primitive Church from the very beginning on the professed ground that she had received it from Christ and his Apostles, must indisputably be the truth. But, with this well-ascertained primitive scheme of doctrine and practice, the Church of Rome agrees, and the Church of England disagrees. Therefore, the former must teach the truth, while the latter teaches falsehood.

This general argument, in favour of the Church of Rome and against the Church of England, rests upon no other, than a studied attempt to substantiate the FACT asserted by the Fathers of the Tridentine Council.

By such a process, the decisions of those Fathers are resolved, as they plainly ought to be resolved, into A NAKED HISTORICAL QUESTION OF FACT. And, accordingly, since it is admitted that the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils does not extend to FACTS OF HISTORY, the sole point to be decided is: Whether the doctrines and practices of the Roman Church, as propounded and explained by the Tridentine Fathers, have, or have not, the authority of Christ, the inculcating sanction of the Apostles, and the always unvarying practical testimony of universal primitive Antiquity from the very beginning.

IV. When a Roman Ecclesiastic perplexes an English Layman, by boldly asserting, or by speciously attempting to prove, the strict accordance of his Church, both in doctrine and in practice, with the Church which was immediately taught by the inspired Apostles: it is desirable, that the Layman, without the trouble of a research into documents not always very easily accessible, should be provided with a prompt and adequate reply.

1. A wish; says Mr. Massingberd in his letter to myself: A wish to be able to answer the questions, repeatedly and triumphantly proposed by the Catholics upon topics of this description, is every where now reigning.

Thus speaks an intelligent Layman from actual experience: the object of my Work is, to furnish an easy reply to such questions, not merely in the present day, but at any future period whatsoever.

2. Your own theologians; says Dr. Trevern to his english laic friend, whom his Work is professedly intended to proselyte: Your own theologians, no less than ourselves, have in their hands the ancient Liturgies of the primitive Church and the Works of the early ecclesiastical writers: but they will have small inclination, I suspect, to bring

you acquainted with such documents.

You

Ask them to communicate these documents to you: desire them to specify the opinions which they express. will soon find, that they take your request with no very good grace: and, in truth, to deal plainly with you, it is impossible that they should. Ah well, Sir, I will spare them their embarrassment: and, so far as you are concerned, I will go on to accomplish their defective ministrations.

Thus, in a tone preeminently modest and specially creditable to the integrity of the Anglican Priesthood, speaks the present Bishop of Strasbourg: the object of my Work is to furnish a permanent answer to the supposed embarrassing questions, which, at Dr. Trevern's suggestion, the English Laity might propound to the English Clergy.

V. In the first edition of this Work, at the request of Mr. Massingberd and in consequence of the high character which he gave of Dr. Trevern, I treated that individual with a degree of mildness and civility and forbearance, which has actually procured for me the censure of some members of my own Church.

Whether my conduct was proper or improper, I shall not undertake to determine: different opi

nions may probably have been entertained of its merits.

Be that as it may, the Answer to the Difficulties of Romanism by the Bishop of Strasbourg was, in point of tone and temper, any thing rather than what I had anticipated. Of course, I did not expect that the Bishop could make out any case for the tridentine matter of FACT: I had studied the subject too long and too closely to apprehend any such extraordinary occurrence. But I certainly did expect, that the treatment of a gentleman would procure the cheap return a corresponding treatment of a gentleman: from a Bishop and from a Frenchman, I certainly did expect a measure of studied politeness, at the least equal to that of a Presbyter and an Englishman.

My reasonable expectation, however, was unhappily disappointed. Every page of my antagonist's production, that respected myself, was characterised by extreme irritation. Not only was I reviled in terms which Dr. Trevern ought to have blushed to use: but also, through the medium of very intemperate and very offensive phraseology, I was actually charged with having dishonestly suppressed two passages, the one from Tertullian, the other from Cyril of Jerusalem; both of which

primitive Church from the very beginning on the professed ground that she had received it from Christ and his Apostles, must indisputably be the truth. But, with this well-ascertained primitive scheme of doctrine and practice, the Church of Rome agrees, and the Church of England disagrees. Therefore, the former must teach the truth, while the latter teaches falsehood.

This general argument, in favour of the Church of Rome and against the Church of England, rests upon no other, than a studied attempt to substantiate the FACT asserted by the Fathers of the Tridentine Council.

By such a process, the decisions of those Fathers are resolved, as they plainly ought to be resolved, into A NAKED HISTORICAL QUESTION OF FACT. And, accordingly, since it is admitted that the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils does not extend to FACTS OF HISTORY, the sole point to be decided is: Whether the doctrines and practices of the Roman Church, as propounded and explained by the Tridentine Fathers, have, or have not, the authority of Christ, the inculcating sanction of the Apostles, and the always unvarying practical testimony of universal primitive Antiquity from the very beginning.