nalized himself by two previous pamphlets written in the same strain of accommodation to the powerful objections which the unsophisticated mind must conceive against the peculiar tenets of his church. The tinsel of Popery is only adapted to the rays of its own tapers: it will not bear to be examined by the strong light which the genuine knowledge of Scripture truth, so happily diffused in this country, throws on it; and, like Bossuet, he has therefore kept it as much as possible in the back ground. It is curious indeed to observe, by means of such publications, the effect of the Reformation even on the sturdy professors of the old superstition an effect analogous to that which Revelation has undoubtedly had on the religion of the deist. The deist is unwilling to acknowledge the obligations he owes to that heaven-descended knowledge, which enables him to discourse with so much fluency on God and his duty. And so also, the Roman Catholics look with malignant eye at that purer faith and worship which has silently operated an improvement in their own system at any rate obliging them to adopt a more plausible exoteric religion, while the repulsive view of their creed is reserved for the initiated captive to the authority of the priesthood. The obnoxious forms of the superstition have trembled like Virgil's ghosts in dismay at the flood of light which has suddenly burst on them, and shrunk from the dreaded aspect of the Reformer. “ Ut vidêre virum fulgentia que arma per umbras, Ingenti trepidare metu: pars vertere Church-they only plead guilty of douleia to images, they do not pray to saints-they only pray for the prayers of the saints, and so forth. Before, however, we enter into an examination of the peculiar theology contained in this Tract, we shall beg leave to take a brief retrospect of the ground already traversed in the earlier stages of the controversy, and we are better enabled to do so by the help of an excellent pamphlet, entitled "Gospel Truth opposed to Error and Superstition, by a Layman," which exposes some of the previous fallacies of Dr. B.'s arguments at once in a familiar and satisfactory way. The first occasion to Dr. B. of his broaching his doctrines, (doctrines which, in the days of Gardiner and Bonner, days of more genuine Roman Catholicism than the present, would have brought the author either to a recantation or the stake) was a charge of the Archdeacon of Bath, containing some remarks, which Dr. Baines (then only the Reverend Peter) thought likely to render himself and other Roman Catholics objects of suspicion and terror to their acquaintance Stimulated by his, fears accordingly, he took the field against his Protestant antagonist, addressing him in a printed Letter, full of flippant disrespect and as flippant argument. This publication was answered in a masterly style by a publication from an anonymous author, subscribed Vindex. But the embryo Bishop was not to be so silenced. So triumphant a refutation could not be suffered to pass with impunity. Forth came, therefore, from the prolific pen of the "The consequence will naturally be," says he, in his Letter to the Archdeacon, "that the next time they meet me, or any of their Catholic acquaintance, they will think of the odious and disgusting picture you have drawn of our religion and its members, and applying it to ourselves, shun us with suspicion, or fly from us with fear." Baines's Letter, p. 9. ingenious divine, a more elaborate work in reply to Vindex, consisting of nearly 300 pages, under the name of "A Defence of the Christian Religion during the last Thirteen Centuries," an admirable misnomer, quite in character with the Jesuitical expositions contained in it, and not without its use, be it observed, as a recommendation to the reading of the book; and thus to serve the real cause which the "good Catholic" has at heart-the conversion of his brethren to his own opinions. It is to this work that "the Layman" addresses his remarks; which are intended to provide the less erudite reader with a plain course of argument in answer to the statements of Dr. Baines, whose work he justly characterizes, as one of the most artful, unfair, and danger. ous books that has ever been put into the hands of a Protestant." 66 The author of this pamphlet, prefacing his remarks with some strictures on the very intemperate and inconsistent tone of Dr. B.'s work, and adverting to the absurd argument, derived from the apparent number of the members of his communion, by which the Papist endeavours to assert his claim to the title of the Catholic or Universal Church, and to the gross misrepresentation of historical truth in regard to the Reformation to which Dr. B. has condescended, proceeds to the main subject of dispute the question of image-worship as employed in the Romish Church, how far it is liable to the heavy charge of idolatry, which has been usually alleged against it by Protestants; and that of the Invocation of Saints, another practice of that Church which Protestants hold in abhorrence, as contrary to the pure Christian worship of the one God and Mediator. Dr. Baines's deceitful mode of assimilating the doctrines of his Church as much as possible to those of ours, is thus pointed out by the author of the pamphlet, in respect to the subject of image-worship. "I have turned in my mind,' he says at p. 18. the whole of our doctrine and practice on the subject in question, and I really cannot discover in what they disagree with those of the Established Church at this day.' And how does the reverend gentleman prove this? oh, very clearly: ' in many of our churches there are altarpieces, representing some important event in scripture history; and figures of the saints, and even of our blessed Saviour, are sometimes seen there.' "There is however one trifling dif ference, which Mr. Baines passes over, namely, we do not worship them. But Mr. Baines has an admirable method of cutting hard knots, when he cannot untie them he shews, as clear as the sun at noon-day, that bowing down to a graven image, and worshipping it, is by no means a breach of the second commandment! Quoting from Fleury's Ecclesiastical History, where he treats of the second council of Nice, he says, The Lord thy God shalt thou worship, and him only shalt thou serve.' It is argued that the prohibition lies in the last clause. The Scripture says we must serve only God; but it does not say we must worship only him; therefore we may worship images! Mr. Baines' words are,It does not reserve to God any particular external act whatever, except sacrifice, and it does allow any external act whatever, except sacrifice, to be paid to creatures.' P. 43. "The reverend gentleman seems to have been conscious that this curious exposition stood in need of some help to recommend it to the acceptance of his readers; for he introduces it with an admirable and well-written comment on the first commandment; such as, I believe, Archdeacon Moysey, or any other sound divine of the Established Church, would entirely approve; and then proceeds to the second. This commandment forbids the worshipping of a graven image; but the Church of Rome encourages and practises it. "The graduated scale of worship we shall notice hereafter. Mr. Baines labours in the early part of his work to impress his reader with the idea, that nothing more is intended by the image-worship of the Romish Church than such affectionate respect as is usually shewn and felt for the picture of a deceased parent, friend, or child; but he is compelled at last to concede much more, and to maintain the law fulness of image-worship. In his progress he has shewn himself to be an highly accomplished artist. His shading is laid on with such exquisite skill, that an unsuspecting eye would hardly discover the point where the light ends and the darkness begins. One hard line, however, was to be softened down, namely, that which lies between image-worship, and the respect which we feel for the picture of a departed friend.' "The reverend gentleman, however, labours perseveringly, with the view of proving, that respect for the pictures of deceased friends, bowing to the throne as an acknowledgment of the royal authority, &c. &c. is much the same kind of thing as the image worship of the Church of Rome. Can Mr. Baines prove that Protestants have been in the habit of kneeling down before the pictures of departed friends, burning incense, making them offerings, or worshipping them in any manner? Or have our bishops ever worshipped the throne in this way? Unless he can shew that these things have been done, nearly one-half of his book is waste-paper." Dr. Baines had also been very diffuse in urging the old scholastic argument of his party, founded on a distinction between the words Latreia and Douleia, of which Latreia alone he had urged was due to God, Douleia to images. This absurd verbal distinction is well exposed by "the Layman," as it had been by "Vindex," before him; and we might add, long ago by Jeremy Taylor*." Supposing indeed the full benefit of the distinction to be conceded to the advocate of image worship, it amounts to no justification of the practice; it only substi tutes another name, for that which is objectionable, by whatever name it may be called, The mixture of respect, (to call their worship, or douleia, by the mildest name,) for the creature, with the worship of the Creator, is derogatory to the purity of His worship, and altogether to be abominated. But we must pass on to the next controverted point, the Invocation See his Ductor Dubitantium, Book II. Chap. ii. Rule 6. of Saints, which is also transformed by the ingenious Bishop into something very harmless. He resolves it in his notable defence into nothing more than praying for their prayers, and at the worst to be only supposing a person to have better hearing than he really has. To us, who are not bound to receive the Gospel of the Council of Trent-the Catholic Intelligencer, in this matter, as well as sundry others-revealing to the world that the saints reigning with Christ, offer up prayers for men, and that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them,-it appears to be nothing less than ascribing to man, or an angelical being, one of the peculiar attributes of the Almighty himself, of whom alone it is said" O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come." "The Layman" adduces several passages of Scripture in proof of these two points; first, that the saints are not yet "reigning with Christ," as Dr. Baines had asserted on the authority of the Council of Trent; secondly, that there is no other appointed mediator but Christ. "If the invocation of departed saints," he observes in continuation," had been allowed or practised by the disciples of our Lord, we must have heard of it. St. Paul, who had not shunned to declare to his churches all the counsel of God, would surely have mentioned it: but we see that it is incompatible with his doctrine.” "Our Lord declared that among those that are born of women, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist; yet we hear nothing of invocations to him. Had such a thing been lawful, it is hard to imagine a case more urgently calling for it than that of St. Paul himself; who was present at, and even accessary to, the murder of the first Christian martyr ; yet we do not find that he ever invokes St. Stephen, either to ask his forgiveness or his intercession." But we have not space to do justice to this pamphlet of the Layman. We must refer our readers to it for a very satisfactory exposure, in a short compass, of the errors in doctrine of which Dr. Baines has been guilty in his boasted" De fence," as well as of the shifts to which he has resorted to make the worse appear the better cause. We have yet the "Remonstrance" before us untouched, and we are desirous of shewing what has been effected by this last attack. As a Charge from the Archdeacon of Bath was the original griev ance to the Reverend Peter Baines, -so has another Charge from the same quarter, after an interval of three years, been the means of rousing the Right Reverend Peter Augustine Baines, from the stern repose into which he had subsided. And accordingly the Archdeacon has again felt the severity of his indignation fulminated against him in the shape of a Remonstrance.-Alas! the fate of an Archdeacon of Bath! our readers will exclaim, to have such an Αττικος πάροικος, that he cannot even visit his Clergy without being visited himself by his inquisitorial neighbour.-Nor has this last intrusion from his haunting friend been at all more lenient than the former unceremonious visitations. This continued asperity indeed (we may observe by the way) may give us a shrewd suspicion, that Dr. Baines did not feel himself quite so confident of his victory, as he would have the world believe. The real victor feels a clemency towards his prostrate foe, upon whom he is confident that he has wrought the work of destruction; not so Dr. Baines.But let us hear his note of triumph on renewing the assault-it is a fine bravura. "I refuted your accusations in a short pamphlet, and proved you to have asserted the most notorious mis-statements. I was answered by an anonymous publication, signed "Vindex," which endeavoured to maintain most of the positions you had taken, and asserted, with the book of Homilies, not only that the great body of Christians are at the present day, but have been for thirteen hundred years, immersed in damnable idolatry, of all vices most detestable to God and most hurtful to man; also that this same immense body of Chris. tians hold the immoral doctrine, that pro mises and oaths are not binding when made to Protestants! This production compelled me to write a Defence of the Christian Religion during the last thirteen centuries, in which I demonstrated that the charge of idolatry made against the Catholic Church had its origin in days of fanaticism, and was brought forward to justify the separation of England from the Universal Church; that the Church of England has since altered her opinions on the subject of images and pictures, and that she now practically agrees with the Church she forsook; that images and pictures neither are nor ever were worshipped by Catholics, in the proper sense of that word, and that the Catholic Church never authorized, much less commanded, any respect to be paid to them, which a Protestant mother [qu. wife] does not pay to the picture of her deceased husband, or Protestant Bishops and Lords to the King's empty throne. I pointed out the unworthy artifices which were employed by yourself and Vindex to convict the Christian world of the horrid crime of idolatry; your quibbles upon the word worship; your garbling and misrepresentations of the doctrines of our councils, perversion of historical facts, misinterpretations of our divines, and distortion of our religious books and practices. I adduced authorities from eminent Protestant divines, giving the same explanations of our doctrines that I had done, and acquitting us of the charges of which some of their virulent writers accused us." "It is evident that your character as a writer, as a clergyman, and as a man, required you to justify yourself if you could; and had my statement been capable of refutation, there was nothing so easy. I brought forward documents to prove my assertions. Nothing could be so easy, had those documents been unsatisfactory or incorrect, as to prove them so. Was this done? So far from it, the very work which had undertaken your defence, which had been ushered into notice with such unusual éclat, and had figured in so many windows, was, upon the appearance of the Catholic Defence, suddenly withdrawn from circulation. Why was this done? Its authors felt that it would not stand the test, that its mis-statements had been too glaringly exposed, and that the sincerity and truth of the Catholic statements would only appear more manifest if contrasted with the quibbles and falsehoods of the unlucky Vindex. Perhaps it was thought that a day might come when even Vindex, under a new name, might figure amongst the ghostly tracts that sneak from their graves under the patronage of the Religious Tract Society, after the occasion that gave them birth, and the disgrace that attended their death, have been forgotten." We should not have taken the trouble of transcribing so much of this badinage, but that it af fords an excellent specimen of the egotistical assumption which pervades the writings of this Popish Dissenter. Still, after all these glories achieved, again he sallies forth to the combat, and threatening much vengeance yet in store, to be dealt out at successive intervals (to break the tediousness, as he says, of the discussion, but in plain language, to spread the action of the poison by administer ing it in smaller and more palatable doses) commences his work of recrimination on the Archdeacon. Dr. Moysey had alluded to the practice of the Catholics to invite converts to their faith by giving alms to such as frequented their worship. How does Dr. Baines meet this charge-he enters into an account of the relative obligations of charity as taught by St. Paul in Ephesians, vi. 10.; and then proceeds to explain the process through which the candidate must pass in order to admission within their pale. But neither of these points have any thing to do with the case. Dr. Moysey had not complained of their preference to individuals of their own com munion-far from it-we have no doubt that he would much rather that they should confine their alms to such, rather than exert a bene volence which may be dangerous to the receivers of it. Nor again, is any allusion made to actual admission into the Roman Communion, but only of preparatory or introductory steps taken towards such admission. One of these is alms-giving. Dr. Baines describes some other and more difficult modes by which the process is effected-without doubting the employment of these therefore, still this may also be employed. And we believe the fact is sufficiently notorious to warrant the Archdeacon's assertion, though he may not have expressed it in terms sufficiently guarded for his wily opponent. There is a circumstance mentioned by Dr. B. in describing the ordeal through which the neophyte must pass, which is pass, which is curious enongh. His method of proceeding often (and one which he has found most effectual) is, he says, "to send the candidate to the Minister of some other religion, to see what arguments the latter can allege against the doctrines taught by his Catholic instructor." An admirable method, indeed, of teaching a polemical religion, which, instead of referring to the Scriptures as the rule of faith, is thus content to rest the merits of its cause on the controversial ability of its advocates over its opponents. We scarcely know whether vanity, or bad taste, or false religion, is the most conspicuous in the following passage, which occurs under this head : "In such cases (cases in which Dr. B. claims the benefit of misrepresentation) I have always offered to meet the Protestant Clergyman in the presence of the convert, that the latter might see whether the same assertions would be made before me that were made before him, and that he might fairly decide for himself. In no one instance has my offer been accepted, though every advantage, but that of truth, lay on the other side. Dr. Moysey knows that I have made himself this offer, and that he Catholics rather than accept it. I am has suffered his parishioners to become ready to make him the same offer still, with respect to any convert he may choose to select." This is all very well adapted for those whose faith would be shaken if the fallibility of their Priest was demonstrated; and therefore comes very seasonably from the mouth of Dr. Baines; especially when followed up, as it is, by a pathetic display of the sufferings held forth in prospect to the convert; which Dr. B. knows are not without their effect on the mind of the religionist, and especially where the object of attack is of |