perpetually inculcates the utility of good works. What doth it profit, says St. James, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If faith have not works, it is dead, being alone. By works a man is justified, and not by faith only.* St. Paul prayed that his converts might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work: and that Christ might comfort their hearts, and establish them in every good word and work. He advises those who have believed in God, to be careful to maintain good works; and charges the rich, that they do good, that they be rich in good works, that they may lay hold on eternal life. 2. We believe that a reward has been promised to the performance of good works. Love ye your enemies, and do good, and your reward shall be great. God will render to every man according to his deeds: to them, who by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honour, and immortality, eternal life. There is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them that love his appearing.§ 3. Hence, though with the Bishop of Durham, we acknowledge ourselves to be unprofitable servants, though it be the Holy Spirit that worketh in us, both to will and to do of his good pleasure, yet, as God is faithful to his promises, and not unrighteous to forget our work and labour of love, we piously trust he will fulfil his engagements, and reward with his glory in heaven the works which by his grace (for grace is necessary), he has enabled us to perform upon earth. This is the Catholic doctrine respecting the merit of good works; and it is so very consonant to reason and religion, that I conceive the mere explanation of it will silence every objection.

* St. James ii. 14, 17, 24.

+ Coloss i. 10. 2 Thess. ii. 17.

Tit. iii. 8. 1 Tim. vi. 18. See also Gal. vi. 9. 2 Thess. iii. 13. § Luke vi. 36. Rom. ii. 6. 7. 2 Tim. iv. 8.

Besides the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of London is also in

Thus have I endeavoured to answer, and I trust with some success, the principal arguments of my Right Reverend opponent. He has added a few exceptions, of minor consequence it is true, but which ought not to escape without notice. Of these, the first is the old tale of indulgences. To the apprehension of many of my readers, I have no doubt that an indulgence appears a monster of most hideous aspect, engendered from clerical avarice and popular credulity. But, if they will have a little patience, I hope to convince them that it is a being of a most harmless nature. In ancient times, as we have seen already, the sinner who by public crimes had afflicted the zeal of his more innocent brethren, was subjected to a course of public penance, which was not confined to the duration of a few weeks, but frequently extended to several years, sometimes to the whole life of the offender. The bishops, however, claimed the power of abridging the time, or mitigating the severity of the

66

the habit of delivering lectures from the pulpit. He seems to think that, though Christ has paid our ransom, yet good works are necessary for us, and that to perform them is not to deny the efficacy of his passion. "All these sacrifices," says he, "must be made. It is the price we are to pay (besides that price which our Redeemer paid), "and surely no unreasonable one, for escaping eternal misery, and rendering ourselves capable of eternal glory." Lectures on St. Matt. lect. vi. p. 143. In another place he perfectly agrees with the Catholic doctrine of good works. "Our heavenly father expects and commands "us to be rich in good works, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, "&c." Lect. xviii. p. 165. Nor do I believe that he has the same opinion as the Bishop of Durham on the subject of ceremonies. He calls those "enthusiasts who trample under foot ancient ceremonies and "institutions." Lect. viii. p. 199. Let the two prelates mutually reconcile their respective creeds, in points of such importance so diametrically opposite to each other. Bishop Watson, as Regius Professor of Divinity in the university of Cambridge, has published a collection of theological tracts, among which is a treatise entitled a Key to the Apostolic Writings (vol. iii. p. 315). I do not conceive in what the doctrine delivered in this tract respecting the necessity of good works differs from that of Catholics. Thus, p. 391, he says, "We are to go through a course of well-doing in order to our reaping eternal life; "which we shall not obtain, if we faint, or are weary in well-doing. "The doctrine which teaches us the performance of all good works is the sound, uncorrupt doctrine of the gospel." P. 401.

66

punishment, as the fervour and circumstances of the penitent might require: and this abridgment or mitigation was termed an indulgence. On some occasions they commuted, according to their discretion, a part of the penance, into other pious works, such as the giving of alms, assisting in the erection of churches, and contributing towards charitable institutions. These commutations are what the Bishop of Durham has called the sale of indulgences. Now, it is proper to observe, that this kind of discipline was not peculiar to the Church of Rome: it was adopted by other churches, and has even been adopted by the established Church in England. As a proof of the assertion, the curious reader may peruse the following writing of Archbishop Grindall, laid before the synod of the province of Canterbury in 1580, and approved by that assembly. "I wish," says he, "at every public penance a sermon, if it be possible to be had. Let the offender be set directly over against "the pulpit during the service or homily, and there "stand bareheaded with the sheet or other accus"tomed note of difference, and that upon a board "raised a foot and a half at least above the church "floor, that they may be in a higher place, and above "all the people." He next directs the preacher to interrogate the penitent, whether he confess that by his crimes he has deserved everlasting damnation and offended the church of God; whether he be heartily sorry; whether he ask God and the congregation forgiveness; and whether he promise never to commit the like again? To these questions answers are to be returned in the affirmative. He then continues: "Pro"vided always that order be given by the ordinaries, "when they assign penances, that if the penitents do "shew themselves irreverent, or impenitent at their pe"nances, that then their punishments be reiterated, "and be removed from the church to the market-place. -If the ordinary see cause to commute the wearing of the sheet only, (for other commutation I "wish none) then appoint a good portion of money to "be delivered immediately after the penance done in

66

66

form aforesaid, by the penitent himself, to the col"lectors of the poor, with this proviso, that if he shew "not good signs of repentance, he is to be put again "into his penance with the sheet, and then no money "at no time to be taken of him."* Here then we have a Protestant commutation of penance, sanctioned by the approbation of the Church of England, and, in the language of the Bishop of Durham, a Protestant sale of indulgences. By both churches, the monies arising from this source were destined for pious purposes: both had occasionally to lament that their intentions were not faithfully fulfilled. From the numerous complaints made in the convocations of the years 1584, 1597, 1599, 1640, 1710, 1714, it appears, that the fines thus paid to the Protestant clergy of England amounted to no inconsiderable sum, which the avarice of the collectors frequently tempted them to divert from the proper channel into their own purses. To remedy this abuse, canons were framed, which do honour to the zeal of their authors. It was decreed, that the power of granting commutations should be taken from the inferior clergy, and confined to the bishops and their delegates; that the officers of the ordinary should be contented with their accustomary fees; that the ordinary himself should inspect the distribution of the money, and annually audit the accounts; and that the transgressors of these regulations should be suspended from their functions during three months, or a whole year.†

From this view of the subject, it follows that the sale of indulgences, if sale it must be called, was common to the clergy of the Protestant as well as of the Catholic church; and the impartial reader, while he condemns the avarice of those who may have converted this practice to their private emolument, will acquit each of the two churches, because each in her public canons expressed the highest disapprobation of so heinous an abuse. I shall only add, that the Bishop

* Wilkins, Concil. tom. iv. p. 298.

Ibid. p. 315, 355, 362, 552, 638, 654.

of Durham ought to be no enemy to indulgences: for his doctrine, that works of penance are a denial of the efficacy of Christ's passion, offers to sinners a more extensive indulgence than any Pope, in the plenitude of his power, has yet ventured to grant.

He next reprehends the adoption of an unknown tongue in the public services of religion.* I conceive he means in the celebration of the liturgy, as he knows that the Catholic priests read prayers, and deliver instructions to the people, in the English language. It cannot be necessary, that I repeat the arguments by which the Catholic divines have defended a custom consecrated in their eyes by the approbation of so many centuries. If the Bishop of Durham conceive himself and his colleagues the most proper judges of the language which is best adapted to their service, I hope he will allow the same privilege to the Catholic Prelates with respect to theirs. The English Church is a modern church; its language therefore should be modern, that its liturgy may announce to posterity the era in which it was framed. But the Church of Rome is an ancient church: it therefore preserves its ancient liturgy, the language of which remounts to the origin of Christianity. I do not believe that history can furnish an instance of a people, who ever changed the language of their liturgy, and did not at the same time change their religion. The Christians of the Latin rite are not singular in the use of an ancient tongue in their service. The Greeks, Russians, Armenians, Syrians, Cophts, Ethiopians, Georgians, and the other Christians of the East, all retain the liturgies which they received from the fathers of their faith, and which are written in languages unintelligible to the vulgar. The same was the discipline of the Jews after the captivity; nor do we learn that it was ever blamed by our Saviour. Neither is it true, that the modern Church of England has always held in such abhorrence the celebration of the divine service in an unknown tongue. In the year 1560, an Act was passed for the introduc

* Charge, p. 16.