Caiaphas he told them, that "Rome was the very "nest of antichrist; and that out of that nest

the Pharisees. The reason which he gives for the last of these classifications, is, that, by his account, "the papists, "like the Pharisees, make void the commandments of God, through their traditions." As the gentleman, to whom the Quarterly Review is indebted for this article, evidently belongs to the high church, it surprised me, that he should express himself so angrily concerning traditions; as they form an important article of the creed of the church of England, settled, as it finally was, by the thirty-nine articles; and as the main difference between the church of Rome and the church of England, upon traditions, is, that the members of the former receive traditions under the authority of their church, and the members of the latter receive them according to their individual judgments. This is shown, in a manner equally luminous and accurate, in the interesting Appendix to the Sermons of my venerated friend, the right reverend doctor Jebb, the bishop of Limerick, Ardfert and Aghadoe. I must add, that the subject of tradition has been ably discussed by the bishop of Peterborough, in his "Comparative View of the Church "of England and Rome," and in doctor Lingard's "Stric"tures, upon that work." When controversy is conducted as it is by these writers, it is a literary discussion, in which learning, taste and discernment are incessantly exerted, and every intelligent reader is delighted.

I am still more surprised, that the writer of the article classes us so unceremoniously with the Pharisees ;-a set of men reprobated by Christ in the strongest terms, and held by all succeeding ages in abomination. But the Review, in which the article in question is inserted, contains others, in which all the decencies of controversy are, in our regard, strangely violated. The silliest and most disgusting tales, imagined in times of the greatest darkness, compiled by ignorant and weak men, and rejected by ourselves, are brought forward, as forming part of our real creed, and fair specimens of our actual belief and manners. Can this be justified? Should a body, that constitutes the largest portion of the christian world, be

" came all the disciples of him, of whom prelates, priests and monks were the body, and the piled "friars the tail. Your possessions and lordships," he told the archbishop, "are venom, shed by Judas "unto the church :-ye never followed Christ." Can you say, that this language was not arrogant, or not insulting ?—I use your own translation of it.

I trust that this, though a succinct, will be found a true representation of what past between the archbishop and lord Cobham. I now ask, whether, if a person should, at this time, conduct himself in any spiritual or temporal court, in the same manner as lord Cobham did in the court of convocation, before archbishop Arundel, he would not be punished? Yet you laud lord Cobham's conduct throughout.

thus insulted? Should the British roman-catholics, who exceed in number any one other denomination of his majesty's christian subjects; who are universally respected by their countrymen; whose loyalty has been repeatedly praised by the legislature; who contain among them many of the most noble and antient families in the realm, be thus regularly and systematically villified, taunted and irritated? and this, by men in visors? Surely every respectable publication should be impervious to such inglorious ribaldry I doubt whether a similar style of defamation is to be found in any respectable literary journal on the Continent. But the time for defamatory compositions is nearly over: they have no admirers, and few readers. What a space between such articles, and those in the Defence of the University of Oxford, and on the Administration of Mr. Pitt, in the same Review! or the discus sions on the Mechanique Celeste of La Place, and the astro nomy and algebra of the Hindoos, in the Edinburgh! With what delight do men of learning and taste peruse these articles ! how coolly do they pass over the former!

You then inform us, that the court "excom"municated lord Cobham, and pronounced him "accursed; and not him alone, but all who should "in anyway receive, help, or defend him." The word accursed, is your own addition: no such word was used by the court. You call it "a cruel and " inhuman" sentence: how many sentences equally cruel and inhuman have been passed by protestant courts on catholics, not only less culpable than lord Cobham, but perfectly innocent of the crimes of which they were accused? and their innocence of which is now acknowledged?

In a former part of your work, you transcribe the terrible words in which excommunication was expressed you observe, that no form of heathen "superstition could have been so revolting, as when "a christian minister called upon the Redeemer of "Mankind to fulfil execrations which the devil "himself might seem to have inspired." I do not defend the words to which you object; they were devised in an age of barbarism, when the most forcible language only had any effect on the populace they were an abusive application of the curses in Deuteronomy*; and, I believe, they were resorted to only on singular occasions, and that, before the revival of letters, they had fallen into desuetude. By perusing the document in Wilkins, to which I have referred, you will observe, that the sentence of excommunication, past by archbishop Arundel on lord Cobham, does not contain these execrations. According to the actual jurisprudence of

* Deut. c. xxxviii.

England, excommunication is yet attended by many civil penalties and disabilities.

All, who peruse your account of lord Cobham, and your censure of doctor Lingard, should recollect that, in an earlier part of "the Book of the “Church," you inform us, that “the Lollards held ❝ principles incompatible with the peace of society; "opinions founded in gross error, and leading to “direct and enormous evil;" and that "lord "Cobham was confessedly their head and leader." I trust I have successfully vindicated doctor Lingard against the only particular charge you have brought against him..

"Historical Memoirs of the English, Irish, "and Scottish Catholics," have been published by another hand: you may, perhaps, find some things in them which you think objectionable; but I feel a strong confidence, that they do not merit any of the undistinguishing and unqualified expressions of gross abuse, which you apply to the historical productions of every catholic historian of the reformation.

You close the chapter, by an insinuation in favour of Henry VIII. You intimate, that, “he was not "the mere monster which, upon a cursory view, he "must needs appear to every young and ingenuous "mind:" yet you mention, in the preceding line, "his many revolting acts of caprice and cruelty;" and, in a subsequent line, "his sending a wife and "a minister to the scaffold with as little compunction, "as he would have in sending a dog to be drowned.", The frequent repetition of these enormities, in every part of his reign; his general profligacy; his

66

prodigality; his wicked interferences with the courts of justice; his unjust and ruinous wars; and his general oppression of his people, are confessed by all his historians: all represent him,-to use the language of one of the most eminent among them, as a tyrant, "who never spared woman in his lust, nor man in his wrath; so that, if all the patterns "of a merciless prince had been lost in the world, "they might have been found in this king*." Such is the character given, even by his protestant historians, of Henry; if it be true, it justifies your expression, he was not a mere monster, he was more: I wish you to mention the vices which he did not possess; or the talents which he possessed, and did not abuse. Your unlimited abuse of all catholic historians of the reformation, and saving clause in favour of Henry, are equally admirable.

Cromwell, his active minister, particularly in his rejection of the pope's supremacy, and the dissolution of the monasteries, you highly extol but you omit to mention that he died in the catholic faith; and that, from the scaffold, he solemnly professed, and called on the spectators "to bear him "record, that he died in the catholic faith, not doubting in any article of his faith."

66

*

Heylin's Hist. p. 15; he citing Sir Walter Raleigh.-The introduction to Letter XI. (p. 141-142), contains an allusion to the Manichean descent of the French propagandists of Liberty and Equality, through the sectaries of the middle ages. It is a curious subject, and deserves investigation; Gibbon traces this supposed descent in the fifty-fourth-perhaps the most interesting-chapter of his history. It had before attracted the attention of Bayle, (Art. Pauliciens), and of Mosheim, (His. Ecc. Seculum ix, p. 311, &c).