thousands, but sends our poor souls to everlasting perdition by millions, it still preserves its influence over the minds of men of all nations, nor could the gibbets and knives of our Protestant ancestors root it out of this and the sister island; nor will the absurd nonsense of THE PROTESTANT and his associates in folly and falsehood, impede the progress it is making in the number of its members. The sequel then must come to this either the greatest bulk of Christians are the most stupid and senseless of mankind, or THE PROTESTANT is an arrogant and barefaced calumniator." Such is the Vindicator's full and particular reply to the plain facts by which I proved popery to be a system of cruelty. The reader will perceive that there is not so much as an attempt to disprove any one of these facts. The sum and substance of the reply is,-if popery be as I described it, Papists are great fools, as well as murderers and cutthroats," and I shall not controvert this inference any more than the other, for there are simple ones who love simplicity, and scorners who delight in their scorning, and fools who hate knowledge. It is perhaps difficult to account for the taste of such persons; but it is a fact, that both heathens and Papists do torture themselves and one another, sometimes to death, with a view, as they think, to satisfy divine justice; and they prefer this to the merciful plan of salvation revealed by the gospel. While this remains an undisputed fact, all the Vindicator's flourishes about men not loving what is hateful go for nothing. If we were to believe the Vindicator, we would suppose that by some unaccountable charm, the whole matter of history had been reversed;that it was Protestants who kindled the flames of Smithfield to burn Papists; that it was Protestants in Ireland, who at different times rose in arms, and murdered their popish neighbours by thousands. Yes, he would not hesitate to assert this in plain words, to serve a purpose. No doubt his popish readers believe it is so; and therefore it is that they regard Protestants with such murderous hatred-" nursing their wrath to keep it warm." CHAPTER CLIV. THE VINDICATOR'S NOTICE OF MR. BOURKE'S PAMPHLET. FALSE ASSERTION, THAT THE REMARKS ON THIS ACT. SATURDAY, June 23d, 1821. In his fifth number, the Vindicator adverts to Mr. Bourke's pamphlet, of which I gave an account in my first volume, Chap. XXIII He does not know what to make of this production, which exposes in so strong a light the wicked practices of Irish popish priests. He says, "whether he was the publisher, or even the author of some of the senti ments imputed to him, is matter of doubt, as the work is printed for W. Whittemore, 56, Paternoster row, London." I do not know any thing, that he can allege against Mr. Whittemore, but that he is a Protestant, from which we are to infer, that no work published by a Protestant, though written by a Papist, can contain the truth. The editor, it seems, took upon him to abridge Mr. Bourke's observations, from which Mr. Andrews infers that we can have no dependance upon his facts; which is a species of logic much of a piece with what follows: "But what will the reader think when I inform him, that the accuser general, (i. e. the Protestant,) and the reverend Romish priest, whom he has brought forward to sustain his charge, are at variance with each other in their assertions? The Protestant avers, that the system of popery is a system of error and delusion, of cruelty and oppression. Mr. Bourke declares, in the preface to his work, from whence the former has so copiously quoted, and in his first letter therein to his prelate, that the Catholic or popish religion, meaning of course the system, is HOLY, which word being defined by Dr. Johnson to signify good, pure, sacred, must be opposed to falsehood and deceit." Col. 71. Thus, because Mr. Bourke has a better opinion of the church of Rome than I have, he is not to be believed in a statement of facts, which not only came within his own knowledge, but which really regarded himself. This must be the Vindicator's meaning, else it will be difficult to find any meaning in his words; for I cannot suppose he seriously means to affirm that two persons, differing in opinion about the merits of a system, must necessarily contradict one another in a matter of fact. It is one of the inconsistencies of Mr. Bourke, that he continued to adhere to a church in which such horrible oppression was practised; and that he still considered it a holy, and the true church; but this, so far from making his testimony doubtful, ought rather to confirm it, because it is not probable that so steady a son would belie his holy mother. The Vindicator (col. 72) makes the following strange concession: "that corrupt practices are committed by some of the clergy of the Catholic church, no one will deny; it is the natural consequence of human frailty." I call this a strange concession, because it comes from one who boasts of the "spotless purity" of the Catholic priests in Ireland, and it is of these that he is speaking, when he admits that corrupt practices are committed by some of them. Now it is impossible that a church can be pure, if corrupt practices are known to exist among either priests or people, without instantly applying the divinely appointed means for the reformation, or expulsion of the corrupt members. Popish writers, and Mr. Andrews in particular, think they have sufficient ground for condemning the reformation, when they have it admitted, that the reformers may have erred, even in a speculative opinion. Now there is no error greater than "corrupt practice," of which some of the Irish priests are admitted to be guilty; and this guilt must attach to the whole body, seeing they hold communion with such corrupt members, and allow them to exercise every priestly function. The lowest priest is greater in the church of Rome than Luther and Calvin were in the reformed churches; for he professes to be a successor of the apostles, and an infallible word-ofmouth teacher of the faith, which no Protestant believes the reformers to have been. When, therefore, such priests err grievously in their practice, the church of Rome is condemned, according to the reasoning of her own advocates. When such a circumstance as that which is here admitted of Romish priests, is known to exist in a Protestant church, her really sound members acknowledge and deplore her imper fection, and do what they can to remove it; but in a perfect and infal lible church, without spot or wrinkle, as Mr. Andrews affirms the church of Rome to be, no such acknowledgment can consistently be made; and to admit that some of her clergy are guilty of corrupt practices, is at once to overthrow the whole fabric of the church's holiness and infallibility. In quoting Mr. Bourke, I gave sometimes his own words, and sometimes their substance in an abridged form. This was done professedly, and without marks of quotation, when I did not insert his own words. The Vindicator finds one paragraph thus abridged, which he quotes, col. 76, and which he thinks ought to have been given entire; and, because it is not so given, he exclaims, "What a pitiful! what a mean! what a disgraceful trick is this, to impose upon the credulous and unthinking!" The thing is of little importance in itself, and not worth occupying the space which it would require to quote and apply to the accusation at length. But if any of my readers who took in the Vindicator, have preserved the fifth number, I request they will turn to the passage, and see if there be any thing like trick or imposition in it? whether I did not give the substance of the paragraph, without omitting a single article? and whether popery would have gained, or Protestantism lost any thing, by inserting it at length? 66 11 This brings me to a more serious charge against the Vindicator himself than that of concealing the truth. It is the assertion of a downright falsehood. In number five, col. 80, he thus writes;—“ By the terms of the solemn league and covenant of the kirk of Scotland, the Covenanters undertook to extirpate all Papists by force of arms." I question if ever the church of Rome produced a more impudent for gery. The words of that solemn document are: II. That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of popery, prelacy, (of which a description is given in a long parenthesis,) superstitition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of godliness; lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and his name one, in the three kingdoms." There is not a word about arms, or force of arms, in the whole deed; and the above is all that it contains about extirpation. What a face of brass, therefore, must that man have, who can write such a falsehood! Again, the Covenanters did not engage to extirpate Papists, as the Vindicator falsely asserts; it was popery that was the object of their hostility; as it ought to be of every honest man. These things are as different and distinguishable as a man and his errors; and he word extirpate, when applied to principles, not only does not imply force of arms, but cannot imply such a thing. According to Dr. Johnson, it signifies, to root out, to eradicate, to exscind. Who ever heard of cutting off, or killing thoughts by a sword, or any other material weapon? To extirpate, in reference to error, is no more than to supplant false principles by true ones, by means of reason and argument. An eloquent advocate of the "Catholic claims," in the late synod of Glasgow and Ayr, said, he desired with all his heart to extirpate popery; but no man will suspect him of the least hostility towards the persons of Papists; nay, he distinctly declared his conviction, that to put them upon a footing of political equality with Protestants, would have the effect of winning them from their errors; which is the same thing as to extirpate popery. I cannot agree with my reverend friend in the consequence which he anticipated; but I refer to this part of his speech as affording an excellent illustration of the distinction between persons and their principles. In short, he is the best friend of the human race, who endeavours to extirpate false principles of every kind; and every real friend of Papists must desire to extirpate popery. The Vindicator then draws a horrible picture of the sufferings of Papists, under the penal statutes; and as this immediately follows his false assertion, that the Covenanters undertook to extirpate all Papists by force of arms, he means to insinuate, that this persecution was the practical effect of the solemn league; though he has not so much as attempted to show that there was any connexion between this and the sufferings of his favourites, the Jesuits. That much individual suffering was the consequence of the penal statutes against Papists, I do not deny; but they have their own church to thank for it, for the murderous principles which she inculcated, her no less murderous practices, and the turbulent, incessant plotting of her members, which rendered restrictions upon them a necessary measure of self-defence. These statutes have been repealed long ago; but instead of expressing gratitude for their removal, such writers as Mr. Andrews delight in keeping alive the memory of them, that they may perpetuate the hostility of their brethren against Protestants. In this country, Papists suffer no molestation whatever on account of their religion. This is in consequence of more enlightened ideas of liberty of conscience, which began to prevail about the middle of the last century. But the church of Rome has not yet received one ray of light on this subject. It is scarcely a month since it was declared by the authorities in Portugal, to be unlawful to write any book against the established religion, which induced the editor of the Glasgow Courier to warn the Protestant to beware of venturing his person in that land of liberty. Hundreds of Jesuits are suffered, in this kingdom, to preach and write as much as they please against the established religion; and the law of the land will suffer no weapon heavier than the quill to be raised against them; and it is very certain that, if they had the administration of the law, they would soon "extirpate" The Protestant. They have been labouring for three years to extirpate his good name; and, not many weeks ago, the Jesuits in Preston declared to the mayor of that town, that he was a stirrer up of sedition; that in short, the publication of The Protestant was the cause of the late riots in Glasgow, meaning, I suppose, the radical rebellion; and that, if he did not interfere to put down the Protestant lectures, preached occasionally in that town, the peace of the country would be disturbed. See the Protestant Advocate, attached to the Antijacobin Review for May. The editor adds, that the mayor, much to his honour, refused to interfere. The application, however, was a direct attempt to suppress free discussion, and to commence a system of persecution with the influence which they have already acquired. Such freedoms have been used with my name in that quarter, that one of the preachers found it his duty to bear testimony, from the pulpit, in favour of my character. (See an excellent sermon on Purgatory, by the Rev. Thomas Raffles, of Liverpool.) Thus, while incessantly complaining of being a persecuted people, all the persecution is prac tised by themselves; and, were it not for the restraints of law, they would soon carry it much farther than the scouges of the tongue. In his sixth number, the Vindicator represents the gunpowder plot as a mere invention of Protestants to bring odium upon the Papists, for which I do not know that he has any higher authority than his great oracle and patron, Dr. Milner. It would not require greater impudence to assert that the pope invented the fable of King Henry's divorce. The plot is a matter of history to which every reader has access; and I should think it an insult to the understanding of my readers, to waste a minute in proving that it was a real conspiracy, planned by Papists, to murder the king and parliament, and overturn the Protestant establishment, in church and state, at a blow. History is nothing in the hands of such writers as Andrews. They have only to assert a thing was, or was not; and the dupes of a bigoted superstition take their word as enough. 66 In this number, we have another important admission by the Vindicator. It is a matter of history too, but so recent, that even his assu rance will not enable him to deny it. I had been remarking, that it was the manner of popish bishops to approve of any thing, however repug. nant, that served their purpose. We know," said I, "that the pope approved the usurpation of Bonaparte, so far as to crown him and bless him as his dear son in the faith, because he could not help it. Neither can he help his adherents in Britain, or procure for them the privileges which they desire, without their taking the oath of allegiance, which the law requires; he therefore approves of their taking it. But as he has never, by any public act that I know of, renounced his right to dispense with the oaths of his adherents, we have no security that he will not do what was often done by his predecessors, whenever he shall think proper; especially when he finds that it will promote the interest of the holy see." The Vindicator makes no attempt to refute what I here assert about the pope's dispensing power; but replies as follows: "Reader, candid and unprejudiced reader, canst thou restrain the feelings of just indignation at this base and malevolent insinuation against the fidelity and loyalty of the Catholic prelates and people of this kingdom, and against the character of a pontiff, whose unbending integrity and heroic firmness have gained him the praise of every friend and admirer of virtue and probity. What if the pope did crown Bona parte, he did not by that act confer one atom of power to him more than he already possessed. It was merely the performance of a religious ceremony, the splendour of which was heightened by the presence of the head of the church, but conveyed no greater authority or security to the crowned head, than if the act had been done by a prelate of his own creation. But the pope complied with the desire of Bonaparte 'because he could not help it! He certainly would have resisted the request, if he had thought it contrary to his situation, the same as he resisted the command of the despot to declare war against this country, and lost both his territory and personal liberty, rather than violate the dictates of his conscience." Alas, for the conscience of a pope that will not allow him to declare war against a people whom he excommunicates every year, on Holy Thursday! and against a sovereign, whose predecessors were, by his predecessors, dethroned and denounced by succes |