"travellers," or "the assertions of the great body "of writers against you," or "popular notions of "Roman Catholics;" (p. 19.) but from authoritative documents, from your own approved theologians and writers.

Yes, Sir, we do hold that the "tacit sanction," (p. 20.) which the members of your Churches give to the idolatries and superstitions alluded to, is the deepest stain upon them. them. You are surrounded by notions and practices which every enlightened Christian must most deeply disapprove. You see them sanctioned by the highest authorities in your Church, greedily received by the people, and endangering their salvation. And yet you give them your tacit sanction." Which of you dares to uplift his voice, and warn the people against the delusions in which they are involved? No! This would be too great a triumph to those whom you call "heretics," and therefore you gently and in general terms warn them against superstitions. You never enter into particulars, or denounce this or that doctrine or practice as contrary to sound religion. We praise your caution; but is this Christian honesty?. Is this the duty of Bishops? Is this even the best mode of relieving your Church from the imputations which are now thrown upon it?

You enquire whether " any extent of corruption "or sanctioning error by the members of a Church, "if at variance with its acknowledged formularies,

deprives the Church of the benefit of these, and "warrants its being treated as having admitted a "new faith?" (p. 20.) I must profess, that to the question thus broadly put, none but an affirmative answer can be returned. I suppose you would not yourself deny, that a Church which openly rejected the doctrines of the Trinity, or the Divinity of Christ, even though it admitted the Nicene Creed, would be heretical. But we do not contemplate any such paradoxical case, in maintaining that the doctrines and practices taught and received by authority in your Church, go far beyond the wording of the Decrees of Trent. We do not pretend that the doctrines generally received amongst you supersede those Decrees. All that is meant is, that they are your doctrines, and that you have no right to fall back on the wording of the Decrees of Trent, as if you were responsible only for them. We cannot permit you to escape so easily.

It is in vain therefore that you attempt to involve in self-contradictions, (p. 20.) those who admit that the Western Church before the Reformation had not ceased to be a true Church, and yet maintain that the existing Roman Church sanctions and authorizes idolatrous and erroneous doctrines. There is no inconsistency in their views. They allow that the Western Church before the Reformation was deeply culpable; that most serious corruptions had become prevalent; yet still they do not deny her claim to be a part of Christ's Church,

though a corrupt one; because there had been no definition of errors, and no imposition of idolatries, by any authority to which every member of the Church was bound to submit his own judgment. In like manner, though they see much that is erroneous, and objectionable, and presumptuous in the Decrees of the Council of Trent; and though they see idolatries and grievous errors sanctioned by the authorities of your Church, and generally received; still they are not prepared to say, that the Churches in communion with Rome have ceased to be Christian, because it seems to them that individuals may and do continue in your communion without practising or holding what is contrary to the Articles of the Christian faith. But notwithstanding this, they consider your Churches as corrupt, and as most deeply culpable in sanctioning corruption; and they hold you responsible for the errors and idolatries against which you do not protest. You will not be able to point out any inconsistency in this.

66

But you come to the question of fact, and demand what evidence there is that popular notions" go beyond a sound faith respecting our blessed Lady?" (p. 21.) I think you have had evidence enough. Would you wish me to quote the popular formularies of devotion? They are at hand, if there be any further call for evidence. You describe to us the religious exercises of an Italian peasant, (p. 22, 23,) and forget to state, that Indulgences are attached to the performance of them all. In the authorized

form of Christian instruction used at Rome, and compiled by Cardinal Bellarmine, the only religious exercises recommended are the daily repetition of the "Pater" and "Ave," and the Rosary of the Virgin. The latter is thus mentioned. "M. What exer"cise have you for keeping up devotion (Ch' esercizio " avete per mantenere la divozione)? D. I say the "Rosary of our Lady, and I continually meditate on the fifteen mysteries of the said Rosary, "in which is contained the Life of our Lord Jesus "Christ." If, as you say, (p. 24.) your people do not think it sinful to "neglect their devotions to "the blessed Virgin," of which I should be glad to have some evidence beyond your mere assertion, it does not prove that they do not offer idolatrous prayers and worship to her.

We do not pronounce that all who pay honours to images "have renounced their faith, and "abjured their God." (p. 25.) We have every reason, however, to fear, as well from doctrines maintained by many of your theologians and never censured, as from appearances (which you yourself allow to be against you, p. 24.) that very many amongst you do give directly idolatrous worship to images, and put their trust in them. We see no attempts made to arrest the grossest superstitions. They are acknowledged to be abuses, and there the matter rests.

You complain, that the "devotional feelings" of Roman Catholics with reference to images

are taken as tests of their convictions and faith.' (p. 25.) I must confess that there seems to me nothing unreasonable in this test. If the "devotional feelings" of an Italian towards the Virgin are greater than towards his God, I cannot but think that (whatever his faith may be in theory) the Virgin is practically his God. It is idolatry to love, or confide in, or worship any creature above God, or instead of God, or equally with God. A faith which brings forth no fruit of " devotional feelings," which permits those feelings to fix on other objects than God, is a dead faith.

66

You, who have talked so slightingly of travellers' accounts of religion in Romish countries, (p. 19,) should not have attempted to furnish us with anecdotes of your own. You hold up the conversation of a boy at Pæstum, as a proof, that the peasants of Italy have no exaggerated notions of the Virgin. The final question was well put, and well answered ; "Could she have redeemed you?" Not unless her Son commanded her." (p. 26.) This seems to you conclusive as to the soundness of the boy's faith. To me it does not. The boy may have believed that the Virgin could redeem him by command of the Son of God-that she was in fact his saviour, his patroness, his only hope-that his duty was to place his trust and confidence in herand that devotion to her was sufficient for his salvation. All this he may have believed, notwithstanding his recognition of the superior Deity of Jesus Christ.