haps, rather a sinner of their own rank; and here Dr. Milner roundly asserts, that the AUTHORS of our Christianity are the Papists who hap pened to liye in England prior to the reformation!

There is nothing in which the bishop of St. David's is more successful, and nothing in which any author could desire to be more successful, so far as the evidence of ancient history goes, than his lordship is, in proving that the original Christianity of Britain was not popery; and that the British Christians of the first six centuries had no more to do with Rome than they had with Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Alexandria, or with the man in the moon, so far as regarded authority on the one hand, and subjection on the other. But Dr. Milner, in his introductory address, without invalidating the overwhelming evidence adduced by his lordship on these points, shortly contents himself with reasserting what has been asserted and disproved a thousand times, that popery is the "ancient religion;" and that Papists were "the authors of our Christianity and civilization." Here again we have something like the impudence of a petulant boy, who, having been reproved for a lie which he had told, after having its falsehood demonstrated, holds up an unblushing face, and tells it over again. Parents and tutors have been subjected to the painful necessity of witnessing such depravity; and so must every man who shall enter into controversy with Papists. It has been proved a thousand times, that their errors are mere novelties, unknown to the Christians of the apostolic age; and yet I suppose no Papist ever wrote a hundred lines on the subject, without asserting that his religion is as old as the era of Christianity. They hope by this incessant repetition of their lie, to exhaust the patience of Protestants, and so get them to believe it for the sake of peace and quietness: and such is the simplicity of Protestants in general, that there is a probability of their being successful, as they have been with regard to their designation. It was by sheer impudence and perseverance, that they got Protestants to drop the term Papists, and call them Catholics, though they have no more right to that name than the Episcopalians of England, the Presbyterians of Scotland, or the Independents of both kingdoms.

In his postscript, Dr. Milner has a little nibbling at the bishop's authorities with regard to the religion of the ancient British; but he has not adduced a particle of evidence, to show that popery, as it is now, and has been for twelve hundred years, in Italy, was professed in this island during the first six centuries. The following statement by Judge Blackstone, prefixed to the Protestant Catechism, remains uncontroverted; and it will readily be admitted that few men were better acquainted with our national history:-"The ancient British church,

In my one hundred and seventy-fifth number, I gave an extract of a letter from a Papist in the Highlands to his son in Glasgow; which, along with some good advice, contained the boasting assertion, that his religion had existed nineteen centuries. There appears no necessity for his having introduced this, unless it be a rule with Papists that it must find a place in all that they write. Having mentioned this subject, I take the opportunity of requesting my correspondent, Z. Malcom, to read that letter over again, with my remarks upon it, and he will find that he is mistaken in supposing that I meant an unfavourable reflection against the people of the Highlands in general. What I said related exclusively to Papists, who are now more numerous in the Highlands than he seems aware of, particularly in the western parts of Inverness-shire, and in some of the islands.

by whomsoever planted, was a stranger to the bishop of Rome, and his pretended authority. But the pagan Saxon invaders having driven the professors of Christianity to the remotest corners of our island, their own conversion was afterwards effected by Augustine the monk, and other missionaries from the court of Rome. This naturally introduced some few of the papal corruptions in point of faith and doctrine; but we read of no civil authority claimed by the pope in these kingdoms till the era of the Norman conquest."-Comm. B. IV. ch. viii.

It is equally true with regard to Ireland, that popery is a mere novelty, so far at least as regards subjection to the pope, and paying him tribute. Ireland is said to have been an island of saints fourteen centuries ago; but certainly they were not Papists for many hundred years thereafter. For this we have no less than papal authority, contained in a bull of Adrian IV., inserted in the postscript to the Protestant Catechism; on which the right reverend author writes as follows: "The bull of Adrian IV., in which he gives his consent to Henry the Second's conquest of Ireland, on condition of his paying Peterpence, is a curious and important historical document, and contains indisputable evidence that popery was not the ancient religion of the Irish, not the religion of Ireland, before the middle of the twelfth century. If this fact, the modern introduction of popery into Ireland, were more generally known in that country, it might tend not a little to break that spell which blinds the eyes of the Irish Papists to the errors of the church of Rome." Then follows a quotation from Archbishop Usher, strongly expressive of the same sentiment. The archbishop had paid particular attention to the state and history of the ancient Irish, and he writes thus:- -"As far as I can collect, by such records of the former ages as have come into my hands, (either manuscript or printed,) the religion professed by the ancient bishops, priests, monks, and other Christians in this land, was for substance the very same with that which now, by public authority, is maintained therein against the foreign doctrine brought thither in latter times by the bishop of Rome's followers."

This is perfectly consistent with the fact of missionaries being sent from Rome to Ireland in the fourth and fifth centuries, supposing that to be a fact; for Rome itself was not then thoroughly papified; and the fact of receiving the gospel by the preaching of missionaries from Rome did not then imply subjection to the see of Rome, any more than the fact of America receiving the gospel from England implies subjection to the see of Canterbury.

Now the fact is,--Pope Adrian IV. knew that Henry II. of England had a great liking to Ireland, and wished to have it annexed to his dominions. Adrian accordingly issued a bull authorizing the king to invade and take forcible possession of that island, which he justified and commended by the following reason:-"Your highness' desire of extending the glory of your name on earth, and of obtaining the reward of eternal happiness in heaven, is laudable and beneficial; inasmuch as your intent is, as a Catholic prince, to enlarge the limits of the church, to declare the truth of the Christian faith to untaught and rude nations, and to eradicate vice from the field of the Lord." Nothing can be more conclusive than this. Ireland did not then belong to the church of Rome, else the conquest of it could not have tended to enlarge the

church. Ireland had not then received the religion of Rome, else the pope would not have called it an untaught and rude nation. This conclusion is confirmed by several other expressions in the bull, for which I have not room. His lordship gives this curious document in the original Latin, with a translation; and for its authenticity he refers to a host of great and well known authors; such as Giraldus Cambrensis, Matt. Paris, &c.; and there is a translation of it in Rapin's History of England, Collyer's Eccles. Hist. Great Britain, Leland's Hist. Ireland, Lord Littleton's Hist. Henry II., &c. &c.

I have to thank my Cambuslang correspondent for informing me, that the story of the six thousand skulls of infants is mentioned by Flavel, in his discourse, entitled, "Tidings from Rome," with much more shocking matter, not fit to meet the eye of a modern reader.

CHAPTER CLXXXIII.

FURTHER EXAMINATION OF DR. MILNER'S WORK. HIS CLUB OF WORTHY CHRISTIANS INTRODUCED. REMARKS UPON THEIR CHARACTER.

SATURDAY, January 12th, 1822. My last number was occupied chiefly by an exposure of the misrepresentations contained in one single sentence of the introductory address to Dr. Milner's " End of Religious Controversy." Were I to do equal justice to every sentence, were I to expose in detail every misstatement, misrepresentation, quibble, and sophistry, which this book contains, it would occupy the remainder of my life; and the vicar apostolic himself would probably not live to see an "end" of the controversy which his "End of Religious Controversy" had created. It is not my design to go so much into detail; but rather to apply my attention to a few leading principles, which may be called pillars of the great Romish temple; and if I can subvert these, the whole fabric must fall; -I mean, in argument, not in reality, for I believe the final fall of antichrist is not just yet.

I have introduced Dr. Milner as asserting that popery was the Christianity of ancient times; and that to it England was indebted for her Christianity as well as her civilization. This is a main pillar of popery; yet it cannot stand a breath of such writers as the late Archbishop Usher, and the present bishop of St. David's. It is, in fact, demolished by every Protestant writer who attacks it; yet Dr. Milner writes as if it never had been touched; and he seems to think he obtains a great triumph when he detects the following paradox in the Protestant Catechism:-"The great and fundamental paradox of the right reverend catechist is, that protestantism subsisted many hundred years before popery; at the same time that he makes its essence consist in a renunciation of, and opposition to, popery!" p. xiii. In descending to answer such a contemptible quibble, I feel as if I had returned to the Catholic Vindicator, and his "endless contradictions;" for, no doubt, Dr. Milner here insinuates that he has detected a contradiction, though it is evident he has performed no such achievement. Allowing the thing to be a paradox, as he states it, it is not a contradiction; for the Protestant religion, though as old as Christianity, in substance, has not

existed more than three hundred years, under the name of Protestant. The essence of Christianity is, to believe and confess that Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and rose again, according to the scriptures; yet the Apostle Paul said the truth, when he told his hearers, that he taught no other thing than what the prophets had written hundreds of years before Christ came into the world. Christianity is the old religion of the patriarchs and prophets, under a new dispensation and a new name; so protestantism is the religion of the primitive Christians, reformed and emancipated from the errors and the bondage of Rome. It takes its present name from the circumstance of protesting against Romish corruption and idolatry; yet it is essentially the same religion, which, under the name, Christianity, spread over a great part of the world, before there was an organized church in Rome; and far longer before any bishop of Rome had the effrontery to put himself forward as universal bishop, and head of the Catholic church.

As an example of the summary manner in which Dr. Milner disposes of some fundamental points of the controversy, take the following. He is speaking of the propriety of Papists defending themselves against the attacks of adversaries; and he says-" It is not only lawful, but also a duty which we owe to our fellow-subjects and ourselves, to repel these, charges by proving that there was reason, and religion, and loyalty, and good faith, among Christians, before Luther quarrelled with Leo X., and Henry VIII. fell in love with Ann Bulleyn." Page v. Here he undertakes to prove what nobody denies, that good principles and good conduct were always to be found among Christians; though he knows quite well that the question is about Papists; and if he means to use the terms as convertible, he is guilty of the logical vice of begging the question. But what I wish the reader particularly to attend to here, is, the impudent assumption, that the Protestant religion originated from the passions of two men. There is not a word of argument to prove that such was its origin. The vicar apostolic merely mentions the thing en passant, as a thing which all the world. knows, and which requires no proof; and yet this very thing which he tries to pass over as indisputable, is what all the world knows to be a downright falsehood. Luther had no quarrel with the pope when he began to preach against indulgences, which was the commencement of his reformation. It was the pope that first quarrelled with him, because he would not forbear exposing the wickedness of the system of indulgences, which had become a scandal to all Europe. It is equally certain that whatever might be the wickedness of Henry VIII. with regard to Ann Bulleyn, or any other woman, the reformation in England did not originate with him. For more than a century, that is, from the time of Wickliffe, the minds of the people had been gradually opening to perceive the abominable superstitions of popery. They were quite ready to throw off the yoke, before the king was ready to allow them. Had this not been the case, much as the pope thwarted his designs, he would not have been able to throw the yoke off his own shoulder. He did ultimately effect this; but so far as the reformation of religion was concerned, he was rather a hinderer than a promoter of it. It is not denied that he abolished certain superstitions, and removed many abominations from the estabVOL. II-64

lished religion; but he retained enough of the "dead fly" of popery to give a stinking savour to the whole mass of his ecclesiastical system, when his people would have delighted in a more thorough reformation, and cleansing of the church from her filthiness and her idols. If our Papists had a particle of candour, they would take the model of the reformation in England from the reign of Edward VI., against whose moral character they can find no exception; or, at least, from that of Elizabeth, when the church was established nearly as she is now; for, I suppose, there are none of her sons that defend the procedure of Henry VIII. in toto, or maintain the purity of the church as modelled by him. I have adverted to this subject not for the purpose of defending the church of England, but merely to exhibit an example of the manner in which popish writers disregard historical truth, and the impudence with which they can obtrude falsehood on the world.

But, leaving the introductory address, let us attend to the matter and design of the work itself. Dr. Milner, in order to put an end to all controversy about religion, conjures up a society of Protestants, all very candid and open to conviction, and willing to be convinced by such arguments as he is able to adduce; and as he had the making of the society as well as of the arguments, he found no difficulty in fitting the one to the other. The following is the manner in which he makes his principal creature, "James Brown, Esq., of New Cottage," introduce the subject. It is in a letter to Dr. Milner himself:

"Reverend Sir-I should need an ample apology for the liberty I take in thus addressing you, without having the honour of your acquaintance, and still more for the heavy task I am endeavouring to impose upon you, if I did not consider your public character, as a pastor of your religion, and as a writer in defence of it, and likewise your personal character for benevolence, which has been described to me by a gentleman of your communion, Mr. J. C-ne, who is well acquainted with us both. Having mentioned this, I need only add, that I write to you in the name of a society of serious and worthy Christians of different persuasions, to which society I myself belong, who are as desirous as I am to receive satisfaction from you on certain doubts which your late work in answer to Dr. Sturges has suggested to us.'

66

'However, in making this request of our society to you, it seems proper, reverend sir, that I should bring you acquainted with it; by way of convincing you, that it is not unworthy of the attention, which I am desirous you should pay to it. We consist then of about twenty persons, including the ladies, who, living at some distance from any considerable town, meet together once a week, generally at my habitation of New Cottage; not so much for our amusement and refection, as for the improvement of our minds, by reading the best publications of the day which I can procure from my London bookseller, and sometimes an original essay written by one of the company.

"I have signified that many of us are of different religious persuasions: this will be seen more distinctly from the following account of our members. Among these I must mention, in the first place, our learned and worthy rector, Dr. Carey. He is of course of the church of England; but, like most others of his learned and dignified brethren, "Letters to a Prebendary, in answer to Reflections on Popery, by the Rev. Dr. Sturges, Prebendary and Chancellor of Windsor."