particular See of Rome, and not that of the universal Church of Christ is a rule of Faith for Roman Catholics. We might just as reasonably call the whole federation of our Union, the federal city of Washington.

The proposition is again incorrect in the verb which is used, directs: this word implies a power and latitude which the church has not. Her authority is to preserve and teach what was originally given to her charge, and to judge in doubtful cases, and to inform us by her decision, of what God has revealed, and thus to give testimony by which we might be always brought to know the communications of Heaven, to which she has no power to add, from which she has no power to detract, and which alone we are by faith bound to believe.

3. p. 2. Q. 5. Roman Catholics believe themselves bound to receive whatever the Church of Rome directs as a rule of practice.

This is altogether untrue.

4. p. 2. Q. 8. The Roman Catholic Church does not allow the free use of the Scriptures to the people.

The body mentioned in the little book is the Church of Rome, but I have in my previous explanation shown why I give the phrase which designates the only body which we look to as having authority, viz., the Roman Catholic Church. But as regards either body, the particular division or the universal church, the proposition is untrue. The free use of the Scriptures is allowed. But in the first place, Right Reverend Sir, you know that every book distributed as the Scriptures is not admitted to be such. For instance, suppose I give the books of Tobias and of Maccabees, you will probably say, I do not distribute the Scriptures, and if another person gives a mutilated portion of an Epistle of St. John, unfaithfully, translated from a Greek copy received from Arians, I will deny it to be the Scriptures. Thus to call a book the Bible, is not evidence of its being what it is styled: and the free use of the Scriptures might be allowed by the church, whilst she prohibited her children from taking, or keeping, or using, notoriously defective, or very doubtful copies of the sacred work.

In the second place the use of the Scripture is founded upon a knowledge of its meaning, that meaning is not varying from age to age, but is now the same that it has always been; it was as well known in the days of the apostles as it could be, and the perfection of interpretation was to preserve that meaning unchanged: to make new

conjectures, and to exert ingenuity in explaining the sacred book in new ways, would not be to use it, but to abuse it. The church, whilst she prevents this abuse, consecrates the use. The Roman Catholic Church forbids her children to take, keep, or use copies or versions upon private or insufficient authority; and also forbids them to make any new interpretations which would contradict those derived from the same source as the book itself, and testified by the voice of ages and nations. To call this forbidding the free use of the book is a misrepresentation.

5. p. 3. Q. 9. The Roman Catholic Church keeps the Scriptures from the people.

This is notoriously untrue. Any Roman Catholic or Protestant who chooses to purchase Catholic versions of the Bible, may procure them as easily as he can any other book of the same value.

6. P.

3. Q. 9. The pretence under which the Scriptures are withheld is the incompetency of the people to understand them.

There needs no pretence to justify what does not occur.

7. p. 3. Q. 9. The effect is that the Roman

Catholic people do not discover how contrary their religion is to the word of God.

little book begs the question, by assuming In this place, Right Reverend Sir, the what is not the fact, viz., that our religion is contrary to the word of God, and in the do very studiously in several instances next place it is a fact that Roman Catholics search the Scriptures and discover, not contrariety, but conformity between the contents of the book and their religion, and finally, I would hazard the assertion that Roman Catholics have twenty writers who the result of their comparison, showing have elaborately compared and published that uniformity, for every one Protestant Episcopal writer who has attempted any similar work; so that this seventh proposition is in every way untrue. I might add, enumeration, that this passage contains an were I disposed to swell my catalogue of untrue and uncharitable insinuation, which is frequently directly made, viz.,

of the public, however, have so well appreciated their acquirements and dispositions, that farther comment is unnecessary. 9. p. 3. Q. 12. Roman Catholics do not allow the Scriptures to be the entire rule of faith, except as explained by their unwritten traditions, and the authority of their church.

I must confess, Right Reverend Sir, that this is to me one of the most extraordinary propositions in the whole production. And so it must appear to you, or to any other intelligent person, who is acquainted with our principles. Of course you know our assertion, viz., that the Scripture itself as well as the most ancient witnesses testify that the principal revelations of our Saviour were made in the interval between his resurrection and his ascension, of which revelations we have no record in the Scriptures. I am at a loss to conceive how a tradition, written or unwritten, can explain that which does not exist, víz., the Scriptures containing these revelations. How can the authority of the church explain it? Roman Catholics indeed state, that tradition supplies what has not been written in the sacred volume, and that the authority of the universal church, upon which alone we can at this time ordinarily know what is an inspired record, can also supply by enabling us, in like manner, to know what is a correct, authentic tradition. And surely, you will not assert, that Roman Catholics would consider the tradition useless or insufficient if it was written! But this I look upon to be of a piece with the other unbecoming cunning displayed through all the pages of the Catechism. Roman Catholics distinguish the word of God, which alone is the basis of faith, into "the written word," viz., the holy Scripture, which is by pre-eminence THE WRITING, and "the unwritten word," or the evidence of revelation which, though sufficiently strong and full, is not written in the sacred volume by inspired penmen, yet has been put in a thousand other ways upon the record of writing by various good witnesses. But the object being to weaken the force of this evidence, by insinuating that it was mere traditionary hearsay, the phrase "unwritten tradition," was used, to make the erroneous impression upon the youthful mind, and the above proposition is not only incorrect and imperfect, but insidious; for it is calculated to create confusion of ideas, to suppress truth and to suggest falsehood, and as such could not meet your support. I would here make a passing remark, that the compiler of the Catechism in Q. 8, asks, "Does the Church

of Rome allow the free use of the Scriptures, &c," and in Q. 12, "Do Roman Catholics allow the Scriptures, &c.," which is that deceitful shifting of terms that I previously noted, but shall no more advert to. 10. p. 3. 13. Roman Catholics found their doctrine, that the Scriptures, though being the word of God, are not the entire rule of faith, except as explained by their unwritten traditions, and the authority of their church, on the pretended infallibility of their church.

This proposition is untrue, because Roman Catholics do not hold the doctrine there laid down, and therefore cannot found it upon any basis. Again, it is untrue because the doctrine which they do hold, and instead of which the above misrepresentation is given, is not founded upon the infallibility of the church, whether real or pretended, but upon the declarations of our blessed Saviour, upon the facts recorded in the Scriptures, upon the common sense of mankind, upon the peculiar circumstances of the case, and upon the uniform testimony of the first Christians.

11. p. 4. Q. 17. The Pope claims to be su

preme head of the church, on the pretence that he is successor to St. Peter, whom Roman Catholics assert to have been Bishop of Rome.

This I must also beg leave to call a misrepresentation, for it omits the original, principal, and indeed the only essential established the office of head Pastor of the ground of the claim; which is that Christ church, which was to continue as long as the church on earth should last; this is altogether suppressed, and without this, and the facts adduced, viz., that he was Bishop of fact that St. Peter did hold this office, the Rome, and that the Pope is his successor, Right Reverend Sir, that the suppression of would be valueless. You will acknowledge, the true ground of any tenet, is not the way in which a candid man would exhibit that doctrine, especially when undertaking to state that ground, though he might call it a pretence. I think Bishop Bowen has too much honour and delicacy and love of truth, to approve of such conduct.

12. p. 6 & 7. Q. 30. Popes have maintained

the position that faith is not to be kept with heretics.

The meaning of this as laid down in the Catechism, I take to be, that the head of the Roman Catholic Church has taught, with the consent of that Church, and in accordance with its principles, that Roman Catholics are not bound by the same moral

charges as criminal upon Catholics, what the regulation of most, if not all the Protestant churches themselves permits in certain cases: and fourthly, it charges upon the entire Roman Catholic church the discipline of only a part. Hence there are serious mistakes in both principle and fact. 16. p. 11. Q. 54. Although the consecrated bread which is pretended to be the body of Christ, should also contain his blood, the wine would be as unnecessary for the priest as it is said to be for the people.

The principle of this reasoning is correct, and the conclusion is fully legitimate, so far as the Eucharist is only considered to be a Sacrament, and hence when a Bishop or Priest does not celebrate, but only communicates, he does so in the same manner as do the laity, and in those places where the discipline regulates to take communion only under one kind, he receives only under that kind. But Christ commanded both kinds to be consecrated and consumed at the sacrifice, which is offered by the Priest and not by the people; and the misrepresentation of our doctrine and practice consists in suppressing this explanation, viz. That when the priest celebrates Mass he offers the Eucharistic sacrifice, for doing which, it is requisite that he should consecrate and communicate under both appearances of bread and wine.

17. p. 12. Q. 57. That Roman Catholics if they believe that Christ is offered as a sacrifice in the Mass, must believe his blood to be shed therein.

This position is not correct, because although blood might be shed in the slaying of the victim, yet that victim so slain, might be subsequently offered in sacrifice to God without a renewal of bloodshed. 18. p. 12. Q. 57. That if Roman Catholics believe that Christ is offered in the Mass, they must believe he suffers again.

Neither is this correct, for they might believe as they do, that although he is now incapable of suffering, yet he has power to offer that body in which he did before suffer, so as to have his merits now applied to those present at that offering, and this would be a real sacrifice as they believe, though not a real suffering.

19. p. 12. Q. 57. That if Roman Catholics believe sin to be taken away by the Mass, they must contradict the declaration of St. Paul and of St. Peter. (1 Pet. iii. 18; Heb. ix. 25, 26, 22.) The question in each case here is whether

the doctrine of Roman Catholics is correctly given. It is not so given in this place, for they do believe that remission is truly had only by virtue of the shedding of the blood of Christ on Calvary; but that the merits of the blood then shed might now be applied, as they believe it is, by the several institutions of our Saviour, of which the Mass is one.

20. p. 12. Q. 60. Roman Catholics by transubstantiation, mean to say that the bread and wine are turned into the body and blood of Christ.

This is an improper use of words, by which a misrepresentation is effected; whether intentionally or not, I do not undertake to assert. But it is a perpetual and wellfounded cause of complaint which we have, that in place of using our own words, our opponents use expressions not ours, and which we would not use, but which, they assert, convey our meaning. The phrase turn into, as usually understood, does not convey our meaning of transubstantiation, because to turn anything into another, generally imports that the same substance which was originally present continues still to be present, though under a different appearance, or in a different mode of existence; and this is a complete contradiction to our doctrinal expression. We say the bread and wine are changed in substance, though not in appearance, and we use the very word transubstantiation to guard against the mistake or misrepresentation of which I here complain. The substance of the bread is not turned into the substance of the body, but there is a change of substance, by which and retains the appearance of the first. I one substance comes in place of another, do not notice what I call gross mistakes in the explanation of the passages of Scripture in the succeeding questions and answers, because you are aware, Right Reverend Sir, that I do not enter upon controversy; I only exhibit misrepresentation.

21.

pp. 13, 14. Q. 67, 68, 69, 70. Roman Catholics cannot be certain that the Eucharist is duly consecrated, neither I can they be certain of receiving any sacrament, and must at best be in a state of doubt and anxiety about all their Sacraments, as the effect depends upon the private and concealed intention of the priest.

This is a very serious misrepresentation of our doctrine of Intention. I should scarcely believe it possible that it was an innocent mistake, but that I have lately discovered that the mode in which the general body of Protestant writers learn what Ro