the adoration of saints and images as practised in the Church. of Rome, to be of an idolatrous nature and tendency; and a third, expressive of the insecurity caused by the tenets of that Church, in trusting to oaths administered to her members for the continued support of a Protestant establishment.

"I must not forget," (says Mr. Baynes, in his Letter to the Archdeacon,)" the important discovery which you have made, in a book... commonly known to Roman Catholics, you say, by the name of the blue book; and this blue book," you add, "contains an account of endeavours that were made by the Roman Catholics of .England, in a body, in the year 1789, to conciliate, and concede some of the most dangerous tenets of their persuasion. ... In the first place then, I must inform you that there is not any particular book called by Roman Catholics the Blue Book: but a series of pamphJets, which happened to be stitched up in blue covers, were by some persons called the Blue Books...... These blue books do not contain an account of endeavours of the Roman Catholics of England to concede any part of their religious tenets; for no such endeavours were ever made; but they give some account of a public disavowal that was made by the Catholics of England, Clergy, as well as laity, of certain odious and infamous doctrines, such as, that faith was not to be kept with heretics, which the Archdeacons and archfabricators of those and former times, had falsely and calumniously laid to their charge. They also treat of a dispute which took place amongst the Catholics themselves, not about the doctrines which were to be disavowed, but about the wording of an oath, in which this disavowal was proposed to be made. With great ingenuity, you attempt to deduce that the words of Catholie laymen are not to be trusted, because they are tyrannized over by their priests with such an instance, you say, of the absolute supremacy of their priests, of what value are the assurances of laymen? I will not retort your reasoning upon the laymen of your own communion," (how good he is!) "but I must assure you, that if I, or any other Catholic Priest, or even Bishop, were to attempt such an exercise of authority over our flocks or inferiors, as it is said, truly or untruly, that the Archdeacon of Bath does exercise over his, 1 do not think we should be quite so successful in our attempt." P. 33. To this the writer of the answer to Mr. Baynes, in vindication of the Archdeacon, replies:

Really, Sir, it does appear to me, that your Romish Priesthood in England, stand in quite as much need of being roused to a state of independence, as the Protestant Clergy in the district around us. proof of which let us once more bring forward that Depository Remen Catholic sentiments, which seems to have afforded you much cause for triumphant merriment. I mean the Blue Book, Blue Books, if you please, for the plurality of the collection does

pm much to affect the argement. In this pamphlet then,

9

(whether stitched in blue covers or not,) is recorded a solemn protest, on the part of the principal Roman Catholics of England, against certain obnoxious doctrines and sentiments imputed to them, truly or untruly, by the Protestants: which protest is formally attested by the signatures of several hundreds of their body: and to nearly two hundred, if I mistake not, of this number, the title of Reverend is prefixed. The pamphlet also records a statement of their readiness to take an oath of security, to be prepared for the consideration, and to be ratified by the sanction of Parliament. After the document had been thus numerously and respectably signed, out comes an encyclical letter from three Vicars Apostolic, denouncing in the most unequivocal language the measures which had been adopted: declaring too, in plain unvarnished terms, that none of the FAITHFUL Clergy or Laity ought to take any new oath, or sign any new declaration in doctrinal matters, or subscribe any new instrument wherein the interests of Religion are concerned, without the previous approbation of their respective Bishop: and they required submission to those determinations. And what was the sensation, which this Apostolico-vicarial decree created? Why, the resolutions were rescinded, the declarations were made void, the oath was demolished, and, in passive obedience to the fiat of their spiritual governors, the greater number withdrew the signatures which they had previously affixed to the protest in question. Now these are stubborn facts. Let these then determine, whether the English Roman Catholic priesthood, or the Protestant Clergy in the Archdeaconry of Bath, are subject to the higher degree of ecclesiastical tyranny." Reply to Mr. Baynes, p. 7, 8.

66

Here it occurs to us to suggest to Mr. Baynes, that we have certain questions to propose respecting a solemn promise to disclaim the odious doctrines" in the notes of the Rhemish Testament, made by the Board of principal Roman Catholic Laymen of the sister country. On the fourth of December 1817, it was declared at that Roman Catholic Board, that "there was not a moment to be lost-the Catholics should with one voice disclaim those very odious doctrines." A Committee for preparing the disavowal was accordingly appointed on that day. Four years have elapsed since the day on which the Committee was appointed, when" there was not a moment to be lost;" but no disavowal has yet appeared; and within a few days after they had passed the above resolution, the said Roman Catholic Board was extinguished. Now upon this transaction, and important subjects connected with it, we might propose some questions of rather an embarrassing nature to the Popish Priests, and calculated to add very important weight to the first objection which we have mentioned of the Archdeacon of Bath. Will Mr. Baynes and his brethren of the Romish priesthood, wish to

have these questions proposed, before the next discussion of what is called the Roman Catholic queston?

The next objection which we have stated, naturally produces a much longer discussion. Our limits necessarily prevent us from giving to our readers all that the writer of the letter to Mr. Baynes, says in that publication, of the adoration of Saints and Images as practised in the Church of Rome and we feel, that were we to give abridged extracts from his arguments on this topic, we should do injustice both to the importance of the subject, and to his clear and convincing reasoning.

:

We come to the last of the three objections mentioned, by which Archdeacon Moysey has kindled Mr. Baynes's wrath. It appears that the Archdeacon referring particularly to the danger of entrusting political power to the Church of Rome in these countries, objected to that Church as justifying a breach of faith with those whom her authorities term heretics. Here Mr. Baynes fancies that he rides triumphant on the notorious answers of the Popish Universities to certain questions sent to them by direction of Mr. Pitt. It cannot detract from the acknowledged greatness of Mr. Pitt's character, to admit that he here shewed himself to be unacquainted with Popish casuistry. Never was a question proposed to Popish authorities, more open to Jesuitical evasion, than that which Mr. Baynes has adduced as sent by direction of Mr. Pitt to the Popish Universities. The object was to ascertain whether certain meditated oaths ought to be considered as a sufficient security against subsequent attempts on the part of the Church of Rome in these countries, to overturn the Protestant Establishment. With this particular view, a question was proposed generally: and we apprehend that the Archdeadon of Bath has in his Charge fallen into a similar error. He adverted to the danger of committing political power to the popish Church in the united kingdom; and though speaking with this particular reference, he seems to have expressed himself, as if he conceived that the Church of Rome held it as a general tenet, that "faith is not to be kept with heretics." We do not believe that this was the Archdeacon's meaning. But he avows his apprehension, that members of the Church of Rome may be bound to act according to such a principle, "if the good of their Church, which is a consideration paramount with them, shall be declared by papal infallible authority to require it."

*

To the answers of the Romish Universities on this subject, the writer of the letter to Mr. Baynes, opposes the decrees of Popish councils, and evidence of the authority of those

councils. The Popish doctrine, on the obligation of oaths which may interfere with the good of the Church of Rome, was laid before the Public, and its foundation explained, in a pamphlet * published by Rivingtons in 1818. We shall here give the explanation, in the words of the pamphlet.

"If salvation can be obtained only in the Church of Rome; if all other Churches are the work of the infernal enemy of man; are not the support and extension of the Church of Rome, and the suppression of all other Churches, the highest duties which a man owes to GoD and his fellow-creatures? The Church of Rome answers in the affirmative. Again: is that which the Roman Church calls heresy, a crime so great, that there is none greater in the sight of heaven? The Church of Rome answers in the affirmative. Then, I would ask, whether according to these principles, an oath to support an heretical establishment, should be considered obligatory, if cir cumstances should render its non-performance conducive to the advancement of the popish Church, and destruction of the heresy, which its observation would contribute to maintain? The common principles of morality inform me, that an oath, if its performance shall oppose my first and highest duties to GOD; and support the greatest crime in the sight of heaven, should be considered as a rash oath, and must at least cease to be obligatory: and if it were possible, that I should be infallibly certain, both as to the transcendent obligation of the duty, and as to the unexceeded enormity of the crime; there would (I conceive) be little room for question respecting the obligation of the oath above mentioned. But the Canon Law of the Church of Rome decides the point for her members: and (if her doctrines concerning infallibility, exclusive salvation, and heresy, be admitted) decides the point most justly. An oath is not to be observed, by which a CRIME is incautiously promised: corpus juris canonici. ed. colon. munatiæ, 1757. Tom. I. p. 765. An oath taken contrary to the benefit of the Church, does not bind. Ibid. de jurejurando. Tom. II. p. 297. Is it not, in the Church of Rome, the exclusive province of her priesthood, especially of her first pastor, to decide on religious duties, on the meaning of the Divine decrees of her councils, and of her sacred Canons? If we shall remember, that the Pope is the supreme authentical expounder of those obligations and laws; can we be surprised at reading one official document, stating what oath he will permit the Roman Catholics to take; and another declaring, on his authority, what sense shall be affixed to an oath, in case the oath were already enacted? Can we be surprised at various declarations on the subject of promises and oaths, with which the popish priesthood have, in different periods of the world, astonished Protest. ants who did not sufficiently consider the necessary tendency of the doctrines of the Church of Rome."

Entitled, "An Inquiry concerning some of the Doctrines of the Church of Rome, in Answer to the Charge of Intolerance brought by Members of that Church against Members of the Church of England." Rivingtous. 1818.

And now a hint to Mr. Peter Baynes, before we take leave of the present controversy. He has been pleased to follow the examples of certain other popish priests who have lately favoured us with their effusions, in alluding to a delicate subject which, of all topics, it behoves him and his brethren to leave untouched. We mean the marriages of the Clergy. The popish priests, it seems, are shocked to think that a portion of the ecclesiastical revenues of the country should be employed in supporting and providing for the wives and children of the clergymen. This concern for the public interest, is very feeling and very good of Mr. Peter Baynes and his brethren. But, let them beware of the subject! All the reverend members of his order and fraternity; all the popish priests in England; and all the popish priests in Ireland; nay, all the fat and greasy monks and friars of all the popish convents in the world, may, for any question that we are now disposed to raise concerning the matter, be so many miracles of chastity: the practices of popish confession and popish absolution, may be the most moral things on the face of the earth, for any thing that we now mean to say to the contrary:-but, let those miracles of chastity; let those most pure and moral confessors, be very cautious how they venture to attack the marriages of the PROTESTANT CLERGY! They may be sure, that of all the subjects they could select, this would be the most ill chosen: and we strongly advise them, to rest satisfied with their own wonderful purity, and wonderful chastity, and with the very delicate morality of the system of female confession, as it has been so often practised in the Church of Rome; and to beware how they direct the base assaults of envy and malevolence, against the sacred rites of hallowed wedlock.

It is rumoured, that a great effort is to be made in the approaching session of Parliament, to carry the measure for conceding political power to the Church of Rome in these countries. The effort may be made: but we have not yet seen cause to alter our opinion of the danger of such a measure. What new circumstance has occurred to shew the prudence of abandoning the policy, to which this great Protestant country has so long and so faithfully adhered? Is it the late authoritative circulation of the atrocious and persecuting tenets re-published in the last edition of the Rhemish notes? Is it the declaration of Mr. Baynes and of his reverend brethren, that the tenets of their Church are immutable? Is it the conduct of the Popish Missionaries in France, now labouring under the sanction of great and high authorities in that country, to bring back by counterfeited miracles, and by all means in their power, the gross form of the most super