-It is not to be justified, and not much to be extenuated; but I agree with doctor Lingard, that it was not, as it has been generally represented, a work of long premeditation. It certainly had been preceded by the massacres perpetrated in France by the calvinists upon the catholics, and their repeated burnings of churches and monasteries. Doctor Heylin* mentions the calvinistic massacres of the catholic priests at Pamiers, Montauban, Rodez and other places. Why did you not mention these? Why were you silent on the cruelties exercised by the protestant episcopalians on the Scottish presbyterians, throughout the reign of Charles II., notwithstanding his solemn promise of toleration at Breda? Can you read without horror Mr. Laing's account of them? Or can you read without compunction the sufferings of the English protestant non-conformists in the same reign? In the preface to De Laune's "Plea for Non-conformists," it is said that 8,000 of them perished in this persecution. Perhaps, when you read Mr. Laing's account † of "the treachery, and almost unexampled perjuries of "the first ministers of the church and state of Scotland," and of "the absolute and undistin

guished massacre voted by the privy council," and "of the warrant for it signed by the king," and of "the execution of it,-not inferior to the spirit by which it was dictated,"-you may think that *Vol. 27, p. 163.

+ Laing, vol. 2, p. 83. 151.-and through the whole of book VII. & VIII. of his history.

the catholic massacre on St. Bartholomew's day has been equalled by more than one protestant enormity.

I beg leave to ask you, whether you think it consistent with historic impartiality, to keep out of sight the outrages committed by protestants, while you bring forward, in the most glowing language, those committed by the roman-catholics? Read doctor Milner's "fourth letter to doctor Sturges," his forty-ninth letter in his " End of Controversy," his twenty-second letter to Mr. Grier," and the excellent letter in the "Edinburgh Review" on the toleration of the first reformers; then let me adjure you, as a christian and a gentleman, to say on which side the balance of religious persecution lies,—the catholic or the protestant? Or what better reason there is to ascribe catholic persecutions to the catholic religion, than to ascribe protestant persecutions to the protestant?-Pardon me the solemnity of this address it is known that nothing tends to prejudice the public mind in this country against the roman-catholics, so much as making it believed that the lawfulness, and even the duty of religious persecution, is one of the tenets of their creed. To this accusation, all who wish us evil never fail to resort. That you, a man of real learning, should attack us with such a weapon, gives me surprise and

sorrow.

:

But, Sir, for the subject is so serious that I cannot yet quit it,-if you are not convinced that you share the guilt of religious persecution, at least

equally with us, turn your eyes westward, and Contemplate IRELAND!!!

There, you will see a people to whom Nature has been profusely kind. She has blessed them with the most genial climate, the most fertile soil, the boldest coasts, the most navigable rivers; with strength, industry, energy, virtue and talent! With all these blessings, they have, for three hundred years, been the most miserable nation in the habitable globe; and present, at this moment, a scene of appalling wretchedness;-a wretchedness so bitter, so deep, and so extensive, that even the enemies of their name shudder at beholding it; but, at the same time, a wretchedness formed by the original artificers of it with such fiendish skill and contrivance, that it seems almost beyond human ability to remove it. To what is this owing? Let lord chancellor Clare answer in his own words,“The division of Ireland," says his lordship, "be"tween those who adhered to the catholic, and "those who adhered to the protestant religion, is "the grand schism, which has been the bane and pestilence of Ireland, and rendered her a BLANK among the nations of Europe.".

66

Mentioning the persecutions of queen Elizabeth, you assert, that "no church, no sect, no individual even, had yet professed the principle of toleration." Now it had been repeatedly professed by writers of the roman-catholic church: Sir Thomas More had established it in Utopia; the fourth council of Toledo had declared, that "it was unlawful and

"unchristianlike to force people to believe, seeing "it is God alone who hardens and shows mercy to "whom he will."" Neither saint Ambrose, nor "saint Martin," says Mr. Alban Butler, in his lives of those great men, "would communicate with "Ithacius, or those bishops who held communion "with him, because they sought to put heretics to "death. Saint Martin besought Maximus not to spill the blood of the guilty; saying, it was suf"ficient that they had been declared heretics, and excommunicated by the bishops; and that there "was no precedent of an ecclesiastical cause being brought before the secular judge."

-

In all these instances, was not the true principle of religious toleration professed? Were not those, who thus professed it, roman-catholics?

The doctrine of religious toleration is now so generally admitted, at least in theory, that it surprises me to find a person, who openly professes the doctrine of religious intolerance. Yet such persons are sometimes met with. Bishop Sparke, addressing himself to the synod of Canterbury, in July 1807, denounced "the roman-catholics,' who form at least one fourth of the population of the empire," as enemies of all laws, divine and human, and who, as such, should be driven from "our courts and armies." You, in the chapter now before me, eulogize the celebrated John Fox; you call him "the good old martyrologist;" you mention him as the only person who raised his. voice against queen Elizabeth's persecution of the

66

anabaptists. But, what was the persecution against which he raised his voice? "There is," (I transcribe your own citation of his words,) "There is," he says, "imprisonment, there are chains, there are "brandings and stripes, and even the gibbet: this "alone I earnestly deprecate, that you would not "suffer the fires of Smithfield, which, under happy auspices, have slept so long, should be again re"kindled."-Surely, "the good old martyrologist," as you call him, did not raise, in favour of toleration, his voice very high.

His "Acts and Monuments" have, from the time of their publication, been the great armory of the weapons wielded against the roman-catholics, to bring them and their religion into odium. An excellent answer to them was published by father Persons. Another, is now publishing in numbers, by Mr. William Eusebius Andrews; it shows great learning and great power of argument. It seems to be admitted, that doctor Milner triumphed in controversy with doctor Sturges; I am confident Mr. Andrews's triumph over "the good old martyrologist" will be equally complete.

XV. 6.

Justification of the Persecution of the Roman-catholics, in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, from the alleged Plots against her.

As a further excuse for the sanguinary acts of queen Elizabeth against the roman-catholics, you