guilty of little less than parricide, while bastardizing himself, he himself being the son of a deacon, and the grandson of a priest,-and we know, moreover, that he could not have done this, from the existence of a Canon attributed perhaps incorrectly to him, but certainly of very ancient date, regulating the conduct of the wives of ecclesiastics'! Again,-did he prohibit the perusal of Scripture? Surely Surely not; since it is stated by Fenelon, that no such prohibition existed any where before the twelfth century, nor do we find any Canon on the subject in the Irish code. Did

1 S. Patricii Confessio MS. quoted by Abp. Usher. Religion of the Ancient Irish, chap. v.

2

Synod. Patric. Auxil. Issernin. Even in the twelfth century the Irish refused to receive an unmarried clergy, and were pronounced to be heretics on that account by Pope Adrian.— Phelan, ii. 55.

3 His words are worthy of note: "I think," says this illustrious prelate," that much trouble has been taken in our times very unnecessarily to prove what is incontestible, that, in the first ages of the Church, the laity read the holy Scriptures. It is as clear as daylight, that all people read the BIBLE AND LITURGY in their native languages: that as a part of good education, children were made to read them; that in their sermons, the ministers of the Church regularly explained to their flocks whole books of the sacred volume; that the sacred text of the Scriptures was very familiar to the people; that the clergy exhorted the people to read them; that the clergy blamed the people for not reading them, and considered the neglect of reading them as a source of heresy and immorality." The

he introduce the worship of images? This could hardly have been the case, for he flourished about the year 431; and the very first council which gave sanction to that heresy was held in the year 787, when the clergy of Ireland united with the clergy of England in doing what they do now, in protesting against the evil and idolatrous practice1. Once more,-did he pronounce, as is done by the modern Church of Rome, that if any man say"--I am again quoting a Canon of the Council of Trent-" that in the holy sacrament of the eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine, let him be accursed 2?" No,for this doctrine of transubstantiation was not

66

venerable prelate then proceeds to justify the Roman Church, and other Churches in communion with her, for restricting the perusal of Scripture, on the grounds only of expediency. On this subject we do not now enter, it is sufficient for us, so far as the present argument is concerned, that the concession is made in our favour of primitive practice by one so justly celebrated.-Euvres Spirituels de Fenelon, 8vo, tom. iv. p. 241, quoted and translated by Charles Butler,-Confessions of Faith, p. 142.

1 To avoid crowding the page with references, I will refer the reader for proof of my assertions, except when a special reference is given, to Bishop Taylor's admirable Dissuasive against Popery, forming Vols. X. and XI. of Heber's edition; to the third book and the Appendix of Field on the Church; and to Archbishop Usher's Religion of the Ancient Irish.

2 Conc. Trent, Sess. XIII. c. 2.

dreamed of till the eighth century in the ninth and tenth centuries it was still disputable; and when, in the thirteenth, the Pope of Rome sought to have it recognized in an Italian Council, the doctrine was opposed by many divines, and protested against by the clergy of England and Ireland; and though it was afterwards embraced by many of our theologians, and by them assumed to be the doctrine of the Church, yet it was never sanctioned by an English or Irish synod'. Yet further, did he withhold the cup from the people, and thus virtually deprive them of a sacrament of our Lord? This was undoubtedly not the case, for at the Council of Constance, in the fifteenth century, wherein an enactment was made to that effect, it was admitted to be a regulation not only contrary to Scripture, but also opposed to primitive tradition 2. Neither could he have taught the Roman doctrine of Purgatory3, for he had

1 The gradual introduction of the doctrine of transubstantiation may be seen, in Dr. Waterland's Charge on the Sacramental Part of the Eucharist.

2 Council Constant. Sess. XIII.

The gradual introduction of the doctrine of purgatory may be seen in the authors before referred to, and in Bishop Bull, Serm. III. The reasoning of the Council of Trent is singular : without any appeal to Scripture, it determines, that since the mass taught that that sacrifice was expiatory for the dead, nondum ad plenum purgatis, the doctrine of purgatory was sufficiently settled.

been dead a thousand years before that doctrine was acknowledged as an article of faith by any portion of the Church. Certainly, then, the founder of the Irish Church did not introduce the more important of those doctrines by which the Church of Rome, and the churches and sects which hold communion with her, are at present distinguished from the rest of Christendom; nor could they have been introduced by any of his successors till a late period, because with respect to most of them, till a period comparatively late, they had no existence in the minds of men. We may proceed to ask, what doctrines he held which we do not now hold, or what practices did he permit that we should condemn ?—provided that since his time those practices, innocent in themselves, have not been abused to the purposes of superstition. Did the primitive Catholic Christians of Ireland, while they held the Scriptures to be the sole rule of faith, receive with deference the opinion of the universal Church as their guide for the proper interpretation of Scripture? So do we; for our clergy are enjoined "not to teach any thing as a matter of faith to be religiously observed, but that which is agreeable to the Old and New Testament, and may be collected out of the same doctrine by the ancient fathers and Catholic bishops of the Church'." Was deference paid to

1 Canons of 1571.

the decisions of councils really general, of councils summoned not by the Pope but by the Emperor, and open to all the bishops of the Church in the east, as well as in the west? So do we: we admit the four first councils, the only councils that can be proved to have been really open and general, to be, together with the plain words of Scripture, the rule and measure of judging heresies 1. Did they receive the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, without the additions made by Pope Pius IV.2, and the symbol of St. Athanasius? This is precisely the case with us. But the adversary thinks that he can confound us by asking whether they received our thirty-nine articles. In other words, he asks whether we can prove that they protested against certain errors and heresies, before those errors had occurred, or those heretical opinions been started. Unless they had been gifted with the spirit of prophecy, this, of course, they could not have done. But the objection is founded on a misconception as to what our articles are and profess to be. They do not profess to be a complete system of divinity, they are merely styled "Articles agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces, and the whole Clergy of England,

1 1 Elz. i.

2 i. e. Without the peculiar, the distinguishing articles of faith appended to it by the Church of Rome.