demn all enterprises to fecure their lives and the free exercife of their religion at the expence of the public peace and of the lawful government. We have moreover feen that when the occafion called for fuch exertions, thofe who had it in their power to make them, fupported the established government, in oppofition to their interefts and that of their religion, with their purfes and their fwords. If you turn your eyes from England to the furrounding nations of Europe during the period of this very reign, I afk, in which of them did the profeffors of the new religion prove the fame loyalty to their Catholic fovereigns or magiftrates who perfecuted or opposed them? Did they not univerfally in fueh cafes fly to arms, and overturn the governments, when it was in their power to do fo? You fhould have glanced at the conduct of the Anabaptifts and the Lutherans in Germany and Sweden, the Huguenots in France, the Gueux in the Netherlands, the Zuinglians in Switzerland, the Presbyterians in Scotland, and the Calvinists at Geneva, before you charged the Catholics of England with difloyalty to queen Elizabeth. But, Sir, I spare you the recital of these hiftories; and

I have the honour, &c.

POSTSCRIPT

POSTSCRIPT TO LETTER VI.

[Dr. S. feems to admit that I have faid fomething "worthy of notice" in the foregoing letter, and accordingly he adds a long note to his fecond edition, pp. 170, 171, 172, 173, by way of anfwer to it. He begins with implicitly acknowledging that he has in his first edition been guilty of much inaccuracy in his account of the tranfactions of Elizabeth's reign; but he adds, " moft of the inaccuracies which Mr. M. has remarked, I have corrected," viz. in the late edition.-Without inquiring how far this is true, I have to obferve that our prefent controverfy is not about certain wrong dates and other mere inaccuracies, but concerning abfolute mifrepresentations of hiftorical facts and palpable falfehoods, which are brought forward in order to justify one of the most unmerited, cruel, and long continued perfecutions upon record. My adverfary alleges that the facts which he " has mentioned for this purpose are notorious, being related by all hiftorians; viz. confpiracies, the Spanish war, papal bulls of excommunication, &c. all which attempts," he fays, "were made under the encouragement, fanction and authority of the Roman fee."-In return I have undertaken to fhew, by a particular difcuffion of all and every one of the tranfactions in question, that he has fallen into the greatest errors both as to the facts themfelves and as to the inferences which he attempts to draw from them. In particular, I have made it appear that not one of those

domeftic

domeftic confpiracies with which he reproaches Catholics, was encouraged, fanctioned, or authorifed by the fee of Rome; that some of them were the exclufive work of Proteftants; that another of them, which he most dwells upon, confifted in the intrigues and broils that took place between Elizabeth's minifters and their hired fpy; and that the most important of them all was a deep laid plot, made up of treachery, forgery, and cruelty, by thofe unprincipled ftatefmen, for the deftruction of the Catholic heir of the crown, and the extirpation of the Catholics themfelves, in order to fecure themfelves in the poffeffion of their undeferved power and preferments. To thefe demonftrations Dr. S. coldly replies, that " It was not within the compass of (his) work to enter into a detail of conspiracies." In my opinion, however, no perfon is entitled to bring charges of any kind against others without being prepared to fupport them. At all events my adversary must now abandon his pretenfion of answering the particulars of my work most deferving of notice.-He goes on to fay, that " It was ftill lefs within the compafs of (his) work to enter into a detail of the much difputed hiftory of the unfortunate queen of Scots." All that I fhall fay to this is, if at any future time he should feel himfelf difpofed to take up the broken arms of Hume and Robertfon, who were abfolutely foiled and fairly driven out of the field in this difpute by Tytler and Gilbert Stuart, I truft he will find me not worse prepared nor more backward in anfwering him than in the prefent controverfy. He cannot however

R

however quit this matter without obferving that Mary's "elevation to the throne and the restoration of the Catholic religion in England were confidered as events that must take place together.” Hence the reader is left to conclude that all the injuftice and cruelty with which that illuftrious princefs was treated in this country were perfectly justifiable, because they had for their object the exclufion of the ancient faith. But is not this to infinuate that bigoted principle, of the rectitude of doing evil for the benefit of religion, with which Catholics are fo often falfely reproached?-Dr. S. next speaks of a confederacy of France and Spain in 1565 against Elizabeth and the Proteftants, to which he abfurdly attributes the projected invafion of 1588; as if the queen, on her part, did not enter into various alliances with the Proteftant princes of Denmark, Sweden, and Germany, against the Catholics, and as if fhe were not the avowed protectress of the rebellious fectaries in all the neighbouring Catholic ftates!-He laft of all enters at full length into the subject of the alleged excommunicating and depofing bulls of feveral Pontiffs, on which I have before proved him guilty of fo many and fuch egregious blunders.But the queftion ftill recurs, which I have already put more than once; in what manner were the English Catholics anfwerable for these foreign attempts, however numerous or deftructive they may have been, if inftead of feconding them, they unanimoufly and firmly oppofed them? Now that this was actually the cafe, particularly on the two grand occafions of Pope Pius's

་་

bull

bull and of Philip's invafion, to which I may add that of Northumberland's infurrection, has been invincibly proved. Nay, this is equivalently admitted by my adverfary himself, who fays, that he "thinks well of the English Catholics, both in the past times and the prefent:" and yet he maintains that "Elizabeth was juftified in ufing precautions of great rigor against them," from what he calls " political neceffity." I must here obferve that this political neceffity is the language and the excufe of all the Machiavellian politicians and cruel tyrants who have ever taught or practifed the arts of oppreffion and deftruction from the beginning of the world. Just princes are content to punish thofe amongst their fubjects who are proved to be guilty; whereas these monsters exterminate the objects of their jealousy for fear they may be guilty. Dr. S. confeffes the Catholic fubjects of Elizabeth to have been faithful、 to her in the moft trying circumstances, and yet he commends her for rigorously punishing them as if they had been difloyal, merely because foreign princes of their religion oppofed her! And yet he does not fcruple to profefs himself the very apoftle of toleration! On the other hand, I, who have been severely reproached in the courfe of this controverfy with maintaining perfecuting principles, have condemned the cruelty of Mary towards her Proteftant fubjects, notwithstanding they themselves, with all their leading nobles and prelates at their head, once actually deprived her of her throne, and a fecond time attempted to do the fame; without fpeaking of individual acts of treafon, fedition, and facrilege, which they were guilty of without number;

R 2