assertion was true-In the ninth century some heretics burned aliveThis became the established law throughout Europe-During this time the Pope, Bishops, and Priesthood had the greatest influence in making the laws-Milner's attempt to get rid of the Fourth Council of Lateran-He says there were temporal persons present, who passed decrees of a temporal nature-Reply to this contemptible quibble—The acts of the Council authorized by the votes of the prelates alone—The laity have no formal power in Romish Councils-Milner says the main work of the Council was to extirpate the Manichæan heresy; that the decree was never enforced, except against the Albigenses; and that it was never published or talked of in the British islands-Hardly a word of truth in this-The true objects of the Council-The third Canon against every heresy-Mosheim's testimony unwisely referred to by Milner-No account of the Albigenses, except from Roman writers— True summary as to the Council of Lateran-Action under the canon of this Council in England-The bones of Wickliffe and his followers— The Confessional enjoined by this same Council enforced in England— Smithfield in the reign of Queen Mary-Milner “unanswerably demonstrates" what is notoriously untrue-Queen Mary was made a Persecutor by her Church-James II. did not lose his crown in the cause of toleration, but in an attempt to restore the Papal bondage-Milner says that the Pope cordially receives Protestants-No Protestant worship allowed, nor any Protestant burial with religious rites permitted, in Rome-Milner's assertion that persecution was more generally prac tised and more warmly defended by Protestants than by the Church of Rome-Persecution a fixed principle with Rome-Made obligatory by Popes and Councils-England long in discovering and practising on full religious toleration-Severe laws necessary, at first, in self-protection-Dangers of England from Papal power and intrigue-The Papal deposition of the Queen, and absolving her subjects from their allegiance-All this concerned the secular government-The Church could not interfere-No act of the Church of England ever authorized persecution-Enormous difference between the two Churches-Comparison of the two-Romish persecution only needs the power to revive. Pp. 379-391.

LETTER XLVII.

Summary of evidence brought forward in this work in favor of the Church of England-The true facts of the English Reformation as proved by Romish writers-Milner's axioms as to the rule of faith

accepted-Scripture, as interpreted solely by private judgment, proved not to be the rule of faith of the Church of England; but Scripture, as interpreted by the primitive Church-The Church more of a living teacher with us than with Rome-Analogy of the corruption of the ancient Church of Israel-Similar corruption foretold by the inspired Apostles Historical sketch of the actual progress of corruption from Romish authorities-The Rule of Faith-Scripture as interpreted by the Church-The Canon of Scripture and the English version-The Four Notes of the Church-All found more clearly in England than in Rome -Worship of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, relics, and imagesPurgatory, indulgences, celibacy, auricular confession-Anti-Christian papal sovereignty and persecution-Holy Scripture and real Catholicism fully vindicated-Dr. Milner's reputation committed to Archbishop Kenrick, his special admirer-His public call to us to read Milner's End of Controversy-Proof that we have read it-Impossible to avoid strong. language-Kindly personal feelings-Rome not formally separated from the original Catholic Church-But schismatical and heretical in condemning and anathematizing us-Rome has departed from the Apostolic system, both by taking away from, and by adding to, the truth-These errors made articles of faith-Errors in faith obstinately and pertinaciously maintained are heresies-All refusing to accept them anathematized-No return to pure Apostolicity to be expected from RomeProphecy declares otherwise-Crumbling away of Papal power towards its end-The Romish Laity becoming too enlightened for their priests -Thousands of Romanists would rejoice to see the Church of Rome reformed after the model of the Church of England. Pp. 392-398.

The End of Controversy, Controverted.

LETTER XXV.

MOST REVEREND SIR:

I HAVE now gone over the four marks of the Church, derived from the Nicene Creed, where we profess to believe in it as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. And I trust that I have not only asserted, but proved, the superiority of our claims, on every point, by evidence which any candid mind will deem clear and incontrovertible. It remains that I dispose of the arguments by which Dr. Milner, in his 29th letter, attempts to impugn the validity of our succession; and this, as I believe, will be easily done, to the entire satisfaction of the unprejudiced reader.

My first duty, however, must be to point out some gross misrepresentations which your favorite author scatters, in his usual style, on the track of his sophistry. Thus, on page 201, he asserts that the Church of England unchurches all other Protestant communions, which are without the apostolical succession of Bishops. Whereas, on the contrary, not only does Hooker, whom he quotes on the previous page, but all the Reformers, together with Jewel, Andrewes, Usher, Bramhall, and, in a word, the whole of her standard divines, agree in maintaining that Episcopacy is

not necessary to the being, but only to the well-being, of the Church; and hence they grant the name of Churches to all denominations of Christians who hold the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, notwithstanding the imperfection and irregularity of their ministry. This imperfection and irregularity arose, in the first place, from the calamity of the times, since Luther, Calvin, and Zuinglius had no Bishops, and were therefore compelled either to reform their respective Churches without them, or not reform at all. While Denmark and Sweden were favored with the means of continuing the apostolic element of Episcopacy, and England, especially, enjoyed the privilege of counting her Bishops amongst the leaders in the Reformation. And hence, the Church of England excused the entrance of men into the ministry in a novel form, from the supposed necessity of circumstances, and acknowledged them as ministers of Christ, de facto, if not strictly de jure; likening their case to the condition of the ten tribes in the time of the Prophets Elijah and Elisha, when the faithful worshippers of God were still regarded as His people, although they were cut off from the regular system of the priesthood and the tabernacle which were in Jerusalem. This allegation of Dr. Milner, therefore, is founded on anything but truth. And it is not easy to believe that he was ignorant of his error, because the contrary is apparent in the Thirty-nine Articles of our Church, and in the whole strain of her acts and history.

The next gross misrepresentation of your unscrupulous advocate is on the same page, where he alleges that the Church of England, in A. D. 1575, "unanimously resolved that baptism cannot be performed by any but a lawful minister." The change to which he refers, however, was only the omission of a direction, given in the Prayer-Book origi