taken and received verily and indeed by the faithful. Now, to me, this doctrine of receiving that which does not really exist, has always appeared something like a paradox. Yet far be it from me to infer, even though I should be authorized by his lordship's conduct, that because on this subject he speaks what to me seems nonsense, he therefore is accustomed to talk nonsense on other occasions.

66

"To disguise such repugnance," observes the Charge, "an artifice was adopted in Romish books of religious institution, as contrary to the honour of God, as image worship itself.. In the enumeration of the "ten commandments the second is wholly suppressed, " and the number ten completed by dividing the tenth "into two: and this in direct violation of the injunc"tion: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command 'you; neither shall ye diminish aught from it."* I am astonished that so grave and discreet a Prelate should have hazarded so dangerous an assertion. Had he opened a Catholic Bible, Catholic Prayer Book, or Catholic Catechism, he would have found this commandment expressed in the same words as in Protestant books of religious institution.† He would have

learned that the Decalogue in both was the same; that the only difference consisted in the division: and that the Reformers had been pleased to separate the first precept into two, and to condense the ninth and tenth into one. He would not have advanced an assertion, which, had it come from any other person than the Bishop of Durham, I should not hesitate to pronounce an insult to the credulity of the public, and a cruel calumny against the consciences of Catholics.

Charge, page 12.

+ I consider the graven image of the Protestant as equivalent to the graven thing of the Catholic translation. The latter is perhaps more comprehensive. As for the division of the Decalogue, it is in itself a matter of inferior consequence. The whole number of precipient and prohibitory clauses is fourteen; and to reduce these into ten divisions has been the object of different systems both among Jews and Christians. The division, which for many centuries has been adopted by Catholics, is that recommended by St. Augustine. It is therefore unjust to represent it as an artifice to disguise an unlawful practice.

Do I then impeach the veracity of his Lordship? No, I doubt not, that what he asserted, he also believed to be true. Do I accuse his ignorance? I do: he ought to have known better.

2. To prove that the usages of the Church of Rome were injurious to the honour of God the Son, the writer of the Charge instances the custom of " praying "to the Virgin Mary, to Angels, and to Saints."* To pray to the Angels and Saints is, in the language of the Catholic Church, to solicit their intercession, and it is recommended by her as a pious and useful practice. But is it evident, as asserted by the Bishop of Durham, that it derogates from the one mediatorship of Jesus Christ? The inference to me is illogical and unjust. With him I am ready to acknowledge, that there is one only name under heaven, whereby we must be saved; that there is one Mediator between God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus: that he ever liveth to make intercession for us; that he is our intercessor with the Father; and that through him we have access by one spirit unto the Father. But does it necessarily follow, that it is unlawful to desire others to intercede for us with Christ, and through his merits? Did not the Apostle St. Paul beg the prayers of the Romans, Corinthians, and Ephesians? Does not the Church of England command her ministers to pray for the king, the high court of parliament, the clergy, and men of every condition? Does not Dr. Porteus exhort " every sincere christian to persevere in that "most benevolent office of INTERCEDING for all man"kind?" Certainly the Bishop of Durham will

66

66

* Charge, p. 13.-How different is this doctrine from that of Dr. Montague, bishop of Norwich. I grant," says he, "Christ is not wronged in his mediation. It is no impiety to say; Holy Mary, pray for me. Holy Peter, pray for me." "Treatise on the Invocation of Saints, p. 118.

66

Charge, p. ibid.-Apprehensive of incurring the curse, which the Bishop of Durham (p. 12.) informs us hangs over the head of him, who adds to the word of God, I have not ventured in quoting these texts, to improve them, as he has done, by the occasional insertion of the word

ALONE.

Sermons by Bielby Porteus, Bishop of London, vol. ii. p. 381.

not contend that the Apostle was ignorant of the mediatorship of Jesus, or that he himself, when he complies with the orders of his church, "detracts from "the all-sufficiency of our Saviour;" or that his right reverend brother does not know that "Christ liveth to "make intercession for us." Yet, if to employ the intercession of a third person be to derogate from the mediatorship of Christ, I cannot understand what difference it can make, whether that person be still living, or numbered with the blessed. The Catholic, like the Protestant, expects salvation from the merits of Christ only; from the Saints he asks neither grace nor salvation; he only solicits their friendly intercession for him with Christ, who is his and their Saviour, his and their God.*

The Bishop of Durham is not, perhaps, aware how easily his reasoning may be turned against himself. As a specimen, I will undertake to prove that the practices of the Church of England are derogatory from the honor of God, and my reasoning shall be an exact parody of his. In the collect for the feast of St. Michael, she prays, that, "the holy angels may, by "God's appointment, succour and defend us on earth; a petition which detracts from the all-sufficiency of God's providence, and teaches the people to place

*After this explication of the Catholic doctrine respecting the invocation of the Saints, I may venture to ask the right reverend theologian, whether he really thinks it idolatrous? I am not so sanguine as to expect that he will give it his approbation: but, if he be not convinced that it amounts to idolatry, I could wish to learn how he can with a safe conscience make the following declaration, before he takes his seat in the House of Lords: "I do solemnly and sincerely in the presence "of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe--that the in"vocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, as now "used in the Church of Rome is superstitious and idolatrous." That to adore the Virgin Mary, or any saint, would be idolatry, is evident; but no such adoration is used in the Church of Rome. The invocation of the Saints is indeed used in the sense explained in the text; but such invocation is certainly not idolatrous. It seems to have been reserved for the wisdom of this enlightened nation to make it a necessary qualification for a legislator, that he should be able to swear to the idolatrous nature of a practice, which the majority of Christians declare not to be idolatrous, and which he has probably never viewed but through the deceitful medium of controversial misrepresentation.

their confidence in the angels, who are God's creatures, rather than in God their creator. "God alone, (I have "as good a right to insert the word alone as the Bishop "of Durham) God alone is our rock, our fortress, and "our deliverer: he alone is a rock to save us; he alone "is the saving strength of his anointed, our help and "our shield; the salvation of the righteous is of the "Lord alone." The practice, therefore, of the Church of England, in multiplying succourers and defenders, detracts greatly from the providence of God, and leads to a communication of the divine attributes to beings who are creatures and servants like ourselves. This reasoning I acknowledge to be futile: but I have learned it from the Bishop of Durham; and he must either admit it, or abjure his own Charge.

66

66

"But the imposition of penances, as purchases of pardon, and remedies of past sin, was a denial of the efficacy of the great sacrifice which Christ made for "us by his death."* I must confess myself at a loss to understand the meaning of the term, "purchases of pardon." It is unknown in Catholic theology, and has been probably framed by the inventive genius of the Reformation. If by it the Bishop of Durham wish to insinuate, that Catholics teach works of penance to be of themselves a sufficient compensation for sin, he has still to learn the first rudiments of our doctrine. If he mean, that we consider them as one of the conditions on which Christ is willing to communicate the merits of his passion to the soul of the sinner, his meaning is just, though his expression be inaccuBut does he seriously condemn this doctrine, founded as it is on the clearest evidence of scripture, and confirmed by the practice of the most early ages? If I understand his reasoning, he does. He is the zealous champion of the all-sufficiency of Christ: and, in his opinion, to do penance for sin after the great sacrifice consummated on the cross, is to offer an injury to the honour of God the Son, and to deny the efficacy of his passion. His creed must, at least, be a

rate.

* Charge, page 13.

66

very consoling one. Indulge your passions, it exclaims to the sinner, indulge your passions now, and cease to sin, when you can sin no longer. Fear not the rigours of penance. To weep and pray, to fast and give alms, to repent in sackcloth and ashes, were external ceremonies confined to the Jewish dispensation. To practice them now, would be to "seduce from the grace and truth that "came by Jesus Christ,-to carry us back from the Gospel to the Law, -to deprive ourselves of the ines"timable advantages which the law of Moses could "not give us." It is curious to observe how much the Gospel, which is preached in these enlightened times, has improved on the rough sketch that was delivered to our fathers. St. Paul was accustomed to keep under his body, and to bring it into subjection.† I have no doubt that he thought he was acting in a manner pleasing to Christ, and yet we now learn from the Bishop of Durham, that he was actually derogating from the efficacy of the passion of Christ. The penitents, in ancient times, often spent whole years in works of penance. They fasted and prayed; they lay prostrate at the porch of the church; they solicited the intercession of their less guilty brethren. By these austerities they hoped they were fulfilling the will of their Redeemer: but now we know, that they were adding sin to sin, and augmenting the guilt of their former offences, by denying the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. Even the learned men, who compiled the Book of Common Prayer, seem to have been involved in this damnable error. "There was formerly," they tell us, "a godly discipline, that at the 'beginning of Lent, such persons as stood convicted "of notorious sins, were put to open penance, and "punished here, that their souls might be saved in "the day of the Lord. And it were much to be wished "that the said discipline may be restored again."§

66

Charge, p. 14.

Tawa I chastise or tame. The learned Prelate will excuse me, if, notwithstanding his prohibition, I appeal to the Greek. Bingham, Orig. Eccles. tom. 11, p. 207.

Book of Common Prayer.

C