ignorance, confirm prejudice, and inspire hatred.

To do this is not

a comely or benevolent office for a minister of the Gospel, which breathes but peace and charity.

If, however, Protestants were immaculate on the subject of persecution, you might have put forward this charge with some degree of consistency. But all the reformers persecuted when they had the power, and sanctioned it, when they had not. If, therefore, I give a few quotations and facts to prove this assertion, I hope that neither you nor our readers will be offended at an exposure to which your eyes are accustomed, but which you have made necessary. I do it not to increase the separation between Catholics and Protestants, which is already too great ;-not in a spirit of bad feeling or retaliation, but simply to show that Protestants, if they are to be accountable for the deeds of their ancestors (and if they are not, I do not see why we should be) have no reason to boast of superiority on the subject of liberality and religious toleration. But, Rev. Sir, if your forefathers and mine have done those things in the name of religion, which religion does not sanction, I would rather have joined you in walking backwards, to cover their deeds with the mantle of oblivion, than be obliged to join you in exposing them. Still, painful as the task is, you have made it necessary, and it must be accomplished.

It is but right that I should begin with the Reformer of Geneva, Calvin himself. "Servetus," says he, "was cast into prison, whence he escaped, I know not how, and was wandering through Italy for about four months. At length, having, under evil auspices, come hither, he was arrested, AT MY INSTIGATION, by one of our Syndicts," (Calvini, Epist. et Respons. p. 294.) Again, (p. 290.) "The author (Servetus) is held in prison by our magistrates, and soon, I HOPE, to suffer his punishment."

In his letter to M. Du. Poèt, he says, of those who differed from him in the interpretation of the Bible," Pareils monstres doivent etre etouffes, comme fis ici en l'execution de Michel Servet, Espagnol." That is," they ought to be strangled, as was done HERE with the Spaniard, Michael Servetus."

This gentle Reformer would have strangled (etouffes) Gentilis, Okin, Blaudrat, and others, if they had not either fled or retracted; which they were obliged to do-to save their lives. Melancthon, Bullinger, and the Protestant clergy of Switzerland generally, and in solemn session, approved of the faggot, which consumed Servetus. Bucer declared that he should have been "torn limb from limb!"

John Knox, was ready to prove, by the Prophets and plain Scriptures of God, what trees and generation they (the Catholics) be, to wit, unfruitful and rotten; APT FOR NOTHING BUT TO BE CAST INTO HELL FIRE." (Appellation, p. 30.)

Even the meek John Wesley as late as the year 1780, proclaimed that they (Catholics) ought not to be tolerated, by any government, PROTESTANT, MAHOMETAN, or PAGAN."

66

Let us now look for the mild, tolerant, evangelical language of Luther: "If," says he, in his book against Sylvester Prieras, "we dispatch thieves by the gallows, highwaymen by the sword, HERETICS by fire; why do we not rather attack with ALL KINDS of arms, these

monsters of perdition, these Cardinals, these Popes, and all this sink of the Romish Sodom, which corrupts without ceasing, the church of God, and WASH OUR HANDS IN THEIR BLOOD."

In England the history of Protestant toleration has been written in statutes of similar tint. Protestants were burned alive for heresy, and Catholics " hanged, embowelled and quartered," because they would not become Protestants. To deny the supremacy of Henry VIII., or of his daughter, when she became head of the church, was quite enough to entitle any one to all the privileges of martyrdom.

Your old friend, Archbishop Usher, by way of showing his "authority among Romanists," entered a Catholic chapel with armed soldiers, seized the Priest in his vestments, and hewed down the crucifix. He and eleven other Protestant bishops, solemnly decided that" to give them (Catholics) a toleration, or to consent that they may freely exercise their religion, IS A GRIEVous sin.' (Plowden, vol. 1. c. 4.) In 1642, the same Usher extorted a promise from Charles I., never to connive at Popery-and on this intolerant pledge, administered to him the Sacrament. (Birch, p. 278-9.) Poor Charles little imagined that his Presbyterian subjects would entitle himself to a place in the martyrology of Protestant persecution.

But Presbyterians have persecuted greater men than mere kings. The learned Protestant, Grotius, in his dungeon, is an instance of it-in the Low Countries-where the Presbyterian Gomarists persecuted the Presbyterian Armenians with the most deliberate and unrelenting fury. If we turn our eyes to the Cromwellian ascendancy in Great Britain and Ireland, we shall see what kind of toleration Presbyterians practised. Dr. Taylor, (a Protestant, A. B. of Trinity College,) tells us, "that they (Puritans) employed BLOOD-HOUNDS to track the haunts of these devoted men (Catholic priests.) 'during the latter part of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century, 'Priest hunting' was a favourite field sport in Ireland." (See Hist. Ireland, vol. 2. p. 52., Harper's Family Library.)

66

And that

The Presbyterians, indeed, were themselves persecuted. But nothing could teach them mercy. The "Pilgrim fathers," fleeing from intolerance across the ocean, had scarcely landed on the rock of Plymouth, till they began to persecute each other. They put the Quakers to death without pity," as pestilent heretics." (Hist. of Bapt. in New England, vol. 1. p. 329.) "Whipping," " branding," and" cutting off the right ear," were mitigated forms of punishment for the crime of heresy—that is, for interpreting the Bible for them selves. In a word, show, in all history, a single instance, in which Presbyterians possessed civil jurisdiction over ten square miles of the surface of this earth, without practising intolerance and persecution, within the limits of their territory!

If, on the other hand, Catholics had been as persecuting as you pretend, could they not have rid the world of the first Reformers, as Calvin rid Geneva of the Spaniard? I will take but one or two cases in point. The same Dr. Taylor already quoted, says, "It is but justice to this maligned body (the Catholics-he might well say, 'maligned,') to add, that on the three occasions of their obtaining the upper hand, (in Ireland) they never injured a single person in

life or limb, for professing a different religion from their own.”. And Thomas Campbell, the Poet, (Morning Chronicle, London, February 11, 1833,) says, the toleration practised by the Catholics of Poland," ought to make Protestants blush."

Again, the Catholic colony of Maryland unfurled the first banner of religious freedom that ever floated on the breeze of Heaven. The charitable Dr. Miller, however, denies them even the merit of good motives in this. He seems to have had access to their intentions, and tells us accordingly, that they did it "from policy." But their "policy" in this regard availed them little,-and the following testimony from Jefferson's notes on Virginia, shows how unkind it was in a descendant of "the Puritans," such as Dr. Miller, to have made the remark: "The persecuting laws which were passed by the Virginians soon after this period against THE PURITANS, made the latter emigrate in considerable numbers, to Maryland, that they might enjoy, under a POPISH PROPRIETARY, that liberty of conscience, of which they were deprived by their FELLOW PROTESTANTS." (Jeff. Query XVII.) What was the consequence? Puritanical gratitude, of course.

"When, upon the Revolution, power changed hands, the newmen (Ah! Doctor!) made but an indifferent requital for the liberties and indulgence they had enjoyed under the old administration. They not only deprived the harmless Catholics of all share in the government, but THEY EVEN ADOPTED THE WHOLE BODY OF THE PENAL LAWS OF ENGLAND AGAINST THEM. (Wyne's Hist. of British Empire in America, London, 1770, vol. I. p. 239.)

Need I inform you that to this day the laws of Protestant intolerance are unrepealed in New Jersey and North Carolina; so that for exercising the freedom of conscience, a Catholic in those States is disqualified from holding the office even of constable!

Now let Protestants see whether it is becoming in them to charge us with persecution. At the time of the Reformation, the faith, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the civil power, the churches, the fortresses, the cities, the kingdoms, the crowns, in a word, every thing, belonged to Catholics. They could plead for their title the prescription of a thousand years. Supposing, then, we grant that in defending themselves in any, or all of these possessions, they were guilty of excesses, by how many considerations may these excesses be extenuated? But where shall we find the plea for Protestant intolerance? All their possessions, whether belonging to this world, or the world to come, were of recent origin, and acquired by the title of usurpation. Yesterday, they claimed freedom of conscience; and to-day, having THE POWER TO REFUSE IT, they hang," "embowel," and "quarter," or burn to death, the wretch, who acts upon their own principles !! If God has appointed, as the RULE OF FAITH, that every man shall understand the Scriptures for himself, then Servetus was as justifiable as Calvin in their interpretation. Why then did Calvin BURN Servetus? On that principle, Servetus would have had quite as good a right to burn Calvin. Why did Henry VIII., the father of the Reformation in England, burn every body that stood in opposition to his religious opinions,-if the freedom of opinion be

66

the right of all? Why did his Protestant daughter, Queen Elizabeth the third head of the English church, why did she burn, and hang and embowel, and quarter, those who differed from her opinions?

Why did the Rev. Mr. Wesley proclaim, in his writings, that not even Turks or Pagans" were justified "in tolerating Roman Catholics?" Why did John Knox preach that Roman Catholics were "apt only for hell fire" and proclaim that it was the duty of the magistrates and people to put them to death? Why did Presbyterians put their fellow-protestants to death in Geneva, England, and America? And these are the people who reproach Catholics with what does not belong either to the spirit or the letter of their religion, viz: the massacre of St. Bartholomew and the Inquisition !! << Let honest and impartial Protestants, therefore, place these accounts side by side, and strike the balance between their ancestors and ours. Are you not, consequently, as unfortunate in appealing to this test, in favour of the Protestant rule of faith as you have been in every other? But pray, Rev. Sir, what have these matters to do with that principle, which the Son of God established, "to guide us" in our discrimination between truth and error? The other portions of your letter shall now be attended to.

1st. I trust it will not be considered extravagant in me, to insinuate that the ploughshare has actually passed through the radical delusion of Protestantism, on the rule of faith when the reader will recollect, that you have not dared to grapple with a single argument of reason, fact, or history, that I have adduced, to show its absurdity. You have, indeed, presented yourself as the advocate of the Bible, and the defender of the Holy Ghost, as if my arguments against the Protestant, or in support of the Catholic rule of faith, were directed against the sacred volume, or the Divine Spirit!!! You have made quotations, which are found to have been falsified, in every instance that I have had time to examine. You have, by adding and omitting words, changing punctuation, &c. made the champions of the Catholic church to speak the language of the "Protestant delusion," which they never uttered. You have brought forth Luther acquitting, and Bellarmine accusing the church of persecution! You have made me a fellow conspirator with the Jews in condemning the Son of God; and with the Unitarians in condemning the Bible. In a word, our candid readers will perceive with astonishment, that you are obliged to distort my position by misrepresentation, before you are able to bring your feeble artillery to bear against it.

2. Doctor Miller has said, that the Bible alone is the " only and sufficient rule of faith and practice;"-he has said also, that in reference to the points to be decided, the Bible "IS NO TEST AT ALL." And you accused me of wanting "candour and common sense" for believing that these two propositions are contradictory to each other!! Does the reader imagine that he will save his character for “ candour and common sense," by subscribing the paradox with you, that the Bible which is "NO TEST AT ALL," is, at the same time, the exclusive and sufficient rule of faith and practice?" Doctor Miller has subscribed both propositions, and you are pleased to endorse them. Now I would sooner forego your opinion of my 66 candour

and common sense," than believe that they mean exactly the same thing. In proposing to convict the Doctor of ignorance or misrepresentation, of the Catholic doctrine, under the penalty of five hundred dollars, I did not imagine that there was any gambling. The Doctor ought not to impute false doctrine to his Catholic fellow citizens-he ought not to coin a religion, and say it is theirs; when in fact they abhor and disclaim it.

3. With regard to the manner by which Catholics arrive at the knowledge of the church, I have twice proved that it is not by private interpretation. Even in my last letter, I showed that the authority of the church is a fact that can be established with or without the Scripture; and you do not pretend to dispute my reasoning, but return to the charge as if it were original! !

4. You are strangely at a loss to distinguish between a doctrine of the church, and an opinion of schoolmen-although the distinction is obvious.

5. As to the boast you make of the advantages which Protestant countries possess in consequence of reading the Bible, I regret as much as you can, that they are only the offspring of a fruitful imagination. Germany, Geneva, England, the Reformed' churches in France and Holland, exhibit the necessary consequences of the Protestant rule of faith. In most of these countries, infidelity is preached from the pulpit, and from the Bible itself. The principle of that rule has a silent, but progressive, and certain tendency towards infidelity. Nightingale, a Protestant, admits this-and adds, "that there is no way to prevent it," as long as you admit the principle of private interpretation. In Germany, says the Scottish Episcopal Magazine for 1822, "many of the CLERGY....consider Christianity as a vulgar superstition, which may be taught while the popular mind requires it, THOUGH IT IS NO LONGER BELIEVED BY HIM WHO TEACHES IT."Here then, is one of your "evangelical" nations. The Rev. Mr. Rose, a Protestant, in his sermon before the University of Cambridge, ascribes the state of religion to the right of private interpretation, and urges "the wisdom and necessity of restraining it." He says, that "among the German Divines it is a favourite doctrine, that it is impossible there could have been a miracle!" Such are the blessings resulting from the Protestant rule of faith! When Jesus cured the man with the withered hand, he merely, says the Protestant Professor Paulus, "pulled it into joint." This is the glorious consequence of Protestant freethinking! And Professor Shultness explains the cure of the paralytic in the Gospel in the following manner. was," says the Professor, "an idle fellow, who for thirty years had moved neither hand nor foot. Christ asked him ironically, perhaps thou wouldst be made whole?' This irony stirred him up; he forgot his hypocricy." This is the privilege of Protestantism. He judges for himself.

"He

Mr. Jacob, a Protestant, in his Tour, tells us, that "even our avowed Socinians would be considered by the Lutheran and Calvinistic clergy of Germany, as equally credulous with the orthodox !"

Mr. Robert Haldane (second Reveiw of the British and Foreign Bible Society) says "On the whole, the greatest number of Pas