Butler had stated it; and that a charge affecting my integrity as an historian was brought against me, of which I knew myself innocent, and yet must appear to stand convicted? Under this apprehension I referred to the second edition, and found, hardly with less surprize than the charge itself had excited, that the passage was not there; that my directions had been duly observed; and that Mr. Butler's assertion so positively made, so pointedly applied, was, ...(what shall I say?)...like many other of his assertions. He had not thought it necessary to ascertain the fact for himself; but had hazarded this broad, unqualified accusation upon the faith of others, who either knew not, or cared not what they said.

Convicted, however, I must have stood in the opinion of the public if I had not thus casually heard of the communication in the newspapers. For I never saw that letter,.. nor heard of it from any other quarter. I had not seen Dr. Lingard's fifth volume in which his remarks upon the story are contained,.. and I had forgotten that the mistake in Fox was pointed out in Collyer's Ecclesiastical History, not having referred to that author when engaged upon the Marian persecution, nor having noted the passage, when I went through his work, many years ago. Any man's character

may be endangered by a conspiracy against it, or by a scheme of settled falsehood: but till this incident occurred I was hardly aware how seriously, in such a case as this, it might be affected by accident.

The truth or falsehood of the story was in itself of no importance. It could neither affect the reputation of John Fox who recorded the sufferings of our Martyrs, nor of Stephen Gardiner who had so great a share in inflicting them. Fox tells us on whose authority he related the anecdote. And whether the disease of which Gardiner died came on him like an immediate stroke of divine vengeance, or unperceived, in the ordinary course of nature, the character of that crafty and hard-hearted man remains the same, and is as odious as it deserves to be. I inserted it, believing it to be true; and upon hearing that in one point it was certainly erroneous, I expunged it, little thinking that I should ever have occasion to notice it again, still less that I should be accused of bringing forward and retaining an anecdote which I knew to be false, for to that Mr. Butler's accusation amounts. In his book, which conveys in the smoothest language the most insidious misrepresentations,...which is not more plausible in manner than disingenuous in matter,..not more courteous and complimentary

in its terms, than injurious in its spirit and design, I should have been sorry if there had been a single charge which I could not refute as easily as I can unravel its sophistry, and as completely as I can lay open the fallacy of its statements.

As a courteous controversialist, it would not be easy to find a parallel for my antagonist: all who are acquainted with Mr. Butler would expect this from his habitual suavity, the benignity of his disposition, and the practical toleration which that disposition induces, fostered as it has been in the wholesome atmosphere of a protestant country. No person, he says, admires more than he does the golden sentence of St. Francis of Sales, "A good Christian is never outdone in good manners." I should be sorry to offend against them in any point; but I should be more sorry to be outdone in ingenuousness and in good faith. Throughout his Letters, Mr. Butler has represented, that whatever I had said of the Papal Religion, in sketching the history of the English Church, was intended to ruin the moral and religious character of the existing English Romanists, and hold them up to their fellow countrymen as an abomination! This he has asserted; and this of course must be believed by all those of his own persuasion who have read his book, and would deem it a sin even to look into mine.

The Book of the Church is strictly an historical work, and so free from all allusion to existing circumstances, that I had no scruple in dedicating it to one whose opinions were in favour of political concessions to the Romanists. Assuredly I should not have done this, if it had borne upon that question in any other manner than as a faithful history of the English Church, and a faithful view of that system from which the Reformation delivered us, must bear upon it. The present volume, which vindicates that history and that view, bears more directly upon the question, though it nowhere enters into it at length. But had it lain within the scope of my immediate purpose, I would have shown that what is insidiously termed Catholic Emancipation is not a question of toleration, but of political power; that the disqualifications, which the government is called upon to remove, are not the cause of the disordered state of Ireland, and consequently, that their removal could not effect the cure; that farther concessions would produce farther demands, as all former concessions have done; and that, if the desperate error were committed, of conceding what is now required, the agitators would pursue their darling scheme, of overthrowing the Irish Church and separating the two countries, with renewed zeal, and heightened hopes,.. and with

far greater probability, not indeed of ultimate success, but of bringing upon Ireland the horrors of a civil and religious war!

The vital interests of England would also be seriously endangered, though the danger would be less immediate. The Romish Church is inherently, incurably, and restlessly intolerant. Every Roman-Catholic proclaims in his creed that none can be saved out of the Romish Church; and vows in that creed, that he will, by all means in his power, bring those, over whom he has any influence, to believe in it. This is the religious and sworn duty of every Roman-Catholic; and this principle it was which rendered the Revolution of 1688 necessary for the preservation of our civil and religious liberty. By that event our twofold Constitution, consisting of Church and State, as it now exists, was established and secured. It would therefore be a solecism in policy, were we to entrust those persons with power in the State, who are bound in conscience to use it for subverting the Church, ...for undoing the work of the Reformation and of the Revolution, . . for bringing us again into spiritual bondage, and re-establishing that system of superstition, idolatry, and persecution, from which the sufferings of our martyrs, and the wisdom of our ancestors, by God's blessing, delivered us. Far as we may think them from