whether you yourself believe the doctrine of the council to be favourable to your opinion. The only ambiguity in its language consists in this, that it confined itself to what was strictly of faith, and left the different opinions of divines just as it found them. In this I see much to praise, and nothing to reprehend. You must not persuade yourself, Sir, that a Catholic council possesses either the omnipotence or infallibility of an English parliament. It cannot make articles of faith, as suits its policy or convenience. It can only define what it has received from its predecessors as essential to our faith. These doctrines no Catholic will deny in all other subjects they are perfectly free; and their freedom the council was careful not to invade. Such was the origin of that cautious language which you have been pleased to condemn as ambiguous. But, Sir, instead of adverting to the language of the council, is there nothing ambiguous in the language employed by the Bishop and yourself? You frequently disapprove of our doctrine, yet seldom condescend to inform us what that doctrine is. Though I have read with much attention all your strictures on the subject of good works, I have still to learn what sentiments you really attribute to us. To me it appears (but this is no better than conjecture) that you conceive us to teach good works to be of their own nature meritorious of eternal life. But this, if it be so, is an egregious mistake. It was the doctrine of Baius, and condemned by Pius V. All Catholic divines unite in considering it as heretical. Perhaps it may not be amiss to inform you, that when the schoolmen speak of the merit of good works, they ascribe that merit not to the efforts of man, but to the grace of God. Man, they teach, by his own natural powers can merit nothing more than a reward proportionate to his own nature: but if he be aided by supernatural grace, that supernatural grace may render him worthy of a supernatural reward. This important distinction you have, probably from your late acquaintance with Catholic theology, entirely overlooked but if you will bear it in mind, and peruse a second time the works of Soto, and Bellarmine, and Vasquez, your candour will acknowledge that you have misunderstood their meaning, and that their real doctrine is not injurious, but highly honourable to "the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit." I am surprised that in reading Bellarmine you did not observe with what hesitation he speaks of his own doctrine. He says he thinks it probable. Had he considered it as the Catholic doctrine, you know that he would have employed a very different language, and have pronounced it certain. He undertakes to refute the opinion of Soto. Yet you refer your reader to both, as faithful expositors of our creed. Would you then compel us to believe one thing as certain on the authority of Soto, and the contrary as certain on the authority of Bellarmine. This would be, indeed, to tyrannize over our intellects. You tell us that the zeal of Vasquez carried him far beyond the limits to which the moderation of Soto and Bellarmine had confined them. May I, Sir, refer you to the following passage from the works of Vasquez, which, I trust, will justify him in the opinion of my readers, and shew that his sentiments on this subject were not very different from mine. "Ido not," says he, "attribute to God the obligation "of rewarding good works in justice, as if he were "bound to recompence us for the good works which "he receives from us: but I confine it entirely to his "promise and his fidelity to his engagements. Hence "were he not to reward them with eternal life, he could "not properly be said to be unjust: but he might be "said to be unfaithful, because he would violate his "own word."* In conclusion, you desire me to say, whether “ you "have misstated the doctrine of the Catholic church "on this important point." I answer without hesitation that you have. You have ascribed to the Catholic church the doctrine of the schoolmen: and their doc * Vasquez, disp. 215. trine you have stated unfairly. Nor say that they misunderstood the language of the council of Trent. The subjects which they discussed were subjects that the council overlooked, because they did not appertain to the substance of faith. On them every Catholic exercises his own judgment, and admits or rejects the opinions of divines as he pleases. On indulgences you favour us with nothing that is new, except the authority of Corio, and the condemned propositions of Luther. May I ask from what edition of Corio you quote? That of Milan, in folio, 1503, is genuine; those that followed were interpolated by the editors. However that may be, the information which you have procured from him, is undoubtedly curious. That Boniface the eighth swayed the papal sceptre with a stubborn hand, was known to most of your readers: but that he continued to exercise the pontifical authority eighty years after his death, is a fact, for our acquaintance with which we are indebted to you. He died in 1303, and yet, according to your Corio, granted an indulgence to the inhabitants of Milan in 1391. Without discrediting your authority, I beg leave to observe, that our dispute regards indulgences granted, not by dead, but by living popes. It is, indeed, true that Boniface the ninth granted to the churches in Milan the same indulgences as were granted during the jubilee in Rome. But these expressly required contrition and confession as previous conditions. Corio, therefore, has either been corrupted, or he has contradicted himself.* As to Luther's propositions, condemned by Leo X. have the goodness to peruse a second time the bull of that pontiff, and you will perhaps learn, that they were not all condemned as heretical, but some because he had pronounced them to be articles of Catholic faith, which they were not; and others, because they were preached by that innovator to excite disrespect towards the apostolic see. *Nella medesima forma, ch'era a Roma. Corio.-Vere pœnitentibus et confessis. Bulla Jubil, in Bullario Magno Tom. 1. p. 204. From indulgences I shall pass to the charge of locking up the scriptures from the knowledge of the laity. I had observed that this charge rested entirely on the regulations of the Index: and that these regulations were only temporary, and confined to certain places. I may add, that the Index did not lock up the scriptures from the knowledge of the laity, even at the time and in the places in which it was received. It only prohibited the versions in the vulgar languages. The originals, with the ancient translations, were still open to the perusal of the laity: and it is well known that in Catholic countries, there are, in every rank of life, thousands to whom the Latin language at least is familiar. Nor were the scriptures, in the vulgar tongues, withheld from the more ignorant. They might still obtain permission to read them. The prohibition was only designed to prevent those extravagancies to which the promiscuous reading of the sacred volumes had given birth in Protestant countries, and which caused the learned editor of the Polyglot to observe, that the reformers, by putting the scriptures into the hands of the vulgar, had opened the mouth of the bottomless pit. Indeed I know not whether there would be any harm, if something like the regulations of the Index were adopted in England at the present day. We should not then hear of so many tinkers, coblers, postboys, and men in the lowest walks of life, obtaining licences to preach, or rather to abuse the gospel. I had requested that those, who thus accuse us of locking up the scriptures, would prove their accusation, " by reference to the decree of some council, or "the bull of some pope, or the statute of some pro"vincial synod, or the order of some bishop." This task you cheerfully undertake: and then without blushing send me back to the Index, as if I had not previously refuted the objection. You next refer me to three propositions censured by a bull of Clement XI. Are you acquainted with the real nature of this censure? The propositions were condemned for insinuating a falsehood. They were intended by their authors to convey the same accusation against the Ca tholics, which has been advanced by the Bishop of Durham. For this reason they were pronounced to be injurious and calumnious to the church. Thus have I arrived at your last page, in which you say you have done with me, most probably for ever. I have no objection. It is time this controversy should be ended. If in the course of it I have ever employed a harsh expression, an unseemly epithet, your candour, I am sure, will excuse me. It was from you I learned such language. You have so profusely scattered these beauties through your pages, that they may have occasionally found their way into mine. One good at least, I trust, will arise from the discussion, that our future adversaries will attempt to refute the doctrines which we really hold, instead of accusing us of such as we reject that we shall hear no more of these charges, which Halting on crutches of unequal size, One leg by truth supported, one by lies, |