and German infidels were the mere echoes of their English masters.

Whatever the Bishop of Durham may think of this genealogy, he must at least acknowledge, that religious scepticism has flourished as much in the Protestant as in the Catholic states; and, if he persist in attributing its progress in the latter to the corruptions of the national religion, he must not complain if we attribute it in the former to a similar cause. As to the French revolution, that much of its horrors was the work of the French deists, is perhaps true. As the scum ascends to the surface, so, during the momentary phrenzy of the revolution, they rose to the head of the government, and improved the opportunity to attempt the destruction of religious order. But their conduct shewed that, far from thinking, with the Bishop of Durham, that catholicity was favorable to their projects, they treated it as their natural and most formidable enemy. The German deists have never been placed in a similar situation; but there can be little doubt, that much of the indecision, perfidy, and injustice, which for a while made the Prussian government the wonder and the scorn of Europe, was owing to the deistical and atheistical principles on which it was founded. Both French and Germans have already received their reward.

After all, it appears, that the Bishop does the English Catholics the honour to think less unfavourably of them than of their brethren on the continent. There Popery makes deists, here it makes zealots. Had he believed us, as he has represented the foreign Catholics to be, indifferent to all religious truth whatever, he would not have thought it necessary to sound

"If catholicity be congenial to atheism, and favourable to the propagation of impiety, as some of our Protestant countrymen have asserted, the very incongenial and unfavourable manner in which atheism and impiety have treated theirgood ally, are circumstances so paradoxical, that I think no ingenuity but their own can either penetrate or explain them." Reflections on the Spirit of Controversy, p. 208. To those who wish to see a more ample discussion on the subject, I would recommend the perusal of this acute and animated publication.

the tocsin of alarm, and to animate the zeal of his clergy against us. I am sorry we cannot thank him. Better were it for us would he, would the more bigoted part of our countrymen, form of us as unjust a notion as of the foreign Catholics; then, perhaps, like them, we might be permitted not only to shed our blood, but also to attain preferment in the armies of our country.* Then perhaps, as well as Jews, deists, and atheists, we might aspire to places of trust, emolument, and rank, and obtain the privileges for which our fathers fought, and which are the birth-right of every Englishman.

There is something ingenious, though quaint, in the manner in which the Right Reverend Prelate has marshalled his objections to what he conceives to be the Catholic creed. He affects to interest in his quarrel the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity; and very prudently places them in the front of the battle, "The doctrines and ordinances of the Church of Rome are," as he affirms, derogatory,

66

"1. From the honour of God the Father;

"2. From the mediatorship of the Son; and, "3. From the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit."+

These are certainly bold assertions, and if he can prove them by argument, I shall not be surprised at his enmity to the Catholic, or his attachment to the Protestant faith.

1. That the church of Rome derogates from the ho

In 1804, a law was passed without opposition, enabling his majesty to grant, at his discretion, all military commissions whatever to foreign catholics, though they had not disclaimed the erroneous tenets unjustly imputed to their religion in 1807, an act was proposed to enable his majesty to grant similar favours to English catholics, who have disclaimed such tenets, and it was refused, and the nation was thrown into a ferment, as if both the throne and the church were in danger.

+ Charge, p. 10.

56

nour of God the Father, he infers from the second precept of the Decalogue; Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath. It is in "vain," he tells us, "to allege that images are used "as the aids and not the objects of devotion. It is 'impossible to preserve the distinction in the minds "of the people. Abuse is unavoidable. Idolatry is "the inevitable consequence. In favour of this accusation, so unfounded in fact, so injurious to the feelings of a people as zealous for the honour of God as the Bishop of Durham himself, the only thing that can be said is, that it has been often and vehemently urged by the adversaries of the Church of Rome. It has also been often and victoriously refuted: but, probably, the reading of the bishop has been principally confined to our accusers, and has been seldom extended to our apologists. The opinions, which in his youth he imbibed from the bigotry and prejudice of Controvertists, he still cherishes in his old age, and condemns us as idolators, when he might any day, by an easy experiment, convince himself of the falsity of the accusation. Let him interrogate the first Catholic child of ten years of age, whom he may chance to meet in the streets, whether it be lawful to worship images? and he will receive for answer: No, by no means; for they can "neither hear, nor see, nor help us." This is the lesson which is impressed on our minds in our infancy; and it is so consonant to religion and common sense, that, I believe, it is never effaced. I may certainly claim a more extensive acquaintance with Catholics than the bishop of Durham; but I never yet met with any so ignorant, as to pay adoration to either images or pictures.

66

The bishop proceeds to observe that this practice" is repugnant to the letter of God's commandments.". But, as to the letter of the commandments, it may be observed, that the practice of Catholics is not more re

pugnant to it that the practice of Protestants. Taken literally, the commandments prohibit, without exception or qualification, the making of any graven thing, or the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or on the earth beneath. If we are to be judged by the letter of the law, let our adversaries submit to the same trial; and let the bishop of Durham justify, if he can, the graven things, and the likenesses of things in heaven above, and on the earth beneath, which still exist in his cathedral. It was formerly ornamented by the ingenuity of the sculptor and the painter: and of these ornaments, if many have been effaced by the Gothic fanaticism of the first reformers, many are still preserved by the pious care of their posterity. Aware of this difficulty, he has prudently inserted in his edition of the commandment, the words, " for the purpose of religious worship;"* an explanation which I cordially approve, as it perfectly agrees with the catholic doctrine. "This commandment," says our catechism, "forbids the making of images so as to adore and serve them: that is, it forbids making them our "Gods." If then Catholics be idolators, tell me, what is the bishop of Durham?

"To us," he continues, "it cannot be surprising, "that the same superstition which could induce any "one to believe that bread and wine (mere bodily ele"ments, of earthly manufacture) were converted into "the real body and blood of Christ, should without "much difficulty worship a creature image instead of "the Creator." In this eloquent passage, dictated by moderation and liberality itself, I have long been at a loss what to admire the most, the politeness of the expression, or the acuteness of the reasoning. The Catholic intellect, it seems, is, in the opinion of the Bishop of Durham, deeply and incurably diseased. The belief of the real presence is a kind of original sin, which vitiates all the faculties of the mind, deprives it of the power of distinguishing truth from falsehood, prepares it for the reception of every absurdity.

and

It is in vain that the Catholic may appeal to the express words of Christ: This is my body; in vain that he urge his adversary to adduce in support of any other tenet, words equally plain and significative: in vain that he advert to the consentient belief of all other Christian Churches on the face of the globe. It is a superstition, replies his lordship; its professors must be idolators; there can be little difficulty with them to worship a creature image instead of the

creator.

The Right Rev. Theologian has thus laid down the law his candour certainly will not refuse to be tried by it. He believes, according to the creed of his church, that Christ was truly God: but he cannot be ignorant, that several writers in this country, and those too men of talents and erudition, have maintained that he was a mere man. Now, were one of these to observe, that the same superstition (they think it so) which could induce the Bishop of Durham to believe that a person, clothed in the same flesh, and subject to the same infirmities as ourselves, was the very God who framed the heavens and the earth, might, with equal facility, persuade him to worship the creature image for the creator: were this remark to be made, I could wish to learn what would be his reply. Would he cite the texts which, in his opinion, establish the divinity of the Messiah? The Catholic with equal justice, may cite those which as evidently establish the real presence. Would he argue, that because you conceive the opinion of your adversary to be erroneous, you have no right to accuse him of other erroneous opinions which he disavows? The Catholic may make the same reply. In this respect, the Catholic and the Bishop of Durham stand on the same ground. I do not mean to infer that he is an idolator; but I am anxious to know how, while he maintain the justness of his own reasoning, he will prove that he is not.Again it appears that the learned Prelate disbelieves the real existence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper: and at the same time, as a true child of the Church of England, believes them to be