for he was not only "consenting unto the death" of Servetus, but an active promoter of it. CRANMER was not tolerant; for he prevailed upon King Edward VI. to condemn men, for their opinions, to the stake; and when he himself was in his turn called to suffer, though in testimony of the fervor of his repentance, with a fortitude almost beyond human nature, he held his own hand in the fire till it was consumed, because it had once signed a recantation of his faith; he never seemed to have recollected it as an offence that he had in his turn lighted the flames of persecution.→ Let it not be thought that these facts are cited to lower the characters of these venerable men; they are adduced only to shew that in that age one spirit actuated both the Protestant and the Catholic; and to both might the rebuke of their common Master have been applied-" Ye know not what manner of spirit ye

are of."

If the annals of our country be consulted with an unprejudiced eye, in order to trace the progress of persecution for religious opinion, I am afraid, notwithstanding the tumid declamations which we are still occasionally doomed to hear about bloody Queen Mary and the

language much more violent. In one of his theses he observes If we dispatch thieves by the Gallows, Hereticks by Fire, why do we not rather attack with all kind of arms these masters of perdition, these Cardinals, these Popes, and all this sink of the Romish Sodom which corrupts without ceasing the Church of God, and wash our hands in their blood?"

*There is extant among the epistles of the Reformer of Geneva, one addrest to the Protector Somerset, dated October 22, 1548. He tells the Duke that he has been informed respecting two sorts of troublesome people in England. One called Gospellers, the other party smitten with the old Superstition. He recommends to the Protector, that both feel the weight of a severe correction, and have the Magistrate's avenging sword drawn upon them.

fires of Smithfield, that the Catholics will be found to be a body" more sinned against than siuning." I trust that it will not be supposed that I am forgetful of the true, though trite maxim, that "two wrongs will not make a right," or that I object to the justice of the epithet with which her name is generally connected. No! bloody let her still be calledlet her name be still handed down to infamy. But let not her guilty spirit be conjured up in this our day, to palliate persecution, however insidiously veiled, against others. Nor let it be forgotten that if this merciless woman condemned to the stake so many Protestant martyrs, her sister, equally regardless of the sacred rights of conscience, consigned to the rack and the gibbet, numbers of Catholic confessors, who appear to have been as purely devoted to the salvation of their fellow-creatures, and to have manifested as intrepid a character in maintaining their faith, and in suffering for it, when they were called upon to suffer; as humble resignation to the will of God, and as meek a spirit towards their persecutors, as any of the illustrious martyrs of Protestantism. 'Unless bigotry have perverted the natural current of feeling, the mind cannot fail to respect those who yielded up their lives rather than renounce their faith, even though that faith may be erroneous. The humane heart will be equally harrowed in tracing the records of the Catholic or the Protestant martyrology; and the only alleviation that can be suggested during the perusal of such horrors, must arise from the hope that both Protestant and Catholic have now better" learned Christ."

The facts stated in the last paragraph may perhaps at first excite some surprise. We are in the habit for the most part, of tracing the history of these periods in

the

the Protestant annalists only.* A very different picture is presented to the mind when the historians of the persecuted sect are consulted.+ Another circumstance which has veiled the real truth has been this. In the brief, notices which we sometimes meet with of the execution of a Catholic Priest, we are informed that he suffered for treason. The historian neglects to inform

* Yet Osborne, who was a Protestant, speaking of the reign of Elizabeth, acknowledges that "against the poor Catholics nothing in relation to the generality, remains upon due proof, sufficient to justify the severity of laws daily enacted and put in : execution against them."

The Memoirs of the Missionary Priests have recorded the names and histories of 124 priests and 63 laymen and women, who suffered death in England for their religion between 1577 and 1603; and the bloody catalogue of those who underwent a similar fate between 1603 and 1684 is equally numerous. As these sufferers were, for the most part, indicted for Treason, they were in general sentenced to the tremendous punishment which the laws inflict upon that crime; which was executed with a degree of severity, and with circumstances of horror which the more merciful spirit of the present age would not endure. Many of them, for instance, were cut down before life was extinguished, in order to be dismembered, &c. That several were racked previously to their public trials is admitted by the author of "The Execution of Justice in England," a work written in vindication of the proceedings of Government against the Catholics; though he asserts that these rackings were not for matters of religion, but for treason; and, were not so severe as Catholics pretended." This statement, however, is contradicted by Catholic writers, who state as a known fact, that many were tortured to declare when and where they had heard Mass, what had been heard in confession, who harboured Catholics and priests, where Catholic books were printed, &c. The account of these horrible transactions seems to be very candidly drawn up; for the name of a Catholic gentleman executed at Lancaster in the year 1583 is excluded from the list of these confessors; "because," says the compiler, "his case was different from that of all other Catholics who suffered at those times; for both at his arraignment and at his death he denied the Queen (Elizabeth) to be his lawful Sovereign.”

inform us that in an immense majority of instances, this treason consisted only in denying the Queen's Ecclesiastical Supremacy. A point which a conscientious Catholic could no more concede at that period, than the Presbyterians in Scotland, or the Dissenters in England, could in the present day.*

Such would be the results of an impartial review, even of the English annals; but if we turn to those of Ireland, poor unhappy Ireland! how are the dismal hues of the picture deepened and aggravated. There is no instance, even in the Ten Persecutions, of such severity as that which the Protestants of Ireland have exercised against the Catholics. Shall I be told that this language is extravagant? I can only say that it is not mine: it is not the language of a Protestant Dissenter it is that of a man, the fervour of whose attachment to the Church of England and his zeal for her honor were never questioned, either during his life or since his death. It is the language of Doctor Samuel Johnson. Upon another occasion he observed that those who could cry out Popery in the present day, would have cried "Fire" in the time of the Deluge.+

C

28

* Although it will, in some degree, anticipate a topic which will be more fully discussed hereafter, I cannot forbear observing in this place, that many of these unfortunate victims to Protestant persecution, were offered their lives when under the gallows, provided they would acknowledge the Queen's Ecclesiastical Supremacy, and the condition was, almost in every instance, rejected. I would ask those who so boldly assert that the Catholic Church has always claimed a dispensing power, to explain, upon any of the common motives of human action, why these men should be consigned to their fate with such indifference, by their ecclesiastical superiors, and should themselves submit to it with such resignation, when the exercise of a little mental reservation would have prevented the bloody tragedy altogether.

The reader will be better enabled to decide upon the extravagance or the justice of these sentiments, when he has run

But it would extend this letter to too great a length were I to pursue this part of my subject farther.

over the following abstract of the Irish penal code against popery; for which I am indebted to the 13th vol. of the Edinburgh Review." The war carried on in Ireland against King William was terminated by the surrender of Limerick, upon conditions by which the Catholics hoped, and very rationally hoped, to secure to themselves the free enjoyment of their reliligion in future, and an exemption from all those civil penalties and incapacities which the reigning creed is so fond of heaping upon its subjugated rivals.

By the various articles of this treaty, they are to enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion, as they did enjoy in the time of Charles II.: and the King promises, upon the meeting of Parliament, to endeavour to procure for them such further security in that particular, as may preserve them from any disturbance on account of their said religion.' They are to be restored to their estates, privileges and immunities, as they enjoyed them in the time of Charles II. The gentlemen are to be allowed to carry arms; and no other oath is to be tendered to the Catholics who submit to King William, than the oath of allegiance. These, and other articles, King William ratifies for himself, his heirs and successors, as far as in him lies; and confirms the same, and every other clause and matter therein contained.

These articles were signed by the English general on the 3d of October 1691, and diffused comfort, confidence, and tranquillity among the Catholics. On the 22d of October, the English Parliament excluded Catholics from the Irish Houses of Lords and Commons, by compelling them to take the oaths of supremacy before admission.

In 1695, the Catholics were deprived of all means of educating their children, at home or abroad, and of the privilege of being guardians to their own or other person's children. Then all the Catholics were disarmed,-and then all the priests banished.After this (probably by way of joke) an act was passed to confirm the treaty of Limerick, the great and glorious King William totally forgetting the contract he had entered into, of recom mending the religious liberties of the Catholics to the attention of Parliament.

On the 4th of March 1704, it was enacted, that [any son of a Catholic, who would turn Protestant, should succeed to the fa

mily