eminently possessed, in composing a system of doctrines, which (as they thought) are really founded on the Bible when rightly understood;" and then (No. 1. p. 110.) "claimed the assent of the public to their interpretation, on the ground of its conformity with the original,”—and then "required all churchmen, clergy and laity, to subscribe to their Liturgy, as a proof of churchmanship,"-(No. 1. note p. 107.)— though I can perfectly well understand you, when you say on the same passage," that by the laws of this country, the Liturgy is the great criterion of the churchman,"-and (No. I. p. 111.) "that it is really the bulwark of the Established Church,"-and, moreover, "that the fundamental principle which pervades the whole of your Sermon at St. Paul's, is the necessity, on the part of churchmen, of associa ting the Liturgy with the Bible," (No. 1. p. 114.)—thoughI can comprehend all this, and am ready to admit, that you have labored hard and successfully-yet I cannot, by any means in my power, so bend the stubborn faculties of my understanding, as to perceive by what rule in logic,— upon what principle in ethics, you subjoin in your note of page 128, every true Protestant, when arguing with a Catholic, must contend for the Bible alone!!"

66

1

Passing by this little difficulty, I cannot help comparing you to the dove, which finding no solid ground to rest on, returned to the ark from whence it had escaped. After fairly confessing the defectiveness of the grand Protestant principle of Luther and Chillingworth, THE BIBLE ALONE -you have, honorably to yourself and religion, publicly returned to the old principle of Catholics, and now contend with us, for that very LITURGY, which the Reformers rejected. Your principle is mine-and we have only to guide ourselves by it, to effect that happy union of our respective Churches, which the learned Dr. Shute Barrington declares to have been "a long desired measure," and

an object" of the anxious wishes of some of the best and ablest members of both communions." I will transcribe his words, together with a few of my own reflections, from the INTRODUCTION to my edition of the LITURGY.'

"There appears to me," says he, "in the present circumstances of Europe, better grounds of hope for a successful issue to a dispassionate investigation of the differences which separate the two Churches of England and of Rome, than at any former period. With this view and these hopes, I continue to exert my humble efforts in this great cause of charity and truth."

As a Catholic, I certainly cannot assent to what this learned Bishop erroneously imputes to my religion; but in every wish, expressing a love and desire of CATHOLIC UNION, I not only most sincerely accord, but would glory to become the servant of the servants of God, in promoting that event. Nor can any thing give me more pleasure and delight than to transcribe the following lines of this Prelate to his clergy. After wrongly inferring from some of the doctrines and usages of our Church, that we countenance that which is "idolatrous, sacrilegious, blasphemous, impious, and prejudicial to the laws and constitution of this free empire," (for, in fact, we abhor all such wickedness equally with Protestants themselves,) he continues: "If, I say, by persevering in a spirit of truth and charity, we could bring the Roman Catholics to see these most important objects in the same light, that the Catholics (he means the members) of the Church of England do, (surely, then, in truth and charity, they will not require us to say of ourselves what we know to be false) a very auspicious opening would be made for that long desired

See "Liturgy, or a Book of Common Prayers, &c." Keating and Co.

measure of CATHOLIC UNION, which formerly engaged the talents and anxious wishes of some of the best and ablest members of both communions.

"And what public duty of greater magnitude can present itself to us, than the restoration of peace and union to the Church, by the reconciliation of two so large portions of it, as the Churches of England and of Rome? What undertaking of more importance and higher interest can employ the piety and learning of the ministers of Christ, than the endeavour to accomplish this truly Christian work? What more favorable period can occur than the present; when gratitude on the one hand, and mutual interest on the other, prompt to such an accommodation? Gratitude for valuable privileges already received, and mutual interest, in opposition to an overwhelming tyranny, equally hostile to all ecclesiastical establishments that are not yet subject to its infidel domination, which has at this time usurped, or is laboring to usurp, the domination of every state in Europe, except this happy country, so highly favored by a protecting Providence. If I should live to see a foundation for such an union well laid, and happily begun; if Providence should but indulge me with a dying prospect of that enlargement of the Messiah's kingdom, which we have reason to hope is not very remote, with what consolation and joy would it illumine the last hour of a long life? With what pleasure should I use the raptu rous language of good old Simeon :- Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace.' May that Saviour who has left us in the record of his Gospel, his own anxious prayer for the union of his disciples, promote and prosper the blessed work of Catholic Union."

In short, Sir, whilst you contend for the LITURGY, as a necessary companion to the Bible, I shall never despair of seeing this "long desired measure" brought about

since I actually consider you a champion of the Catholic Church-a defender of tradition. Your own adversary, against whom you express such bitter complaints on No. 1. page 112, styles it "the traditions of fallible men." Every argument and authority you urge against the Dissenters is evidence for us against the original Reformers:-and the whole body of Catholic and Protestant controversy will be involved in the single question of the comparative authorities of the two Liturgies. You have received yours from the innovating hands of the Reformers-we only carry ours farther back in the Christian history, and pretend to have inherited it from the earlier fathers of the Church and disciples of the apostles. The argument between us is simply a contest de valore testium, on which human judgment can easily decide. You truly say, (No. 1. p. 111.)“ No doubt, the Reformers were fallible, like other men; but the question is not, whether they were fallible, but whether they failed? not whether they could not err, but whether they did err?"-Now, that they did err, in your opinion, and in the opinions of other churchmen, I think evident, from the fact of your present Liturgy being a correction of theirs. Many of the altered passages are given in my edition of our Catholic Liturgy, as they originally stood.

You even admit, Sir, that many object-"your language savours of Catholicity;" and you quote Mr. Vansittart writing to you, as follows:-"Such a claim of equality with the Bible, the venerable and holy men, who compiled our Liturgy, would have disclaimed with horror. There is no point, on which they more firmly insist, than upon the complete and absolute sufficiency of the Scriptures, in matters of faith: this indeed is the very basis of the Reformation; while the authority of the Church in points of doctrine is no less avowedly the foundation of

Popery. The danger of the perversion of Scripture, on which you so much insist, is the very argument used by the Papists in defence of the denial of the Bible to the Laity. And indeed to such a length do you carry your argument, that I know not what answer you could give to a Catholic Doctor, who should justify the practice of his Church by your authority."

This is truly, Sir, the confirmation of all I have advanced; and you may therefore observe, why I conceive myself justified in writing to you a congratulatory letter. To be candid with you, I have no doubt, if you are only consistent with yourself, but you will perceive, in the end, that the Catholic Liturgy is better founded than that of your established Church. Your Liturgy, Sir, is what in our Church we generally term TRADITION-DOCTRINA TRADITA. Now, as you well know, every thing must rest upon some foundation-in argument, you must either have, or assume a principle.-You then derive your Liturgy from the Reformers.- What does it rest upon? On their opinions and judgment.-Some may say, on "their interpretation of the Scriptures," -and the interpretation of the Scriptures upon their opinions,-but this would be a circulus Vitiosus.-You perceive, Sir, that you are in the dilemma of the man, who fixed the world upon the back of a huge tortoise-the tortoise he raised on the back of an immense elephant-but he was absolutely at a loss to discover what he could make the elephant stand upon.Thus, Sir, I think you will be under the necessity of carrying up the Liturgy, with the Catholics, beyond the period of the Reformation, and until it rest upon the authority of the apostles, or their immediate disciples.

Once more, I congratulate with you and myself, on the opposition which you make to the BIBLE ALONE. It was