torture, she accused her mother and sisters, and several others, who were afterwards taken up and tortured, and burnt alive in the same fire with the girl." Limborch's History of the Inquisition, Vol. II. pages 156, 157, 158.

The above is given as a specimen, taken almost at random, of the manner in which those who were suspected of heresy were treated by the Inquisition. It would be easy to fill a volume with such cases. The Inquisition, wherever established, was the constitutional organ of the church of Rome. It acted under the sanction of the highest authority, and its acts are therefore those of the church herself; for, during the interval of general councils, the administration of the affairs of the church was vested entirely in the pope; and he, by his supreme and infallible authority, invested the Inquisition with all its powers over the consciences and the persons of men. The systematical deception practised by the holy office, upon those who were so unhappy as to be brought before it, shows, in the clearest light, the doctrine of the church, that it was not only lawful, but even laudable, to break faith with heretics. It was the usual practice of inquisitors to promise mercy to their prisoners, and to confirm these promises by their solemn oaths, in order to extort something that should militate against the prisoners themselves, or against their friends, and then to violate these oaths and promises in the most open manner. This was not the fault of an individual or two, who might be accused of having exceeded their commission, and whose crimes cannot be laid to the door of the church. It was the general practice of the whole body; and as the church has never condemned such practice, that I have heard of, she herself must bear the whole burden, and be content to have it fixed upon her, that she holds it lawful, if not meritorious, to break faith with heretics.

There is nothing in this that ought to surprise any one who knows the character of the Romish church. Popery is a domineering and exclusive system. The pope claims to have his authority from Jesus Christ, and all his priests derive their authority from the same source, through the medium of the pope. What they are pleased to teach, therefore, they hold to be infallible and incontrovertible. Should a few

individuals rise up in any country, in which their authority is generally recognised, and presume to think for themselves in matters of religion, they are immediately marked out as beings not fit to breathe the vital air. They are held in much greater abhorrence than thieves and robbers; and it is judged lawful to cut them off by all means, or by any means. Cutting them off is considered a most acceptable service done to the church, and of course to Christ. If one has given a promise or an oath to such miscreants, it is considered a promise against Christ, which may lawfully be broken; nay, which it is unlawful to keep. This was precisely the state of public feeling in the Romish church at the time of the council of Constance, and for two hundred years after. By and by, as Protestants began to multiply, and as whole states and kingdoms professed the reformed faith, and were able to make a bold stand against Rome, and all her vassal states, Papists began to find that it was necessary to enter into negociations and treaties with heretics, upon equal terms. It would not now have been prudent to avow the doctrine, that it was lawful to break faith

with such persons or states, because Protestants were able to compel them to stand to their treaties, and keep their faith, whether it was agreeable to them or not. Accordingly, we find the doctrine was first disavowed in Germany, France, and the Low Countries, where it was most necessary to stand on good terms with Protestants; and was longest maintained in Spain, where there was not so much intercourse with them.

This doctrine was nearly connected with that of the lawfulness of putting heretics to death; and, like it, was understood to be lawfully put in practice where heretics were few, but might be suspended where they were numerous. "They are so far from being guilty of murder," saith Urban III., "that kill any who are excommunicate, that they are bound to exterminate heretics, as they would be esteemed Christians themselves." And the learned CARDINAL BellarMINE, one of the greatest oracles of the church of Rome, teaches, "that heretics are to be destroyed, root and branch, if it can possibly be done; but if it appear that the Catholics are so few, that they cannot conveniently* with their own safety, attempt such a thing, then it is best, in such a case, to be quiet, lest, upon opposition made by the heretics, the Catholics should be worsted." De Laicis, lib. 3, cap. 22, quoted by John Smith, in his Narrative relating to the Popish Plot, page 3.

The same doctrine was maintained by a popish bishop in Scotland, in our own day. After attempting to justify the practice of the church of Rome in the excommunication of heretics, and the laws which exist in popish countries for the punishment of such, he says, "Here we must carefully remark, that these very laws subsist only where the Roman Catholic religion is the universally received religion of the country, and when a new heresy appears among them, and has not yet taken root; for when, through the disposition of divine Providence, any new system of religion prevails, and is established, these laws have no more place: the Roman Catholics cease to exert even their spiritual jurisdiction against it, and by their principles, in order to restore religion, are obliged to return to preaching and sufferings." Letter of G. H. (Bishop Hay of Edinburgh) to W. A. D., p. 40. In reply to this singular passage, W. A. D. (Bishop Drummond of the Scotch Episcopal church in Edinburgh) remarks:-" This, I think, amounts just to this, that Papists will persecute, or violate their faith to heretics, as long as they dare, that is, while they have the upper hand; but that whenever their adversaries get the better of them, they will graciously behave with more discretion. And is not this great condescension to accursed heretics, that Papists will not oppress them any longer than they are able?" Second letter to Mr. G. H.,

p. 32. The sentiments of leading men among the Papists in this country, I believe, are perfectly in unison with those of Bishop Hay; and it is not concealed by those who have the candour to speak plainly out. They profess great moderation; they declare their loyalty to the present royal family upon their solemn oaths. As their religion is not the established one, they have been "obliged," as the bishop says, “to return to preaching," meaning, I suppose, that if they were esta

*I suppose the word should be consistently.

blished, they would have something else to do; they would have to hunt out and extirpate heretics. And does any one think, that if this period should arrive,-that if they should become the majority in the country, and have it in their power to establish themselves, that they would think themselves bound to keep faith with the few Protestants that might remain? That they would not, seems very evident from the following declaration of one of themselves. It is in the words of Dr. Drumgoole, in his celebrated speech at the Catholic board, on the eighth December, 1813; the only man among them who had the courage and sincerity to speak the truth. Let this man's words be engraven on our hearts; for they unquestionably contain the genuine sentiments of every Roman Catholic in the kingdom. Speaking of our Protestant establishment, civil and religious, he says:-"In vain shall statesmen put their heads together, in vain shall parliaments, in mockery of omnipotence, declare that it is permanent and inviolate, -in vain shall the lazy churchman cry from the sanctuary to the watchman on the tower, that danger is at hand,--it shall fall, for it is human; and nothing, but the memory of the mischiefs it has created shall survive! Already the marks of approaching ruin are upon it; it has had its time upon the earth, a date nearly as long as any other novelty; and, when the time arrives, shall Catholics be called, by the sacred bond of an oath, to uphold a system which they believe will be one day rejected by the whole earth? Can they be induced to swear that they would oppose even the present Protestants in England, if, ceasing to be truants, they thought fit to return to their ancient worship, and have a Catholic king and a Catholic parliament?" British Protestant's letter to the inhabitants of Belfast, Dec. 2d, 1818. I shall leave it to Papists to point out, at their leisure, the mischiefs which have been created by our civil and religious establishment; while I believe that greater social and domestic happiness has been enjoyed under it, than under any other government in the world. I shall not dispute the doctrine, that every thing human shall have an end; but woe to our country, if things human shall give way to things diabolical, as will be the case, if our Protestant establishment shall be superseded by a popish one!

A

I intend to return to the same subject in my next number; and, in the mean time, I shall mention a species of breaking faith with heretics, which is very common among Papists in the present day. I allude to their practice of distorting and misrepresenting facts of history, for which their writers are most notorious, and particularly the editor of the Orthodox Journal. If a person shall profess to give facts, and if, instead of these, he shall give falsehoods, he breaks faith with his readers; and the said editor must know, that now some of his readers are what he will call heretics. I said in my twenty-first number, page 178, that in order to make it appear that popery was more favourable to civil liberty than Protestantism, he had distorted and turned upside down a number of historical facts. I come now to establish this by one instance, which I give merely as a specimen :

66

Next," says he, "came a lady, who is best known by the name of Bloody Queen Mary, from her attachment to popery, and the sacrifice she made of some Protestant TRAITORS and REBELS, who wore the garb of prelates and parsons, in the latter part of her reign." Volume VOL. I.-28

for 1818, page 366. Who would not suppose from this statement, that very few persons suffered under the government of this queen, and that these few suffered for treason and rebellion, and not for religion? No man could assert this without presuming greatly upon the ignorance and credulity of his readers, because there are few subjects of history, with regard to which it is so easy to detect his misrepresentation. No fewer than two hundred and seventy-seven suffered during the short reign of that cruel and superstitious princess; and they were neither tried nor punished as traitors. Nay, indeed, two of the number, who might have been brought to trial on that charge, were, on the contrary, examined only respecting the real presence, and other popish absurdities. To many pardon was offered, not upon discovery of their accomplices, or acknowledgment of guilt, but if they would recant,-if they would go to mass. Besides, not one of these two hundred and seventy-seven suffered the death of a traitor, which is to be hung, drawn, and quartered. They were all burnt alive, which is the regular punishment of heretics in the church of Rome. Nor were these some prelates and parsons only. There were five bishops, Hooper, Ridley, Latimer, Ferar, and Cranmer; twenty-one clergymen; and the remainder, two hundred and fifty-one, were private persons, men, women, and children. It indeed becomes necessary, ever and anon, to repeat these truths, these tremendous proofs of popish intolerance, and the cruel dispositions of idolaters, lest the hardy assertions of equivocating Jesuits, and their disciples, being uncontradicted, should, at last, be admitted as fact. We will, therefore, detail one or two instances of this persecution. On the 15th of May, 1556, Laverock, a cripple, aged 68, and J. Apprice, a blind man, were burnt at Stratford together; and in the same month, another blind man was burnt at Gloucester. Was the queen afraid of a rebellion conducted by the blind and the lame? On the 27th of June, at Stratford, just over Bow Bridge, were eleven men, and two women, burnt all together. Sixteen were intended, but Cardinal Pool contrived to save three. In July the same year, at Guernsey, were burnt in the same fire, a mother and her two daughters, one of whom being pregnant, was prematurely delivered in the midst of the flames of a boy, which some of the spectators endeavoured to save, but by the popish dean and the executioner, it was thrown back into the flames to the wretched mother.-Enough, surely, of these horrible details. See Antijacobin Review for Nov. last, page 274.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

THE SUBJECT CONTINUED. CONTROVERSY BETWEEN BISHOP HAY AND DR. DRUMMOND. MR. PITT.

SATURDAY, January 23d, 1819 My three last numbers have been occupied with that doctrine of the church of Rome, that it is lawful to break faith with heretics. This is a subject on which Papists feel themselves more hurt than on most any other which can be mentioned; and I have given it more attention than I have bestowed upon some other matters, which appear

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