vested in the simplicity of penance and retirement. In the different answers to the questions put to her by the celebrant, she was clear and decisive, like one whose determination of embracing a life of religion, and of chastity, was that of long and conclusive reflection. The cere mony on the whole created a deep and general interest.

"The chapel and lower choir were crowded with the first of rank and distinction in our town and its vicinity. We recognised among them the respectable families of his grace the archbishop of Tuam, Collector Reilly, our worthy mayor, Colonel Carey, &c."

On the above statement some very judicious remarks have been made in some of the newspapers; but none of the writers seem to have been aware of the shocking enormity that the church of Rome has the impudence to practise in open day. Let them call this what they will, it is as really a human sacrifice as the burning of widows in Hindoostan with the ashes of their husbands; and I can easily imagine, that in the case of the young girl above described, it may be a greater sacrifice than that of a wretched widow who offers herself to the flames, to terminate her sorrows, as she believes, in a few minutes, rather than to drag out a life of misery. Here a silly young creature is represented as devoting herself to a life of celibacy and perpetual seclusion from the world, which must be a life of delusion, or of misery, or both; because it is contrary to the appointment of God, who requires no man or woman to relinquish the advantages of social and domestic intercourse, or to become thus secluded from the world; but who rather commands all to occupy the sphere which in his providence he assigns them in the world, for his glory, and the good of their fellow-creatures.

There is something inexpressibly shocking and revolting in the style of the above narrative. The writer allows his fancy to luxuriate on the personal beauty of the victim brought to the altar to be sacrificed-to what, I shall not say or surmise. From the abominable profanation of the word of God, by the accommodation of the "text admirably pertinent to the subject," we cannot say what the priests may not devise and execute. Men who can so prostitute the word of God, as to apply what he says of spiritual and inward holiness to carnal beauty, may, by and by, alter the same passage by putting the word "priest" in the place of "king," and then use the Bible itself as a pander of wickedness.

It is a fact not generally known, that there is a convent of nuns in the heart of London. They belong to an order that left England on the suppression of the monasteries at the reformation, and settled in the Netherlands. The seminary, if such it could be called, was kept up chiefly by recruits from England, for more than two centuries; when, on the disasters following the French revolution, the sisterhood were driven to seek refuge in England, from which their predecessors had been driven. They were living in London in great comfort in 1814, as appears by the Orthodox Journal for that year, when a controversy arose about their dress, which it seems was offensive to London Protestants; and they were ordered by authority to lay it aside, and dress like other people. This, so far as appears, was merely an order by their spiritual superiors, who were afraid of the odium that might be occasioned by the monastic habits in London; but great pains were taken to make the order appear an act of the ministry, who, I suppose, knew no more of the matter than I did at the time.

CHAPTER CLXXXII.

NOTICE OF DR. MILNER'S WORK, THE END OF RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY." CHARACTER OF THE WORK. MISREPRESENTATION OF THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S VIEWS. MILTON AND LOCKE ON TOLERATION. IDLE CLAIM OF POPERY TO ANTIQUITY. POPERY NOT THE ANCIENT RELIGION OF IRELAND.

SATURDAY, January 5th, 1822 WHEN I first saw the title of Dr. Milner's great work," The End of Religious Controversy," I understood him to mean the "final end" or design of the thing; which is, or should be, the discovery of truth, and the exposure of error. But I had not read many sentences till I discovered that he meant the actual conclusion, or termination, of all controversy on religious subjects. Yes: this foreign bishop, and vicar apostolic, has actually the vanity and presumption to tell the world, that this work of his settles all controversies, and puts an end to all disputes about religion. He tells us that Christianity is the religion of Rome, and submission to the pope; and this must end all disputes; for he has said it, and that is enough. Had there been no disputes before, this work would have been properly called the beginning of religious controversy; for it suggests innumerable subjects of debate; but as things are, and have been, I think it ought not to have been called either the "beginning," or the "end," but the "middle;" for there was religious controversy before, and there has been since, and there shall be yet more; and this same work of Dr. Milner, is calculated to produce more controversy than any other publication by the Papists of the present day. The Rev. Mr. Grier has added a large volume to "the end," or termination; and THE PROTESTANT is about to add to it something more; so that the vicar apostolic will find that he has not done up his subject so completely as he imagined.

The work is preceded by an address to the lord bishop of St. David's, and followed by an appendix relative to the writings of the same prelate ; in both which the writer displays a spirit of rancorous hostility, too strong for even the cunning of Jesuitism to conceal. Had he imbibed a sufficient portion of the spirit of the great father of the order, he would have studied to conciliate a dignified individual, whose vote will tell in the house of lords whenever the Catholic question" comes to be agitated, and whose profound learning and well known attachment to the constitution, as established in 1688, give him an influence with other members of that noble house. But Dr. Milner so far forgets his duty as a member of the holy fraternity, which is to promote the interest of the order and of the pope, by all possible means, that he allows himself to indulge in personalities, calculated to irritate the persons of whom he asks the favour of emancipation, which shows the irritability of his own temper, and also how deeply he feels the injury which my lord of St. David's has done to the cause of popery by his writings.

The introductory address and the appendix are both in the same style, only there is more venom in the latter than in the former. In both there is a petulance, and impudent disregard of historical truth, which cannot find a parallel in the writings of any other author with which I am acquainted, except in those of his own protegee, W. Euse

bius Andrews, the Catholic Vindicator, concerning whom bishop Cameron swears, he never approved of any thing that came from that man. See Report of Trial, p. 47. Dr. Milner's style, like that of Mr. Andrews, is petulant, but never rises even to the dignity of manly sarcasm. It is more polite, indeed, more grammatical; and his vocables are better chosen and arranged; but, upon the whole, he discovers nothing of a superior, or well cultivated mind. Considering the rank and learning of the person whom he addresses, his style partakes as much of insolence as petulance; and I do not know any thing to which it can be so justly compared, as to the rudeness of ill-bred boys and girls, in the streets, who delight in throwing dirt on the clothes of such passengers as show by their dress that they are superior to themselves.

This "End of Religious Controversy," bears one of the most prominent marks of the beast in its very front; that is, downright lying and imposition. Of the bishop of St. David's the author writes as follows:"He comes forward in his episcopal mitre, bearing in his hand a new Protestant catechism, to be learned by Protestants of every description, which teaches them to hate and persecute their elder brethren, the authors of their Christianity and civilization." Page vii. In this short sentence there are several things which require animadversion; but the first and most prominent is the impudent misrepresentation, that this catechism teaches Protestants to hate and persecute their brethren. I have read it over again and again, and can assure the reader that it teaches no such thing; nor does it contain a syllable that by fair construction can be made to imply that it is right to hate and persecute any man of any sect whatever. With as much truth Dr. Milner might have said, that this catechism teaches treason, and that it recommends the confiscation of the revenues of the church, of which its author is a distinguished ornament and zealous defender. My present business, however, is not to defend the doctrine of the catechism, but merely to expose the falsehood of the vicar apostolic, and the unblushing effrontery that could make such an assertion, when he must have known that any child could detect it.

It is but fair, however, to state the ground on which Dr. Milner makes such an assertion; and we have it in the following words: "In fact, this Christian bishop begins and ends his Protestant catechism with a quotation from a Puritan regicide, declaring, that 'popery is not to be tolerated, either in public or in private, and that it must be thought how to remove it, and hinder the growth thereof;' adding, 'If they say, that by removing their idols, we violate their consciences, we have no warrant to regard conscience, which is not grounded on scripture.'" This is a quotation from the great poet Milton, which his lordship gives, in the introduction, and at the conclusion of his catechism. It is because he has quoted these words, that Dr. Milner makes the monstrous assertion above noticed, that the bishop's catechism teaches Protestants to hate and persecute their brethren. The question is not, whether Milton perfectly understood the subject of liberty of conscience. Perhaps he did not; as few men of his day understood it so well as it is generally understood now; but taking his words in the strongest and most exceptionable sense that they will bear, they imply nothing like that which Dr. Milner affects to find in them. They cannot without gross violence be made to imply, that it is right to hate and persecute Panists. The

1

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