"

preach them cannot pretend to the excuses "of innocent opinions. However if it might: happen that men should sincerely err in such plain matters of fact, (for there are fools enough in the world,) yet if he hold his peace,

66

66

no man is to persecute or punish him." This, I suppose, is what the Bishop of Norwich means to say is the same with his notions, especially, as I understand, that those particular doctrines of the Church of Rome, which I have specially mentioned, are in your days disclaimed both in England and in Ireland: but remember, I have said nothing against civil disabilities applied to persons of that Communion (in my time they were treated more harshly); on the contrary, I have expressly recognized the right of the Legislature to impose them: for I have said as "the result of my account of what is to be done "in toleration of diversity of opinions: Let the "Prince and secular power have a care the com"monwealth be safe. For whether such or such "a sect of Christians be to be permitted," (and of course how far to be permitted)" is a question "rather political than religious."

I thank your Lordship for speaking so plainly and so much to the purpose, on this point, as well as the other, and will not trouble you with any more questions.

LETTER XIII.

Archbishop Wake.—Mr. Butler's Charge on the Clergy· of our Church.

THERE remains one other witness cited by Dr. Milner, whose testimony and the circumstances connected with it will require a more detailed consideration; I mean Archbishop Wake. His name has been more frequently brought forward by the advocates of your political cause, and his opinions more grievously perverted, than those of any other writer. Sorry, sincerely sorry I am to say, that the first who introduced the authority of Wake, as favouring the pretensions of your Church, was a Prelate of the Church of England. The Bishop of Norwich, in the same Speech in which he cited Taylor's "Liberty of Prophesying," was pleased to cite also this most distinguished divine; and using terms as ample, as any of those who have succeeded him, claimed his sanction for the position, that "the religious tenets of "the (Roman) Catholics" make a very near

approach to our own. With how little shadow of justice this was done, will appear presently.* Meanwhile, it is painful and mortifying to behold an amiable and charitable man, thus betrayed by the blindness of his zeal into an act as truly contrary to charity, as any that can be named. Be it his punishment to know, that (however unwittingly) he has done all within his power to blast the fair fame of one, whom he himself esteems worthy of the highest honour; and to expose the memory of a good and great man to all the scoffs and insults, which such adversaries as Dr. Milner rejoice to heap upon it. The Bishop was followed, in due time, by Sir John Hippesleyt-then by Dr. Milner-and last of all by Earl Grey. To this distinguished Nobleman I ventured at the time to point out the real state of the facts of this case, being quite sure that he had been misled by others— little did I then think, who had been the prime misleader.

But it is to Dr. Milner that my present observations must be addressed. He has well merited the distinction, by the boldness with which he avails himself of the advantage so

* See also Letter to Earl Grey-App. p. 342.

+ Speech in House of Commons, 24th of April, 1812.

unhappily given him.-The allegation of the Bishop of Norwich respecting Wake is greedily seized by Dr. Milner, and is made by him to serve the double purpose of strengthening his present argument, and of ministering to his hatred against one of the ablest and most triumphant opponents of his Church. Accordingly, he adduces this great Prelate's supposed concession, as a proof that he in particular, as well as all his associates and successors in that holy cause, did not seriously believe the accusations which he urged:-that he and they wanted "the rare grace of acknowledging their error "at the expense of temporal advantages," and had no other defence for themselves, but misrepresentation and calumny."

86

Now, Sir, let Dr. Milner first tell the world, whether he holds the doctrines ascribed to Du Pin in the Appendix to Mosheim's History,* which he quotes, and to which alone the Archbishop's concession applies :-if he does, let him also tell us, how he makes them accord with the doctrines of his Church. Will he, for instance, with Du Pin, assent to our 6th Article which affirms that "Scripture contains all things "necessary to Salvation, so that whatsoever is

* Mosheim's History by Maclaine, App. 3.

"not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, "is not to be required of any man, that it should "be believed as an article of Faith ?"-will he,

I

say, assent to this on the sole condition" that "we do not entirely exclude tradition, which "doth not exhibit new articles of Faith, but "confirms and illustrates those which are con"tained in the sacred writings, and places "about them new guards against gainsayers?" if he will, let him reconcile his new tenet with what he has himself elsewhere* said, "The Ca"tholic Rule of Faith is not merely the written "word of God, but the whole word of God, both "written and unwritten; in other words Scrip"ture and Tradition, and these propounded and explained by the Catholic Church. This implies that we have a twofold rule or law, and an Interpreter, or Judge, to explain it."*

Will he, like Du Pin, admit as to the important points of controversy in the 22d Article, that Purgatory means only that Souls must be purged, that is, purified from all defilement of sin, before they are admitted to everlasting bliss; -that Indulgences are only relaxations or remissions of temporal penalties in this life?t

* End of Controversy, p. 79.

The contrary is asserted in "End of Controversy," p. 307.