chains rivetted upon them. But if this charge be refuted, there does not remain a pretext for the continuance of those penal laws, which still exist against them. Now, on various occafions, I have denied the justice of it; and particularly in my Hiftory of Winchester, I have unequivocally maintained that "if queen, Mary was a perfecutor, it was not in virtue of any tenet of her religion that fhe became fo." At this affertion Dr. S. has declared himself perfectly "surprised," saying, that, " if it be true, he and all other Proteftants have hitherto been under an egregious mistake." P. 52. He adds, that the declaration makes him " tremble for my orthodoxy, and fear that I am not a good Catholic." P. 57. In fhort his chapter on perfecution was written in order to refute the affertion, which he pledged himself to perform by the joint authority of councils, popes, doctors, and tribunals. On the other hand, I engaged myself to meet him on each one of those points; and, by this time the reader must have decided in his own mind, which of us two has fulfilled his promise. The main argument of Dr. S. and also of Dr. Rennell and Dr. Duigenan, in fupport of this charge, is drawn from the third chapter of the fourth council of Lateran, held nearly 600 years ago for fuppreffing the rebellious Albigenfes. The confidence of the enemies of Catholics in this has been extreme; and fome of them have exultingly exclaimed: The Papifts cannot deny the authority of one of their own general councils. Empty triumph! These half-learned theologues have now learnt the difference between definitions of faith and regula any tions of difcipline. The former are of eternal and univerfal obligation; the latter are fubject to a thoufand temporary and local circumstances. In short, I have denied, in the face of the Catholic public, that any obedience whatsoever is due from them or of them to the canon in queftion; and however Dr. S. may have trembled for my orthodoxy, not one perfon of my own communion has felt any fears on this account. I may add with refpect to the above mentioned canon, that it appears never to have been received or to have had any force at all in this kingdom. In proof of the affertion, I need only remind the reader that even John Wycliff never experienced any inconveniency whatever from the said canon, and that when his rebellious followers were afterwards. fuppreffed, this was done not by virtue of the council of Lateran, but by an act of parliament provided for this purpose. It is plain Dr. S. feels the importance of the diftinction I have made; but furely if he difcovered it to be futile or defective it was incumbent on him to prove this to the public, inftead of coldly replying, as he does, p. 121: "I cannot follow Mr. M. in explaining away the acts of councils." The truth is, he is not quite fo confident in his caufe now as he was when he firft opened it against me. He accordingly in the 'fecond edition of his work, qualifies his affertion in the following manner: "If (the doctrine of perfecution) be not, ftrictly speaking, a theological tenet, it follows as a corollary from that worst of theological tenets, that falvation is confined exclufively to the church of Rome. No treatment can be too bad for heretics.... it becomes meritorious by temporal punishments to rescue men from eternal punishments." P. 118. I will now try the force of the corollary, as I have done that of the principle. I prefume then my adversary admits there is fome meaning in that menace of Chrift: he that believeth not fhall be damned. Mat. xvi, 16, that is to fay, however confined his creed may be, I fuppofe he holds the belief of fome articles, fuch as the divine existence and attributes, to be indifpenfably neceffary. I prefume moreover that he fubfcribes to the declaration of St. Paul: be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters.... nor drunkards fhall inherit the kingdom of God. 1. Cor. vii, 9: but does Dr. S. therefore think himself obliged to avenge the caufe of God upon every Pagan and libertine he meets with? Does he think it meritorious to endeavour, by temporal punishments, to rescue fuch finners from thofe that are eternal? In a word hiftory and experience prove that this outcry against Catholics, as perfecutors, is generally heard from men of intolerant principles, who make use of it as a pretext for perfecuting them. LETTER SIR, LETTER V. YOUR OUR fifth letter is a profeffed vindication of the Reformation, as it was carried on in foreign countries, and in our own. But when, Sir, you undertook to defend the Reformation against my History, ought not you to have fhewn in what manner it had therein been attacked? This, however, you have not attempted to do, but have unneceffarily dragged into public difpute a subject of peculiar delicacy, which otherwife I wifhed to abftain from difcuffing on the present occafion. If then, Sir, you fhould now hear from me feveral unwelcome truths, with refpect both to facts and characters, you will have to blame yourfelf alone for obliging me to refute your false statements, in order to do the best juftice in my power to the cause of which I am the advocate. It is the ufual practice with most modern writers who mention the Reformation, to begin with drawing the most hideous caricature their pencils can trace, of the tyranny of popes, and of the ignorance, fuperftition, and immorality of the clergy and people of Christendom, previously to that event. I have already difcuffed the conduct of the popes; and have fhewn that whenever they exceeded the just bounds of their authority, Catholic divines were not wanting with the pen, nor Catholic princes with the fword, to restrain their attempts. With With refpect to the alleged ignorance of the ages in question, I deny that this by any means prevailed to the extent that you and most other modern writers represent. Thus far, most certainly, Sir, you are, guilty of mifrepresentation, when you say, that the mafs of ancient literature lay dormant, unnoticed, and perifhing during fo many ages." (1) In fact, Sir, where was this preserved for 1000 years and more? Where was it found when the art of printing began to difperfe the copies of it amongst the people at large, except in the libraries of the monks, who if they had not known, how to value it, would not have renewed it, as they conftantly did, with the labour of their own hands, but would rather have deftroyed the whole of it, as the first Reformers, in their devaftations of monaftic manuscripts, deftroyed fuch confiderable por. tions of it. But to put the matter out of question, let us look into the works that have come down to us, from the ages that are moft reproached with ignorance; we fhall find their writers, both at home and abroad, to have been no strangers to the merit, or to the compofitions of Virgil, Ovid, Horace, Cicero, Plutarch, Seneca, Livy, and other claffical authors. With refpect to many of those " hiftorians of barbarous and obfcure times," as you term them, (2) fuch as Ingulphus, William of Malmsbury, Henry of Huntingdon, Roger Hoveden, Mathew Paris, (3) &c. I maintain that they (2) P. 5. fhew (1) P. 61. [(3) Sir Henry Saville preferred William of Malmsbury to all the |
