sum and substance of them is, that "popery is not to be tolerated, either in public or in private."

Now though I have always been an advocate for liberty of conscience, and an enemy of persecution for conscience' sake, and hope to continue so to the end of my life, I cannot but express my agreement with the great poet, that "popery is not to be tolerated," because I believe it is quite intolerable to every man whose religion is derived from the Bible; and that it ought to be opposed, and put down, and extirpated, by every means by which it is lawful and possible to oppose and extirpate error. Toleration is not a mere negative; it is so far a positive thing, that if we say, a thing is tolerable, it implies acquiescence; it is to say, it may be suffered, or endured; it is not necessary to oppose it. Now I say, with Milton, that popery is not to be tolerated; that no Christian can tolerate it without compromising his Christianity, and becoming a traitor to his Saviour. It ought to be opposed in every way by which error can be successfully opposed; that is, by instruction, by argument, by manifestation of the truth, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left; and by prayer to God night and day, that he would maintain his own cause, and bless the labours of his servants in the ministry of the gospel. Those who know that popery, as well as every other system of error, is intolerable, will labour in this way for its extirpation; and I know of no other way by which it can be extirpated.

Now I know well there are men of such perverse minds, that they will apply what I have said of principles to persons of errors to the individuals who hold them-and what I have said of extirpation by means of truth and argument, to extirpation by fire and sword. I must therefore tell them again, though I cannot give them a mind to understand it, that the things are quite different and distinct; and that what applies to the one, cannot be made available with regard to the other. It is as impossible to convince a man by force, as to kill him by an argument. To attempt, therefore, to extirpate heresy or error by fire and sword, is as absurd as to punish a murderer by a syllogism. I would never apply force of any kind to extirpate error, while yet I hold that error in general, and popery in particular, ought not to be tolerated, but extirpated, by the only means which can reach error, which has its seat in the mind, and can be affected only by rational and spiritual weapons.

With regard to persons, I do not say that Papists ought not to be tolerated, neither does Milton in the obnoxious passage under consideration. A Papist may be as tolerable in civil society as another man. Many of them, no doubt, are so, and ought not be punished on account of their errors. They ought not to have power over Protestants, for their principles would compel them to use such power, not for the extirpation of heresy merely, but of heretics; for they have not learned to make the distinction between principles and persons which I have here laid down. But as members of civil society, without power to injure others, they are tolerable, ought to be tolerated, and are tolerated, in this country, as much as other dissenters. I hope I shall never see it otherwise; but as for their errors, idolatries, and superstitions, I hold these to be quite intolerable and insufferable; and wherever they are obtruded, they ought instantly to be put down by truth and argument. If they practise their idolatries in private, they must answer for this, and their

other secret sins, to God; we have nothing to do with them, for toleration does not apply to that which is unseen and unknown. But if they were to erect their idols in our streets, and worship them there, I would say, they ought to be put down by the magistrates as insulting to public decorum, and as tending to a breach of the peace; and though they should plead conscience in such a case, I would say with Milton, it ought not to be regarded, not only because the thing is contrary to the word of God, but because the streets do not belong to them, but to the public; and they have no right to prostitute public property for idolatrous purposes.

It is true, the bishop of St. David's prefixes to his catechism a quotation from Mr. Locke, which may imply that Papists as well as popery ought not to be tolerated. Papists are not specially mentioned, but they may take the passage to themselves if they please; and if they find it excludes them from toleration, it is for a reason which they themselves must approve. The words are:-"These have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of religion." Locke was the great advocate of toleration in the seventeenth century; and I have no doubt his Letters on the subject had no small influence in preparing the minds of men for the tolerant laws established by King William. Indeed, except Dr. Owen, I do not recollect any other writer of that age, who so explicitly maintains the principle of toleration, now so universally admitted. It was his very zeal for the "toleration of all men in matters of religion," that led him to exclude Papists from the general rule; because, seeing they would not tolerate others, he thought they could not safely be tolerated. His remark applies to a state of society resembling that of civil warfare, in which the natural principle of self-defence requires and admits of certain rigours not necessary or lawful in other circumstances.

But let the very worst be made of these words of Locke, and of the rest that are quoted from him, they cannot imply that it is our duty to hate and persecute any sect, or any individual. To refuse toleration to those who will not tolerate others, is not persecution, but a just exercise of civil power, like the punishment of other evil doers. But this scarcely applies to the state of things in England and Scotland in the present day, where Papists do practise toleration, because they are without power, and few in number; and the rule of their church, as laid down by Bellarmine, is, that in such circumstances they ought to be tolerant ; and that they ought not to attempt to extirpate heresy by force, except where it may safely be done. Thus we tolerate Papists for the very reason why they would not tolerate us; that is, we have power and they have not.

But there is more objectionable matter in this sentence of Dr. Milner's than the misrepresentation which I have pointed out. He speaks as if it were granted that popery was genuine ancient Christianity;as if it were indisputable and admitted, that Papists were the authors of our Christianity and our civilization. It would not have occurred to any man of right thinking or feeling, that any creature, angelic or human, was the author of his religion. We know that Jesus Christ himself is the author as well as the finisher of our faith; but Papists seldom, if ever, think of looking so high. They cannot trace their religion to a higher source than some fellow-creature of a saint; or, per

haps, rather a sinner of their own rank; and here Dr. Milner roundly asserts, that the AUTHORS of our Christianity are the Papists who happened to live in England prior to the reformation!

There is nothing in which the bishop of St. David's is more successful, and nothing in which any author could desire to be more successful, so far as the evidence of ancient history goes, than his lordship is, in proving that the original Christianity of Britain was not popery; and that the British Christians of the first six centuries had no more to do with Rome than they had with Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Alexandria, or with the man in the moon, so far as regarded authority on the one hand, and subjection on the other. But Dr. Milner, in his introductory address, without invalidating the overwhelming evidence adduced by his lordship on these points, shortly contents himself with reasserting what has been asserted and disproved a thousand times, that popery is the "ancient religion;" and that Papists were "the authors of our Christianity and civilization." Here again we have something like the impudence of a petulant boy, who, having been reproved for a lie which he had told, after having its falsehood demonstrated, holds up an unblushing face, and tells it over again. Parents and tutors have been subjected to the painful necessity of witnessing such depravity; and so must every man who shall enter into controversy with Papists. It has been proved a thousand times, that their errors are mere novelties, unknown to the Christians of the apostolic age; and yet I suppose no Papist ever wrote a hundred lines on the subject, without asserting that his religion is as old as the era of Christianity. They hope by this incessant repetition of their lie, to exhaust the patience of Protestants, and so get them to believe it for the sake of peace and quietness: and such is the simplicity of Protestants in general, that there is a probability of their being successful, as they have been with regard to their designation. It was by sheer impudence and perseverance, that they got Protestants to drop the term Papists, and call them Catholics, though they have no more right to that name than the Episcopalians of England, the Presbyterians of Scotland, or the Independents of both kingdoms.

In his postscript, Dr. Milner has a little nibbling at the bishop's authorities with regard to the religion of the ancient British; but he has not adduced a particle of evidence, to show that popery, as it is now, and has been for twelve hundred years, in Italy, was professed in this island during the first six centuries. The following statement by Judge Blackstone, prefixed to the Protestant Catechism, remains uncontroverted; and it will readily be admitted that few men were better acquainted with our national history:-"The ancient British church,

In my one hundred and seventy-fifth number, I gave an extract of a letter from a Papist in the Highlands to his son in Glasgow; which, along with some good advice, contained the boasting assertion, that his religion had existed nineteen centuries. There appears no necessity for his having introduced this, unless it be a rule with Papists that it must find a place in all that they write. Having mentioned this subject, I take the opportunity of requesting my correspondent, Z. Malcom, to read that letter over again, with my remarks upon it, and he will find that he is mistaken in supposing that I meant an unfavourable reflection against the people of the Highlands in general. What I said related exclusively to Papists, who are now more numerous in the Highlands than he seems aware of, particularly in the western parts of Inverness-shire, and in some of the islands.

by whomsoever planted, was a stranger to the bishop of Rome, and his pretended authority. But the pagan Saxon invaders having driven the professors of Christianity to the remotest corners of our island, their own conversion was afterwards effected by Augustine the monk, and other missionaries from the court of Rome. This naturally introduced some few of the papal corruptions in point of faith and doctrine; but we read of no civil authority claimed by the pope in these kingdoms till the era of the Norman conquest."-Comm. B. IV. ch. viii.

It is equally true with regard to Ireland, that popery is a mere novelty, so far at least as regards subjection to the pope, and paying him tribute. Ireland is said to have been an island of saints fourteen centuries ago; but certainly they were not Papists for many hundred years thereafter. For this we have no less than papal authority, contained in a bull of Adrian IV., inserted in the postscript to the Protestant Catechism; on which the right reverend author writes as follows: -"The bull of Adrian IV., in which he gives his consent to Henry the Second's conquest of Ireland, on condition of his paying Peterpence, is a curious and important historical document, and contains indisputable evidence that popery was not the ancient religion of the Irish, not the religion of Ireland, before the middle of the twelfth century. If this fact, the modern introduction of popery into Ireland, were more generally known in that country, it might tend not a little to break that spell which blinds the eyes of the Irish Papists to the errors of the church of Rome." Then follows a quotation from Archbishop Usher, strongly expressive of the same sentiment. The archbishop had paid particular attention to the state and history of the ancient Irish, and he writes thus:-"As far as I can collect, by such records of the former ages as have come into my hands, (either manuscript or printed,) the religion professed by the ancient bishops, priests, monks, and other Christians in this land, was for substance the very same with that which now, by public authority, is maintained therein against the foreign doctrine brought thither in latter times by the bishop of Rome's followers."

This is perfectly consistent with the fact of missionaries being sent from Rome to Ireland in the fourth and fifth centuries, supposing that to be a fact; for Rome itself was not then thoroughly papified; and the fact of receiving the gospel by the preaching of missionaries from Rome did not then imply subjection to the see of Rome, any more than the fact of America receiving the gospel from England implies subjection to the see of Canterbury.

Now the fact is,-Pope Adrian IV. knew that Henry II. of England had a great liking to Ireland, and wished to have it annexed to his dominions. Adrian accordingly issued a bull authorizing the king to invade and take forcible possession of that island, which he justified and commended by the following reason:-"Your highness' desire of extending the glory of your name on earth, and of obtaining the reward of eternal happiness in heaven, is laudable and beneficial; inasmuch as your intent is, as a Catholic prince, to enlarge the limits of the church, to declare the truth of the Christian faith to untaught and rude nations, and to eradicate vice from the field of the Lord." Nothing can be more conclusive than this. Ireland did not then belong to the church of Rome, else the conquest of it could not have tended to enlarge the

church. Ireland had not then received the religion of Rome, else the pope would not have called it an untaught and rude nation. This conclusion is confirmed by several other expressions in the bull, for which I have not room. His lordship gives this curious document in the original Latin, with a translation; and for its authenticity he refers to a host of great and well known authors; such as Giraldus Cambrensis, Matt. Paris, &c.; and there is a translation of it in Rapin's History of England, Collyer's Eccles. Hist. Great Britain, Leland's Hist. Ireland, Lord Littleton's Hist. Henry II., &c. &c.

I have to thank my Cambuslang correspondent for informing me, that the story of the six thousand skulls of infants is mentioned by Flavel, in his discourse, entitled, "Tidings from Rome," with much more shocking matter, not fit to meet the eye of a modern reader.

CHAPTER CLXXXIII.

FURTHER EXAMINATION OF DR. MILNER'S WORK. HIS CLUB OF WORTHY CHRISTIANS INTRODUCED. REMARKS UPON THEIR CHARACTER.

SATURDAY, January 12th, 1822. My last number was occupied chiefly by an exposure of the misrepresentations contained in one single sentence of the introductory address to Dr. Milner's " End of Religious Controversy." Were I to do equal justice to every sentence, were I to expose in detail every misstatement, misrepresentation, quibble, and sophistry, which this book contains, it would occupy the remainder of my life; and the vicar apostolic himself would probably not live to see an end" of the controversy which his "End of Religious Controversy" had created. It is not my design to go so much into detail; but rather to apply my attention to a few leading principles, which may be called pillars of the great Romish temple; and if I can subvert these, the whole fabric must fall; -I mean, in argument, not in reality, for I believe the final fall of antichrist is not just yet.

I have introduced Dr. Milner as asserting that popery was the Christianity of ancient times; and that to it England was indebted for her Christianity as well as her civilization. This is a main pillar of popery; yet it cannot stand a breath of such writers as the late Archbishop Usher, and the present bishop of St. David's. It is, in fact, demolished by every Protestant writer who attacks it; yet Dr. Milner writes as if it never had been touched; and he seems to think he obtains a great triumph when he detects the following paradox in the Protestant Catechism:-" The great and fundamental paradox of the right reverend catechist is, that protestantism subsisted many hundred years before popery; at the same time that he makes its essence consist in a renunciation of, and opposition to, popery!" p. xiii. In descending to answer such a contemptible quibble, I feel as if I had returned to the Catholic Vindicator, and his "endless contradictions;" for, no doubt, Dr. Milner here insinuates that he has detected a contradiction, though it is evident he has performed no such achievement. Allowing the thing to be a paradox, as he states it, it is not a contradiction; for the Protestant religion, though as old as Christianity, in substance, has not