itself, and have shown that the utility of it no way depends on the circumstance of the blessed spirits immediately hearing the addresses made to them.

Still you complain that I have not answered all the bishop's objections against the doctrine and practices in question. My reply is, that I have answered the chief of them and whereas they are, for the most part, of ancient date, and have been again and again solidly refuted by our divines, I shall send to New Cottage, together with this letter, a work of one of them, who, for depth of learning and strength of argument, has not been surpassed since the time of Bellarmin.* There, Rev. sir, you will find all that you inquire after, and you will discover, in particular, that the worship of the angels, which St. Paul condemns in his Epistle to the Colossians, chap. ii. 18, means, that of the fallen or wicked angels, whom Christ despoiled, ver. 15, and which was paid to them by Simon the magician and his followers, as the makers of the world. As to the doctrine of Bellarmin concerning images, it is plain that his lordship never consulted the author himself, but only his misrepresenter Vitringa; otherwise, he would have gathered from the whole of this precise theologian's distinctions, that he teaches precisely the contrary to that which he is represented to teach.†

You next observe, that I have said nothing concerning the extravagant forms of prayer to the blessed Virgin and other saints, which Dr. Porteus has collected from Catholic prayer books, and which, you think, prove that we attribute an abso lute and unbounded power to those heavenly citizens. I am aware, Rev. sir, that his lordship, as well as another bishop, who is all sweetness of temper, except when Popery is mentioned in his hearing, and indeed a crowd of other Protestant writers, has employed himself in making such collections, but from what sources, for the greater part I am ignorant. If I were to charge his faith, or the faith of his church with all the conclusions that could logically be drawn from different forms of prayer to be met with in the books of her most distinguished prelates and divines, or from the Scriptures themselves, I fancy the bishop would strongly protest against that mode of reason

* The true church of Christ, by Edward Hawarden, DD. S. T. P. The author was engaged in successful contests with Dr. Clark, bishop Bull, Mr. Leslie, and other eminent Protestant divines, The work has been lately republished in Dublin by Coyne.

+ See De Imag. L. ii. c. 24.

The bishop of Hereford, Dr. Huntingford, who has squeezed a large quantity of this irrelevant matter into his examination of the Catholie Petition.

ing. If, for example, an anthropomorphite were to address him: you say, my lord, in your creed, that Christ "ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God," therefore it is plain you believe with me, that God has a human shape; or if a Calvinist were to say to him, You pray to God that he “would not lead you into temptation," therefore you acknowledge that it is God who tempts you to commit sin: in either of these cases the bishop would sist upon explaining the texts here quoted; he would argue on the nature of figures of speech, especially in the language of poetry and devotion; and would maintain, that the belief of his church is not to be collected from these, but from her defined articles. Make but the same allowance to Catholics, and all this phantom of verbal idolatry will dissolve into air.

Lastly, you remind me of the bishop's assertion, that "neither images nor pictures were allowed in churches for the first hundred years." To this assertion you add your own opinion, that during that same period no prayers were addressed by Christians to the saints. A fit of oblivion must have overtaken Dr. Porteus when he wrote what you quoted from him, as he cannot be ignorant that it was not till the conversion of Constantine, in the fourth century, that the Christians were generally allowed to build churches for their worship, having been obliged, during the ages of persecution, to practice it in subterraneous catacombs, or other obscure recesses. We learn, however, from Tertullian, that it was usual, in his time, to represent our Saviour in the character of the good shepherd, on the chalices used at the assemblies of the Christians :* and we are informed by Eusebius, the father of church history, and the friend of Constantine, that he himself had seen a miraculous image of our Saviour in brass, which had been erected by the woman, who was cured by touching the hem of his garment, and also different pictures of him, and of St. Peter and St. Paul, which had been preserved since their time. The historian Zozomen adds, concerning that statue, that it was mutilated in the reign of Julian the apostate, and that the Christians, nevertheless, collected the pieces of it, and placed it in their church. St. Gregory of Nyssa, who flourished in the fourth century, preaching on the matyrdom of St. Theodore, describes his relics as being present in the church, and his sufferings as being painted on the walls, together with an image of Christ, as if surveying them § It is needless to carry the history of pious figures and paintings down to the end of the sixth cen

* Lib. de Pudicitia, c. 10. t Hist. Eccles. 1. v. e. 21.

+ Hist. 1. vii. c. 18.

§ Orat. in Thood.

aury, at which time St Augustin and his companions, coming t preach the Gospel to our Pagan ancestors, " carried a silver cross before them as a banner, and a painted picture of our Saviour Christ."* The above-mentioned Tertullian testifies, that at every movement and in every employment, the primitive Christians used to sign their foreheads with the sign of the cross, and Eusebius and St. Chrysostom fill whole pages of their works with testimonies of the veneration in which the figure of the cross was anciently held; the latter of whom expressly says, that the cross was placed on the altars of the churches. The whole history of the martyrs, from St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, the disciples of the apostles, whose relics, after their execution, were carried away by the Christians, as 66 more valuable than gold and precious stones," down to the latest martyr, incontestibly proves the veneration which the church has ever maintained for these sacred objects. With respect to your own opinion, Rev. sir, as to the earliest date of prayers to the saints, I may refer you to the writings of St. Irenæus, the disciple of St. Polycarp, who introduces the blessed Virgin praying for Eve,|| to the apology of his contemporary St. Justin the martyr, who says, "We venerate and worship the angelic host, and the spirits of the prophets, teaching others as we ourselves have been taught,"T and to the light of the fourth century, St. Basil, who expressly refers these practices to the apostles, where he says, "I invoke the apostles, prophets, and martyrs to pray for me, that God may be merciful to me, and forgive me my sins. I honour and reverence their images, since these things have been ordained by tradition from the apostles, and are practised in all our churches."** You will agree with me, that I need not descend lower than the fourth age of the church I am, &c. J. M.

DEAR SIR,

LETTER XXXVI.

To JAMES BROWN, Esq.

ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

IT is the remark of the prince of modern controvertists, cishop Bossuet, that, whereas in most other subjects of dispute

Bede's Eccles. Hist. 1. i. c. 25.

In Orat. Quod Christus sit Deus.

† De Coron Milit. c. 3.

Euseb. Hist. 1. iv. c. 15. Acta Sincer. Apud Ruinart.

Contra Hares 1. v. c. 19.

** Epist. 205. t. iii. edit. Paris

!!

T Apol. 2. prope Init.

*

between Catholics and Protestants, the difference is less than i, seems to be, in this of the holy eucharist or Lord's Supper, it is greater than it appears.' The cause of this is, that ouì Espo nents misrepresent our doctrine concerning the veneration of saints, pious images, indulgences, purgatory, and other articles, in order to strengthen their arguments against us; whereas their language approaches nearer to our doctrine than their sentiments do on the subject of the eucharist, because our doctrine is so strictly conformable to the words of Holy Scripture. This is a disingenuous artifice; but I have to describe two others of a still more fatal tendency; first, with respect to the present welfare of the Catholics, who are the subjects of them, and secondly, with respect to the future welfare of the Protestants, who deliberately make use of them.

The first of these disingenuous practices consists in misrepresenting Catholics as worshippers of bread and wine in the sacrament, and therefore as idolaters, at the same time that our adversaries are perfectly aware that we firmly believe, as an article of faith, that there is no bread nor wine, but Christ alone, true God, as well as man, present in it. Supposing, for a moment, that we are mistaken in this belief, the worst we could be charged with, is an error, in supposing Christ to be where he is not; and nothing but uncharitable calumny, or gross inattention, could accuse us of the heinous crime of idolatry. To illustrate this argument, let me suppose, that being charged with a loyal address to the sovereign, you presented it, by mistake, to one of his courtiers, or even to an inanimate figure of him, which, for some reason or other, had been dressed up in royal robes, and placed on the throne, would your heart reproach you, or would any sensible person reproach you with the guilt of treason in this case? Were the people who thought in their hearts that John the Baptist was the Christ, Luke iii. 15, and who probably worshipped him as such, idolaters, in consequence of their error? The falsehood, as well as the uncharitableness of this calumny is too gross to escape the observation of any informed and reflecting man: yet is it upheld and vociferated to the ignorant crowd, in order to keep alive their prejudices against us, by bishop Porteus,† and the Protestant preachers and writers in general, and it is perpetuated by the legislature to defeat our civil claims! It is not, however, true, that all Protestant divines

Exposition of the doctrine of the Catholic church, Sect. xvi.

He charges Catholics with "senseless idolatry," and with worshipping the creature instead of the Creator." Confut. P. ii. c. l.

The Declaration against Popery, by which Catholic were excluded

have laid this heavy charge at the door of Catholics for worslipping Christ in the sacrament, as all those eminent prelates in the reigns of Charles I. and Charles II. must be excepted, who generally acquitted us of the charge of idolatry, and more especially the learned Gunning, bishop of Ely, who reprobated the above signified declaration, when it was brought into the house of lords, protesting that his conscience would not permit him to make it.* The candid Thorndyke, prebendary of Westminster, argues thus on the present subject: "Will any Papist acknowledge that he honours the elements of the eucharist of God? Will common sense charge him with honouring that in the sacrament, which he does not believe to be there ?" The celebrated bishop of Down, Dr. Jeremy Taylor, reasons with equal fairness, where he says, "The object of their (the Catholics') adoration in the sacrament is the only true and eternal God, hypostatically united with his holy humanity, which humanity they believe actually present under the veil of the sacrament. And if they thought him not present, they are so far from worshipping the bread, that they profess it idolatry to do so. This is demonstration that the soul has nothing in it that is idolatrical; the will has nothing in it but what is a great enemy to idolatry."‡

The other instance of disingenuity and injustice on the part of Protestant divines and statesmen, consists in their overlooking the main subject in debate, namely, whether Christ is or is not really and personally present in the sacrament; and in the mean time employing all the force of their declamation and ridicule, and all the severity of the law to a point of inferior, or at least secondary consideration; namely, to the mode in which he is considered by one particular party as being present. It is well known that Catholics believe, that, when Christ took the bread and gave it to his apostles, saying, THIS IS MY BODY, he changed the bread into his body, which change is called transubstantiation. On the other hand, the Lutherans, after their master, hold that the bread and the real body of Christ are uni ted, and both truly present in the sacrament, as iron and fire are united in a red-hot bar. This sort of presence, which would from the Houses of Parliament, was voted by them during that time of national frenzy and disgrace, when they equally voted the reality of the pretended Popish Plot, which cost the Catholics a torrent of innocent blood, and which was hatched by the unprincipled Shaftesbury, with the help of Dr. Tongue, and the infamous Oates; to prevent the succession of James II. to the crown. See Echard's Hist. North's Exam.

Burnet's Hist. Own i imes.

Liberty of Prophesying, Sect. 20.

+ Just Weights and Measures, c. 19.

SD Capt Babyl. Osiander, whose sister, Cranmer married, taught In