see, we think it slanderous: when it is used with a sneer, it evidently is an intentional affront.

As several acts of the Legislature style us, and permit us to style ourselves, "Roman Catholics," and this is our favourite appellation; we trust gentlemen will always give it us. Whatever tends to prevent or soften the asperities of controversy, a true Christian is always ready to adopt.

Before I proceed to my Reply, I must observe, that my "Historical Memoirs of the English, "Irish, and Scottish Roman Catholics," should always be taken in conjunction with my "Book "of the Roman Catholic Church." It could not be expected that I should re-write "the Memoirs" in "the Book." I continually refer in it to them: and was much pleased to find that they always were under Your eye when You were employed upon Your publication.

I.

Your assertion, that a decree of the Council of Constance, which an article of the creed of Pope Pius IV. compels every conscientious Romanist to adopt, sanctions the doctrine that faith is not to be kept with heretics.

IN your preliminary letter, (page 17), you cite the last article but one of the creed of Pope Pius IV. in which the subscriber of it "professes to receive "all things defined and declared by the sacred "canons and general councils, particularly by the "Council of Trent."

You then cite the decree of the 19th session of

the Council of Constance, which declares, that "safe "conducts granted to heretics, by a secular prince, "shall not prevent any ecclesiastical judge from "punishing such heretics, even if they come to the 'place of judgment, relying on such safeguard, "and would not otherwise come thither."

You assert, that "this decree, which the creed "of Pope Pius IV. compels every conscientious "Romanist to adopt, sanctions, as plainly as words

can make it, the doctrine, which you truly say, "I reject with abhorrence,' and which the four 66 foreign universities consulted by Mr. Pitt's direc❝tion, likewise rejected,' that no faith is to be kept with heretics.'

I answer, 1st,-That all persons, who are acquainted with the jurisprudence of the times in which the council was held, must be sensible, that the canon only intimates, that, when any prince grants a safe conduct, which conflicts with the faith or morals of the church of Christ, or with the legal or constitutional rights of the church of any state, he has exceeded his legitimate authority, and that this exercise of his power is consequently null. Such certainly is the doctrine of every Protestant church, episcopal or aerian. If, before the late act for the relief of the Anti-Trinitarians, a person had published, within any part of the united empire of Great Britain and Ireland, a work against the Trinity, and been prosecuted for it, and then had fled the country, and made some place beyond the seas his residence; and his Majesty had granted

him a safe conduct to any part of his cismarine dominions; this safe conduct would not have protected the offender against the process: the judge would not even have allowed it to be pleaded.

I answer, 2dly, That the council directs that "the safeguard ought not to prevent any ecclesi"astical judge from punishing such heretics." Now an ecclesiastical judge, can, as such, punish only by ecclesiastical censures. No safeguard can prevent an ecclesiastical court from punishing a delinquent by these. This is the acknowledged doctrine, of the Roman Catholic, the Anglican, the Lutheran, and the Calvinian churches.

Thus, the question of the lawfulness of breaking faith with heretics does not arise upon this decree. If the Council of Constance had decreed it to be lawful, it would have covered itself with indelible infamy.

I beg leave to add, that having, in every stage of my long life, lived in habits of intimacy or acquaintance with all descriptions of Roman Catholics,—the young, the old, the literate, the illiterate, natives of this country, foreigners, ecclesiastic and secular, I have never known one, who did not treat the charge of our holding it lawful to break faith with heretics with indignation, and consider it as an execrable calumny. You know the indignation with which the foreign universities express themselves upon it.

66

II.

Your insinuation, that the Author of "the Book of the Roman Catholic Church" deserves a harsh name, for intimating, knowing it to be otherwise, that Romanism is founded on Scripture.

66

IN page 19, You express yourself in the following words:" Pardon me, if I inquire whether some part of your third section of the Introduction, (page 9), does not deserve a harsh name. "You believe the doctrines of your church to be " unchangeable: your faith is now what it has

ever been; but this proposition, you observe, is "confined to the articles of your faith, and no "doctrine is of faith unless it be delivered by "revelation, and is proposed as such by your "church. You resolve, therefore, all the deci"sions of councils, and all the dogmas of faith, "into the authority of Scripture, or you otherwise

reject them as doctrines of your faith. If this "be your meaning, receive my congratulations; if "not, we must look to the formulary of Pope "Pius and the Council of Trent. You, no doubt, "wish to persuade yourself and us, that Romanism "is founded on Scripture." If I rightly understand the charge expressed, or rather insinuated by You in this passage, it is, that I wished the reader to believe, although I knew the contrary, that the Roman Catholics hold no article to be of faith, if it be not contained in the Scriptures.

If this be your meaning, and You intimate that the passage which You cited from my work,

deserves, on this account, a harsh name, I must say, that you entirely misapprehend my words, and are wholly ignorant of the Roman Catholic doctrine upon tradition.

The Roman Catholics believe, that both the articles of faith recorded in the Scriptures, and the articles of faith transmitted to them by tradition, were delivered by the revelation of Christ to his church, while he dwelt among men.

Nothing, as far as we know, of the doctrine revealed by Christ, was committed to writing during his life. Thus, while he lived, and during many years after his death, all the doctrines which he taught, were divine traditions. Portions of the doctrine thus orally revealed by Christ, were recorded successively, and by portions, in the Gospels and Apostolical Epistles. Roman Catholics believe, that the whole of the doctrine revealed and taught by Christ, was not so recorded; but that the memory of some portion of it, derived originally from the revelations of Christ, was left to remain upon tradition. Thus, to make any doctrine an article of the faith of the church, it must have been revealed by Christ in his life-time. To ascertain, for the security of the faithful, that what the church proposes to them for their belief, was thus revealed by Christ, it is required that this should be declared by the church. Hence, to constitute an article of faith, it is in our opinion, essential; first, that it should have been revealed by Christ; secondly, that it should have been