complete the plan of my present letter agreeably to my original purpose. I shall for the present, therefore, content myself with laying before your readers a list of variations, (most of them contradictions,) between the readings of the Sixtine and the Clementine editions of the Vulgate.

Dr. James, the first keeper of the Bodleian Library, as Mr. Grier tells us, (see his preface, p. xxvii.) "having with indefatigable labour compared the Bibles of these two Popes, verse by verse, discovered no fewer than two thousand articles in which they differed! Some of these, certainly, are but trivial variations, yet others of them are diametrically opposite to each other, and all are sufficient to shew that their works partake of the nature of all human productions. James pub'ished the entire collection in 1611, in one volume, which he entitled Papale Bellum, in the dedication to which he thus forcibly expresses himself: "institui comparare Papam cum Popa, Sixtum cum Clemente, Octavum cum Quinto:" and as the result he thus concludes, "liquebit ex odio hujus comparationis, quam dispar et dissimilis sit ratio, Sixti et Clementis; ait Clemens, negat Sixtus; ait S.xtus, negat Clemens." Thus is infallibility opposed to infalli bility, and the excommunicatio major latæ sententiæ is thundered forth against the slightest change in either copy, and yet both are pronounced authentic, and sent forth to be received and maintained unalterably for ever."

The following texts, extracted from Dr. James's book, are given by Mr. Grier in a note subjoined to the page just referred to, "as they stand in the Sixtine and Sixtine Clementine editions of the Vulgate. The tone of confidence observed in the preface to each of those Bibles is singularly remarkable. Sixtus V. speaks to this effect: that agreeably to the decree of the Council of TRENT, he having called upon GOD, and relying on St. Peter's authority, for the public good of the church, felt little hesitation about publishing that Bible. He sets forth his labour, in selecting the best readings; his design, that according to the decree of the Trent Council, the VULGAR BIBLE might be most correctly printed; and his performance, viz. that he had accurately purged this edition from various errors, and with the utmost diligence restored it (in pristinam veritatem) to its ancient verity. After this he declares his will, viz. he decrees that that edition should be taken for that Vulgar Latin which the Council of Trent declared AUTHENTIC. And this, he says, he does (as is pertinently observed by Le Long. Vid. note *, page xxv.) from his own certain knowledge and plenitude of APOSTOLIC authority. And that it ought to be received as such (sine ullâ dubitatione aut controversiâ) without any doubt or controversy. After this, Clement VIII. in 1582, sends

forth his edition of the Vulgate, and expressly requires that it also be received under the same circumstances. The differences between the two Those bere pointed out will suffice as an example.

are numerous.

Luke viii. 27.

Isaiah xix. 12.

1 Kings vii. 9. Exodus xvi. 3.

2 Ezra iii. 28.

Eccl. xxi. 15.

Hab. i. 13.
Juhn vi. 65.

Levit. xxvii. 17.

Deut. xxiv. 6.

CLEMENS VIII.

Panis Dei est. ALTERATION.

Cum de navi egressus esset, &c. Cum egressus esset, &c. OMISSION.

Josh. ii. 18.

Signum fuerit.

Id.

Ibid. xi. 12.

2 Peter i. 16.

Yet are both these editions to be received on the authority of the Pope and Council; although, with the exception of the three first passages, they directly contradict each other."

Oct. 8, 1814.

I am, Sir, yours, &c.

INDAGATOR.

CANADIAN INSTRUCTIONS, AND THE INQUISITION.

OUR readers, we doubt not, will be somewhat startled at our bring. ing forward two such subjects together: and they will expect from us a good and substantial reason for so doing. Such of them as do not see (and probably very few do see) Dr. Milner's grand apologetical publication, "the Orthodox Journal," must be told that it is from thence that we have borrowed this title, which stands in front of the number for August last. It amused us not a little; as indeed we can hardly conceive any thing better calculated to shew the self-possession (to use a favourite term of Mr. Pitt's) which distinguishes a certain class of Papists of the present day, as well as the miserable shifts to which they are reduced: By this juxta-position of these two measures, they would raise an idea of some similarity between them: and they thus, very obligingly, give us an opportunity of shewing that hardly any two things can be more unlike, and of recalling again to the minds of our readers what sort of thing the inquisition was, and yet is, as far as it dares to exercise its monstrous, and to every other tribunal unknown, functions.

VOL. III. [Prot. Adv. Nov. 1814.]

Indeed the re-establishment of that most horrible engine of Papal ty ranny in fhe Spanish dominions, was such a triumphant and unanswerable refutation of all that we hear so impudently and so unceasingly dinned in our ears of the liberality of this same Catholic religion, of all the cant of the Parnells and the Eustaces, the Nightingales and the Lingards,* that we could not but expect that every possible effort would be made to take off from the effect of it, and to throw dust in the eyes of those accommodating Protestants, who so amiably and philanthropically desire to be blinded. A notable instance of this, from a York paper, we shall presently subjoin; but we shall first proceed to pay the due notice to these reveries of Mr. Wm. Eusebius Andrews, or whoever it is that chooses to write under that name.

The first thing which we must advert to, is a most glaring suppression of the truth. The complaint against the intolerance of our government is accompanied with a charge of bad faith. We are told, as an aggravating circumstance, and certainly a circumstance of aggravation it would be if it were true, that "the liberty of exercising their holy religion was guaranteed to the Canadians by the definitive treaty of Paris, in 1763; by the fourth article of which, his present Majesty stipulated to "give the most precise and MOST EFFECTUAL orders that his new Roman Catholic subjects MAY profess the worship of their religion, according to the rites of the Romish church."† Such is the statement of this journalist, with his italics and capitals. Now we have only to refer our readers to p. 553 of our last volume (number for July), and he will there see that article in the definitive treaty 'stated according to the truth, and the real effect of it; which will then appear to be directly contrary to what is here insinuated. For the reader will observe that, after the above words, according to the rites of the ROMISH church," there follow these very

Thus it is that we find a certain Counsellor M'Donnell, at a Cork meeting, held in September, (it is said the 10th, but this must be a mistake, as the letters from Lord Donoughmore and Mr. Grattan then read are dated the 14th,) tells us that the situation of the Catholics of Ireland was, that they beheld whole kingdoms emancipated, nations raised from slavery to the enjoyment of freedom, while they alone were excluded from her pale." This at a time when this man must know that it would be at the peril of his life that any native Spaniard, Portuguese, or Italian, (and we believe, also, any Bohemian, Moravian, or Austrian,) should profess any religion but the Popish; much less could any such person aspire to any the meanest office in the state. Yet such is the constant strain of the defenders of Popery in this kingdom also!-See Orthodox Journal for September, p. 358.

+ Orthodox Journal for August, p. 285.

By the bye, how comes it that this gentleman's blood does not boil at the using of this description of his church; which we find even the good Duke of Norfolk re

material words, only separated by a comma, which we shall take leave also to print in capitals, "AS FAR AS THE LAWS OF GREAT BRITAIN PERMIT." Our readers will perhaps be startled at this most extraordinary and most impudent mutilation of a sentence: but when they are told that this is no more than what Dr. Milner himself has been convicted of over and over again, they will only see in it a strong reason for distrusting every assertion which is made by a Roman Catholic in support of his religion, unless the opportunity of verifying it be afforded at the same time, and the verification actually take place. He will see, more especially, very good ground for doubting the propriety of, and the existence of any real foundation for those reflections which are perpetually cast upon our government, as having violated the treaty of Limerick,† of which supposed violation we are firmly persuaded neither King William nor his successors have been guilty, any more than our present gracious sovereign or the Prince Regent have been guilty of violating the treaty of Paris. The charge, however, against us, as founded on the treaty of Limerick,† is maintained only by misconstruction and misrepresentation: but for the present most impudent charge, recourse is had, as our readers see, to direct falsification of the treaty itself. Indeed, it generally happens, that one imposition, when in any degree successful, leads to another, and generally to one still more fraudulent and daring. Thus it is that falsehood, like fame,

"Vires acquirit eundo."

And this, we think, must excuse us, if we earnestly intreat our readers to redouble their vigilance, and not suffer themselves to be surprised into making any concession to an adversary who so completely sets truth and candour at defiance.

We now proceed to copy these same additional instructions, as they are stated in the Orthodox journal, not having ourselves seen them or the accompanying papers which were included in Sir John Coxe Hippesley's motions; and we print them also with the capitals and italics which Mr. W. E. Andrews has employed to mark their character.

probating as novel, in the House of Lords? But the ministry of 1763 were not new Whigs.

See Mr. Le Mesurier's Reply, and particularly chap. vi. of the doctrine of the Eucharist.

+ We have not forgotten our promise to answer this favourite accusation brought forward by the Popish party.

We have not as yet been able to procure them: and this is one proof that the ene mies of our church are more active than its friends!

"That no person whatever professing the religion of the church of Rome be appointed incumbent of any parish in which the majority of the inhabitants shall solicit the appointment of a Protestant minister. In such case the incumbent shall be a Protestant, and entitled to ALL TYTHES payable within such parish: but nevertheless the Roman Cetholics may have the use of the church for the free exercise of their religion at such times as may not interfere with the religious worship of the Protestants; and in like manner the Protestant inhabitants of every parish, where the majority of the parishioners are Roman Catholics, shall, notwithstanding, have the free use of the church for the exercise of their religion, at such times as may not interfere with the religious worship of the Roman Catholics.

"That an incumbent professing the religion of the church of Rome shall NOT be entitled to receive any tythes for lands or possessions occupied by a Protestant, but such tythes shall be received by such persons as you shall appoint, and shall be reserved in the hands of our receiver general as aforesaid for the support of our Protestant clergy, in our said province, to be actually resident within the same, and not otherwise, according to such directions, as you shall receive from us in that behalf: and in like manner all growing rents, or profits of a vacant benefice, shall, during such vacancy, be reserved for and applied to the like uses.”

Now the reader will observe that the grievance here complained of, and considered so enormous as to be a counterbalance to the Inquisition, is, that Roman Catholic incumbents, where there are any such, can receive tythes only from Roman Catholics; whereas, when the incumbent is a Protestant clergyman, he is to receive tythes from all the occupiers in the parish, whether Roman Catholics or Protestants. Now this can only be a grievance in one or other of two cases. First, on the supposition that government have done that which they had no right to do: or, secondly, if, having the right, they have done what was unreasonable and contrary to the general usage of nations, and especially to what is practised in this country.

I. Respecting the first point; as to government's having the right; we presume that this is completely disposed of by the terms of the capitulation of 1760; confirmed by the express stipulation of the treaty of Paris: ac cording to both, the Roman Catholics were to enjoy the liberty of worship only as far as the laws of Great Britain permitted. But it is manifest, that, as by the existing laws of this kingdom in 1760 and 1763, the public exercise of the Roman Catholic religion was forbidden, whatever indulgence the Roman Catholics of Quebec were to enjoy, must have depended solely on the good pleasure of his Majesty, or rather upon a