In 789, the council of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 813, the council of Châlons, proscribed the abuses in pilgrimages. In 1215, the council of Lataran, in 1274, the council of Lyons, came to resolutions against the multiplication of religious orders. In the last of these councils, and in that of Constance, much was said against the prodigality, with which indulgences were then distributed. Are you ignorant of the resolutions taken at the councils of Constançe and Basil, against the abuses of papal power? Æneas Silvius, afterwards pope Pius II. informs us, that "the doctrine held in those councils was that of the greater number of catholic divines, of the lights "of the church, of the doctors of truth, and of "most of the universities and schools in Christen"dom".

Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, and cardinal Cusa, publicly called into question the authenticity of the decretals. Look into the histories of the pontificates of Leo IV, Leo IX, Gregory VII, Innocent III, Urban V, you will find abundant proof of the exertions of the popes, to preserve both integrity of faith and purity of morals in every part of Christendom, and to propagate christianity in the remotest regions of the earth. Open your own Wilkins; see what was done by the English roman-catholic clergy, during the middle ages, to promote the honour of God and the welfare of man. "Gre

gory VII, Alexander III, Innocent IV," says

Comment. Pii II. p. m. 15.

66

Muller, a protestant writer of celebrity, "arrested "the torrent of immorality which was then swallowing up the world..... If the hierarchy had been " removed, Europe would have been deprived of an "order of men, which, (although it were for their own interest only), has always had its eyes upon the "public welfare. An asylum against the wrath of kings was found in the altar; an asylum against "the abuse of ecclesiastical power was found in the "throne, and the public good resulted from the "balance." Why then have you dwelt so little on the edifying parts of the history of the romancatholic church, and so much on its misfortunes? What should you think of a painter, who, professing to give a view of the Alps, should keep its magnificent scenery wholly in the background, and bring nothing prominently in sight, but the few stagnant marshes which deform it?

XII. 7.

Doctor Southey's Abuse of former and present Catholic Historical Writers.

You say little on the subject of the divorce; but, when you mention the execution of Anne Boleyn, you tell us, that " that the romanists were, in that age, "so accustomed to falsehood, that they could not "abstain from it, even when truth might have "served their cause. With characteristic effrontery, they asserted, that her mother and her sister had

"both been mistresses of the king, and that she "was his own daughter.

66

66

66

"In this spirit the histories of our reformation were composed, till they perceived that such coarse calumnies could no longer be palmed

upon the world, and then they past into an in"sidious strain, little less malicious, and not more "faithful."

Henry's connexion with the mother of Anne Boleyn is rejected by doctor Lingard; but the connexion between Henry and Mary, the sister of the unfortunate Anne, admits of no doubt. The monarch's connexion with the mother of Anne is problematical the argument for it rests principally on the strong assertion of Saunders, and the inferences to be drawn, from the marked care and attention which the monarch constantly bestowed on Anne, from the time of her birth; from the expensive education, and the splendid establishment which she received from him, and for which no other reason can be assigned. Burnet replied to Saunders; le Grand to Burnet; and le Grand's arguments are powerful. But crimes should never be believed without strong, and seldom without positive evidence. This, in the present case, appears to be wholly wanting; and cardinal Pole's total silence upon the charge, in his acrimonious invectives against Henry, is favourable to the monarch. I do not believe the tale: but I cannot think that the historians who asserted it deserve the epithet of "fiendish malignity," which you bestow upon them. If they deserve it, what epithet do those deserve;

who, in the days of James II, invented or propagated the story of the warming-pan?

I know of no catholic writer who deserves the strong expressions which, in the passage I have cited from your work, you have applied, without any exception, to all our former and all our present historians of the reformation. You know the great and deserved celebrity of " Doctor Milner's Letters to "Doctor Sturges;" the greatest part of them is of an historical nature; and there never has been a more powerful attack on the characters of the persons, by whom the reformation was primitively established and supported, than in this work. It appeared in 1800; and thus it has been twentyfour years before the public: seven editions of it have been published,

Can you point out in it one instance of that "falsehood," that "coarse calumny," those "insi"dious strains," that "characteristic effrontery,' that "malice," that "insidiousness," or that "faith"lessness," with which you charge our historians in the sentence which I have transcribed from your work.

You probably are acquainted with doctor Milner's End of Controversy," published in 1818, and now in its third edition; the ablest exposition of the doctrines of the roman-catholic church, on the articles contested with her by protestants; and the ablest statement of the proofs by which they are supported, and of the historical facts with which they are connected, that has appeared in our language. You probably have heard of the “ Reply

"to it," published by the reverend Richard Grier, vicar of Templebodane, in Ireland, and of doctor Milner's "Vindication," published in 1822. Can you point out in "the End of Controversy," or the "Vindication of it," even a single passage, to which even one of the opprobrious expressions in your work can be justly applied? or can you point out a single passage objected to by Mr. Grier, in which doctor Milner has not triumphantly refuted him?

Doctor Lingard's history is evidently not unknown to you. Does he not appear, in every part of it, to have consulted original writers and documents? Does he not uniformly express himself in the most explicit terms? Does he not regularly mention the dates of every occurrence related by him? Does he not constantly cite the authorities upon which his relations are founded? Is not his language uniformly temperate? Yet, in the unqualified generality of your opprobrious words, is his excellent history included!

One passage in it you particularly advert to: "It is fit," you say, "that the reader should "know in what manner the recent catholic histo"rian, doctor Lingard, speaks of lord Cobham's "trial, before the convocation, at which Arundel, "the archbishop of Canterbury, presided; he says, "that'Lord Cobham's conduct was as arrogant and "insulting, as that of his judge was mild and dig"nified.' It is fitting, indeed, that we should