has deprived the Catholics of Manchester of a faithful servant of God in the very prime of his life. Many are the instances where Catholic priests thus fall victims to their zeal and total disregard of life in the exercise of their sacred duties; but how few, if any, can be produced of Protestant clergymen thus offering themselves in sacrifice. Nor is it to be expected, when they are clogged with the cares of a family, and have the temporal happiness of others depending on their own existence. The Catholic priest, on the other hand, is unencumbered with these ties; he has voluntarily embraced a single life, that he may be come a father to the flock over whom he is placed, and when grim death meets him in the discharge of his pastoral duties, he cheerfully resigns his life to render an account of his stewardship to his heavenly Lord and Master. Besides, how inconsiderate must it be in a people to provide not only for the clergy, but for the families of the clergymen. In this country, for example, since the Reformation, as it is called, the provisions for the Church establishment, except that portion which fell into lay hands, go entirely to support the clergy, and is not found to be sufficient for that purpose, as many hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling have been lately voted away by parliament, to relieve the poorer part of the clergy. Whereas, when the church establishment was in the hands of the Catholic clergy, they had the poor, and sick, and aged to maintain; the churches to build and repair, and the rights of hospitality to fulfil, out of their income. To which we must add, that they contributed too, out of their revenues, to carry on the wars in which the sovereigns were engaged, either to secure the safety, or to preserve the honour, of the country; by which means the people were eased of taxes, and a national debt was unknown. But now, alas! the case is altered quite. Taxes are raised to support the poor; taxes are raised to repair and build churches; taxes are raised to relieve the poor clergy and their families; and taxes are raised to pension off many of the sons of the clergy in the shape of half-pay officers and clerks in government offices. And is it wise, is it prudent, when the country is in such a situation, to rail at the economical and judicious regulations of the Catholic church and our Catholic ancestors respecting the celibacy and provisions of the clergy. Of all the cavils raised against the doctrines and discipline of the Catholic church, this we cannot help deeming the most stupid and besotted. Even granting the practice was not introduced till the time of the seventh Gregory, so wise a regulation ought to immortalize his name at least with the patriot and the statesman. Having disposed of this disputed point we come now to the next charge made by Fox. He says, "to relate the tyrannical innovations upon the religion of Christ during the space of more than three hun"dred years, would be the province of a writer on church history, and is quite incompatible with our limits. Suffice it to say, that scarcely a foreign war or civil broil convulsed Europe during that period, which "did not originate in the infernal artifices of popes, monks and friars." If we are to believe this account, the world must have been in a very comfortable state, and true religion must have been banished from the earth. We commend the modern editors, however, for declining to be church historians, as they must have convicted themselves in that case. But what are we to make of the “more than three hundred years"? They tell us that all the evils which arose during "THAT PERIOD” originated with popes, monks and friars. What are we to gather from "that period"? We have no specified time stated; how then are we to ascertain what foreign wars or civil broils are alluded to? This is all froth and fury. Tell us the innovations, who made them, and when they were introduced. It would not take up much space to name ONE of them, nor can it be incompatible with truth to give us a plain fact. The most authentic writers on church history give a very different account of the conduct of these popes, and represent them as the healers of division, and the arbiters of justice between the sovereigns of Europe, and frequently between rulers and the people. We are ready to admit that in the tenth century, when the continent of Europe was subjected to intestine wars, entered into by rival chieftains, there were many popes whose lives were a scandal to the high and sacred office they filled. But these were personal vices, and by no means affected the truth and purity of that church of which they were the head, any more than the tyrannical or lewd conduct of a king of England could sully the excellent maxims of the British constitution. The faith of the church could not be affected by the personal crimes of her chief pastors, because her existence does not rest on the individual merit of any man, but on the power and promises of a Crucified God, her Di, vine Founder, who declared that she should remain pure and unsullied, both in faith and morals, till the end of the world, and we have seen her stand unmoveable and unspotted for more than eighteen hundred years. As a proof of our assertion, history records that while Rome was the seat of scandal as well as of religion, the northern nations of Europe were receiving the light of the gospel, and becoming civilized and good Catholics, Hungary, Prussia, Poland, Germany, Den aark, and Sweden, were converted to Christianity in the tenth century. A glance too at the annals of our own country will shew, that in this age lived an Alfred, an Edgar, and an Edward, to whom we are indebted for the -best of our political institutions, and whose memory reflects honour on the country, and the religion by which they were influenced to confer such benefits on mankind. We have next a confused account of a pretended resistance of pope Benedict to the emperor Henry III; of this pope selling his seat to Gregory VI; of there being three popes at one time; of the emperor going to Rome, displacing "these monsters," and ordering that henceforth no bishop of Rome should be chosen without the consent of the emperor; of the discontent of the cardinals at this law, and their poisoning two other popes. Many of these circumstances we are unable to trace in history, and therefore it cannot be expected that we should go into the whole detail of them. We cannot find the least appearance of a breach between Henry and Benedict, and the former is represented by the authors in our possession as a good and pious prince. There were certainly antipopes, but nobody troubled their heads about them. If we can prove but one brazen falsehood against Fox, in this long list of assertions the rest must loose their credit. To come then to the point. The period we are treating of is the eleventh century: Fox says the order of Henry did not suit the ambitious views of the cardinals, and ་ OF For's Book of Martyrs, CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL. No. 28. Printed and Published by W. E. ANDREWS, 3. Chapter Price 3d. house-court, St. Paul's Churchyard, London. 66 that they violated his commands by poisoning one pope and choosing. This "his unworthiness,) made public a general confession before them of "the sins of his whole life, with abundance of tears, which drew also "tears from all that were present; yet no man changed his opinion. "He yielded at last only on condition that the whole clergy and "people of Rome should agree to his promotion." They did agree, and thus was Leo elected. Fox says, he was poisoned in the first year of his popedom; now, unfortunately for Fox's veracity, Leo filled the see of Rome FIVE YEARS AND TWO MONTHS, and died a natural and holy death. This pope condemned the error of Berengarius in a council held at Rome, in 1050, the year after he was chosen pope, and died on the 10th of April, 1054, in the fiftieth year of his age. So much for Fox's pope-poisoning and cardinal-electing. Another mistake made by Fox, is the succession of Stephen IX. after Victor II., and his election by cardinals. Stephen IX. succeeded Leo VII. in 939; it was Stephen X. that followed Victor II. and his election being in 1057, the cardinals could not have elected him contrary to their oath, because they were not, as we have before shewn, empowered at that time to choose the sovereign pontiffs. Nicholas, who succeeded Stephen, is said to have established the "couneil of the Lateran.". This is gross falsehood. The first council of Lateran was held in the year 1123, and Nicholas, who was the second of that name, died in 1061 the "terrible sentence of excommunication" alluded to by Fox, thus turns out to be a fable, invented to alarm the tremulous, as are also his stories about these different popes being poisoned. We now come to another tale, which he has placed under a special head, and entitled, "SUBMISSION OF THE EMPEROR HENRY IV. TO THE POPE." As we like fair play, we shall give the story in the martyrologist's own words "To such a height had papal insolence now at tained, that, on the emperor Henry IV. refusing to submit to some "decrees of pope Gregory VII. the latter excommunicated him, and "absolved all his subjects from their oath of allegiance to him: on this "he was deserted by his nobility, and dreading the consequences, though a brave man, he found it necessary to make his submission. "He accordingly repaired to the city of Canusium, where the pope then was, and went barefooted with his wife and child to the gate; where "he remained from morning to night, fasting, humbly desiring absolu❝tion, and craving to be let in. But no ingress being given him, he "continued thus three days together: at length, answer came, that his "holiness had yet no leisure to talk with him. The emperor patiently "waited without the walls, although in the depth of winter. At length "his request was granted, through the entreaties of Matilda, the pope's paramour. On the fourth day, being let in, for a token of his true σε repentance, he yielded to the pope's hands his crown, and confessed "himself unworthy of the empire, if he ever again offended against the pópe, desiring for that time to be absolved and forgiven. The pope "answered he would neither forgive him, nor release the bond of his excommunication, but upon condition, that he would abide by his ar"bitrement in the council and undergo such penance as he should enjoin him; that he should answer to all objections and accusations laid "against him, and that he should never seek revenge; that it should be "at the pope's pleasure, whether his kingdom should be restored, or 86 "not. Finally, that before the trial of his cause, he should neither use "his kingly ornaments, nor usurp the authority to govern, nor to exact any oath of allegiance from his subjects, &c. These things being promised to the pope by an oath, the emperor was only released from excommunication.' 66 66 Where Fox found this pretty relation he does not tell us, as, according to his usual custom, there is neither date nor authority, to vouch for his facts. We should be glad to have seen such a tyrant, (for such was Henry IV. in a superlative degree) thus reduced to a sense of humility but this was not the case with this emperor Henry. Father Parsons gives us a very different account of this affair, in his reply to Fox, and names many writers at the time, who represent Gregory VII. as a learned, wise, and courageous man; while the emperor is described as an immoral and depraved character. Platina Sabellicus, and others, record the election of this pope in these terms:-" We have chosen this day, the 21st of May, 1072, for true vicar of Christ, a man of much "learning, great piety, prudence, justice, constancy, and religion," &c. Lambert of Aschafnaburg, also saith, "The signs and miracles which " oftentimes were done by the prayers of pope Gregory VII. and his "most fervent zeal for the honour of God and defence of ecclesiastical "laws, did sufficiently defend him against the venomous tongues of de"tractors." This is the character given by authentic writers of this pope, which we could multiply, were it necessary, but enough has been said to shew he was not the person Fox makes him. Let us now look at the description of Henry IV. for whom Fox has so much pity and compassion. We will here give the account from father Parsons. "But what do the same authors, yea Germans themselves, write of "their emperor, his enemy, Henry IV.? Surely it is shameful to re"port his adulteries, symoniacal selling of benefices, robberies, and spoiling of poor particular men, thrusting in wicked men into places "of prelates, and the like: He did request the princes of the empire "(saith Lambert) that they would suffer him to put away his wife, tell"ing them what the pope by his legate had opposed to the contrary.' "Which being heard by them, they were of the pope's opinion: the princes affirmed, that the bishop of Rome had reason to determine as "he did, and so the king (rather forced than changed in mind) ab"stained from his purposed divorce. 66 66 "Lo here the first beginning of falling out betwixt the emperor and "the pope; which was increased, for that two years after (as the same "author saith) the pope deprived one Charles for simony and theft, to "whom the emperor had sold for money the bishopric of Constance. "And this he did by a council of prelates and princes held in Germany itself, the emperor being present: Bishop Charles (saith Lambert) was "deposed, notwithstanding that the king was present in that judgment, " and defended him and his cause as much as he could.' (Lamb. Schaf "A. D. 1071.) And this was an increase of the falling out between "them: but the constancy (saith the same author) and invincible mind " of Hildebrand against covetousness, did exclude all arguments of human deceits and subtilties. (Ibid.) "Urspergensis in like manner, who lived in the same time, reckoneth "up many particulars of the emperor's wicked behaviour in these |