what in many respects doubtless are so, may be read, and corrected by the same persons who may have licly worshipping Gol in their own way, and of following the dictates of their consciences, in the city of Bristol, were compelled to abandon it, and to convert the building to a different use.

68

The inconsistency of Bishop Newton, cannot appear in a stronger light, comparing this action with some of his former professions, than from an extract from one of his more early Dissertations on Prophecy, (vol. I. p. 244,) where he says, they are only pretended friends to the Church, but real enemies to religion, who encourage persecution of any kind. But, unlike the meek and humble Jesus, his lordship of Bristol seemed to be an austere master; for, in a letter addressed by him to the House of Commons, as if convinced that servants in particular ought to be placed in a state of greater subjection to the rich, he asks," whether a law should not be framed for granting to masters a just authority over them? It may also deserve consideration, whether some corporal correction, so many blows, so many lashes, may not be properly inflicted, under certain regulations, for certain faults, and have as good effect in domestic as in military discipline?" As it is one of the apostolic characters of a primitive Bishop that he should be no striker, it is strange that even a pretender to this claim should open a fresh door for striking in others.

But while the late Bishop of Bristol was thus an advocate for coercion, in every sense of the word, and thus multiplying pains and penalties, instead of removing the burdens, and letting the oppressed go free, let us turn to the Bishop of Norwich, and to his late speech in the House of Lords: What an amiable rev

of character is here! After advo cating the cause of Catholic emancipation, with equal argument and feeling, and professing his attachment to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, and to its ministers, he concludes thus :"But if, not satisfied with this declaration, I should be called upon by any one to declare further, without qualification or reserve, that those who dissent from me are grossly ignorant, or wilfully perverse,-that they are not fit to be trusted either in civil or military situations of high responsibility, nor even to be believed on their oaths;-if I should be called upon to declare, that nearly two thirds of civilized Europe have adopted a creed which is little better than a tissue of absurdity and idolatry-if I should be called upon to declare, that a Fenelon and Pascal professed their belief in religious tenets which have no foundation whatever in reason or scripture ;if, in short, I should be called upon to declare, that many persons now living, as sincere and pious Chris tians, as loyal and good subjects as any the best of those who hear me, have also subscribed to tenets of such a description, and not only so, but have anxiously endeavoured to impress those tenets upon the minds of their nearest and dearest relatives, as the best guides of life, and the surest consolation in the hour of death;-if, I say, I should be called upon to make declarations of this kind, as the only way of proving my attachment to the Established Church and its ministers, I very frankly own that I disclaim so exclusive, so uncharitable an attachment. I never possessed it :-I do not feel it; nor, to speak plainly, do I greatly envy those who do."

VIGILANS.

SIR, FRIENDLY RIENDLY as I am to religious toleration, I take the opportunity through the medium of your Magazine, to state the principal cause which I think operates against Catholic emancipation. The Ministry have in a great measure ceded the question of the justice and necessity of the Catholic claims; but they doubt upon the propriety and expedience at this time, and I may add they will always continue to doubt. Were no other demands to be expected besides those alluded to, all religious scruples would have ceased years ago; but there are political motives which, from the peculiar complexion of the religiopolitical tendencies of the great sects in the United Kingdom, have had their natural weight in the scale of the minister. The established Church is considered as an equipoise between the Catholic and Dissenting bodies; it forms a barrier between the exuberance of both, and it he sitates to grant rights to one party which will be demanded, and cannot, without manifest injustice, be withholden from the other. It is, therefore, on political grounds only, that the Catholic claims will be re

sisted; and to speak sincerely, I think the Dissenting interest is the natural stumbling-block in the way of its completion. The Catholics consider the Establishment as the eldest born of their own Church; as a legitimate issue, though under heterodox influences, and like a minor, arrived at age, acting upon independent ground, and by its modifications and eminence, now consolidated and established. Not so cordially can they view the Presbyterian interest, which, in spite of a what few enlightened divines and

moderate individuals may urge, has a strong bias to be anti-monarchical, and to carry reform, both political and religious, to that length cautious and experienced legislators are not disposed to give credit for. Nor do I see, sir, how bodies whose essentials in faith are so diametrically opposite, can cordially unite. That great already preponderating body, the anti-establishmenters, have disabilities to remove of a civil nature, and till these are removed, they cannot act with full energies. To obtain this weight, they coalesce with any other extraneous body, and a union that is incongruous, cannot produce cordiality. I am led to these remarks from a considera. tion of the cause which obstructs the Catholic claims, and, while bigoted Protestants see nothing but danger, cruelty, and death in granting religious toleration to Catholics, the Government withhold, from political precaution only, those rights they would otherwise willingly grant. Your's, &c. OXONIENSES.

perused the work to which they allude. The first extracts are from letters addressed to me by a worthy and pious clergyman, in the neighbourhood of London. The second is an extract of a letter from a country Catholic clergyman, whose name would stamp authority on any communication, as his various erudition and many excellent publications, as well as the liberality of his spirits, and the worthiness and exalted purity of his conduct, reflects honour on his profession, and is or namental to his Church. By furnishing a place for these extracts in your work, you will oblige

THE AUTHOR OF THE PORTRAITURE OF CATHOLICISM. Oct. 1812.

I

To the Rev. J. Nightingale.
SIR,

Shall now fulfill my promise of pointing out to you, some of those passages in your Portraiture

of Catholicism, which seem to me objectionable. Page 10th. You say, and with great reason, that you have, at times, not hesitated to write in terms which you fear will not prove pleasing to any party. But why, then, did you not hesitate to write such things? Surely it must cause you some uneasiness to have the whole world against you, unless, like Luther, you can resolve to fight alone against them all. Your assertion that the Fathers of the Church have agreed in hardly a single point, stands in need of stronger proofs, than the authority of Charles 1st, who was Divine, as evidently appears from the quotation. Tertullian was a Montanist, and therefore ceased to be Father or a Member of the Catholic Church; Cyprian was a Rebaptist, and still continued to

no

be a Catholic, because his opinion was not condemned by the Church till after his death; Origen

was an Anthropomorphist, and therefore ceased to be a Catholic; Jerome, I believe, never forbid second marriages, which, I suppose, is meant by Monoganist, if he did, his words should be produced; Nazienzan was no Angelist; Eusebius was an Arian, and as such condemn'd by the Church; St. Austin always submitted his opinions to the judgment of the Church. P. 15th. A general apostacy from the plain and simple doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, is impossible, if the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, which is the pillar and ground of truth. P. 16. The history of the Jansanists is no part of the history of Catholicism. French spirit of independence on the Pope, is an expression which might lead some to imagine that nation did not acknowledge his supremacy. P. 18. Every Catholic has the privilege of deciding, as well as you, for himself, what appears to his own mind to be the genuine religion of the Son of God, &c.; whereas you insinuate, that he is obliged to follow the weak and fallible commandments of men.

P. 7th. You assert that the history of Heretics, during the two first centuries, furnishes abundance of evidence against the Catholicity of any particular Church. But did you reflect that the word Catholic is a relative term, and that consequently the Catholic Church must be that which is the most general, in contradistinction to any particular society of Christians? The Catholicity of any particular church, may be as-. certained by comparing its tenets with those of the greatest body of Christians. P. 9th. Concerning the the catalogue of Popes, you must observe, that though there may be

some insufficient doubt whether Cletus or Anacletus succeeded St. Linus, yet, that the opinion that Cletus succeeded him is the general one. As to the other little difficulties about the succession, you will easily solve them by comparing several catalogues, and examining the reasons why they apparently differ. Your expression, P. 10th. that you should not ever admit, that any man or set of men, has a right to trample on the sacred exercise of reason, or the unalienable rights of conscience, is an insinuation that St. Peter, or his successors, have trampled on, &c.; but surely you ought to prove this by some examples, which, I think, you will find an Herculean task. Immediately after this expression you continue-If visibility and episcopal ordination are essential, &c. Visibility is certainly essential, for there can be no society of men invisible, now the Catholic Church is the whole community of Catholics. Episcopal ordination is essential, as may be easily proved by the general consent of the Fathers of the Church. The Scriptures being silent about the divine right of Episcopacy, is not a sufficient proof of its not being a divine right. "Hold fast Traditions,." says St. Paul P. 12. You say the Roman Catholics to the present hour, hold the great articles of faith, with but few exceptions. What exceptions? I can see none. P. 13. A false calumny is not a proper expression. P. 15. Roman Catholicism is quite a new expression; and seems to imply, that Catholics are a sect which cannot be true, as all sects are so called, from dividing or cutting themselves off from this communion. P. 17th. You say St. Cyprian asserts, that no Bishop was superior to his brethren; but you do not refer us to his works; and if he does, he does not speak of jurisdicSon. St. Jerome speaks of the power

conferred by the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Mr. Gibbon is no divine, and therefore, through ignorance, he speaks of the powers derived to a Bishop from the people. P. 21. Gibbon's assertion that the successor of St. Peter was too feeble to assume the title of Universal Bishop, is a malicious insinuation, since it was from a conscientious motive that he declined that title, to which he judged he had no claim. P. 25th. You say the Acts of the Apostles do not convey any such a notion of St. Peter's supremacy. But you cannot but observe, that he is always mentioned first, and represented as haranguing the Eleven, &c. Besides consult the Gospel, you will find sufficient proofs of this, especially if you will attend to the interpretation of the most Learned Fathers of the Church. P. 26th. Pray what authority is the Duke of Grafton ; where did he study divinity? P. 28th. Card, I believe, is a Protestant, and therefore is not to be considered as an authority in this case. P. 30th. You ridicule a miracle which has been confirmed by more witnesses and authors than any other in Church history. See Rev. Alban Butler's Saints Lives for many of them. P. 34th. The superstition of some churches about the wood of the cross no way affects the faith of the Catholic Church. St. Gregory Nazienzan compares the multiplication of the pieces to the miraculous multiplication of the loaves. P. 48th. All that you have inserted about decretals should have been omitted as it only serves to blind the ignorant reader, and make him suppose that the Popes have gained their spiritual supremacy by such forgeries. P. 55th. It by no means appears from Fleury's history, that the Popes have in reality no exclusive jurisdiction, nor was Fleu ry himself of any such opinion.

P. 69. Roscoe is not to be admitted as an authority; but if what he says be true, the Catholic Church is not answerable for the Pope's conduct, which ought to be explained. P. 61 and seq. You do not distinguish between the Church or Court of Rome, and the Universal Church. P. 65. Age of superstition is an unnecessary censure of our forefathers: and superstitions of the priesthood seems to insinuate, that superstition and priesthood are inseparable; which God forbid! P. 67. You say, few writers are agreed as to the period when the Council of Nice was called; whereas almost all agree that it was in the year 325. What you say of the Council being upon the point of falling into error about celibacy is not properly explained. The fact is this, some of the bishops thought it would be more perfect in priests who had been married before their ordination, to abstain from their wives after it; as the bishops in the Greek Church were obliged to do: now this would certainly have been no error, it would indeed have been a severe law, and therefore they agreed, upon mature de liberation and the suggestions of St. Paphnutius, to drop the design of passing it into a law. It would not have been an unnatural law any more than fasting and other corporeal austerities. P. 68th. What you say of their voting certain dogmas into orthodoxy, seems to imply that those things were not articles of faith before; whereas all Catholics hold that the Church cannot make any one new article of faith; it can only explain what seems obscure. You quote no author for what you say of their indecent wrangling, &c. What you say of the insignificancy of the distinction between homousion and homoiousion is as much as to prefer your own judgment to that of so many (318) of the most learned

bishops. Surely you cannot think that insignificant that they thought so important. No wonder that Eusebius, being an Arian, should pretend that miracles were wrought in confirmation of his opinion. P. 73. The antiquity of Arianism is not a correct conclusion; as it was quite new. M. Du Pin is not an approved author. Nothing can be more humble than the language of Constantine to the bishops, by which it is evident he had no idea of being a supreme head or dictator in the church. P. 81. Mosheim being an adversary, is not to be attended to when he inveighs against the Church without discretion. P. 83. The Church did not divide into fac tions; for Clement VII. being an anti-pope, was, with all his followers, excommunicated as schismatics. It is not right to say in fact, there were three Popes, for there was never more than one true one at once.P. 85. What you quote from Mosheim and Padre Paulo, is of no authority. P. 87. The cause of Eugenius was adopted by a large majo rity; of what use then is it to give such a long account of those dissentions, which to the ignorant reader might convey an idea that the Church may err, or that one true Council may be in opposition in faith to another. P. 100. The profligacy and laxity of the clergy; the pride and obstinacy of the Roman court; the extravagancy, &c. of the supreme Pontiff, could be no reasons to reform or change the faith, as some of your ignorant readers might suppose from your expressions. The art of printing certainly conduced to bring about this unfor tunate change by disseminating errors among people not very capa ble of distinguishing them from the truth. You speak of the sale of Indulgences as if Tetzel or the Catholic church sold them, which is