but I flatter myself that neither Mr. Faber nor any other will henceforth attempt to defend the 6th article, and support its doctrine.

What appears particularly to embarrass and chagrin Mr. Faber, is that he finds himself compelled to have recourse to tradition at the very time when he has just pronounced it of no use. For being soon obliged to express himself upon

who knew him, after a long and saintly career, left behind him a singular reputation for virtue and piety. Such a character could not be suspected of falsehood. He had printed the anecdote first in 1614, when the two Catholic Lords were still living from whom he had received it, and also the physician, Dr. Twin, who had told it to those two Lords, as he had heard it from Genebrand, the chaplain of Jewel, to whom the Bishop when dying had confided it.

In 1614 it would have been easy and natural to contradict this narration. But Mr. Faber comes too late at this time of day to call it in question. He has no proofs whatever to weigh against the authority of the pious and venerable Dr. Smith, and justify him in accusing the good Bishop either of imposture or credulity in believing or publishing such a calumny. For the rest, Jewel, brought up a Catholic, became a concealed Protestant nnder Henry 8th, a declared friend of the Zwinglian Peter Martyr, under Edward 6th, a Catholic under Mary for a short time, a Zwinglian during his stay in Germany, and Episcopalian in fine under Elizabeth, from whom he did not scruple to accept the see of Salisbury. He was possessed of much information considering the age in which he lived, and the shortness of his life. It has been said of him, from his writings and conduct, that he had a good memory, but little judgment.

the canon of the Scriptures, he speaks thus; page 51-" In the judgment of the Bishop, tra"dition is of such vital importance, that the very it. By

66

66

canon of Scripture itself depends upon

" renouncing, therefore, the tradition of the Latin “Church, we effectively invalidate the authority "of the canon of Scripture." Admire the candour of the Rector. Without appearing so to do, he dexterously makes me substitute the tradition of the Latin Church, which I never once I mentioned, for the universal tradition, which is the sole subject of the present question. "One

66

might almost imagine," he adds, “that our “Latin brethren deemed us altogether ignorant "of the very existence of the early ecclesiastical "writers." No, Sir, we imagine no such thing; they are in your hands: we only lament that you after all abandon them. Is not primitive tradition composed in fact from their writings and testimonies? Did you not receive from their hands the canon of the Scriptures? You are ready yourselves to assure us that you did SO: "we resort not to the naked dogmatical "authority of the see of Rome"-you tell us with a tone of harshness, and a want of politeness

more in character with the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries than with our own-" but to "the sufficient evidence borne to that effect in "the yet existing documents of the primitive "church." Undoubtedly; and this is what I have often represented to you. You ought then in prudence to have given up your sixth article: you ought not to have set out with declaring the Scripture alone sufficient for salvation; and that the instructions verbally given by the apostles had been afterwards inserted in the writings subsequently published by them. You ought not to have said, at the very time when you were forced to observe yourself the precept of St. Paul, that it did not apply to us, and was even inapplicable very soon after it was given. In fine, you ought not to have maintained with so much assurance that the Scripture was allsufficient, at the moment when you were seeking for apostolical instructions in the Fathers, and apart from the Scripture, to prove even its authenticity. Save yourself, if you can, from the charge of self-contradiction; and look out, if you please, some other than me to make you consistent with yourself.

PART THE SECOND.

ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST.

CHAPTER THE FIRST.

When I received a letter addressed to me by the Rev. G. S. Faber, Dec. 20, 1825, I imagined that I should find him a man of learning well versed in theological science, in the reading and doctrine of the Fathers of the Church; an ecclesiastic the friend of peace, deploring like myself the fatal separation effected in the sixteenth century, by a policy as blind as it was interested; a pastor disposed to unite his efforts with mine to re-unite Christians but too long separated, and to bring back to the bosom of unity, hearts formed for a mutual good understanding, for loving each other, and conjointly strengthening upon earth the kingdom of our divine Saviour. O flattering hopes and charitable anticipations, why did you so quickly vanish? Why at the very first reading did my antagonist's work present only a mass of imaginary Difficulties, laid to the charge of what he chooses

to call Romanism? Why so much gall discharged upon the Discussion Amicale, and mixed with so many unmerited praises of its author, whom he does not know? That Mr. Faber is an able writer, I am quite disposed to think; that he is much followed as a preacher, I can readily believe: but that he is a judicious and pacific controvertist I can boldly deny; and, Sir, you will soon be of my conviction by pursuing with me his discussion on the Holy Eucharist.

I. He begins by laying down the question as he understands it; page 52.-"The disagree"ment between the Church of England and the "Church of Rome, in regard to the doctrine of “the Holy Eucharist, chiefly respects the supposed process denominated transubstantiation.

66

66

66

66

66

Here, if I mistake not, is the main disagreement between the two churches. With respect to the doctrine of the real presence,

they both hold it." If the Rector were speaking of the doctrine taught in England for 100 years, or thereabouts, from the reformation of Elizabeth down to 1662, I should be entirely of his opinion; for during that time the real pre