wrong end." In this passage, you appear to me to have pronounced a sufficiently strong condemnation of your own suggestion. For how can it be safe to admit even the private practice of that which, if publicly adopted, would probably be followed by a consequence so deplorable? We may, indeed, conclude, that in this very manner the worst abuses of the church of Rome have actually had their origin, since we may fairly presume that a practice, for which no authority could be found in the written word, was begun in the affectionate remembrances of individuals, before it was adopted in the public services of the church.

You argue, indeed, that "our church, as has recently been in a very elaborate sentence decided, condemns not such prayers; and why," you ask, "should we take upon ourselves to pronounce, where she has thought it most becoming to be silent, or restrain the liberty which she has left unfettered?" Of that judgment I must speak with respect, for I know well the eminent character of the judge, and have no doubt that he conscientiously and carefully inquired into the matter, on which he pronounced his decision. But, nevertheless, I can discover in the judgment only the inconvenience of referring to the cognisance of a lay-judge, however eminent, the determination of a question relating to ordinances, with which he cannot be supposed to be habitually acquainted.

1 Page 192.

The judge in that case does not appear to have known that, in the prayer for the church militant, as it was originally framed, the concluding petition was thus expressed, "beseeching thee to give us grace so to follow their good examples, that they with us, and we with them, may be partakers of thy heavenly kingdom;" and that the words they with us were omitted in the revision of the liturgy, lest they should even afford countenance to the practice of praying for the dead, though, by the words immediately preceding, they are limited to those who had departed this life in the faith and fear of God, and from the words of the petition itself, asking for grace to "follow their good examples," they appear to have reference only to our own future condition. If he had known this, it may be presumed that he would not have considered a direct invitation to the practice, as admissible within the precincts of a place of protestant worship.

5

6

You tell us that the invocation of saints was, in the Tracts, expressly condemned; but you, nevertheless, contend for the lawfulness of addressing prayers to them, together with those of a congregation. For," you say, "the exclusive address of unseen beings has an obvious tendency at once to fall into a sort of worship; it is too like the mode in which we address Almighty God, to be any way safe ; the exclusive request of their

intercessions is likely, at once, to constitute them intercessors, in a way different from God's servants on earth, and (which is the great practical evil of these prayers in the Roman church) to interfere with the office of the great intercessor." You have endeavoured to shield yourself against the imputation of self-contradiction, by pleading that, though all such practices have been condemned in the Tracts, a distinction has been made between the older and the more recent. But, if all are to be condemned, why should we make any such distinction in reference to more recent practices? Let all go together: let us renounce, not only the great superstition which corrupted the very essence of our religion, but also those other unauthorised practices, which conducted the church to that great depravation. You, I suppose, are anxious to palliate, while you condemn, that which you find to have been practised in the primitive church, the authority of which you desire to maintain. If, however, you are constrained to condemn any practice of that church, your palliation can avail little to the maintenance of its authority.

8

You have cited from bishop Hall a passage, in which it is said that "the blessed virgin is the prince of all saints; neither could it be other than injurious that any other of that heavenly society should have the precedence of her." Now, it

appears that our Saviour, in his personal intercourse with her, from the very commencement to the close of his ministry, manifested an anxious desire of precluding, specially in regard to her, the belief that any intercession with him might be expected. At the marriage-feast which immediately preceded his ministry, he checked her interference, even with some severity, when she intimated her expectation that he would work a public miracle for the accommodation of the company, though he immediately afterwards performed the same privately for the conviction, as it appears, of his disciples. In the progress of his ministry he publicly disclaimed her right of concerning herself with his conduct, even for his personal welfare; demanding "who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" who are the persons, urging under these titles claims on my attention, while I am engaged in proclaiming the doctrine of salvation? And in the concluding scene of suffering, we may well believe that when he again addressed his mother with the cold appellation woman, and directed his beloved disciple to behold in her his mother, his intention was to abdicate for ever the human relationship of his earthly parent, as terminated with his earthly existence, that she might not, by superstitious worship, be exalted, as she has been, to the throne of heaven.

Of your remaining topic, celibacy, I have still to remark, that though you speak of it merely as

voluntary, and propose thus to draw a strong line of demarcation between yourselves and the Romanists, your doctrine appears to be still exposed to objection, inasmuch as it tends, very directly, to introduce the worst abuses which have prevailed in their church. You speak of it expressly as "a way more excellent in itself, as one of the triumphs of faith.". What is this but to ascribe to it in itself, and for its own sake, pre-eminent merit? Saint Paul, as you intimate, recommends it "on account of the present distress;" but in these words he does not recommend it "as a way more excellent in itself," or, "as one of the triumphs of faith." This is the very language of Romanists, not of the apostle. This is not to renounce the lawful enjoyments of the world, when found to be in some special circumstances incompatible with a due prosecution of spiritual concerns; but to perform a voluntary sacrifice of them, not required by any particular occasion, and with a view to a triumphant confidence in the meritorious nature of the act. It is in truth pure asceticism; and before it can be received as a christian practice, you should satisfy us that the religion of Christ inculcates the duty of inflicting on ourselves bodily mortifications and penances, as the means of recommending us to more than ordinary acceptance with God. Saint Paul, from whom you appear to have borrowed the expression, "a more excellent way,"1 applied it