the murder, but the ponyard in his hand. Is the magiftrate here any other, than he inftrument in the hand of the clergy te perpetrate their cruelties?

In his fecond chapter the Apologift gives us an account, from two monkish writers, of the Albigenfes in France, and reprefents them as intolerable heretics, because they acknowledged two principles, one good and one evil, they denied purgatory, the receffity of prayers for the dead, and treated as fabulous the belief of the catholics concerning hell; they condemned all the facraments of the church, rejecting baptifm as ufelefs, abhorring the Eucharift, practifing neither confeffion nor penance, and believing marriage forbidden: to which may be added, their hatred against the minilters of the church, and their contempt of images and relicks.-Thefe heretics multiplied greatly, and defpifed the anathemas of the church. The temporal power [but not their own prince, for he defended them] at length joined the spiritual, to exterminate them; a crufade was promulgated and entered into against them in 1210; and it was not till after 18 years of a bloody war, [in which 50,000 of them were put to death] that, abandoned by the Counts of Thouloufe, their protectors, and weakened by the victories of Simon de Monfort, the Albigenfes, profecuted in the ecclefiastical tribunals, and delivered over to the fecular powers, were entirely deftroyed. There are few proteftants of our day but would renounce all affinity with fuch pefts of fociety, and would ac knowledge that the inftitution of the inquifition against them was a neceflary and a justifiable meafure. Surely this Writer knew very little of the principles of proteftantifm, or he would never have uttered fo impious an affertion!

He fays, the mallacre of Paris was perpetrated by Queen Catherine of Medicis and Charles IX. to fecure their authority, which they apprehended the Huguenots defigned to wreft out of their hands; and the maffacre of the proteftants in Ireland was occafioned by the ufurpation and tyranny of the English and Scotch colonies there. As for the popish plots in England, he fays, they were never properly afcertained, and therefore n ne of thefe charges fhould be laid to the account of the catholic religion. But al these things have been fet in fo clear a light by the moft judicious and impartial hiftorians, that we fhail not take up the Reader's time to prove, that they proceeded from the religion of the popish party: it would be the fame thing as to prove that the fun fhines at noon day. We shall only just obferve, that as the pope's nuncio affumed the command of the army in the maffacie and rebellion of Ireland, we suppose the Apologist will fay, in excufe of the church, that he did not put the proteftants to death as the reprefentative of his holiness, but as the general of the Irish army. He will not however make

this flimfy diftinction, if he gives him'elf the trouble to read the letter of his matter, Pope Urban Vill. to the rebel O'Neal, Oct. 18, 1642, in which he justifies and approves all the barbarities and cruelties that the rebels had just committed in that kingdom and in the fame pope's bull, addreffed to the popish clergy and nobles in February following, the rebels who engaged in this enormous and detellable wickedness, were proied to be pu licly rewarded with a plenary indulgence and rem fin of all their fins.

The Apologift then proceeds to vindicate his catholics from the charge of uncharitablenets. He acknowledges it is true, that the catholics fay, there is no faving faith but their own; but they are far from confidently faying, that all out of the pale of their church are damned. They have fubftantial reason for believing that their church is the only one which has preserved the faith eliver d by Chrift to his apoftles, and ry them to their fucceflors, en ire and inviolated. If fo, theirs is the faving fatch; and if without faith it is impoffi le to pleate God, in confequence thote who are deftitute of faith are not in the way of fa vation. There is nothing uncha itab'e in this belief. It is rather charity to warn a perfon of his danger.' But this is what ev ry fect of Chriftians, that ever appeared in the world, fay, and with as much confidence as the papifts, in honour of their own party; and is as good an argument for the truth of their fyftem, from the mouth of Zinzendorf or Whitefield, as from the pen of our Apologist.

He fays, there is another charge brought against catholics, of not keeping faith with heretics. He finds no way of answering this, but by aff rting that this is falfe, and utterly disclaimed by all catholics S. But we need not obferve any further upon this, than juft to remind our Readers of the behaviour of the council of Conflance to John Hufs and Jerome of Prague.

The Apologift's third chapter is, Of the charge of perfecution brought against proteitan s by catholics, with a fhort hiftory of the reformation.' And indeed there is fome truth in thefe hiftorical accounts; that Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, &c. advanced very different doctrines, and preached and wrote against each other, as well as against the catholics, their common enemy. Confeffions upon confeffions of faith were framed, but all to little purpose. There were ftill diffen ients to claim the privilege of believing and worshipping as they pleated. From this he concludes, that the perpetual difputes and disagreements of the Reformed amonft themselves are owing to nothing more than their afferting that the fcriptures are the only rule of faith, as every private man may understand and interpret them. But in this he is groisly mistaken; for thefe difputes did not arife from this affertion, but from a direct con

trary

trary caufe, their not adhering to it: their affertion was right, and muft for ever be the only foundation that truth can be built upon; but, alas! thefe very men who afferted this principle did not abide by it. They built up feveral fyftems of faith upon what they called the authority of their feveral churches, and fo far became themselves papifts. Had it happened, as this Author supposes, that this principle would have produced as many religions as there were heads, where would have been the harm? O yes, great harm to the church of Rome. But we know that reafon in different men, when left to itself, is fo very like, and has fuch a famenefs, that this principle univerfally aflowed, would have united mankind much more effectually, than ever the decifions of his infallible church have done; but being perverted by feveral factions, and by none fo much as the Romanifts, thefe fad effects have been produced which we all fo much lament and complain of.

In the fourth chapter our Apologist has a quotation from St. Auftin, and many juft thoughts of his own, against perfecution; and refers us to his diftinétion of religious and political perfecution, to prove that the church has never perfecuted: and then he gives us an hiftory of the perfecutions committed by proteftants in England, both against papifts and other diffenters from the establishment. And here he introduces all the low fcandalous ftories which the popish writers have raked together of Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth. He is particularly dif pleafed at that king for affuming the title of Supreme head of the church of England under Chrift, and fays, All Europe were aftonished at this unparalleled ambition, or rather prefumption. The catholics exclaimed against it, the reformers fcoffed at it. Some infinuated that he wanted to introduce Mohammedanism into England, and that, to fhew himself the good muffulman, and father of the faithful, he chose to be a kaliph, or king and pontiff, dignified both by the crown and the tiara. Others were impatient to have the honour of feeing him celebrate his first mass in pontificalibus, &c. The ridicule and abfurdity became greater, when the fame title and power of Supreme Head of the Church under Chrift devolved to his daughter Elizabeth: for, if the identity of a fhe-pope or pope Joan among the catholics, remains a matter of doubt, and could never be proved, it is not fo with the identity of a Pope Elizabeth, a Pope Mary II, and a Pope Anne, in England. These were real popes in petticoats, and popes in their own right, unless we fuppofe the papacy fuffered a fubdivifion between William III. and Mary II. and fo became androgynous, partaking of both fexes, till the death of Mary reinstated it again in the powers of virility.' Thus do thefe catholics mifrepresent our princes, even when they are writing apologies, and

feeking

feeking favours from the government. Befides, the Author has a remarkable note at the bottom of this piece of merriment, • Queen Elizabeth is said to have imposed her hands on Archbishop Whitgift, and others her bithops, at the time of their confecration. This ftory, however, may deserve a place in the Scandalous Chronicle.' If he thought fo, why did he repeat it?

The papists, when they write against this title of our princes, Supreme Head of the Church, always represent them as affuming a power to officiate in holy things; whereas there is not the least appearance of any one inftance of this from Hen. VIII. till now. What our law means by this title, conferred on our princes by act of parliament, is, that they have the supreme power over ecclefiaftics as well as laymen; that no man of any degree whatever in their dominions is exempt, on any pretence, from their jurifdiction; that churchmen fhall not have power to affemble in fynods, make canons, or execute any, without their exprefs approbation and confent. This title therefore provokes the papifts to the last degree, because all the power formerly ufurped by the popes and other ecclefiaftics, and which they afferted was independent on the crown and above it, is now taken from them, and restored to the prince, where it ought to be.

The Apologift has drawn very odious characters of King Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth. We will not undertake to vindicate them in every respect but we cannot help obferving, that in the feveral parts of the hiftory which he gives us of Elizabeth, he afferts facts just as he has occafion for them, by which means he hath contradicted himself in a moft material point, that of Elizabeth's real religion. He says, when fhe was confined as a prifoner in the tower by her good fifter Mary, it was fully refolved by that queen and her council to put her to death, for being fufpected to countenance the doctrine of the reformers; and it was judged adviseable to execute what they had refolved, by way of preventing any future mischief to the established [popifh] religion; but King Philip and his Spaniards, [from a mere political view] oppofed this refolution.' But he fays, Elizabeth, in afcending the throne of England, took an oath to defend and maintain the catholic religion as the only and truly established religion of the state;-and fhe would, in confequence of the intention of that oath, have preferved and maintained this catholic religion, had not fome things intervened which might have ruined her if the did.' In this paragraph fhe is fuppofed to be a real papift, and in the other, very near being made a martyr for the proteftant religion. In the beginning of his Apology, our Author had reprefented his catholic church as only concerned in fpiritual mat

7

ters ;

ters; but he is, in the courfe of Elizabeth's history, forced to acknowledge that the pope, after having excommunicated her, and abfolved her fubjects from the oaths of allegiance, gave away her crown and kingdom to the Dauphin of France. But here it will be faid by all true catholics, this was done in order to preferve the catholic religion, which it is the chief bufinefs of the pontiff to fecure and maintain;' and this argument will indeed justify all the perfecutions, maffacres and rebellions, which have been perpetrated by that party, for they were all done with a view to accomplish the fame glorious defign: and thus he affords us another objection to that groundlefs diftinction of religious and political perfecution; for we see that every political confideration, even the rights of princes to their dominions, may be eafily made the caufe of religion, and put to that account. Poor religion! how art thou made to varnish over the groffeft crimes, and justify the most villainous actions!

Now behold the reprefentation our Apologift makes of Elizabeth's reformation. She chofe a form of religion which made the leaft deviation from that which fhe found established fo that it might seem, not so much to exclude the old one entirely, as to drefs it up in a new garb; not fo much to eradicate the old tree, as to graft on it a new stock*. The people did not miss the pomp of the epifcopal hierarchy, and most ecclefiaftical functions were exercised according to the ceremonial of the former decorum. The doctrine and difcipline of her brother proteftants at Geneva were very little to her tafte; they clashed with her headship of the proteftant religion; they did not chime in with her imperial government and high notions of prerogative; they recommend the equality of mankind against the de potifm of monarchs; and in other points of view they appeared to her crude, jejune, fteril; yet replete with illiberal notions of the goodneis of God, and the duties of his creatures. But by granting an unlimited toleration to these her proteftant brethren, in the beginning of her reign, she conjured up a fpirit which he was never afterwards able to lay. They were a perpetual thorn in her flesh, and amidst the pangs of anguish they gave her, fhe was often heard to fay, that the knew very well what would content the catholics, but did not know what would content the puritans. Her faying was deemed prophetic in the next century, when they overthrew both church and ftate. But the mifchief had been brooding ever fince the year 1571, in the 23d year of her reign, when the church of England received its fift confiftence by the pub lication of the 39 articles of its religion, and an injunction to

By the bye, this gentleman understands very little about grafting. fubfcribe