LETTER X.

VIEW OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM.

1.-I EVIDENTLY meant, that what I said upon this subject in "The Book of the Roman Catholic "Church," should not be considered as a theological discussion of the truth of her doctrines : I merely wished to present a succinct account of some which are objected to by Protestants, for the purpose of showing that these contained nothing inconsistent with morality or good government; and that this had been acknowledged, in many instances, by Protestant writers of distinction. Upon this part part of my work, You and others have attacked it. Thus the subject is before the public, and to their conclusions upon it I shall leave it.

With some observations, however, I shall now trouble you.

2. The Roman Catholic religion satisfied the reason of such men at Bossuet, Fénélon, Bourdaloue, Massillon, d'Aguésseau and Pascal. If I deserve what you intimate in this letter, (p. 101, 102), for my belief of her doctrines, may I not comfort myself with the thought, that all you say applies as much to those great men as to me?

In page 107, I find this sentence addressed to me," I omit your sneer at the amount of a proc

"tor's bill. It was not made with your usual cour

tesy; neither was it relative or necessary." My letter contains no sneer and I am quite confident, that there is not in the profession even one person, who will believe that any thing I have written contains a sneer at any class of its members, or any individual member of it. Was your remark relative or necessary?

3.-In page 138, You say " You are incorrect "in your assertion, that the Howards and Stour

tons are excluded from Parliament, merely be"cause of their belief in transubstantiation. They "are so excluded, because the assertors of this "doctrine are said to render imperfect allegiance "to their sovereign."

The allegiance of the Howards and the Stourtons to their sovereign, is perfect. They consider it the grossest of affronts, to be told that it is not. *Allegiance to the Pope is perfect nonsense.

2

Addresses of the present writer to the Public, upon "the "Coronation Oath," and the alleged "Divided Allegiance of "the Roman Catholics," are inserted in the Appendix.

1.—(1.) IN pages 123, 124, and 130, of your work, You thus address me :-" Lamentable indeed, was

your error of judgment, when you ventured to

repeat the scandal of a former age, and to attri"bute the rise of the Reformation to the general "diffusion of the opinion of Manes."

ઃઃ

(2.)—“ You ascribe also to the Albigenses, the "doctrines of that notorious heresiarch. The "reader, who is not well acquainted with history, "would conclude from your statement, that the "sentiments of the reformers, in the age of "Cranmer and Luther, and consequently the opi"nions of the Protestants of the church of Eng"land at present, are the identical errors which are imputed to Manichæus."

66

(3.)—

"No controversialist was ever more un"fortunate in his argument than You have unwittingly been, in reviving the exploded notion, "that the faith of Protestants was the creed of "Manichæus."

*The Title given by Doctor Southey to the Chapter, to which this letter is an answer, and therefore prefixed to this letter.

(4.)" As you only insinuate, that the poli"tical opinions of the Manichæans, were the "real prelude to the doctrines of liberty and equality, so frightfully propagated in our own "time, I shall not enter upon that discussion. The design of the insinuation is obvious, and it is "unworthy, indeed it is unworthy of You."

Each of these sentences convey an heavy accusation against me, and each of these accusations is absolutely groundless.

I have said,--and it is certainly true, that both Catholics and Protestants agree, that the opinions and conduct of these religionists "led to "Henry's reformation ;"* and that "Lollardism↑

prepared the public mind for the religious in"novations which afterwards took place." But I have not said, what You attribute to me, in the passages which I have cited from your work.

(1.) I have not, in any of my Letters to Doctor Southey, or in any of my works, attributed the rise of the Reformation to the "diffusion of the "general opinions of Manes." I believe, and I have always believed the contrary.

(2.)-I have not, in any of my Letters to Doctor Southey, or in any other work, said or insinuated, that "the sentiments of the Reformers, in the age "of Cranmer and Luther, and consequently the

66

England at present, are the identical errors "which are imputed to Manichæus:" I believe,' and have always believed the contrary.

I have even said the contrary in "the Book of the "Roman Catholic Church."* I have there said, in conformity with Bossuet's assertion in his Contro versy with Claude, that, "when the church of the "Reformers first separated from the one, the holy, "the Roman Catholic Church, their church could not, by their own confession, enter into commu"nion with a single church in the whole world."

I have also said the contrary in my " Revolu"tions of the Germanic Empire." I there mention the "rough attack made on the Popes by the Albigenses, Wickliffites, Waldenses, Lollards and "other heretics of the 14th and 15th centuries. "It must be admitted on the one hand," I then say, "that these maintained several doctrines irre"concilable with those of the Gospel and civil "society; so that it is amazing that the reformed "churches should be so anxious to prove their "descent from them; and on the other, that they

brought charges against some temporal usurpa"tions of the Popes and churchmen, to which "their advocates could make no reply."

(3.)-I have never said that the faith of Protestants was the creed of Manichæus.-I believe, and I have always believed the contrary.

* Page 39, second edition.

+ Part IV, Sec. II. 2.