much of this hatred was owing to the calumnies propagated against them? to the Tall Bully?

2. You notice, (page 294), my comparison of the breach of the promises made by Charles II. at the Revolution, to the breach of the promises made by Mr. Pitt at the Union. We are grateful to Mr. Pitt for his exertions to redeem his promise; we respect the conscientious feelings of Geo. III. which withheld his sanction of them; but no such royal feelings now existing, we think ourselves entitled to the performance of the promise: national honour and sound policy equally require it.

3. In Your eulogy of Doctor Southey, (p. 295), You represent me as having challenged him and begun the controversy. By his "Book of the "Church," he threw out the challenge: I took it up, I can truly say much against my will.-I trust he has found in me a fair and an honourable adversary. I respect him, but I fear him not.

4. You barely mention the Corporation Act: I shall only say, that it is hard upon the Catholics to suffer by an act, which, by the confession, I believe of all, was not designed to operate against them.

5. You say little on the Test Act: So far as respects its real purpose, securing the Protestant succession to the throne,-we have no objection to it: we have sworn to support that succession, and

though You assert the contrary, our oaths may be depended upon.

6. You proceed, (page 296 and 297), to mention and express Your high approbation of the act which excludes Roman Catholics from the senate. In my letter to Dr. Southey, I have observed, at some length, upon this act. I avail myself of this opportunity to offer the following observation upon it.

"The all accomplished St. John," as Mr. Pope calls that distinguished infidel, John Viscount Bolingbroke, had forsworn his allegiance to his sovereign; had conspired to dethrone the house of Hanover; had invited the French into this country; had planned the subversion of its government; had, in short, become a traitor, with every kind of aggravation of which treason is susceptible.

Now, in what manner was this traitor to his God, his king, and his country, punished?

This traitor to his God, his king, and his country, was punished by a less severe punishment than that, by which the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Shrewsbury, and the other Catholic peers now suffer; and under which You wish them to suffer till the end of time. The traitor was permitted to live; to hold his titles and possessions, and to transmit them to his children; he was only excluded from sitting and voting in parliament. But this exclusion was made personal to himself, and was not to operate on his children. Now this very exclu

sion, which the legislature thought an adequate punishment for the crimes of this infidel, this recreant, this traitor, but which it did not inflict on his successors in the peerage, as it does on the Catholics, successors of Catholic peers :-This exclusion, this very exclusion, is the actual doom of the noble, the honourable, and the honoured Catholic peers of this realm;-men never mentioned without reverence and regard; is inflicted on all their Catholic successors, and cheered by You.

7.—You tell me, (page 297), that “I vehe"mently object to the epithets, 'idolatrous and "superstitious,' which the oath applies to tran"substantiation and the invocation of the saints, "and that I attempt to prove that no Protestant " is justified in making this assertion."

In my eighteenth letter to Dr. Southey, I suggest that the immense number of Christians who believe in transubstantiation; the large proportion of Protestants, who believe in consubstantism; and the opinions of many distinguished Protestants, who, without believing in either, think there is idolatry in neither,—showed that the alledged idolatry of the belief in transubstantiation, was problematical. I then proceed to observe, that "the sacredness "of an oath, which never should be taken, if that "which is sworn to admit of reasonable doubt; that "good sense, which is shocked by the language of the declaration;" that "the terms of

66

amity which subsist between the United Kingdom " and many Catholic states, and which render the "declaration an uncivil state paper; the littleness "of wounding unnecessarily the feelings of that

،،

66

،،

66

proportion of the community which is Catholic, "(for a Protestant is not more hurt at a Turk's calling him a Christian dog, than a Catholic is at calling him an Idolater) ;-the impolicy of keeping any thing in existence, which unnecessarily insults and irritates;—the acknowledged "wisdom and expediency of every legislature and "ministerial measure which promotes a reciprocity "of good-will and conciliation, and above all THE MERITS, I confidently said, and say,—THE MERITS OF THE CATHOLICS, seem to point out "the necessity of repealing the objectionable and "inofficious declaration."

66

Upon these suggestions, You express yourself, (page 297), in the following terms:

8.-" With respect to transubstantiation,-We "have no other words to express our opinion of "him, who kneels down to a thin bread-cake, after "the priest has blessed it, believing that the pal"pable substance is the very and material blood ،، and bones of him who is in heaven. If we had

6

more expressive terms than these, we would use "them to describe our opinion of him who taketh "flour, and with part thereof he maketh bread, “ he eateth, and is satisfied; with part thereof "he maketh a God; he falleth down, yea, he

"worshippeth it.' What shall we say? We may "not assert that all this is idolatrous and super"stitious. O! no! we must repel the thought,

as blasphemy! Kneel on then, and cry aloud, "for it is a God; for the flour was good-and "the water was good-and the priest was rightly "ordained-and the worshipper believeth not his senses-nor his understanding-nor his reason, nor the Scripture."

The language in which You express yourself in this passage,-I leave to the taste, the feeling and reflection of every gentleman in the world.

I wished to say nothing further upon it: but I feel it calls on me to declare, that it is a great misrepresentation of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. The Roman Catholic church does not believe that "the priest maketh a God:" she believes it to be heresy, to be folly, to be impiety to say this. She believeth, that, when the priest pronounces the words of consecration, God, by his omnipotence, works the mysterious change.

Roman Catholics "do not fall down before the "bread; do not worship it." They fall down before Jesus Christ, whom they believe to be present under the form and the appearance of the bread: Him, alone, they worship.

Your representation of our doctrine contains other inaccuracies.

9.-You then, (p 298), mention Oates's plot, but without a single word of condemnation of the