to me of less importance. The doctrine has been disavowed with so much confidence by Papists in this country, even upon their solemn oaths, that I believe the opinion began to prevail, that it was not a doctrine of the church of Rome; and that those who brought this accusation against her, were guilty of uncharitableness and injustice. It is, indeed, a doctrine that cannot bear the light. Those who maintain it, are not worthy of being trusted, with regard to any thing in which persons whom they call heretics, are interested. I think, however, it will appear from the evidence which I have adduced, that such was the doctrine of the church, as established by the council of Constance; as expounded by several of her great canonical authorities; and as exemplified by the fathers of the Inquisition: and if it was the doctrine of the church of Rome, it is the doctrine of that church, for she is unchangeable and infallible.

Yet the very mention of it will put modern Papists out of temper. They have not the wisdom or discretion to admit what is undeniable; to ascribe it to the ignorance or error of the dark ages; and to plead that they are now under the influence of more enlightened principles. If they did so, we would give the same credit that we give to other sects, who acknowledge and disavow the errors and mistakes of their forefathers, and who desire to be judged only upon the ground of what they themselves profess. But Papists will not admit that there ever was a dark age in their church. That which we look upon as a period of great darkness and ignorance, was actually their golden age: it was the period of their church's glory, when she reigned over the kings of the earth, and when sovereign princes, even emperors, were obliged to execute her decrees. It is clearly established, that in that state of glory, she maintained the doctrine in question; and from the acknowledged principle of her infallibility, it is no less clear, that it is, and must be her doctrine still.

About forty years ago, this controversy was agitated, and conducted with great warmth in our Scottish metropolis. The late Principal Campbell, of Aberdeen, a man who possessed as little of a sectarian spirit as perhaps any man of his age, in a synod sermon, happened to make some allusion to the popish doctrine, "that it is not contrary to the will of Heaven, to lie, betray, or to murder, when the supposed interest of the church requires it." The then popish priest in Edinburgh, G. H. afterwards, if not then, Bishop Hay, was pleased to come forward with a pamphlet, entitled, "A Detection of the Dangerous Tendency of Dr. Campbell's Sermon." He accused the doctor of

diabolical calumny, and damnable detraction; and challenged him in the face of the world, "to produce any one approved divine, of the Roman Catholic communion, that either holds, approves, or even insinuates, the damnable doctrine which he lays to their charge." Nay, he says, he was "willing to venture the whole issue of his cause upon it, that the doctor could produce no such authority."

This was bringing the question to a point which could easily be decided; and it showed the great confidence which the bishop had in his cause, when he accused the worthy principal of the Marischal college, of diabolical calumny, and damnable detraction. Let it be observed, these are the words of a reverend bishop of the Romish church; and I request that such of my readers as cannot endure to

hear bad things called by their own names, will decide the question, to whom the charge of scurrility properly belongs. The bishop challenged the doctor, in the face of the world, to produce one approved divine of his church, who held, approved, or even insinuated, the doctrine, that it was not contrary to the will of Heaven, to lie, &c. when the supposed interest of the church required it; that is, that it was lawful to break faith with heretics: and he ventured the whole issue of his cause upon this point.

I do not know whether Dr. Campbell ever accepted the challenge; but it was accepted by a reverend gentleman in Edinburgh, Dr. W. A. Drummond, afterwards a bishop in the Scottish Episcopal church. This gentleman addresses a letter to Bishop Hay, in which he produced the most ample evidence, that the church of Rome did maintain the doctrine, that it is lawful to break faith with heretics. He cited a number of passages from the decretals, from the works of eminent divines, &c., some of which are given in my twenty-fifth number, and many more to the same purpose, together with the canon of the council of Constance, in precisely the same words as I gave it from Free Thoughts; and, that he might put the sincerity of the popish priest to the test, he addressed to him publicly the following challenge:

"And to bring the matter to a speedy period, I beg you may meet me any Tuesday or Thursday you please, between the hours of eleven and one, before dinner, in the Advocates' Library, when the College Library is also open, in case we have occasion to have recourse to it; and that you may take along with you three or four gentlemen of learning, honour, and probity, who, like pious Job, will abhor to speak wickedly even for God, or to talk deceitfully for him; and I shall bring as many of the same character, who, together with those on your side. may be judges between us; and the new converts to popery in this place may be witnesses if they please.

What I propose to prove is this, that, by the rescripts of popes, the opinion of approved divines, and even the practice, I might say, the decree of one at least, if not more general councils of the Romish communion, it is lawful on some occasions to break faith, especially with heretics; and consequently to lie, to betray, and even to murder too, whenever the interest of the church requires it."

One should think a public character like Bishop Hay, who had publicly challenged Dr. Campbell, in the face of the whole world, to produce the evidence of any one approved divine of the Romish church, who held the doctrine above mentioned, could not, with propriety, refuse the challenge addressed to him, to come, with three or four witnesses, to the Advocates' Library, and see, with his own eyes, the abundant evidence which that library contained, that such doctrine was indeed held and taught by approved divines of his church; nay, that it was most undoubtedly the doctrine of the church, as declared by the highest authorities. The reverend gentleman, however, did decline the challenge, though repeatedly made. He did not choose to look at the original documents, which proved his church to maintain doctrines which he declared to be "damnable" and "diabolical," and which, according to his own words, none but "execrable wretches" could maintain. He declined the interview, says Dr. Drummond in his preface, "on this pretence, that he will publish his answer to my letter."

He did publish what was meant for an answer, in a large pamphlet of 150 pages, containing a great deal of matter a thousand miles from the point, and which seemed intended for no other purpose, than to raise such a dust about the subject, that nobody should see it distinctly. This seems to be one of the arts to which all modern Papists have recourse in their writings; and they seem to wish their readers to believe, that they have proved what they assert, when they have written a great many pages about it, or about something that is like it, in the mere sound of the words, however different in meaning.

Hay labours to show that the divines whom Drummond cites, and whose works are preserved in the advocates' library, were of no authority in the church; and asserts, that he had not so much as heard of some of their names. Of Simanca, for instance, whose words are quoted in my former numbers, and whose exposition of the canon law contains clear proof that, in his time, it was a doctrine of the church, that it was lawful to break faith with heretics, Hay asserts, "that he was not a divine at all, but an obscure Spanish pettifogger, who published his Institutions on some branches of the law, perhaps to make a penny by it, and gives it the pompous name of Catholic Institutions, like many other authors now-a-days, who give their silly productions a grand frontispiece, to make them pass with the better grace."

66

This shows the dilemma to which Hay was reduced. He could not deny, that the words quoted by Drummond were those of Simanca; and these words point out what was the doctrine of the church of Rome, as clearly as Erskine's Institutes, or other books of equal authority, point out what is the law of Scotland. He is reduced, therefore, to the necessity of making Simanca a poor pettifogger, who wrote books for his subsistence. But what is the fact? Let the reader judge from the following quotation from Collier's Dictionary, as given by Dr. Drummond, in his second letter, page 19. James Simanca, bishop of Bajadox, was a Spaniard, and professed the civil and canon law, in the university of Salamanca. He was one of the king's council in Valladolid, and afterwards preferred, for his merit, to the Bishoprick of Bajadox, &c. He was a very good divine (fort savant dans la Theologie, says Moreri) and lawyer, and wrote a great deal in both faculties." Among his works are the "Catholic Institutions," from which Limborch, in his History of the Inquisition, has quoted largely, as well as the author of Free Thoughts, and from his work the point in question is clearly established.

There are, besides, many other authorities with which I shall not trouble my readers. The above is a specimen of the manner in which popish writers of the present day, attempt to wipe off the stain of not keeping faith, from their church; but they may as well attempt to wash the blackamoor white. Such of my readers as have access to the pamphlets on the controversy between the two Edinburgh bishops, will find them highly interesting. For sophistry and subtlety, Hay far excels any living popish author that I know of; but he is absolutely overwhelmed by the strong arguments, and the mass of evidence which Drummond brings against him. He had not, however, the grace to yield the point, though he had ventured the whole issue of his cause upon it. He challenged Dr. Campbell to produce evidence that such was a doctrine of the church of Rome; and his

challenge implied, that if this was proved, he would give up the cause. According to his own declaration, none but "execrable wretches" could hold such a doctrine. To accuse his church of this, was "diabolical calumny, and damnable detraction." Dr. Drummond accepted the challenge, and proved all this against the church of Rome. He proved from the most explicit declarations of her own divines, and the canons of her own councils, that it was a doctrine of the church of Rome, that it was lawful to break faith with heretics; and Bishop Hay himself lent the sanction of his little name to confirm the doctrine, for instead of giving up the cause of popery, as he had virtually promised, when this was proved, he chose to continue a Papist still.

It being thus clearly proved, that this was a doctrine of the Romish church, it follows that it is so still. To use the language of a late divine of our own city, (Dr. Porteous, in his Sermon on Toleration, 1778,)" This wonderful pretence," (that of infallibility,) "gives uniformity and permanency to her doctrines; for what was infallibly true yesterday, might be equally true to-day, and for ever; no distance of time, nor change of circumstances, can produce the smallest variation, even in things not revealed. This church, according to her own principles, must continue always, and in all respects the same. the authorities to be appealed to on this occasion have the popish stamp of infallibility, it must no doubt add greatly to the weight of their evidence. They cannot indeed be disrespected by Papists, while their claim to infallibility subsists." Page 18.

As

In short, it appears clearly established that every divine who wrote on the subject during several centuries, maintained it to be a doctrine of the church of Rome, that it was lawful to break faith with heretics, or to break faith with any person, when, by doing so, the interest of the holy church was promoted; and that this opinion of grave divines was founded upon the solemn decree of at least one cecumenical or general council.

Modern Papists endeavour to set aside the authority of all these divines, though their great oracle, Bellarmine, be among the number. Bishop Hay challenged Dr. Campbell to produce the authority of any approved divine of the Romish church, who maintained the obnoxious doctrine. Dr. Drummond produces the authority of many such divines. Hay then attempts to depreciate their character, and to make them appear men of no account; but in point of fact, they appear to have been all, and the only divines, who wrote on the subject for hundreds of years; and surely there is no other evidence necessary to prove what was the doctrine of the church, as understood by them, and as universally understood in their time. Let modern Papists produce, if they can, the authority of other divines, or the decrees of any of their councils in opposition to the doctrine in question. If it were not the acknowledged doctrine of the church, that it was lawful to break faith with heretics, whence was it, that, for hundreds of years, nobody wrote against it, while great divines were maintaining it? The pope was always sufficiently watchful that no heresy should obtain a footing in the church; general councils were always ready to condemn any doctrine that did not seem consistent with the honour and prosperity of the church; and even in the darkest ages, there were to be found some learned men to write in defence of the church, and who would

not suffer any person to lumniate her without attempting her vindication;-if then it had been a heresy that it was lawful to break faith with heretics, and seeing this heresy was publicly taught by many great divines, whence was it that no divine, or canonist, or pope, or council, should have uttered a word against it? Whence was it that Bishop Simanca, and others in expounding the doctrine of the church of Rome, openly declared it to be a doctrine of the church, that no obligation under which one was bound to a heretic, was binding upon him? Whence, I say, was this maintained publicly and without contradiction, but from the simple fact, that it was universally acknowledged to be a doctrine of the church?

In illustration of this argument, I shall take a case from the history of our own national church. About thirty years ago, a divine in Ayrshire published a book in which he insinuated certain principles, which are known by the name Socinianism. Had this work passed unnoticed, had other divines of the same church published similar sentiments, and had they also been unnoticed, it would appear to succeeding ages, that, notwithstanding the Calvinistic tenor of her standards, towards the close of the eighteenth century, the church of Scotland had become Socinian in her doctrines; and it would be sufficient evidence of the fact, to adduce the works of learned divines, even doctors of divinity, who unequivocally taught Socinianism, and to have it to add, that no other divine of the church, or any author of that country, at that time, had objected to the principles taught in those books. It so happened, that legions of writers, if I may use the expression, many of them divines of great note, declared their abhorrence of the sentiments of the Socinian divine; many books were published, which are likely to live at least as long as his; and his doctrine was condemned by an ecclesiastical council, namely, the synod of Glasgow and Ayr, before which, in the town of Ayr, the said divine professed to recant his errors. While the knowledge of these facts shall remain, it will be evident to the whole world, that, in the eighteenth century, the church of Scotland did not approve the doctrine of Socinus; but had the Socinian doctor, and his adherents, been suffered to pass unnoticed, while they published their sentiments to the world, those who should live two hundred years after, would be justified in fixing the charge of Socinianism on the church of Scotland, at the period referred to; and they might challenge the whole world to prove the contrary.

This argument applies directly to the case in hand. All the divines of the Romish church, who wrote on the subject, during several centuries, maintained that it was lawful to break faith with heretics, or with others, when the interest of the church might require such a measure; they taught this doctrine on the authority of the decretals, as they are called, the standing laws of the church, the authority of several popes, and, lastly, on the high and infallible authority of the council of Constance. This was so universally understood to be the doctrine of the church, that nobody controverted it. While Bishop Hay, and others, endeavoured to set aside the authority of those who publicly taught the doctrine, as being men of no consequence, they have not produced the name of any person, high or low, in the same ages, who opposed the doctrine, or so much as insinuated that it was not maintained by the church. Upon every principle of fair reason