of learning or character now repeats it." So that the language of all your illustrious controversialists seems to be disclaimed; and the homilies scarcely to be accounted a criterion of the present opinion of the Anglican Church.

ORTHODOX.

This is meant, I presume, to give force to the reiterated charge, that we have forsaken our old belief. You have truly stated the authoritative decision of our Church, which is not confined to the homilies. But if it was, their language is decisive to the point. She has declared that those discourses contain " a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times." To suppose that they bear false evidence to the opinion of the Church, which promulgates them for the instruction of the people, is absurd. It follows not, that we are to approve their entire diction; but that doctrine, which is "necessary" at any time, must be true at all times. And if there is any part of the homilies to which, more than another, the commendation refers, it is that which bears upon the Romish tenets, as being the errors of which a refutation, by "godly and wholesome doctrine”, was especially " necessary for those times." It is a libel on the Church of England to suppose that

66

she would publish a set of sermons so strongly impressing and urging what she accounted doubtful or unimportant, much less untrue*.

I scarcely recollect a divine whose name and opinion are entitled to reverence in our Church, that has hesitated on the subject. Dr. Milner designates Bishop Horsley as "the great ornament of the episcopal bench", and "the light and ornament of the English Church.” Now, let us hear that eminent prelate on the point: "At this day, in the Church of Rome, the worship of the ever-blessed Trinity subsists in preposterous conjunction with the idolatrous worship of canonized men and inanimate relics." Again; "the idolaters of antiquity and the papists of modern times seem much upon a footing." And further; "the Church of Rome is at this day a corrupt Church; a Church corrupted with idolatry; with idolatry very much the same in kind and in degree with the worst that ever prevailed among the Egyptians or the Canaanites."+

* "Since there are so many of the homilies that charge the Church of Rome with idolatry, and that from so many different topics; no man who thinks that Church is not guilty of idolatry, can, with a good conscience, subscribe this article, that the homilies contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times.'"-Bp. Burnet.

6

On the Prophecies of the Messiah.

PHILODOX.

But is it not more candid to adopt the conclusion of Bishop Taylor, who admits that their worship of the elements, at least, has nothing idolalatrical in it?

ORTHODOX.

This was an hypothesis, not the deliberate opinion, of Bishop Taylor. No one has more pointedly accused them of idolatry, nor more fully made good the accusation than he has done.

PHILODOX.

But, "if he contradicts himself in other works, are they to renounce the present important concession ? "*

ORTHODOX.

He contradicts not himself, for he had conceded nothing. The 'Liberty of Prophesying', in which the passage so often quoted occurs, had for its object, not to explain doctrines, but to repel persecution. He therefore urges for Romanists, in common with other erring sects, not his own opinions, but those, he says, " by which the poor creatures allow themselves to be deceived." The truth or falsehood of these tenets he discusses not, but simply shows that they were not of a kind to call for the interference

* Faith and Doctrine of the Catholic Church proved, &c.

of the state. But when they did, dogmatically, come before him, he pronounces them false and idolatrous; and rejects his own hypothesis, as a learned and truly Protestant prelate remarks, "with contempt and ridicule."

PHILODOX.

But why continue an accusation which seems merely calculated to give offence?

ORTHODOX.

Were it merely calculated to give offence, it would be both wisdom and duty to forbear. But idolatry is too solemn a thing to be trifled with. If the charge be valid, what human consideration can justify those who stifle the voice of God against it? Are we, from fear of giving offence, to deny or withhold a verity of vital importance to the honour of God, the well-being of religion, and the eternal interest of thousands? Was truth ever promoted by falsification or concealment? Was Christianity THUS established, or THUS reformed? Would the first believers, had they been contemporary with Socrates or Plato, have shrunk from the charge of idolatry against the Pagan system, because they

* Bishop Burgess' "Popery incapable of Union," &c.

venerated the philosophers who honoured it by their wisdom, and adorned it by their virtue? I would not, for a meed beyond human wealth, give causeless offence to or wantonly wound the conscience of any man I forget not the "burning and shining lights", whose beams have pierced the Romish gloom even in her darkest days; nor will I bend against them her anathemas, levelled at thousands of the best and holiest of the saints of Christ, lest I be found, as Rome hath so often been, "cursing whom God hath not cursed, and defying whom the Lord hath not defied." We are not speaking of individuals, but judging her, as she demands to be judged, by her creeds, her formulas, her observIf any one thus judging, and satisfied of the truth of the accusation, sinks under that "fear of man which bringeth a snare", he bursts the tie of charity which he owes to his fellow mortals, even to the transgressing Church herself; and violates the first dictate of an enlightened conscience, obedience to the law of God.

ances.

Believing the accusation of the Church of England to be as true as it is decisive, and holding the Church of Rome to be idolatrous, I should tremble not to avow it. If mistaken, it is a mistake I hold in common with the thousands who in the devastated vales of Piedmont, in the fires of Britain, in the