"testantism." In a trifling publication * I have inserted a comparison ; -I confess it to be on a very small scale, of "the writers in the British æra of literature," with those of "the era of " Lewis XIV." It does not appear to me quite clear, that on a general comparison of the arts, the sciences, and the literature of both territories, the balance would prove so greatly in favour of England, as the English seem to take for granted. All foreigners observe that England possesses her due share of soli-ipsiism. The state of literature in Spain is truly respectable. Is there more literature in Sweden, Norway and Denmark? Doctor Clarke, in his travels through Sweden, observes that "the religious con"troversy in which that state was involved, arrested "the progress of letters for almost a century." Permit me to assure You, that Greek literature is " not," as you assert, " almost extinct in Italy;" and when you write, that "sacred literature has "been little cultivated by the Romanists, "--I read and admire. Rivington's Catalogue, alone, particularly that part of it which relates to sacred literature, completely confutes this assertion. Referring you to what I have stated succinctly in my twelfth letter to Doctor Southey, and more at length in my "Essay on the Discipline of the "Church of Rome, respecting the General Perusal * Reminiscences; XXXI. 3. + See Capmany Teatro Historico Critico de la Eloquencia Española ;---Bouterwek's History of Spanish Literature. " in the vulgar Tongue by the Laity," I beg leave to say, that your account of these restraints is unmercifully exaggerated. Having lived long in France, and being well acquainted with the literary and devotional habits of that people, I aver, without the slightest fear of refutation, that the Bible was as much read and understood in France as in England. Nova Butorasideda I will admit, that it was not read at so early an age in France, as it is by English Protestants. But, absit invidia verbo, I will presume to say, that, taking a Protestant boy of the age of ten years, who has read the Bible in the manner in which it is usually read before that age in England, and a Catholic boy of the same age. who has been taught the French catechism, and particularly "Fleury's Historical Catechism," in the manner in which they were usually taught in France, -the latter will be found to have quite as full and as clear a knowledge of the history, the morality, and the religion of the Old and New Testament, as the former. sumbe bas "With us, also," you say, (page 154), " are the "editors of the Hebrew text." Have you not heard of the Polyglots of Alcala, of Antwerp, of Paris? Of the Venitian and Plantinian editions of the Hebrew text? Of those of Xantes Pagninus, and Arias Montanus? Of that of Lewis Biel, a Jesuit? or that of Houbigeant, an oratorian? This cost 35,000 livres, and a volume of it, while I read your astonishing assertion, lay on my table. G LETTER XIV. QUEEN MARY. In this letter You profess to state the grounds upon which I have endeavoured in "The Book of "the Roman Catholic Church," to extenuate the persecutions in the reign of Queen Mary. 1. You say (page 161), that my apology " for the persecutions in the reign of Queen Mary, " is derived from considering the former conduct " of Cranmer, in passing an unjustifiable law, by " which he condemned to death the advocates of the "Romish opinions.” This I mention as one extenuating circumstance; but I state others:-1st, The rebellions and treasons against Mary. You admit, (p. 174), that " at the " time of Mary's decease, a rebellion was almost 66 raging against her."-2d, The many indignities, some of a very atrocious nature, which were offered to her.-3rd, That there was not, in Mary's time, a Protestant state, in which similar executions for religion had not taken place.-4th, That there scarcely was a primitive reformer, by whom religious persecution was not justified or practised.5th, And that several persons were executed in the reign of Queen Mary for heresy, who might justly have been executed for treason. You should also have mentioned my explicit avowal in "The Book of the Roman Catholic Church," "that the sanguinary executions in "the reign of Queen Mary cannot be justified." 2.-You say, (p. 162), " I impeach the Church 66 of Rome of the crime of still sanctioning perse"cution, and thereby maintaining a doctrine which " is alike hostile to your own petition for admission " to power, and to the common rights and happiness of nations." 66 This assertion I have completely overthrown in my Ninth Letter to You, and therefore, applying with little alteration to my church, the words, which You apply to Yours, I say, at least upon as good grounds as yourself, that persecution for religion never was a principle of the Roman Catholic church: it was a local error of individuals, which has been removed by gradual improvement. In the church of Rome it never was a law, and has long ceased to be a custom: they are not Catholics who persecute in Switzerland. 3.-You inform us in a note, (page 172), that " Mr. Todd has ably defended Cranmer; and that "the character of Latimer, You have no doubt, can be equally vindicated also." 66 Permit me to think, with Dr. Lingard, that "Doctor Todd's work has disappointed the wishes " of his friends;" that "his statements have con"firmed the most material of the statements con"tained in the fourth volume of the Doctor's "history," and that "a candid comparison will "show, that even his objections on points of minor importance are built on slender foundations, and frequently serve to overturn each other." 66 4.-You say, "if the good character which "the historian upon whose researches you have " relied he correctly represented, how severely do 66 you condemn the religion, which could change a compassionate, liberal, pious, moral, exemplary woman, into a savage, rancorous and bigotted persecutor. Your efforts are vain-the blood " of the martyrs is upon her. "And history with her whip of steel "Has stampt the character of shame so deep, "That not eternity shall wear it out." Randolph's Muses Looking Glass. With all that history can justly charge on Mary, she does not merit the atrocious epithets which You bestow upon her, or your application to her of Randolph's atrocious verse. Would not this verse be more justly applied to Elizabeth's conduct towards Mary of Scotland? and to Elizabeth's dissimulations, both before and after the execution of that unfortunate princess ? In pronouncing upon Mary of England, it should not be forgotton, that she was highly provoked, greatly mistaken, and abominably advised : Thus, while her conduct deserves strong reprehension, she is entitled to much pity; and while the reprehensible part of her character is held out in |