been said on the mode in which it is expedient at the present day to carry on the controversy with Romanism, which of its doctrines are to be selected for attack, what authorities are to be used in ascertaining them, and what arguments are to be employed against them. Some remarks shall be added before concluding, as to the best mode of conducting the defence of our own Church.

Let it be observed that, in our argument with the Romanists, we might, if needful, be very liberal in our confessions about ourselves, without at all embarrassing our position in consequence, While we are able to maintain the claim of our clergy to the ministration of the Sacraments, and our freedom from any deadly heresy, we have nothing to fear from any historical disclosures which the envy of adversaries might contrive against our Church, or from any external appearances which it may present at this day to the superficial observer. Whatever may be the past mistakes of individual members of it, or the tyranny of aliens over it, or its accidental connexion with Protestant persuasions, still these hinder not its having "the ministration of the Word and Sacraments;" and having them, it has sufficient claims on our filial devotion and love. This being understood then, the following remarks are made with a view of showing how far, if necessary, we may safely go in our admissions.

1. We may grant in the argument, that the English Church. has committed mistakes in the practical working of its system; nay, is incomplete even in its formal doctrine and discipline. We require no enemy to show us the probability of this, seeing that her own Article expressly states that the primitive Churches of Antioch and Alexandria, as well as that of Rome, have erred, "not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith." Much more is a Church exposed to imperfection, which embraces but a narrow portion of the Catholic territory, has been at the distance of 1500 to 1800 years from the pure fountains of tradition, and is surrounded by political influences of a highly malignant character.

2. Again, the remark may seem paradoxical at first sight, yet surely it is just, that the English Church is for certain deficient in particulars, because it does not profess itself infallible. I mean as follows. Every thoughtful mind must at times have been beset by the following doubt: "How is it that the particular Christian body to which I belong happens to be the right one? I hear every one about me saying his own society is alone right,

* Vid. Annati's Apparatus ad Theologiam, i. 4.

and others wrong: is not every one as much justified in saying so as every one else? is not any one as much justified as I am? In other words, the truth is surely no where to be found pure, unadulterate and entire, but is shared through the world, each Christian body having a portion of it, none the whole of it." A certain liberalism is commonly the fruit of this perplexity. Men are led on to gratify the pride of human nature, by standing aloof from all systems, forming a truth for themselves, and countenancing this or that denomination of Christians according as each maintains portions of that which they have already assumed to be the truth. Now the primitive Church answered this question, by appealing to the simple fact that all the Apostolic Churches all over the world did agree together. True, there were sects in every country, but they bore their own refutation on their forehead, in that they were of recent origin; but all those societies in every country, which the Apostles had founded, did agree together in one, and no time short of the Apostles' could be assigned, with any show of argument, for the rise of their existing doctrine. This doctrine in which they agreed was accordingly called Catholic truth, and there was plainly no room at all for asking, "Why should my own Church be more true than another's?"But at this day, it need not be said, such an evidence is lost, except as regards the articles of the Creeds. It is a very great mercy that the Church Catholic over the world, as descended from the Apostles, does at this day speak one and the same doctrine, about the Trinity and Incarnation, as it has always spoken it, excepting in one single point, which rather probat regulam than interferes with it, viz. as to the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. With this solitary exception, we have the certainty of possessing the entire truth as regards the high theological doctrines, by an argument, which supersedes the necessity of arguing from Scripture against those who oppose them. It is quite impossible that all countries should have agreed to that which was not Apostolic. They are a number of concordant witnesses to certain definite truths, and while their testimony is one and the same from the very first moment they publicly utter it, so on the other hand, if there be bodies which speak otherwise, we can show historically that they rose later than the Apostles. This majestic evidence, however, does not extend to any but to the articles of the Creed, especially those relating to the Trinity and Incarnation.* The primitive Church was never called upon, whether in Council or by its divines, to pronounce upon other points of faith, and the later Church has differed about them;

By a great misapprehension, the word "Incarnation" here used has been understood by some readers as if it excluded the Atonement; whereas, in its more Catholic sense, it includes the whole dispensation or oikovopía of Christ's taking flesh