that of Litchfield, constituting it, at the same time, an Archbishopric? A hundred other instances of the exercise of the Pope's ecclesiastical jurisdiction in England, previously to the Conquest, could be produced, if they were wanted.-As to the pretended difference between the doctrine of the Anglo-Saxons and the Church of Rome, the Catechist was bound to inform his readers when it took place, and who were the authors of it; that is, who first persuaded the whole English nation to reject the Religion they had been taught by their Apostles, Pope Gregory and his Missionaries; and whether this change was effected by slow degrees, or on a sudden (1). If so absurd a paradox as this required a serious refutation, it might be stated that, in 610, Bishop Mellitus, who afterwards became Primate, went to Rome

(1) To make some brief confutation of each of the Catechist's alleged differences between the Anglo-Saxon Church and that of Rome: Bede testifies, that when St. Austin and his fellow Missionaries preached the Gospel to King Ethelbert, they carried a cross for their ensign with a painted picture of Christ, L. i. c. 25. Will. Malmsb. mentions that, among other pious images preserved at Glastonbury, were those of Christ and his Apostles, made of silver, and given by King Ina. De. Antiq. Glaston. We learn from Archbishop Cuthred's letter to Luilas, successor of St. Boniface, Bishop and Martyr of Mentz, that a Synod of Anglo-Saxon Bishops had chosen this Saint, and St. Gregory, and St. Austin, to be their patrons and intercessors.' Inter Epist. Bonif. That our ancestors believed-in Transubstantiation, is clear, from Osbern's relation of Archbishop Odo's rendering this visible. Angl. Sac. P. ii. p. 82. One of his successors, Lanfrank, was the principal defender of this doctrine against Berengarius. It may be added, that the original faith concerning Purgatory, the Mass, and, perhaps, every other controverted point, can be proved from Bede's History alone.

6

to obtain the Pope's confirmation of certain regulations which had been made in England; that he subscribed to the Acts of an Episcopal Synod, then held in that city, which Acts he brought back with him to England (1); and that, in 680, St. Wilfred, going to Rome, to prosecute his appeal, was present at a Council of 125 Bishops, where, In the name of all the Churches in the North Part of Britain, and Ireland, and the nations of the Scots and Picts, he made open profession of the true Catholic Faith, confirming it also by his subscription.' (2).

6

Other paradoxes of the Right Rev. Prelate, relating to matters of a later date, are these: that Pope Adrian -IV. grounded his right to give away Ireland on the forged donation of Constantine,' though he never once alluded to it, but assigned quite other grounds for what he did; and that the Pope now owes the whole of his temporal and spiritual power on the Continent, to this gross fiction, and the Decretal Epistles,' p. v. Alas! what must

the learned Catholics of the Continent, whose predecessors were the first to detect these literary frauds of the eighth century, and to trace them to the place of their birth in Lower Germany, think of the literature of this country, when they hear a BISHOP, and a Member of our learned Societies, telling them that they would not acknowledge the Pope to be Prince of Rome or Head of the Church, were it not for those spurious pieces!—A similar paradox is, that The Popish Bishops and Popish Clergy were the real authors of the fictitious statutes (Acts of Parliament) of Richard II. Henry IV. and (2) Ibid, L. v. c. 20.

(1) Bede, L. ii, c. 4.

Henry V.' against the Lollards; though they neither did, nor were permitted, to interfere in those Acts; and though it is notorious from all contemporary history, that these severe edicts were occasioned by what that anarchical faction had done and threatened to do. They had, under the command of Wat Tyler, and John Ball, a Wickliffite Priest, actually put to death, by public execution, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer, and the Lord Chief Justice of England; and they had threatened to kill the King, the Lords Spiritual and temporal, and all the pen and ink-horn men, as they called the lawyers; as also to put down all the Clergy, except the begging Friars, and to divide among themselves all their lands and property. (1). Such were the levellers of the fifteenth century, whom a modern Bishop eulogizes!-The following are Theological Paradoxes, and such as will infallibly non-plus every regular student in Divinity. 1st, The Apostles were not Bishops,' p. 15. By the same rule Bishops are not Priests.-2dly, To retain the obsolete language of ancient Rome, in prayer, is an error,' p. 39.-3dly, The Irish were guilty of a heresy of discipline!' p. 60.

But the political paradoxes, my Lord, of this new Catechism, are still more inexplicable than the theological ones. The first of them, which I shall mention, is contained in the following question and answer. 'Q. What is it excludes Pagans, Jews, and Mahometans, from our Churches, and from Parliament? A. Religion,' p. 44.-Your Lordship will permit the writer to observe, in the first place, that

(1) Hist. Major T. Walsingham. Knighton De Event. Angl. Collier's Eccl. Hist.

it is impossible either for the simple Catechumens of Wales, or even for the learned Reviewers of England, to gather from this passage, whether the Right Rev. Prelate means to say, that it is the Religion of Pagans, Jews, and Turks, or that of Protestants, which excludes the former from Parliament. However, the passage, taken either way, is perfectly poradoxical. For can that Prelate, or any one else, cite a precept of the Vedam, of the Talmud, or of the Koran, which prohibits its respective votaries from sitting and voting in the British Parliament, if they can get entrance into it? Or can he show any thing in Protestantism (which he defines to be 'The abjuration of Popery, and the exclusion of Papists from all power, ecclesiastical or civil') that prevents a man, who publicly proclaims Mahomet, or who publicly denies Jesus Christ, or who publicly worships the obscene and blood-stained idol Jaggernaut, from being a member of either House of the Legislature? No, my Lord, there is no one article in any one of these Religions, if they may be called by that name, which excludes them from our Parliament; the only condition for rendering them fit and worthy to enter into it, and becoming legislators, being their calling God to witness, that 'there is no Transubstantiation in the Mass,' and that the worship of the Virgin Mary and the Saints, as practised in the Church of Rome,' (upon both which points the worshippers of Jaggernaut and English Protestants are, for the most part, equally well instructed,) are idolatrous !' A second political paradox in this Catechism is, that, 'the inviolable covenants of the two Unions show the injustice and unconstitutional nature of the

B

Roman Catholic claims,' p. viii. This, my Lord, is equally incomprehensible; since the Act of Union with Scotland neither mentions these claims, nor alludes to them; and since that of the Union with Ireland expressly admits the principle of their being conceded, and prepares the minds of men, for their actual concession; as it is therein enacted, that 'Members of the United Parliament shall take and subscribe the usual oaths and declarations UNTIL THE SAID PARLIAMENT SHALL OTHERWISE PROVIDE.' Art. IV.The last of these Paradoxes, which the writer will extract from the incomprehensible Catechism, is the following. It teaches, at page 35, That Not to consent to the Veto, is not to acknowledge the King's Supremacy, which it is treasonable, by Statute, to oppose. And immediately after, at p. 36,' it teaches, that 'the Velo, or the Kings nomination, is unprotestant and illegal;' to which the Bishop adds in the words of his friend, Mr. Sharp; it is highly improper and even illegal for the Crown of England to accept the power of the proposed Veto; or to have any concern in the appointment of unreformed Bishops,' p. 56. Can any one, my Lord, reconcile these opposite doctrines? To the plain sense of the writer it appears, that if it be illegal for his Majesty to accept of the Veto, it would be criminal in the Catholics to offer it to him; so far from its being treasonable in them to refuse to give it!

MY LORD BISHOP,

The wise man has said, in the sacred text, of making many books there is no end, Eccles. xii. 12.; and we are certain, from reason and experience,