of Rome. With respect to this hatred of Popery, there may, we are ready to grant, be different degrees of feeling. But if there be any professors of religion who feel it not-and, generally, if there be any professors of religion who do not feel more or less of hatred and natural antipathy to false doctrine of every kind -we have no great opinion of their Christianity. As to the peace which wants this feeling, it will generally be found at bottom either very unmeaning, or very malignant. It generally has, for its accompaniment, more or less of a hatred of the Truth. In fact, there are strong antipathies, on the part both of the decided enemies of the Truth, and its decided friends. But the difference is this. The decided friends of the Truth have their antipathies, and express them. The enemies also have theirs, but disguise them with the cloke of universal benevolence; and enter into the battle with murderous shouts of " peace,"

liberality," and "charity." Amongst the enemies of religion, open and concealed, the scale of malignity will generally be found to rise with that of assumed gentleness; and the blandest of unbelievers will generally be found the most bitter opponents, and the most cruel persecutors.

But there are other things by which the true character of the present work comes out. The author's political sentiments are of the most extraordinary kind. The following passage was at first beyond us.

There is something, on the same principle, equally more terrible in the guilty success of the misguided Mary, when she drove out him to whom she owed her being, to wander through the wide world for the sake of his faith, than in the trial wherewith it pleased God to allow her ill-used father to shew, if not by death, yet by "the loss of all things," his constancy to that mode of serving his Maker and Saviour, which he judged to be most acceptable in his sight. p. 128. It is explained, however, in a subsequent passage.

Now to prosper in guilt, (as the Parliament did in their regicide, and the Princess of Orange in her undutifulness), &c. p. 134.

And again,

To the eye of faith and Christianity, king James in the convent of La Trappe is a far higher object of envy and admiration, than his unnatural children on their father's throne. p. 132.

This is the writer who is so highly offended by the political strictures of some Protestant writers, who object to the breach of oaths. But, as to the doctrines of Popery-the author distinctly favours them. For example, the sale of indulgences.

The sale of indulgences, which, perverted as it has been, is still in some respects useful. (p. 74.)

And, as to those whom we call our Protestant martyrs, they were after all, it seems, no martyrs. For, in answering the allegation that Rome is spoken of in the Apocalypse as being

drunken "with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus," our author first refers to those Protestants who have been put to death on religious grounds by Papists, then to other individuals who have suffered under different circumstances, and then adds:

When all these things are remembered and considered, as it will appear impossible to confine this charge to the Church of Rome, so shall we find reason for believing that it does not apply to her at all. For if the matter be weighed dispassionately, it will be doubtful whether any of the persons thus put to death can be considered, strictly speaking, as the "martyrs of Jesus." To their own opinion of what they judged to be the doctrine of Jesus Christ, they were undoubtedly martyrs; but it was not because they were Christians that they were slain, not because they bore the name and professed the faith of Jesus Christ, but because those who killed them deemed their doctrines contrary to Christianity, and derogatory to the honour of Jesus: it seemed to them, that the holders of such doctrines were blasphemers and impious, their persons offensive and odious to him, and that therefore, by an unauthorized conclusion, it was the duty of all who loved him to punish them. pp. 153, 154.

By this time we have said enough to shew where our author really is.—And now, as his work contains so many of the common arguments for Popery, it may be expected that we should expose some of them. The fact is, however, that this writer is hampered and it were better, perhaps, to answer an avowed Roman-Catholic, if we went at length into the question, than an author who is of course obliged to lay himself under some restraints. We content ourselves, therefore, with noticing a few particulars. On the power exercised by the Church of Rome over sovereign princes, he writes thus:

In considering this point there is no need to dwell on the impious and unwarrantable power of deposing sovereign princes, claimed and exercised heretofore by the Church of Rome; because with all the formality possible the learned bodies and high authorities of that church have disowned it, and denied that any such power now exists. Let us give others that credit for their assertions which we expect for our own; and let both parties consent to bury in oblivion the fact of such a claim having ever been asserted. p. 97.

It is granted, then, that this "impious and unwarrantable power" was heretofore" claimed and exercised" by the Church of Rome. This is admitted, as a "fact." What then does the author urge in vindication of this fact? Why, that the authorities of the Romish Church have "disowned" such a power. -But this term "disowned" is unsatisfactory. It cannot mean that they have denied what formerly took place, for the " 'fact is admitted. Does it simply mean, then, that they have renounced any such power, as now existing? But this is by no means satisfactory. We do not call upon Rome to disown, merely. We call upon her to own. We call upon her to acknowledge that she has done wrong. We call upon her, while she acknowledges the fact, to condemn it. We call upon her to

admit and lament it. We call upon her to say that she has erred. We call upon her to condemn the PRINCIPLE of her former conduct. Till she has done this, she has done nothing. She may renounce the power in the present day (having no ability to exercise it) again and again. When she acknowledges her past conduct to have been culpable, we may begin to listen to her. Again:

What then? because I love my mother, shall I, when she unhappily has a quarrel with her sister, inflame and aggravate that quarrel, by setting her sister's conduct in a worse light than it deserves, or by endeavouring to puff her up with false pride, as though she were herself perfect? Will that be the part of a Christian son? Will it tend to my mother's good? or to my own honour? P. 119.

But this statement does not fairly represent the case. The question between your mother and her sister is not merely a disagreement, not merely a family quarrel, but a question of character. Your mother's sister is a bad woman. Your mother, honest creature, says so, and you deny it. Nay, you quite forget yourself. You take your mother's sister's part against your mother; defending the former, and insulting the latter. You plainly think your mother no better than her sister; nay, in your warmth suffer it to escape you, that you consider your mother, in some respects, the worse of the two.

Again:

In most of those points which may justly be deemed essential, the Romanists have themselves shewn a disposition to accommodate their services and system to meet the scruples and wishes of reasonable objectors; so that the Reformation or Protestation has thus far answered its purpose. I instance the removal of images from their places of worship in this country, the translation of their Liturgy into English, and the purifying it from most of the objectionable prayers and legends, which were among the chief of the things aimed at by the Reformers. p. 121.

To impute any but the best of motives for these concessions, you deem uncharitable. But, after all, what real change has taken place? These alterations evince no change of PRINCIPLE. The Romanists may alter peculiar practices, where they give peculiar offence. Here they may secrete images, translate the "Liturgy," and remove "most of the" legends. Elsewhere they may grant to the laity the use of the cup. But what amendment does this evince, if, in places more out of sight, the abuses are still maintained? By attempting to cozen us by these partial and local changes, Rome may tell us that she considers us a very silly people; and the event has shewn that she is not far mistaken: but this proves no amendment on her own part. Let her remove her images at Rome. Let her purify some of those dark holes of Catholic Europe, which are the scene of abominations now unknown, but soon, perhaps, to be exposed.

Unless she will consent to do this, we must still consider her much the same as she always was: and as to her improved dispositions, we see no disposition but such as may be traced in her throughout,-to yield in externals, without making any real sacrifice; to surrender what she must, but to keep what she can; to draw as many as possible to herself, but not to move one foot, as to essentials, in advancing to meet them.

Again:

As to the first of these points, the "forbidding to marry," let it be remarked, that it is rather an unfair mode of treatment, a sort of blowing hot and cold with the same mouth, to charge the Church of Rome generally with "forbidding to marry," while at the same time she is found fault with, for esteeming the ordinance of matrimony so highly as to count it one of the sacraments. If she has done the latter, the first charge must fall to the ground: for St. Paul speaks not of those who forbade marriage in certain cases, but of those who forbade it altogether, which the Church of Rome has never thought of doing. All she has done has been with regard to one class of persons, ecclesiastics 146, 147.

PP.

Here we cannot discover the unfairness. Rome does both, and therefore is charged with both. She exalts matrimony into a sacrament, and therefore is charged with this. She forbids her ministers to marry, and therefore is charged with this. How can this be unfair? So it is with the Holy Communion. It might be said, "This is rather unfair, to charge the Church of Rome with making too much of the sacrament by withholding it in part from the laity, and yet with making too little of it, by degrading it into a carnal ordinance, and doing away with its spirituality."-But, if Rome does both, how can she complain that both are laid to her charge? As to the author's assertion, that if Rome has counted matrimony as a sacrament, the charge of forbidding to marry must "fall to the ground;" this by no means follows. He speaks, indeed, of charging Rome" generally" with forbidding to marry: but we know not that the charge was ever made, except with reference to the case, to which it really applies-namely, that of her ministers. -And here, also, the case is not stated quite correctly. Our author intimates that Rome forbids marriage, not "altogether," but only" in certain cases;" and then mentions ecclesiastics. Rome, however, does not forbid the marriage of ecclesiastics, only in certain cases," but prohibits it altogether." She may therefore be justly described as "forbidding to marry." -So may she, also, as "commanding to abstain from meats," though there are days on which the use of meat is allowed by her.

66

But enough of these details. When cases occur, like that now before us, we are at a loss what to think of them. A Cler

gyman advocating Popery is a painful, but in these days unhappily not a novel, spectacle. The case, apparently, is that of intoxication, already described by us elsewhere: when, beguiled by the great whore to drink of the cup of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the man becomes spiritually drunk. As to the modern display of charity, on which subject we have already said so much, if any have not hitherto seen through it, surely they will see through it in the present instance. The cry has often been heard before. But by carrying it a little higher, our author has in fact burlesqued it: nor do we hear any thing in his notes but the tone of some Evangelical advocates of Popery, raised a pitch or two, so as to be audibly and manifestly ridiculous and absurd. He draws us on, by the plea of charity, to give ear to a flaming encomium of Romanism, accompanied with some most bitter reflections on our own church. And we must add our opinion, that his mode of attacking the Establishment is unfair in the extreme. The things in the Church of Rome which he vindicates, and which we reprobate, are matters of principle. Therefore, in order to palliate them, by a comparison with the Church of England, he ought to have brought forward her principles. But this is not his course. He has brought forward into the comparison those faults in our Church, which are a departure from her principles, in her degenerate sons. Such departures from principle are most severely to be denounced, indeed; and by so doing, and by laying them at the proper door, we prove our love to the church itself. But to use them in making the comparison, to employ them as palliations of the fundamental errors of Rome, we must consider most unfair, and most unchurchmanlike. To vindicate Rome, it is necessary to keep her principles and distinctive character out of sight, and to appeal to the plausible demeanour of her sons, put on, to make an impression, in partibus infidelium. To vindicate the Church of England, we must keep her worthless children out of sight; and the more we can get back to essentials, and first principles, and distinctive features, and written formularies, (thank God for written formularies!) the better.-If, therefore, this "peace-offering" be intended for such as we are (though that we can hardly suppose, for little of a peaceful feeling is manifested towards us), we feel ourselves called upon to decline accepting it. Nay, a work that speaks so plainly, must be calculated surely to alarm even the friends of Popery and we can imagine the bishops, and others, who have spoken and written for the Roman Catholics, shaking their heads with no little concern; and, while they pronounce it to be a "clever book," adding, "But he has rather overdone it."