ants are right, and the popular feeling wrong (though certainly it is more likely that they should be right who have impartially studied the matter, than those who have nothing whatever to say for their belief but that they have ever been taught it), but, at least, it will make it undeniable, that those who do not know there are two sides of the question (that is, the bulk of the English nation), are violent because they are ignorant, and that Catholics are treated with scorn and injustice simply because, though they have a good deal to say in their defence, they have never patiently been heard.

For instance, the simple notion of most people is, that Christianity was very pure in its beginning, very corrupt in the middle age, and very pure in England now, though still corrupt every where else; that in the middle age, a tyrannical institution, called the Church, arose and swallowed up Christianity; that that Church is alive still, and has not yet disgorged its prey, except, as aforesaid, in our own favoured country; but in the middle age, there was no Christianity any where at all, but all was dark, and horrible, as bad as paganism, or rather much worse. No one knew any thing about God, or whether there was a God or no, nor about Christ or His atonement; for the blessed Virgin, and saints, and the Pope, and images, were worshipped instead; and thus, so far from religion benefitting the generations of mankind who lived in that dreary time, it did them indefinitely more harm than good. Thus the Homilies of the Church of England say, that "in the pit of damnable idolatry all the world, as it were, drowned, continued until our age" (that is, the Reformation), "by the space of above 800 years ... so that laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of men, women, and children, of

whole Christendom (an horrible and most dreadful thing to think), have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry, of all other vices most detested of God, and most damnable to man." Accordingly it is usual to identify this period with that time of apostasy which is predicted in Scripture, the Pope being the man of sin, and the Church being the mother of abominations, mentioned in the Apocalypse. Thus Bishop Newton says, "In the same proportion as the power of the [Roman] empire decreased, the authority of the Church increased, the latter at the expense and ruin of the former; till at length the Pope grew up above all, and the wicked one' was fully manifested and revealed,' or the 'lawless one,' as he may be called; for the Pope is declared again and again not to be bound by any law of God or man." "The tyrannical power thus described by Daniel and St. Paul, and afterwards by St. John, is, both by ancients and moderns, generally denominated Antichrist, and the name is proper and expressive enough, as it may signify both the enemy of Christ and the vicar of Christ 1." "The mind of Europe was prostrated at the feet of a priest," says a dissenting writer. "The stoutest hearts quailed at his frown. Seated on the throne of blasphemy, he spake great words against the Most High,' and 'thought to change times and laws.' Many hated him, but all stood in awe of his power. Like Simon Magus, he bewitched the people." Like Nebuchadnezzar, 'whom he would he slew."" I need not give you the trouble of listening to more of such language, which you may buy by the yard at the first publisher's shop you fall in with. Thus it is the man paints the lion. Go

1 Dissert. 22.

into the first Protestant church, or chapel, or public meeting which comes in your way, you will hear it from the pulpit or the platform. The Church (who can doubt it?) is a sorceress, intoxicating the nations with a goblet of blood.

However, all are not satisfied to learn by rote what they are to affirm on matters so important, and to feed all their life long on the traditions of the nursery. They examine for themselves, and then forthwith we have another side of the question in dispute. For instance, I say, hear what that eminent Protestant historian, M. Guizot, who was lately Prime Minister of France, says of the Church in that period, in which she is reported by our popular writers to have been most darkened and corrupted. You will observe, what makes his remarks the stronger, that, being a Protestant, he does not believe the Church really to have been set up by Christ Himself, as a Catholic does, but to have taken her present form in the middle age; and he contrasts, in the extract I am about to read, the pure Christianity of Primitive times, with that later Christianity, as he considers it, which took an ecclesiastical shape.

"If the Church had not existed," he observes, "I know not what would have occurred during the decline of the Roman empire. I confine myself to purely human considerations, I cast aside every element foreign to the natural consequence of natural facts, and I say that, if Christianity had only continued, as it was in the early ages-a belief, a sentiment, an individual conviction,-it is probable it would have fallen amidst the dissolution of the empire, during the invasion of the barbarians. . I do not think I say too much when I affirm, that, at the

close of the fourth, and the commencement of the fifth century, the Christian Church was the salvation of Christianity 2."

In like manner, Dr. Waddington, the present Protestant Dean of Durham, in his Ecclesiastical History, observes to the same purport; "At this crisis,” viz. "when the Western Empire was overthrown, and occupied by unbelieving barbarians," "at this crisis it is not too much to assert, that the Church was the instrument of heaven for the preservation of the religion. Christianity itself, unless miraculously sustained, would have been swept away from the surface of the West, had it not been rescued by an established body of ministers, or had that body been less zealous or less influential." And then he goes on to mention six special benefits which the Church of the middle ages conferred on the world; viz. first, she provided for the exercise of charity; secondly, she inculcated the moral duties by means of her penitential discipline; thirdly, she performed the office of legislation in an admirable way; fourthly, she unceasingly strove to correct the vices of the existing social system, setting herself especially against the abomination of slavery; fifthly, she laboured anxiously in the prevention of crime and of war; and lastly, she has preserved to these ages the literature of the ancient world.”

Now, without entering into the controversy about idolatry, sorcery, and blasphemy, which concerns matters of opinion, are these Protestant testimonies which relate to matters of fact, compatible with such imputations? Can blasphemy and idolatry be the salvation of Christianity? Can sorcery be the promoter of charity, morality, and social improvement? Yet, in spite of the fact of these 2 Europ. Civ., p. 56, Beckwith.

contrary views of the subject; in spite of the nursery and school-room authors being against us, and the manly and original thinkers being in our favour, you will hear it commonly spoken of as notorious that the Church in the middle ages was a witch, a liar, a profligate, a seducer, and a bloodthirsty tyrant; and we, who are her faithful children, are superstitious and slavish, because we entertain some love and reverence for her, who, as a number of her opponents confess, was then, as she is now, the mother of peace, and humanity, and order.

So much for the middle ages; next I will take an instance of modern times. If there is any set of men in the whole world who are railed against as the pattern of all that is evil, it is the Jesuit body. It is vain to ask their slanderers what they know of them; did they ever see a Jesuit? can they say whether they are many or few? what do they know of their teaching? "Oh! it is quite notorious," they reply; "you might as well deny the sun in heaven; it is notorious that the Jesuits are a crafty, intriguing, unscrupulous, desperate, murderous, and exceedingly able body of men; a secret society, ever plotting against liberty, and government, and progress, and thought, and the prosperity of England. Nay, it is awful; they disguise themselves in a thousand shapes, as men of fashion, farmers, soldiers, labourers, butchers, and pedlers; they prowl about with handsome stocks, and stylish waistcoats, and gold chains about their persons, or in fustian jackets, as the case may be; and they do not hesitate to shed the blood of any one whatever, prince or peasant, who stands in their way." Who can fathom the inanity of such statements? which are made, and therefore, I suppose, believed, not merely by the ignorant, but by educated men, who ought to know better,