nately not confined to Catholic writers.* The learned Bossuet has been accused, and not without some shew of reason, of defending this doctrine of magisterial interferencet in the suppression of heresy; but it should be remembered, that the arguments used by the Bishop of Meaux, in defence of this hateful tenet, are not drawn from any article of faith, or any decree of Council,

* The defenders of the Catholic faith in these days write with much more candour, and allow of a much greater latitude of explication in definitions of heresy, and heretics, than did the writers of earlier times. See " Charity and Truth; or Catholics not uncharitable in saying that none can be saved out of the Catholic Church," by the Rev. Dr. Edward Hawarden. It is a thick 8vo. vol. published in 1809. The reader may also peruse with advantage, a little pamphlet, published at Gloucester, in 1811, entitled "The Protestant's best Guide," &c. But above all, he should read the Miscellaneous Tracts of the Rev. Arthur O'Leary, particularly the Essay on Toleration. There is an almost irresistible strain of wit and irony in this gentleman's writings, mixed, in some instances, with that tincture of sophism for which the priestly defenders of the faith are but too conspicuous. In his Defence of the Divinity of Christ, a subject, which, more than any other, has a tendency to "try the spirits" of our Christian controvertists, he is quite as liberal as most of the Protestant advocates of the same doctrine.

When magistrates are engaged in preserving the peace, and protecting the innocent, they ought to be had in the highest veneration and respect; but when they depart from the proper line of their office to lay their hands on religion, "whatever they touch they fly-blow, and leave it to ferment and fester;" a figure once most unjustly applied against the laborious ministers of Methodism. See Annual Repiew, vol. i art. Myles's Chronological History of the Methodists.

but, as Dr. Milner* properly remarks, “ by an argumentum ad hominem, or a reference to the doctrine of the founders, and other most illustrious writers of the Reformation on the point in question." The passage referred to in Bossuet,† has, perhaps, been misunderstood by Bishop Hurd, and his copier, Dr. Sturges;§ and this misunderstanding has arisen out of a supposed false translation of the French word souffrance, which, Dr. Sturges contends, means toleration, and not suffering; and the connexion in which the word stands would appear to countenance such an application of the term. "There is no need," says Bossuet, "of explaining myself on the question, whether or no Christian princes have a right to use the sword against such of their subjects as are enemies to sound doctrine and the Church, the Protestants agreeing with us on that point." He then cites Luther,¶ Me

* Letters to a Prebendary, p. 117.

+ Variations, book x. sect. 56. p. 52. Eng. translation. Introduction to the Prophecies, p. 381.

§ Reflections on Popery, pp. 55, 56.

The truth is, that this word is used in both senses; yet, all its derivatives seem to convey no other idea than that of patient suffering. Besides, our English word toleration is not rendered into French by the word souffrance, but tolérance; yet the French word tolérable means that which is allowable, or which may be tolerated,

Luth. de Magist. T. iii.

lancthon,* and Jurieu,† as also the established discipline of the Reformed Church of Geneva, in support of his assertion and opinion; and concludes by saying,-" Il n'y point d'illusion. plus dangereuse, que donner la souffrance pour un charactere de vraye eglise." There cannot be a more dangerous illusion, than to regard suffering (or patient endurance) as a characteristic of the true Church; "nor do I know," he adds, "amongst Christians, any besides Socinians and Anabaptists, who oppose this doctrine."‡ But if Bossuet, or any other writer, have defended this execrable opinion, to what does it amount? Certainly not, that it is taught in the creeds, catechisms, and devotions of all Roman Catholics; and I contend, that no article is considered as a tenet of the Church, that is not so conveyed.

The tenth book of Bossuet's " Variations," from which I have been quoting, treats princi

* Calvin opusc. p. 659. Ibid. 600, 659.

Jur. Lyst. ii. c. 22. 33.

If the Bishop of Meaux did indeed mean, by the word souffrance what we generally understand by toleration, the Socinians and Anabaptists ought to feel grateful for the undesigned compliment. Would to God that all Christians would be careful to number among the " Notes of the Church" this divine right of unbounded toleration, or rather of unlimited freedom in matters purely religious!

pally of "the Reformation in England, during the reign of queen Elizabeth, and on the civil wars of France, which he accuses her of fomenting, and which, he affirms, were produced by a leading principle of the early Reformers, that it is lawful for subjects to levy war against their Sovereign, on account of religion ;"* a position as false, and almost as dangerous, as the one I have been reprobating. It is not, however, to the opinions of this or that individual Doctor, Bishop, Pope, or Priest, that we are to look for the genuine doctrines of the Church. No communion admits a more extended range of speculation, or a more unlimited freedom of mere opinion, on points not universally admitted as articles of divine faith, than the Communion of the Church of Rome. To this day, various are the differences on minor points of religious opinion, and on several branches of Christian discipline, among Catholics; and warm, I wish I could not add, sometimes even bitter and acrimonious, are the disputes which they maintain among themselves.† To take the opinions, therefore, of any one man,

* See Mr. Butler's interesting "Account of the Life and Writings of James Benigne Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux," p. 71.

In collecting the materials for this work, I have amassed a vast pile of Catholic Controversy in pamphlets, and larger volumes, that would surprise, perhaps, undeceive, many Protestants, who imagine that Catholics never differ but they damn; never dispute but they divide. They form no part of

the

or of any number of men, short of the universal Church, as articles of faith, were to the highest degree improper and erroneous.

But it will be contended, that the practice of Catholics in all ages, has been to prosecute and destroy heretics; and that the various laws enacted and acted upon by the Church clearly manifest that persecution is indeed a genuine article of the Catholic Church; and that if it were not so, those princes, and others who have persecuted, would have been censured by the Church for their cruelty and disobedience. This objection would have considerable weight if the prac tice had existed to the same extent, at all times, by all princes, and in all places; and if persecuting princes had never received any censures for their cruelty. But neither of these cases can be made out. It would also deserve a more minute investigation were the practice of persecution peculiar to Roman Catholics; but neither is this true for even Protestants have practised and defended persecution, by fire and sword; and have written large books in support of their measures and tenets.*" One would indeed have

the picture I engaged to draw, and I have not thought it ne; cessary to portray these differences on the same canvas which is occupied by a delineation of the religion of Roman Catholics.

* See particularly, "A Declaration for maintaining the