vourable to the reformed doctrines, and that she only evaded the danger by a fortunate presence of mind? This tyrant was undoubtedly an instrument in the hand of Providence to bring ahout the happy change which followed; but there is no gratitude due to him for the boon. If King Henry was a Protestant, King Pharaoh may be styled one of the conductors of the Israelites to the land of promise.

It excites somewhat more than astonishment to mark the charges which the partizan of Rome presses down into the Protestant scale, whilst he is weighing the atrocities of the contending religionists; hoping, as it should seem, that his ponderous pen, like the sword of the ancient Roman, will sink the sins of the heretics, and make the light offences of the calumniated Catholics kick the beam. I can believe that a scratch on a man's own finger may be borne with less patience, than the amputation of a neighbour's limb. It can be on this principle only, that the tender-hearted Layman feels so acutely the sufferings of the Catholics from their Protestant adversaries; whilst he views, with tolerable composure, the cruelties exercised on the Lollards in England,—the butchery of the Albigenses and Valdenses, the horrible massacre of St Bartholomew, -the exploits of Alva in the Netherlands, the flames lit up by Queen Mary, the slaughter of the Protestants in Ireland, in the time of Charles I.,—the miseries caused by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes,-the acts of the Roman Catholic Parliament of King James II. in Ireland, and the tortures continued down to our own times in the dungeons of the Inquisition. His rhetoric fails to persuade me, (and will scarcely prevail with others,) that the examples of breach of faith, so glaringly shewn by Queen Mary and King James II.to their Protestant subjects, are not conclusive as to the expectation of Catholics in power performing their promises to heretics; nor am I yet convinced that the "whispering humbleness," which the Roman Catholic Priesthood affects at present amongst us, would be expressed with the same "bated breath," if the rod of power was once more placed in their hands. But the Catholic Layman illustrates the subject of keeping faith with heretics so admira

bly, when he discusses the case of John Huss, that I cannot help thanking him for presenting a perfect specimen of the genius and spirit of Catholicism. He proves himself to be a thorough-bred disciple of that school; and I am tempted to say to the Protestant spectator, as I point him out to particular observation, Ab uno disce omnes!

Let me not, however, be misunderstood. I mean to include in the class, of which the Layman is the representative, only the narrow-minded and the bigotted, those babes and sucklings of their Holy Mother, who resign into her hands every particle of their reason, and swallow, without flinching, all the theological panada with which she may think fit to cram them. Amongst the English Roman Catholics, I am satisfied there are very many persons whose intellect will not submit to this priestly sagination,-whose liberal minds hesitate to believe the exclusion of all the rest of mankind from eternal happiness. For many individuals of the Catholic body, I cherish a cordial regard,-for some, a warm affection,-nay, for some of the ministers of that religion, I entertain a high respect. I reverence worth in all situations, whether under a triple crown or a mitre, in a Ganganelli or a Fenelon, or in a humble Curé in exile, compelled to receive his daily bread from the hands of heretics, or in a good Catholic pastor, who well performs his duty to his little English flock. Among these may be found hearts which recoil at the intolerant dogmas of their brethren, however high the authority may be on which they are supported. But it is not against such men that we are to be on our guard; it is not the liberal, the reasonable, the intelligent, who usually, in political or religious tempests, guide the whirlwind and direct the storm. The mention of a persecuted priest brings to my mind a question triumphantly asked by the Catholic Layman, referring to my assertion, that even an atheist in power would not distress us with the spectacle of an Auto-da-Fê. "Have you forgot," says he," the horrors of the French Revolution?" I certainly have not. That event is too recent, and too striking, to slip so easily from the memory, and I am old enough to be contemporary with more distant transactions.

I am moreover willing to allow that those scenes of blood were performed by atheistical zealots. The Revolution itself was in a great degree brought about, (though other causes combined) by atheistical, or at least infidel, French writers, calling themselves philosophers. But let me ask in my turn, what was it that gave rise to these pernicious publications? They derived their origin from no other source than the absurd superstition and intolerable tyranny of the Church of Rome. Folly had placed power in the hands of the priesthood. Hence it was that Galileo in Italy was compelled to renounce, as a damnable heresy, those discoveries which are now admitted by the whole civilized world; happy in having his books only consigned to the flames, from which his submission with difficulty saved the astronomer himself. Hence it was, that in France the innocent Calas was broken on the wheel for the alleged murder of his Catholic son, who committed suicide; reason and truth contending in vain for the acquittal of a Protestant against the rancorous bigotry of Roman Catholic judges. This horrible despotism of ignorance excited the acute minds of Voltaire, Rousseau, and others, to vindicate the cause of humanity, and of the freedom of the human understanding. The same causes which set the more sober spirit of Wycliffe in England, and Luther in Germany, patiently to investigate truth, and to prune away the noxious shoots sprouting from the vine of Christianity, urged the volatile genius of Frenchmen to endeavour to destroy both root and branch of that excellent tree, which, from bad cultivation, had produced such abominable fruit. For a time this design seemed almost effected in France, but the horrors of this dreadful explosion were at least of a milder kind than the infliction of mistaken religious ardour. The votaries of the Goddess of Reason, of Mammon, or of Power, all of whom had their share in exciting this awful commotion, were content to pillage and to murder. They kept indeed the guillotine in constant requisition-they swept away multitudes with their grape-shot-theychoked their rivers with their noyades; but all their work of slaughter fell short of those refinements of torture, of that studied protraction of human agony, which have been the pride of

the disciples of St Dominic, and which have been so often exhibited for the edification of the faithful in different parts of Europe.

But to return to John Huss, and our Catholic correspondent.-"In fact," says this astute casuist, "the Council of Constance no more violated the safeconduct or passport granted to Huss by the Emperor Sigismond, by depriving him of his ecclesiastical functions, declaring his propositions to be heretical, and leaving him to the judgment of the state, than any court of law could be said to do, which had tried and condemned a man on charges proved against him, to refute which he had voluntarily agreed to submit himself to its tribunal, on condition of receiving proper protection against any supposed violation of the law in his person previous to trial, and after, if duly acquitted."

The opinion of Usher is quoted to prove that Huss had no cause of complaint against the Emperor or the Holy Synod; and the former, we are told by the Catholic Layman, condescended expressly to explain to the heretic that his safe-conduct had not been violated. I have not at hand the works of the Primate of Ireland, and therefore I neither contradict nor allow the accuracy of this statement. Such an opinion appears a little extraordinary from an opponent of Popish doctrines, so strenuous as to be averse even to their toleration. If Usher really defends the Emperor and the Council, it would be difficult to find another Protestant of the same sentiments, from the days of Huss to the present hour. Let us try the question by the simple rules of common sense. Huss being accused of heretical opinions, and summoned to a general Council to give an account of them, sends for answer, that he has no objection to declare his doctrines freely, and to profit by the assembled wisdom of Christendom, in order to correct any errors he may have imbibed; but that he will not appear, unless he obtains a promise of safety under the word of the Emperor himself. His request is granted, and he presents himself before the Council, by whose command he is immediately committed to prison, is subjected to what they call a trial, and is condemned and executed. Can anything be more idle than to suppose that he asked for this protection merely during

his journey to the court, and for his safe return in case of an acquittal? With all the artlessness of his character, he could not be ignorant of the fierce malevolence of his enemies, whom he had grievously offended by exposing their scandalous vices. This, in fact, appears to be the great cause of his persecution, for his deviation from the Catholic creed seems to have been very slight. He had even stepped over that great stumbling-block, the mysterious doctrine of transubstantiation, which our correspondent tells us with some surprise, many Protestants are so ignorant as to be unable to explain. But John Huss well knew the foes with whom he had to deal, and therefore secured, as he thought, his personal safety, by the sacred tie of an imperial promise. The insidious snare, and the nominal trial, were conducted with one and the same spirit. Condemnation to the flames followed as a matter of course; and however clear the emperor's exposition of the case might be, the explanation appears not to have been entirely satisfactory to the poor victim. He bore his fate nevertheless with the resignation and fortitude worthy of a primitive Christian. This opinion of Sigismond's conduct will appear from one of his letters written a little before his death, and which was conveyed to his friends by some Bohemian noblemen who visited him in his prison. "My dear friends," says he, "let me take this opportunity of exhorting you to trust in nothing here, but to give yourselves up entirely to the service of God. Well am I authorised to warn you not to trust in princes, or in any child of man, for there is no help in them. God only remaineth steadfast; what he promises he will undoubtedly perform.

For

myself, in this gracious promise I rest. Having endeavoured to be his faithful servant, I fear not being deserted by him. 'Where I am,' says the gracious Promiser, there shall my servant be.' May the God of heaven preserve you! This is probably the last letter I shall be enabled to write. I have reason to believe I shall be called upon to-morrow to answer with my life. Sigismond hath in all things acted deceitfully. I pray God forgive him." Who would not give implicit credence to the words of this pious and patient martyr, when on the verge of eternity, rather than listen to the glosses of emperors, or

bishops, or laymen, who labour to defend his barbarous persecutors! To excite still greater abhorrence against the Council of Constance, I might have added the similar fate which Jerome of Prague received from this execrable consistory. Jerome, however, in some degree made himself a voluntary sacrifice; and though his death equally displays the cruelty of the tribunal, his condemnation was not accompanied by that detestable and despicable treachery which attaches to the case of Huss.

To demonstrate the innocent and gentle character of these Synods, and of the Church by which they were appointed, that pure snow, which " cannot escape calumny," the Layman proceeds. "But you say, sir, that Huss was burned by desire of the Council. This I positively deny, and I prove my assertion by referring to the Acts of the Council. It having been manifestly proved,' says the decree, that John Huss did publicly preach and teach many scandalous, seditious, and dangerous heresies, and as it is apparent from all that the Council has seen, heard, and known, that John Huss is stubborn and incorrigible, and that he will not return into the pale of the Holy Mother the Church, by abjuring the errors and heresies which he had publicly maintained and preached, this sacred Council of Constance declares and decrees, that the said John Huss ought to be deposed and degraded from the order of the priesthood,' &c. The deposition and degradation having accordingly taken place, the Council afterwards declared that John Huss ought to be delivered over to the secular arm, and does actually deliver him over to it, considering that the Church of God has nothing more to do with him. Now, sir, can any thing be more plain than this, that the Council passed no sentence of death upon Huss, and that there was no Ecclesiastical law inflicting such punishment, when it is admitted by the decree itself, that the church could do nothing further than by deposing, and degrading him?"-Compassionate souls!-honest, simple, Catholic Layman; what a worthy subject is he for the tuition of his infallible guides! He believes, without doubt, that these soft-hearted Ecclesiastics were not at all aware that the secular arm to whose care the degraded wretch was commit

ted, with whom the church had nothing more to do, stood ready to bind him to the stake, and that the faggots and the torch were ready prepared for his extermination! If the Layman can hope thus to impose on the understanding of others, he must have made an extraordinary estimate of their intellect, or his own head must be as well furnished as that of his wooden namesake, who supports the drapery at the side of a painter's easel!-Let us, however, beware of mistakes. Has the Roman Catholic Church verily and indeed an aversion to punish heresy with death? I read this merciful disposition asserted in books of modern date; I hear it advanced by the learned teachers of that religion;—and the Catholic Layman of Edinburgh holds up both his hands against the calumniator who charges her with this propensity, and with the detestable doctrine of absolving the subjects of heretical sovereigns from their allegiance.

Let us carefully consult grave authority, which can plainly inform us touching these matters, without the trouble of sending to Salamanca, Valladolid, or even Paris, for a solution. Who can decide better than the angelic Doctor, so much praised by the learned Layman? He will doubtless impart to us the pure unsophisticated doctrines of the Catholic Church. Hasty writers may quote authorities par hazard, as may suit their purpose; but let us, eschewing such random assertions, brush off the dust and cobwebs from the huge folio of St Thomas's lacubrations, and report what is actually found in that sacred oracle of scholastic wisdom. I naturally turn to the 2d part of the 2d division of this great divine's principal work, Summa totius Theologiæ, as being that wherein he particularly considers the subject of heresy. Here I find the identity of heresy and infidelity fully ascertained, and infidelity denounced as the greatest of sins.

As your readers, Mr North, might be fatigued with too prolix a display of the subtile disquisitions of the voluminous Saint, my extracts shall be as brief as possible. Having given some latitude to Jews and Gentiles, who have never embraced the faith, he recommends that wanderers who have strayed from the orthodox flock should be reclaimed by wholesome compulsion:-if they continue obstinate, he prescribes how to dispose of these stray

sheep. In his usual method, he brings an objector to start an argument, viz. that St Paul, in his second Epistle to Timothy, says, "And the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient. In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give these repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. But if," says this shrewd avocat du diable, "heresies are not to be tolerated, but delivered to death, the power of repentance is taken away from them, which therefore seems against the word of the Apostle." To this specious reasoning the Angel of the Schools decisively answers-" The sin of these persons not only deserves excommunication from the church, but exclusion from the world by death. For falsifying the faith is a much greater offence than counterfeiting the coin, which secular princes justly punish with death; so may they punish those convicted of heresy. But such is the mercy of the church to the conversion of those who stray, that it does not immediately condemn them, till after a first and second admonition, as the Apostle directs in his Epistle to Titus. If he is then obstinate, the church, despairing of his conversion, provides for the safety of others, by separating him from others by a sentence of excommunication; and then leaves him to the judgment of the secular power, to be exterminated from the world (per modum is the Saint's phrase, which probably means) in the usual manner." To enforce his argument he quotes Jerome "Resecandæ sunt putrida carnes, et scabiosa ovis e caulis repellenda, ne tota domus, massa, corpus, et pecora ardeant, corrumpantur, putrescant, intergant." This is a tolerably clear exposition of St Thomas's promises to inferior heretics, which he was probably well disposed to fulfil with all the sincerity which the Catholic Layman ascribes to his character. Let us now see how he treats the shepherds of the people, (I use the term in the Homeric, and not in the ecclesiastical sense,) who may unfortunately be affected by this contagious stain by which their flocks are contaminated.

The 2d division of the 12th Question expressly treats of this matter. He