" and learned men." In my Life of Erasmus recently published, I took care to notice the archbishop's liberality to him. Having presented my Historical Memoirs to Doctor Parr, I received from him a letter, in which he censures, in the severest terms, my language upon, what I consider the blameable parts of the archbishop's character. The whole of this vituperation I inserted in my Reminiscences.* In a note to it, I thus express it,† myself:-" If a new edition of the Historical "Memoirs shall be called for, the Reminiscent "will reconsider, with the attention due to all "that falls from Doctor Parr, what is said on the unfortunate and wickedly treated prelate. In the "mean time, he wishes both his descendants and "the members of the church of which that prelate

was a distinguished founder, to be in possession "of the spirited, elegant, and amiable extenuation, "of what may be thought vulnerable in that "prelate's character."

I conclude my account of him in the Historical Memoirs, with these words :-"The sentence, "which, after he had been pardoned for his treason, "condemned him to the flames for heresy, was "execrable. His firmness under the torture to which "it consigned him, has seldom been surpassed "It presents an imposing spectacle, and we then

willingly forget what history records against him. But, when we read in the Biographia Britannica, * App. Note II. p. 340. + P. 345. Hist. Mem. Vol. I. pp. 202, 203.

"that he was the glory of the English nation, " and the ornament of the Reformation,' his mis"deeds rush on our recollection, we are astonished at the effect of party, and the intrepidity of the biographer."

2. Mr. Todd asserts, that I charitably say, "that Cranmer and his association wished Mary " and her associates to be exposed to their pro

jected persecution."* I am surprised at this remark. Would not Mary have been exposed to the Reformatio Legum Antiquarum, if it had been sanctioned by the legislature? Did not Cranmer and his associates wish, did they not exert themselves to their utmost to have it passed into a law? Does not Strype, as he is cited by Mr. Todd, describe it" a very noble enterprise?" Does not Burnet, also cited by Mr. Todd, describe it “a "noble design, so near being perfected in Edward's "time?"

I believe Cranmer to have been a learned man n; naturally kind, and disposed to moderate councils : but that, unfortunately for him, he was born in times, to which his virtue was very unequal;I believe that this is the opinion, which all well informed and moderate Protestants entertain of him.

3.-Mr. Todd (p. 24) accuses me of "unfairly "citing Bishop Jeremy Taylor, on the subject of "Transubstantiation, and the Mass." He refers to "The Book of the Roman Catholic Church," (p. 327), and to my "Enquiry as to the Declaration * Mr. Todd's Critical Introduction, pp. 99, 100.

against Transubstantiation, &c. published sépa "rately in 1822, and copied into the 18th chapter of the Book of the Roman Catholic Church.”

My object in the Enquiry, was to show that the Oath and Declaration against Transubstantiation, prescribed by the 30th Charles II, as a qualification for sitting and voting in parliament, could not be conscientiously made or taken by a Protestant. I suggested the negative: I assign for it, as one reason, that the person, who makes the declaration and takes the oath, swears by it, that

แ

there is no transubstantiation, and that the sa"crifice of the Mass is superstitious and idola"trous." I observe, that no one can conscientiously affirm any thing upon oath, unless he has previously ascertained by due inquiry, the truth of the affirmation. I proceed to state, that the superstition and idolatry charged upon the Catholics by the declaration and oath, must be in a certain degree problematical, as it has been doubted by many eminent Protestants. For this I quote Doctor Jeremy Taylor, Mr. Thorndyke, Bishop Cosin, and Bishop Kenn, and transcribe the passages.

To that which is cited from Doctor Taylor, Mr. Todd opposes a passage from the same author's "Dissuasive from Popery," which he says, asserts the contrary.*

66

He observes, that the "Liberty of Prophesying," was written by Doctor Taylor in his

*He cites, Chapter II. Section XII. In Mr. Heber's edi tion of the prelate's works, it is to be found in Section XI.

younger years; the "Dissuasive from Popery"" in his mature age. But was this so? The former was written by Doctor Taylor in his 34th, the latter in his 53d year. Is it settled, that a scholar, who like Doctor Taylor has lived in books from his infancy, writes better at 53 than at 37.

However this may be, after repeated serious perusal of the passage cited by Mr. Todd from Dr. Taylor's" Dissuasive from Popery," I am convinced that it does not substantially contradict the passage cited from his " Liberty of Prophesying." I admit that it appears, that it may be thought,-that it may be construed to contradict it: that it sounds like, that it approaches very near to a contradiction; but I aver, that it is not a contradiction. The fact evidently is, that for some reason, Doctor Taylor wished to be thought to contradict the doctrine expressed in the "Liberty of Prophe

sying;" and that for some other reason, he wished not to do it explicitly, and therefore adopted middle expressions.

If I had been aware of the passage cited from the "Dissuasive from Popery,"-which I assure Mr. Todd I was not,-I should not have inserted

the passage from the " Prophesyings;" for although I think the former is not affected by the latter, I think the latter renders the sense of the former debateable. I shall only add, that those who discuss the point, should read the whole passage in "The Dissuasive," and judge from the whole; and should also bear steadily in mind, that the question is not, whether the doctrine be true,

or what was Doctor Taylor's opinion upon it; but whether Doctor Taylor thought the Catholics, with their notions of the real presence, could, with justice, be deemed idolaters, for their doctrine of transubstantiation and the Mass.*

4.—Mr. Todd, (p. 26), by a very harmless, and I am sure, a very honourable mistake, charges me with citing Bishop Gunning," for the same doc"trine,-concealing what should be added respect"ing him, that after the bill was passed, he took "the oath." Mr. Todd refers to the "Book of the Catholic Church," (p. 327). I have more than once perused this page,-some pages immediately preceding, and some immediately following it,and the article "Transubstantiation," in both editions of the "Book of the Roman Catholic "Church," and can find in them no citation from Bishop Gunning, or even any mention of that prelate's name.

* I have been blamed for saying, in the "Book of the Roman Catholic Church," that the oath declares transubstantiation to be idolatrous, when it only declares this of "the Mass." But is not transubstantiation the very essence of the Mass?

I avail myself of this opportunity to mention what I should have noticed before, that Doctor Phillpotts has filled his work with pretty stories of the saints in heaven, and souls in purgatory. Not one of these do I believe. Some, he says, are related in the Roman breviary. The parts of Scripture, and decrees of general councils, inserted in the Roman breviary, are of faith: the rest is matter of history, and entitled to historical credit, and to nothing beyond it. In the diocese of Paris, and most other dioceses in France, the Roman breviary has been superseded, and another substituted. All Catholics agree, that the Roman breviary wants reform.