the Protestant controversialist permit Rome to shelter herself behind patristical folios from the blaze of New Testament light. Bearing this in mind, however, we may meet her on the ground of ecclesiastical antiquity. To those who would wish to obtain as clear a view of the Romish controversy as can be condensed into a large volume, we would recommend the discussion between Jewel and Harding; which seems to exhaust the subject, while it examines and demonstrates the solidity of that foundation on which rests the fabric of the reformed Church of England.

But while recommending this course to the educated, the leisurely, and the reflecting, we must not forget that a very large portion of our people have not the means of pursuing this inquiry satisfactorily, while they are at least equally endangered with the rest of their countrymen by the sophistries of Popery. What course shall we take in regard to these? It seems to us that none is preferable to the exposure of Romish absurdities by the light of common reason. The Jewish prophets, under plenary inspiration, did not hesitate to appeal to the common sense of the people against the follies of idolatry—and surely we may well approve their example by our practice, and exposing the palpable monstrosities of Popery to the gaze of our people, ask them, Can this be the religion of truth? Papists, in Protestant countries, knowing well the power of this argument, keep these things in the back ground: their chapels, for the most part, exhibit no images ; and it is rarely that a zealous but injudicious priest brings miraculous medals from the Virgin for the cure of diseases. But on the continent of Europe, nay, alas! in our own neighbour island, such things are matters of every day-every peasant has his charm against his peculiar ail, specially blessed by the infallible fathers of Rome; holy fountains, holy relics, and sanctities of every description, abound in "the Isle of Saints." Let these charms be exhibited to our people; let them know that the infallible church, when across the Irish channel, compels men to crawl upon bare stones with bare knees, and to lie upon stone bedsnot any stones, but certain highly favoured ones, whence remission of sin is to be obtained-let them know that not a Popish church on the continent is without its complement of images, many miraculously weeping, bleeding, &c. &c.; and let him further know that the communion in which all these fooleries are encouraged, calls itself unchangeable and infallible; nothing more, assuredly, can be wanting to convince men of plain sense, which is the character of Englishmen, of the utter futility of the Popish claim to apostolicity and infallibility. This latter course is taken in the admirable work now most seasonably reprinted. Archdeacon Daubeney, though well qualified, to meet the subtle advocate of Rome on the higher ground of Scripture and antiquity, preferred to take the field where his labours might be more

extensively useful; and therefore produced a work not intended to display that learning which he abundantly possessed, but to develop an argument comprehensible by all who receive it, and convincing to all who comprehend it; the absurdity of those figments wherewith Christianity has been corrupted by the system called Popery. The Protestant's Companion is therefore a most valuable defence at the present day, when Popery, relying on the indifference or ignorance of professing Protestants, is making exertions altogether unequalled since the time of the Reformation, to regain her political supremacy in the British islands. Although "planus imperitis," it is also "doctis probabilis." For the argument loses none of its force from being a reductio ad absurdum. By the direct method, the line of Scripture and ecclesiastical antiquity, we show that Popery is not apostolic; while by the argument drawn from its absurdities, we as satisfactorily prove that it cannot be.

The Protestant's Companion was originally published as an answer to a work by Bishop Baines of Bath, arrogantly enough intituled, “A Defence of the Christian Religion;" but being in fact, nothing less than an apology for Romanism. This does not, of course, diminish the value of the reply; but it has had some influence in the distribution of its parts. We shall now proceed to show by extracts the character of the work, and the value of its argument. We make no apology for this; for although the book has long been before the public, it has been for some time out of print, and there are many to whom its valuable pages are not at present familiar, though we hope we shall not long have this to say.

Passing over the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy, which falls less within the plan of this work than other subjects, but which is clearly overthrown by Dr. Daubeney on historical testimony, we come to the question of transubstantiation. This is that millstone which must fall at last on the head of Babylon, and sink her in the waters. This is an absurdity which may be tested by any one in possession of his sense. It might therefore safely be allowed to fall of itself. Yet, as the Romish advocates are obliged to patch it up, it may not be inexpedient to show the absurdity of those arguments by which it is supported; and this is what Dr. Daubeney has done very effectually, by a simple citation of the actual words of its defenders.

The following is from Friar Hayes, with the author's running

comment.

"I will prove," says the friar, "that God can make a body exist in many places at once. A body in motion can have its velocity increased ad infinitum, to any degree, and the Almighty can, at any moment, give it a velocity not sensibly different from infinite. Suppose then that such all but infinite velocity is one of the attributes of the body of Christ!" The friar is certainly at liberty to make what supposition he pleases, but it remains with his reader to appreciate the conclusion which is attempted to be drawn from it. "It evidently follows, then," continues the friar, "that Christ's body can pass from one end

to the other of the universe, through every point of the universe, in a shorter time than the twinkling of an eye; and therefore can be present, over and over again, in every spot of the creation, at any sensible point of time." This very irreverent mode of treating a sublime subject does not appear to me to be entitled to serious consideration. That I may, however, avoid the appearance of treating the friar with disrespect, (though in his treatment of others, the friar has lately convinced the world that he is by no means scrupulous on this head,) I refrain from saying what a wise man, on good authority, might say on the present occasion, and proceed to render the friar's boasted illustration into plain English. To prove that our Saviour's body " can be present in many places at once," we are told, that "a body may be possessed of such infinite velocity, as to pass from one end of the universe to the other, with such inconceivable rapidity, as to be present, over and over again, in every spot of the creation, at any sensible instant of time."

To this we answer,-whatever may be the supposed velocity given to the moving body, and whatever the length of space through which it has to move,— the body, once set in motion, and continuing successively in its course, cannot be in every point of the given space at one and the same time; for motion-signifies progression, and progression necessarily implies a change of place.

To compare great things with small. A bullet, discharged from a gun, travels with inconceivable velocity, and arrives, as it were, in the twinkling of an eye, at its destined mark; and though the stander-by possesses not sufficient strength of vision to trace its progress, still he possesses a sufficient portion of common sense to know, that the bullet could not be at the muzzle of the gun, in every part of the space through which it has travelled, and at its destined mark, at one and the same point of time. So that whatever becomes of the mysterious subject to which the friar's illustration has been applied, the illustration itself proves in direct contradiction to the position which it is brought to establish. But as a doctrine, in itself absurd and irrational, may be expected to draw after it absurd and irrational consequences, my reader will not be surprised to find another objection standing in the way of Friar Hayes's ridiculous notion, respecting the velocity of a body moving from one end of the universe to another in a shorter time than the twinkling of an eye, which is derived from the Popish salvo for denying the cup to the laity; namely, on the ground of concomitancy; by which it is to be understood, that some blood goes along with all flesh, or is concomitant with it. And though the officiating priest partakes of the cup; yet this, I should think, must put the friar to some little difficulty, how to contrive a way for the body to have no check at all in the rapidity of its motion, whilst the priest, for ever so short a time, is detaining the cup, for the purpose of drinking some of the blood belonging to, and forming a part of the body. In which case, not only the body cannot be in every part of the given space at one and the same time, but the body and blood also, or that part of it which is not concomitant with the flesh of the body, being separated for the use of the priest, must each be in a different place as the same time. Friar Hayes must, therefore, find himself rather perplexed with the scheme of concomitancy, invented and adopted by his Church, and his own scheme of infinite velocity. For the body cannot perform its motion, by travelling at the rate he supposes, at least as a whole and entire body, when it can have only that part of the blood which is concomitant with it-the rest being so separated, and detached from it, as to occupy a different part of the same given space, through which the body is passing. Thus the scheme of the rapid motion of the body as a whole, and the scheme of the concomitancy of parts of the blood with it, cannot well agree together; one of which being the scheme of the friar, the other of his Churchthe former must, if required, be given up, or the friar, by his Church, be deemed an heretic.-Pp. 63-66.

This is certainly conclusive, if there is logic in the universe. We are not so well satisfied with what Dr. Daubeney says in reply to Bishop

Baines, where he impeaches him for deserting the doctrine of his church in saying that the body in the sacrament was the glorified and arisen body, and not "the likeness of sinful flesh." We believe the bishop to be perfectly in accordance with his church on the point but then this involves him in a manifest absurdity, which his acute adversary has not omitted to notice. The words of consecration were spoken before the body of our Lord was glorified; if therefore they were literally intended at all, they can only be interpreted of the body in its former state in manifest contradiction to Bishop Baines, and the decisions of the Roman Church, Dr. Daubeney has added some valuable observations on the doctrine of real presence, as undoubtedly held by the Church of England; which the Romanists have so ingeniously confounded with the corporeal, that some less informed members of our church have taken fright at doctrines and formularies derived from the purest and primitive ages.

On image worship and idolatry, Dr. Daubeney is singularly felicitous. In truth, the subject afforded good scope for the development of his plan. After reading what follows, a Protestant mind must indeed be strangely constituted if it could be in any danger from the artifices of Rome.

That arch apologist for the Church of Rome, Cardinal Bellarmin, employed his talents on this ridiculous work, in the twenty-fifth chapter of his second book, which has for its title," By what manner of worship images are to be adored." "The fifth conclusion is, the worship which is due to images on their own account, and properly is a certain imperfect worship, which analogically and reductively, belongs to the species of that worship which is due to the original. To images do not belong properly either latreia or douleia, or any other worship of those kinds which belong to an intelligent nature. For an inanimate and senseless thing is incapable of worship of this kind, but a certain inferior kind, differing according to the difference of images. Thus, to the images of the saints is not due properly douleia, but an inferior worship, which may be called douleia secundùm quid, or douleia analogically and reductively. So to the images of the blessed Virgin hyperdouleia is not simply due, but hyperdouleia secundùm quid, or analogically or reductively. Lastly, to the images of Christ, true latreia is not due, and simply, but a worship without comparison inferior, which yet is referable to latreiu, as an imperfect to a perfect. It is proved thus. As an image is to the original, so is the worship of the image to the worship of the original; but the image is the original itself analogically and secundùm quid, for the picture of a man, is a man analogically and secundùm quid, so to the image is due a worship due to the original, imperfect and analogical." Here we must perceive that the material image itself is worshipped. For instance, if you worship the Virgin Mary, her image not being present, you must worship her with hyperdouleia z but if you worship her image, it must be with something inferior, we will say, douleia; so that for the regulation of religious worship Bellarmin lays down the following ridiculous distinction:

Christ is to be worshipped with latreia,

His image

with

hyperdouleia,

The Virgin

Her image

St. Peter

Latreia being the worship proper to Almighty God, to whom alone religious worship is strictly due."

Thus can a wise man talk nonsense, when he forsakes the fountain of truth, to follow after his own vain imaginations.

But what is the poor ignorant worshipper to say to all this jesuitical trifling? Might he not say to Bellarmin, "Really, Sir, I am perfectly at a loss to understand what is meant by your analogy and reduction, and your secundum quids, in religious worship. For want of comprehending these nice lines of distinction between the different kinds of worship which you have been at the pains thus precisely to draw out, may there not be a danger of my falling into the crime of idolatry, before I am in the least aware of it? Would it not, therefore, be more sate for me, as an ignorant man, to refrain from puzzling myself with things that I do not understand, and confine my attention to those things which, as an honest man, I cannot fail to understand perfectly? St. Paul tells me in plain English, that an idol (or graven image) is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.' Pray, Sir, can you inform me, what kind of religious worship is to be paid to nothing? The commandment, instead of distracting my mind with the particular modes in which a graven image is to be worshipped, informs me in the most decisive and unequivocal language, that it is not to be worshipped at all-whereas your imaginary distinctions of analogy, reduction, and secundùm quid,' leave me nearly in the same perplexed condition in which a blind man would be placed, whom some cunning wag had led into the middle of a wood, and there left him to find his way out as he could.”— Pp. 145-148.

4

On the worship of the Virgin Mary, which the Papists of the present day so studiously disclaim, the Protestant's Companion has the following decided testimony.

If my reader will, however, accompany me to Florence, a city in Tuscany, which seems to be more particularly under the protection of the Virgin, he will find that the extravagant adoration paid to the Virgin Mary, in that city, does not come short of the pattern which has been exhibited, and which tends to stamp the character of the Romish worship in the present day. In the church of St. Mary of Impruneta, near Florence, there is a miraculous picture of the Virgin, which is highly esteemed throughout all Tuscany. Under the apprehension of any extraordinary danger, this picture is carried in solemn procession through the streets of Florence, accompanied by the prince, the nobility, the magistracy, and the Clergy. To establish the miraculous power of this picture, in procuring relief on different occasions, in cases of imminent danger, various acts and records are produced, to prove the several benefits which have been obtained through the intervention of this all-powerful picture. In one of these records, testimony is borne to a miraculous cessation of a pestilence in Florence, after a three days' procession of the picture in question. An inscription, set up in the church about a century ago, has the following words: "There is no one who can be saved, O most holy Virgin, but through thee; there is no one from whom we can obtain mercy but through thee. Mary opens her bosom of mercy to all, so that the whole universe receives out of her fulness; the captive, redemption; the sick, health; the afflicted, comfort; the sinner, pardon; the just, grace; the angels, joy; the whole Trinity, glory."

Such are the divine honours and blasphemous addresses, ascribed to the Virgin at this day, by the members of the Church of Rome, in the city of Florence; of whom St. Paul would have said, as he did of the inhabitants of Athens," Ye men of Florence, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious." But what would the Apostle have said, had he entered the Nicholini Chapel in Florence, in which there is a dome beautifully painted in fresco, having for its subject the coronation of the Virgin Mary? In the centre of the piece, the Virgin is seated; whilst on one side stands a venerable old man,