The two Main Questions in controversy between the Churches of Eng. land and Rome, stated and discussed, with reference to Dr. Doyle's assertion of the Practicability of a Re-union; and in reply to the most important parts of Dr. Milner's "End of Religious Controversy," and J. K. L,'s Seventh Letter on the State of Ireland. By JAMES EDWARD JACKSON, M.A. Vicar of the United Parish of Ardee, in the Diocese of Armagh. 8vo. Pp. 300. 10s. 6d. London. Rivingtons. 1825.

THE Church of Rome is peculiarly successful in the address with which she accommodates her mode of attack to the situation and genius of its object. To the Oriental idolater she appeals with the irresistible pomp and display of her ritual, and allures him with idols yet more gorgeous and in far better taste than his own. To the humbler members of her own communion she addresses no language save that of the Deity whose prerogatives she assumes. She would as soon condescend to rest her claims on the basis of external evidence, as that

"Heaven's free subjects might their rights dispute,
Lest God himself should seem too absolute."

When Protestantism, more especially the Church of England, is the object of the proselytizing spirit of Rome, a tone essentially differing is assumed. The reader can scarcely trace in Bellarmine and Bossuet, in Mr Butler and J. K. L., the language of a church glorying in immutability. If report speak truly, and Dr. Doyle and J. K. L. are really IDENTIFIED, the Protean qualities of the church appear to be transferable to individuals. One point at least is certain, which is, that this lofty and uncompromising queen, clothed with the sun, and having the moon beneath her feet, the sole depositary and source of truth, no sooner comes fairly in collision with those who have rejected her authority and denied her pretensions, than, forgetful that, without the most grievous inconsistency, she can never reconcile her own infallibility and their rectitude, she is disposed to admit that, after all, the differences are so slight that they may be easily adjusted.

We are ready to allow that this stratagem, like most others in the same quarter, is sufficiently seducing, although exposure will render it perfectly innocent. Externals are the very life and soul of Popery; and it is to their influence generally on the human mind that she owes the extent and duration of her empire. Like the unsubstantial forms of heroes, which epic gods and goddesses create to preserve their favourites, and divert the

pursuer from his purpose, the arguments of the Papists, however ingeniously contrived to mislead, are no sooner vigorously pursued, than they melt into airy vanity. Yet we cannot but entertain very considerable gratitude towards such as will un dertake to track and dissipate the shadow. The evils of spiritual disunion, and the notorious integrity of the Romish Church in this respect, are incessantly set before us as incontrovertible arguments of the necessity, or, at least, the expediency of reverting to her maternal discipline. The known opposition of the Church of England to every thing wild and extravagant in religious opinion, and the present actual state of Sectarianism in this country, are considered irrefragable auxiliaries of this position; and the Romanists hope to reduce us to the necessity of admitting the infallibility of their church, or, at least, acceding to its communion as a matter of expediency. And as the Church of Rome is little scrupulous respecting the conscientious sentiments of her proselytes, provided they render the due external homages, a slight concession of this kind would be amply repaid if it procured but one convert, of whose convictions we should hear incessantly, even when it might suit the church herself to abolish or forget her politie admissions.

When

No considerate Christian, certainly, would undervalue the blessings, or disregard the duty of spiritual union: and no Christian community labours more to promote it than the Church of England. An argument founded on the interests of religious concord is certain to meet with attention from her: so powerfully are her members impressed with the importance of this sentiment, that the only danger is lest they should sacrifice to its indulgence points of still graver concern. St. Paul charges us to "endeavour to keep the unity of the spirit," the very expression implies that this will not always be possible; it is indeed an injunction of similar import to another precept of like authority, " as much as in you lieth, live peaceably with all men." Every man knows that, constituted as the world is, the best Christian will not always be able to live in universal peace; and if he does his best endeavour so to live, he has fulfilled the requirement of his Master. If the price of a peaceable life be the surrender of religious integrity, it is obvious that it no longer "lieth in" a Christian to live peaceably. The very same argument applies to the case of spiritual unity. Spiritual unity is a great advantage, but spiritual error is a far greater evil: and, if they become inseparable, the line of duty cannot be mistaken. On points of church discipline, or inferior matters of belief, Christians cannot separate without the sin of schism; because, as it is scarcely possible that any two

persons should be minutely agreed in such cases, the tendency of such conduct is the ruin of the visible Church. But in great and essential points, affecting the very foundation of Christian belief such as, for instance, the Rule of Faith, we cannot conscientiously hold different opinions from the communion to which we externally belong. Separation in such cases is not schismatical, but an imperative duty; unless indeed the bond of spiritual union be deemed so sacred, that its integrity must bę maintained at the expense of teaching and receiving for the word of God what we believe to be the commandments and inventions of man.

Direct and palpable as this course appears to be, the Romanists still endeavour to raise mists about it. They tell us, that, however specious such reasoning may appearâ priori; it is not confirmed by experiment. The principle of the Reformation (they argue) has led to mischiefs which it never contemplated; and the great variety of Protestant sects, the perniciousness of some of their tenets, acknowledged even by the Anglican Church herself to be more objectionable than those of Rome, added to the evils of spiritual disunion, are more than sufficient to counterbalance any apparent advantage derived from a principle, which, however plausible in speculation, is found to be defective in practice. This argument, which has created much difficulty in the minds of many well meaning Protestants, reminds us of the well known algebraical juggle, by which 1 is proved equal to 2. An artful substitution is made during the course of the argument, by which "airy nothing" is invested with a tangible form, " a local habitation and a name." The state of religious knowledge in Roman Catholic countries is carefully kept in the back ground, and unanimity of profession sturdily advanced as an equivalent for unanimity of belief. That Roman Catholic countries have no sects, is true: but what is the reason? The Church of England, did she adopt similar methods to those of her sister of Rome, might be as little incommoded by sectarianism. Religious toleration allows the expression of opinions, which, however inaudible under a coercive system, can no more be extinguished by bigoted oppression than the fires of Ætna by the winter's snows. The opinion of man must every where be uncontrollable, and Protestantism does nothing more than permit it to be expressed. Mr. Blanco White has given us an insight into what may be the sentiments of a professed Papist. The lower orders of the avowed members of the Roman Catholic church have as incomplete notions on the creed of their communion as have the corresponding orders with us; and the only reason why the pulpit

2

1

with them is not deserted for the tub, is, that tubs are interdicted. But will any reasonable man affirm that this is a healthier state of religion with the individual? In what respect are the miracles of Joanna Southcott, so liberally charged on Protestantism, inferior to those of St. Apoline, a person whose very existence is questionable? The only difference that we can see is this :- All countries have abundant examples of superstition and ignorance: but in Protestant states they are tolerated and ridiculed, while in the Roman Catholic they are sanctioned and encouraged, unless they happen, which is rarely the case, to be adverse to the popular faith. Let any unprejudiced man take a survey of continental society, or, where this may be impracticable, let him collect one from the most respectable and credible travellers; and when he has done this, let him compare the state of religious knowledge, and the influence of religious motive which he there finds, with the corresponding features of his own country: and then, amidst all our varieties of religious denomination, he will find nothing so startling in the Roman Catholic objection. We throw out the challenge with no apprehensions for the result.

Discovering, however, that we are unmoved by argument in favour of spiritual union inseparable from spiritual error; and that we are no less proof against the sleight which would make experience contradict our reasoning, (as though one should measure the sides of a triangle to prove two of them less than the third, in the teeth of demonstration,) the Romanist comes up with his "ratio ultima :"' Since you object to join us because we differ with you on certain points which you deem essential, revise those points; we believe you will find, after all, that we are perfectly agreed.' Such is the proposal actually made by Dr. Doyle, and which has given rise to the masterly work before us. As we do not possess the Doctor's writings, we must give his words as quoted by Mr. Jackson.

"The union on which so much depends,' says Dr. Doyle (the prelate alluded to) in a letter to Mr. Robertson, which, however, breathes a spirit very different from that of conciliation, ' is not, as you have justly observed, so difficult as appears to many.... It is not difficult; for in the discussions which were held, and the correspondence which occurred on this subject early in the last century; as well that in which Archbishop Tillotson was engaged, as the others which were carried on between Bossuet and Leibnitz; it appeared, that the points of agreement between the Churches were numerous, those on which the parties hesitated, few, and apparently not the most important.'-Again, in another part of the same letter, this prelate goes on to say: - It may not become so humble an individual as I am, to hint even at a plan for

effecting so great a purpose, as the union of Roman Catholics and Protestants, in one great family of Christians; but as the difficulty does not appear to me to be at all proportioned to the magnitude of the object to be attained, I would presume to state, that if Protestant and Catholic Divines of learning and a conciliatory character, were summoned by the crown to ascertain the points of agreement and difference between the churches, and that the result of their conferences were made the basis of a project to be treated on between the heads of the Churches of Rome and of England; the result might be more favourable, than at present would be anticipated. The chief points to be discussed are, the Canon of the sacred Scriptures, Faith, Justification, the Mass, the Sacraments, the Authority of Tradition, of Councils, of the Pope, the Celibacy of the Clergy, the Language of the Liturgy, Invocation of Saints, Respect for Images, Prayers for the Dead. On most of these, it appears to me, that there is no essential difference between the Catholics and Protestants; the existing diversity of opinion arises, in most cases, from certain forms of words which admit of satisfactory explanation, or from the ignorance or misconceptions which ancient prejudice and ill-will produce and strengthen, but which could be removed:-they are pride and points of honour which keep us divided on many subjects, not a love of Christian humility, charity, and truth.' Ibid." P. 2.

From all that we know of the conduct and productions of Dr. Doyle, we do not feel much inclined to give him credit for a very disinterested love of abstract truth or harmony. His proposition, too, certainly implies somewhat of the marvellous. That men of the greatest learning, educated themselves under the Romish discipline, and, consequently, well understanding the sense of the Romish doctrines, should separate themselves from that church, and, rather than renounce the grounds of separation, endure death in its most painful forms; that the Romish authorities, on the other hand, should use every exertion to procure recantation, and unrelentingly inflict extreme punishment in every instance in which such recantation was not tendered, when, all this while, both parties were essentially agreed, is a supposition not readily admissible. However, it is one which, certainly, claims attention. If the Church of England has during this period been separated from the church of Rome on frivolous and unimportant grounds, she is certainly, what the Romanists call her, a schismatical church, and it is time that she acknowledge her error, and endeavour to repair the evil consequences of her apostasy. Although centuries have past, during which she has refused to communicate with Rome, nevertheless, if it can be proved that this refusal is founded on no sufficient reasons, we may feel indeed humiliated