e L904 tid cz of es, tf? hee Chetrtg. 7) L VA Fd 4 fi: Ltt, hho : vA a: O44 Les biicale 7 2 ere % : s es kaise b e Pyrz2 Z eee bbe rg LV. eA i Z f. f | et f= f- Le 4 a Pé2 g ANT A Gee ee . i " ae pe Sse | } | | | { | | LETTERS , TO W. WILBERFORCE, Ese. M.P. To which is added AN ANSWER TO MELANCTHON, HIS VINDICATOR; Demonstrating the inconsistency of a Protestant Christian, and the impolicy of a British Legislator, in advocating the Roman Catholic Claims. BY AMICUS PROTESTANS. “ O for that warning voice which he who saw “ Th’ Apocalypse, heard cry in Heaven aloud.” MILTON. ouDor ; PRINTED FOR W. SIMPKIN AND R. MARSHALL, Stationers’ Hall Court, Ludgate Street. PLPPPPE LP LPL EPL OLE PR . PLUMMER, Jun. Paternoster Row. TORT a TO THE RIGHT HON. VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, &¢, SC. :c. MY LORD, Tue “ Writ of ease,” which you have recently obtained from that long and laborious course of Duty, which has at once been honour- able to yourself, and advantageous to the Pub- lic, is not likely to be succeeded by an inglorious inactivity, or to induce insensibility upon those subjects of National interest, which have,: for some time past, awakened the energies, and cal- led forth the resources, of no ordinary mind. Among topics of this description,.the Question of THE Roman Catuonic Ciaims—as it em- braces points, involving the preservation of the Constitution, in Church and State, and the secu- rity of the Nation at large—has received no. in- considerable share of your Lordship’s attention. From the first agitation of this important sub- ject, you have earnestly recommended a steady adherence to the long-tried policy of Protestant England, in reference to the exclusion of her Roman Catholic subjects, from all participation in Legislative, and Executive power. While such a course of conduct has appeared to myself, and many others, to deserve the gra- DEDICATION. titude and applause of the Present Age, and of Posterity; as forming the surest protection of the Throne, the best bulwark of the Church, and the highest happiness of the People—the departure from such a line of policy, by other Senators, may —without the most distant intention to impugn their motives; even in cases where we should least expect to witness such aberrations—form a legitimate subject for Examination and Discus- sion. I venture to offer to the Public, under the sanction of your Lordship’s name, the following attempt to demonstrate the inconsistency of Pro- testant Christians, and the impolicy of British Legislators, in advocating the Roman Catholic Claims; not in the vain hope of averting any honest criticism on the performance itself, by taking shelter under the wing of Patronage, but as knowing no one, to whom the cause, which I imperfectly advocate, could more confidently look for continued protection and support, than to the illustrious, and respected Individual whom I address. I have the honour to be, My Lorp, Your Lordship’s Most obedient and. faithful Servant, THE AUTHOR. PREFACE. ee Tue following Letters to Mr. WiLBERFORCE, appeared successively in the Mornine Post Newspaper, between the 22d March, and the 6th July, 1821; during part of which period, the Question of the Roman Catholic Claims was under discussion in Parliament, and when those Claims received from that eminent and estimable Individual, not merely (as. had been the case be- fore) the less ostensible support of his silent Vote, but the unequivocal sanction of his pub- lic ArGumENTS. The result of the discussions of that Session, is well known to have been—the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bills, by the House of Commons;. and their subsequent rejection, by the House of Lords. During the publication of these Letters, another Writer, un- der the signature of MELANCTHON, appeared in the same Paper, in vindication of Mr. WiLBER- FORCE, and of the Romish Claims, to which Letters it appeared necessary that some Reply should be given; but as it would have been un- reasonable to expect of any Public Journalist, that he should keep alive a controversy of this nature, by inserting any further correspondence on the subject—a promise was given by the Writer of the First Letters, that in the event of PREFACE. their appearing in another form, the arguments of Mretanctruon, should then receive the at- tention which they appeared to merit. To redeem that pledge—is the object of the present publication : the delay which has arisen in its appearance is referable to circumstances, over which the Writer had no controul, and the detail of which, would be unlikely to interest the Public. _He can conscientiously declare, that Controversy, on any subject, is not an atmosphere congenial either with his feelings, or his habits, aud if he know any thing of himself, he be- lieves he may adopt the language of Monvxss- QuIEU, “ Je n’ai point naturellement Pesprit ““desapprobateur.” It is not, however, merely in reference to the arena, and the dust, of any particular Controversy, that he would apply to himself the observation of that celebrated Wri- ter; but he wishes to adopt it more especially with regard to Him, with whom he, unhappily, finds himself chiefly in collision upon this im- portant subject. Not only does he feel that Disputation in general, is at best a painful, and frequently a useless thing; but least, and last, did he ever expect to find himself in the Lists with the excellent and amiable Man to whom these Letters are addressed. He will yield to no one living—not even to the most personal friend, or the warmest eulogist, of that distin- guished character—in the veneration with which he regards him as a Christian, and the esteem in PREFACE. Vil which he holds him as a Man—in respect for his superior talents ; and in admiration of his nume- rous virtues—and he trusts that, if in the conduct of the following argument, any single expression, which may appear to be of too ardent, or forcible a character, should have escaped him, in reference to that esteemed Individual, this unfeigned de- claration may be admitted as evidence of the Writer being really actuated by no other motives than those of the most profound respect, (and may he be permitted to add) of the most heart- felt attachment.—It must not, however, be for- gotten, that while occasions may arise, in which even the humblest Individual may consider it his duty to put on record a-public protest, upon public principles; however repugnant such a step may be to his taste—or even adverse to his feelings—so the mistakes, or errors, of exalted characters, are likely to be injurious and fatal, precisely in proportion to their acknowledged usefulness; and their extensive influence.—It cannot be disguised, that while such Men, in the sober exercise of their talents, and the steady prosecution of their duties, may continue to ac- cumulate new blessings on the Public, and to acquire fresh laurels for themselves; itis THEY also who have it more peculiarly in their power to effect mischief upon an extensive scale; and, by some splendid act of irreparable error, to dis- solve those long existing obligations, which a grateful Nation was not backward to acknow- Vill PREFACE. ledge, and would not have been hasty to forget. The wisest of men has observed—‘ Dead flies «« cause the ointment of the Apothecary to send ‘‘ forth a stinking savour—so doth a little folly, ‘* him that is in reputation for wisdom and ho- ‘* nour.” It is under a strong conviction that some aber- ration of this nature required public notice, in the case before us, that the Letters in question have appeared.—In what manner their Writer may have executed his intention, must remain for the Public alone to decide; but one consola- tion, “‘ no man taketh from him,”—an honest con- viction, that, it has been only a stern and impera- tive sense of Duty to his Church, and his Coun- try, which has induced a Professor of the same Religious principles, as the respected Individual whom he has addressed, and a smcere admirer of his public and private character, to present this humble remonstrance against a line of conduct, which has appeared to him to be fraught with results of the most fatal and pernicious tendency to the Nation at large, and to her Religious Establishment in particular. DNS Nt SETI RSE SE gran ng NET TST ' Va | c LETTERS WILLIAM WILBERFORCE; Esa. M: P. a \ LETTER I. Dzar Sir, I TRUST that while as a Protestant Legislator yoii feel so sensibly alive to the claims of the Roman Catholics; you will also remember that there are such things as PRo- TESTANT CLAIMS; and I hope that while you are stretching out your arms in such a comprehensive embracé as to take in the Africans, Hottentots, and Laplanders, you will not forget that Charity, to be worth any thing, must ‘ begin at home,” and that it is possible for creatures of our limited capacities; when we would stretch our powers in thé pursuit of distant good, to overlook the claims of our. own countrymen, and be insensible to the wants of our nearer kindred: I apprehend, Sir, that as a Protestant subject, I have at least as good a claim to the attention and protection of Protestant Legislators, as any Roman Catholic can shew; but as “no man can serve two masters,” I believe that no Protestant Le- gislator can serve us both, whatever he may pretend, or de- sign; and therefore, that since the Roman Catholic is not the only claimant, although he may be the most clamorous, a Pro- testant Legislator is bound to chuse between our contending Me | a ; ‘ B ew RES, ns bo ij 2 claims. Asa member of the Church of England, I consider that in addition to the ordinary claims, which I possess to the protection of Legislators in general, I have a right to look, in a more especial manner, to those of their number who profess to walk more peculiarly by the light and rule of those Sacred Scriptures upon which the Church of England is founded, and who also profess to regard the religious freedom we have so long. enjoyed as the inalienable birthright of Englishmen. As a Protestant Father, I possess, perhaps, as strong a claim, that the Protestant Constitution in Church and State, which I inhe- rit from my ancestors, should descend to my children, as I have that my property should be enjoyed by them; and in the same degree that Religion is better than money, I may perhaps be excused for feeling this question strongly without being stig- matised as a bigot. I can prove, that while things remain as they are, and the tolerant Church of England keeps her place, Iand my children must be safe, and may worship God as we chuse, under the protection of our ancient laws ; but you, Sir, eannot prove, that if the original landmarks and bulwarks of the Constitution should be annihilated, and the portion of legis- lative and executive power which you claim for Roman Catho- lics should be conceded, the same toleration and protection will continue to be ours. At best, therefore, you are forcing upon me, as an affectionate adherent of the Church of England, and upon those of the same communion who are near and dear to me, an experiment, which, if it should perchance prove per- fectly harmless, can place us in no better situation, religiously, than we are in at present, whatever it may do for the Roman Catholics politically; but if your experiment (which, to say the least of it, is a most hazardous one) should deceive your hopes, the Religious Public may look for indemnity in vain, when all the seductive influence of your ingenious (or as Mr. CANNING called it—delightful) speech, shall have evaporated for ever. In the event of a disastrous issue to the golden hopes, both of Spiritual and Secular Policians, it is evident that all the fair and well-earned fame which you have acquired from the liber- RES 3 ation of the Africans, will be completely overthrown by the way in which you will now inadvertently have forwarded the subjugation of Europeans, in the revival of that ancient and degrading system of Ecclesiastical tyranny from which the Reformation and the Revolution delivered us; and all the advantages which a distant quarter of the globe will have gain- ed in its deliverance from temporal bondage, will be more than counterbalanced by the spiritual shackles which you will have unwittingly contributed to forge for Christian Europe., Your name, Sir, so far from going down, in that case, to our children with the blessings of our Protestant Church and Empire upon it, will descend to them only as a melancholy proof how far a well merited popularity may be abused at the very zenith of its elevation ; and how easily a Senator who has deserved well of his country, may outlive his acknowledged usefuiness, and by one grand and irreparable error, neutralise and desecrate the patriotic labours of a whole political life. I mean no idle compliment when I say, that the influence of your name and character is deservedly great and extensive; but in the same proportion that such an influence may be exerted for our com- mon happiness, in no less a degree will that influence be pe- rilous and fatal, if any fundamental departure from the sound and well tried policy of British legislation should be the con- sequence of the course, which, after much of hesitation and doubt, you have at length determined to pursue. The errors of a private person (says Mr. BURKITT, in his funeral sermon for GURNALL) are like the defects of a pocket watch, which only affect an individual, but when persons of eminent station and character are mistaken, it is like the town-clock going wrong—it misleads a multitude. It is easy to conceive how Men, who do not either under- Stand or feel the value of Religious Truth, and the importance of contending for it, should with one consent, determine to dise miss from this question every thing which affects its religious bearings, but that you and certain of your Religious friends should descend from the ground upon which LuTHER of old, and in more modern times, your own friend, Dean MILNER- 4 stood: that you should forget the noble army of English mars tyrs who have bied for that reformed faith which we now pro- fess, and should lose sight of the great and eternal distinction which subsists between the two Religions of the Church of Rome and the Church of England, appears inexplicable upon your own avowed principles. As this distiction, however, hag never been adverted to by you in the late discussions, I pro- pose to make it the subject of my next letter, Iam, dear Sir, Your most obedient and faithful Servant. AMICUS PROTESTANS, LETTER I, DEAR SiR, Ir has appeared to me one of the most extraordina: ry circumstances connected with the discussion of the Roman Catholic Claims, both in the great Council of the Nation and in general society, that so little stress should have been laid upon the fundamental difference which subsists between the Protestant and Roman Catholic religions. In the Upper House of Parliament, even Prelates themselves have omitted all no- tice of the subject of RELIGION, and conducted their argu- ment against those Claims, as if the point under discussion were simply reducible to a mere question of human policy; while in the Lower House, we have seen Statesmen, avowedly attached to a Protestant Establishment, and personally con- nected with its principal Members, pursue the same secular line of argument, and treat the Roman Catholic Claims as if they were wholly unconnected with the question of Religion, and as if Protestants might still keep their own Religion whole and entire, even although the Roman Catholics should suc- ceed in their present object. Nor is this all—not only do many Senators, who on other occasions uniformly support the established order of things, join, as with one consent, in sinking the question of Religion, when “Catholic Emancipation” is the theme, but certain cha- RY ge ry zacters also who are sensibly alive to the interests of humanity, and jealous of the rights of their kind; and above all, even some who (like yourself) profess more particularly to act un- der the influence of Religious principle, both in public and private life, appear alike to lose sight of the essential distinc- tion which subsists between a Religion which is founded on the Scriptures of truth, and one which is built, in the main, upon human authority—between a Religion of toleration and charity, and one of intolerance and cruelty, The indifference thus manifested on the Religious part of this question is not confined to the ranks of legislation, or to the higher, circles of society, but the same apathy prevails more or less among the middle classes; and in many instances, where personal piety adorns the individual character, and where the strong- est proofs of the practical influence of real Religion on the heart and conduct are displayed; even here, the distinction between the Spiritual Religion of the Bible, and a Religion of external forms, is scarcely recognised; and good men in the simplicity of their hearts are willing to believe that this dis- tinction may safely be laid out of the question in the conside- ration of the Roman Catholic Claims, fondly imagining that if their fellow. Protestants would only be candid and _ liberal enough to concede those Claims, the Roman Catholics would be candid and liberal enongh, in their turn, to permit Protes- tants to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. This mode of treating the question, must either proceed upon an assumption that no radical and essential dif- ference really exists between the two creeds, or else that such difference has no bearing upon the question of the required concessions. Now the plain matter of fact is, that there is an original distinction between Protestantism and Popery, over which the lapse of ages and the influence of civilization have had no con- trol—the Romish religion being no other than a modification of the ancient idolatry of Heathenism; and with regard to. the opinion that the difference of the two creeds does not affect the question of the Roman Catholic Claims, the following con- sideration will shew that such difference affords a strong: ar- gument against conceding those claims. Every false or cor- rupt religion is a sanguinary and persecuting religion. It was so with the religion of Heathenism, as the character of the Heathen wars before Christianity, and of the Heathen perse- eutions after its introduction, sufficiently testifies. Now, such has been remarkably the case with the Romish Religion, which from its earliest period has been a Religion of bloodshed and of bigotry; in proof of which fact, its whole history might be cited, but the present space will only permit the enu- meration of a few instances; such as the Papal wars in Italy fomented and perpetuated by the pretended successors of the PRINCE of PEACE—the civil wars in France, which lasted a whole century, and which are so ably recorded by DaviLa— the continental wars of Germany, France, and Flanders, as re- corded by DE THovu—the massacre of St. Bartholomew in Paris and the Provinces, for which the Pope of that day so- lemnly returned public thanks to Almighty God in the Cathe- dral of St. Peter—the cruelties of the Duke of Ava, and of the Jesuits in the Low Countries—the horrors which followed the Revocation of the Edict of Nantz by that splen- did scourge of Protestant Europe, Lours XIV.—the abomi- nable cruelties of the Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and else- where, from the earliest period of its establishment—~the martyrdoms of England in the reign of PHitip and MARY— the appalling conspiracy of the 5th of November, and the other sanguinary plots of the Reigns of ExizABETH and JAMES I.—the atrocious and extensive massacre of the Pro- testants in Ireland in the Reign of CHaR.es I., as recorded by Sir JonN TEMPLE—and the Irish Rebellion in 1798, whose main object was undoubtedly and avowedly the extinction of Protestantism, and which was founded and conducted by the Romish Priests, as authenticated, beyond all controversy, by Sir RicHARD MusGRAVE in his History of that rebellion. In all these abominable cruelties, the mystical woman of the Apocalypse has trodden in the track of her heathen precursor; and in either case, their footsteps have been marked with blood. y Tf modern Rome has not caused her children, like the ancient Idolaters, to pass through the fire to Moloch, she has not, on that account, slain fewer in other ways, and the sanguinary rites of the ancient superstition have only given place to the immolation of human victims in another form, though not on a less extensive scale. It is not difficult to understand upon what principle a false Religion should become the scourge and plague of the true one. The contrariety of darkness and light will furnish us at once with a clue out of this labyrinth—the virulent enmity of the human heart in its natural state, and its uniform Opposition to truth and holiness, will sufficiently account for the dislike evinced by the wordly and the profane, at the exhibition of these qualities in others; Vital Religion is in itself a silent but effectual reproach and condemnation of those who want its and the remark of the Lawyers to CHRIST will serve to unveil the secret motives of their hostility :—** Master, thus saying, thou reproachest us also.” The only reason of the hatred and malignity of many persons against spiritual religion is, that they are any,thing else than spiritual themselves. The splen- did miracles and faultless life of our Saviour himself, when they failed to convince and convert the majority of his own country- men, only excited a resentment which ended in their crucify-~ Bs the Lord of life and glory; and thus, as he himself dec clared, if his real disciples had been “of the world, the world would have loved his own: but because they were not of the world, but he had chosen them out of the world, therefore the world hated them.” The same principle accounts for the first murder on record: “CAIN,” says the Holy Scripture, “slew his brother, because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous ;” and “as then, he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the spirit, even so it is now.” If in so many historical instances as have been adduced above, (and more might easily be added), the investing of a false and corrupt Religion with power has ever had a hostile operation upon the lives and liberties of men, we have no rea- son to distrust the evidence of antiquity on such a subject, and to reject the lights of history in favour of an experiment for which preceding ages have already paid the costly price of a terrible and fatal experience, I shall enlarge on this point in my-next, and am, dear Sir, your faithful Servant. AMICUS PROTESTANS. LETTER III. DEAR SIR, THAT the Romish religion is one and the same as it has ever been, and that its immutability is as well secured as its infallibility, we have the testimony, I will not say of its foes, but of its best and warmest friends; and when in addi- tion to this evidence (drawn from no hostile source) we consi- der the late Manifesto of the Roman Catholic Bishops in the Netherlands against the toleration of Protestants —the violent rescripts of the present PopE against Bible Societies, and against all translations of the Bible in the vernacular tongues— the revival, by the same authority, of the Inquisition, that mon- strous engine of persecution and tyranny—and the restora- tion, by the same power, of the Jesuits, who were the earliest foes of tbe Reformation, and have been ever since the most in- defatigable instruments of a corrupt and persecuting Church— it is impossible to doubt that Popery 1s what Popery wAs, and, of course, that its resumption of legislative or executive power, in a Protestant State, must be followed by the same consequences as have always attended it. That, in the pre- sent state of the world, those consequences may display them- sélves precisely in the same form as they once did, is by no means meant to be asserted; the fires which translated Rip- LEY and Latimer from their dungeon in Oxford to their rest in Heaven, are not likely to be lighted again; nor is it probable that those Papal atrocities which have spared nei- ther age nor sex in so many parts of civilized Europe, will, in the present age of the world, be renewed in our own country. There are, however, other ways in which a Religion of dark- a ee So ness and intolerance can make itself known and felt; in open- ing our prisons and shutting our places of worship—in en- forcing laws which yet remain upon our Statute book, or in enacting new ones which may supply their deficiencies—in imposing restraints upon conscience, and exacting oppressive fines as the punishment of resistance—in abridging the religi- ous rights of the nation, and silencing the faithful Ministers of Divine truth—in refusing the Bible to the people, and oppo- sing the Society which distributes it; these and various other political expedients for “healing the deadly wound of the with whose blood a 9 Beast,” by “making war on the Saints, corrupt and apostate Church has so long been “ drunk,” will not long be wanting if ever the question of ‘“ Catholic Emancipa- tion” (as it has been perversely and sophistically termed), shall be carried ; and how those persons in particular, whether in Par- liament or elsewhere, who (in common with yourself), affect to set peculiar value on their Religious privileges, and some of whom are the ornaments of the Religion they profess, can advocate the cause of those claims, and espouse the side of an intolerant and bigoted Church, appears inexplicable upon any grounds, and evinces a palpable inconsistency, amounting to infatuation of the first order. Such a line of conduct displays a short-sighted policy which, under the garb of charity, liberality, and candour, is at vari- ance with the first principles of self-preservation, and is op- posed to the obvious interests of a Protestant Church and Empire; indeed, it is such a course of action as ought to in- duce yourself and others, on reference to its inevitable re-_ sults, to ask yourselves in all seriousness, whether, if the Bi- ble be true, and the records of History authentic, you are not examples of the greatest inconsistency which can be displayed by rational agents. You are at once the unfeigned lovers of rational freedom, and yet the unwitting advocates of the pu- rest despotism—the friends of Religious toleration, and yet the Patrons of an Intolerant Church—the professors of pure and undefiled Religion, and yet anxious to give credit and in- fluence and power to a corrupt and unscriptural faith; you c profess to be guided by evidence, and are incessantly calling for fresh facts, and yet are resisting the light of universal his- tory, and are still untaught by the accumulated wisdom of ages; “ever learning, and never able to come to the know- ledge of the truth.” It is to such characters, estimable in themselves, but acting under false impressions, and propagat- ing error by the influence of respectable names, that I would say—-be wise in time, and if the Religion of the Romish Church be both dishonourable to God, and injurious to man, take care how you incur the terrible responsibility of aiding such a Reli- gion in its present object of making and administering laws in a Protestant Commonwealth. If such a creed be in its nature sanguinary, and secular, intolerant, and exclusive—lI intreat you to look to it that Persecution do not rear her head again under your auspices. If the Religion in question be one whose main object is to keep the world in utter ignorance, and the sou in carnal security, to satisfy the conscience with external opi- ates, and to supersede the necessity of personal holiness; be- ware how you lend a helping hand to set up the spiritual abo- minations of Popery, lest those who come after you should rue the day in which you hazarded an experiment of accommoda- tion, for which you had no warrant either in the example of your Protestant ancestors,-or in any modern facts which might have proved the Religion of the Church of Rome to be a more scriptural thing now than it was in the reign of JAMEs II, T am dear Sir, your very faithful Servant, AMICUS PROTESTANS. LETTER IV. DEAR SIR, I apprehend that a positive identity has been esta- blished by Dr. M1pDDLETON in his “ Conformity between Pa- ganism and Popery,” and by Dr. GALE in his “ Court of the Gentiles,” between the worship of false gods, as exhibited in — —_—— ~~ tl the Pagan and Papal Religions, and the worship of the true God, as revealed in the Religion of the Holy Scriptures. It is easy to understand upon what principle the Idolatry and Su- perstitions of Paganism were at first adopted, and are still continued, by the Church of Rome; they present something tangible and visible for the external senses to rest upon, in the place of that spiritual Religion which the Bible, in all its parts, supposes as essential to salvation. Christianity, in its pure and primitive structure, had no charms for those Pagans who had been accustomed to an imposing exterior of forms and ceremonies, which, while they amused their minds, and paci- fied their consciences, required no particular sacrifices, and left them in undisturbed possession of their former pleasures. The Church of Rome, aware of this fact, entered accordingly into a compromise with the old Idolatry. Her object was secular dominion, and while this might be attained, she regard- ed the illumination and conversion of the world but as se- condary objects, or rather as things more likely to obstruct her schemes of wordly policy than to advance them. No writer has better established this fact than the celebrated GALE, who, after proving, with extensive erudition, how Pagan- ism and Popery symbolized in a variety of particulars, ob- serves, “ The carnal professors of Christianity, who were most numerous, were not content to pdrt with their Pagan rites; wherefore to compromise the matter, they turned their Pagan rites into Christian solemnities, and so christened their Demon festivals under the name of some Christian Martyr and Saint; and that which made this design more plausible, was this—some groundless hopes, by such symbolizing with the Pagans, to gain them over to embrace the Christian Religion, which vain attempt was so far blasted by God, as that it proved but a door to let in Antichrist and.all his Idol worship into the Church of Rome.” Human nature being the same in every age, there is no doubt that the Idolatries and Superstitions of the ‘Romish Church have, from the earliest period of her history, had the force of retaining within her visible pale a vast ma- jority in succession, who, if they had not been nominal Chris- tians, would have been professed Infidels, but who found in the round of External and Pharisaical observances which Po- pery prescribes, a sedative for their fears, and a substitute for their piety. The Reformed Churches of the Continent and of this country have protested with vigour and effect against a system which, while it is eminently calculated to amuse the multitude by a specious exterior, is no less adapted to hold them in spiritual bondage by blinding their minds, and sensu- alizing their hearts—by giving them the shadow of Religion, instead of its substance—and by setting up a variety of Idols in the place of the one, true, and living God of the Scrip- tures, The perilous nature of the Romish religion to its members is great indeed, since the very foundation of her whole system is laid in the virtual rejection of the two first commands in the Decalogue. That multitudes who live and die in the commu- nion of the Church of Rome, do yet escape the contagion of their own creed, and are preserved by the special grace of Gop, sincere and exemplary Christians, is most readily admit- ted; but it is no less true, that the whole machinery of the system erected by that Church is opposed to the Scriptures of truth, and only designed to exalt the authority of a Secular Priesthood, and to keep the Laity in ignorance and error. Whatever, Sir, of charity and liberality towards Roman Catho- lics may be contended for in your speeches, I here challenge you to deny that the Church of Rome has engrafted. on the native stock of Christianity the most awful depravation of doctrine, and has overspread the world at large with a pro- portionate corruption in practice. The doctrine of PAPAL INFALLIBILITY, for example, is too monstrous for endurance, when we observe the errors which the PopEs have committed, and the vices in which they have indulged; while that of Papa, SuPREMACY is too gross, either for wise Statesmen, or true Patriots to admit with safe- ty to their country. The sPIRITUAL POWER exercised by the Romish Clergy (each of whom is the Pope of his own district), is equally at variance with good sense and sound reasoning. 13 ‘The doctrine of PURGATORY accords no better with the con- stant declaration of Scripture, that the present is a state of probation, and the future of retribution. The doctrine of Pa- pal or Priestly ABSOLUTION, is only an usurpation by man, of a power which belongs to his Creator; while that of Papal or Priestly INDULGENCES affords sanction and toleration for every species of crime. The terrors of EXCOMMUNICATION and ANATHEMA are the mere engines of temporal power, as- sumed for secular purposes alone. The doctrine of TRAN- SUBSTANTIATION is an invention, by which a mystery was in- troduced into the simplest institution, in order to enforce the necessity, and exalt the authority of a standing Priesthood. AURICULAR CONFESSION, in enabling the Ministers of reli- gion to penetrate into the secrets of families and individuals, tends above every other expedient, to consolidate their power, and to multiply their resources. The DENIAL of the BIBLE to the COMMON PEOPLE is an evident mark of the departure “of that Church from the truths which it revealed, and the best proof of the weakness of a system which resorts to such a mea- sure. The attempts of that Church to mix HUMAN TRADI- TION with Divine Revelation, are utterly unjustifiable. By thus putting their own gloss and comment upon the Scripture, they virtually invalidate the sanctions, and evade the force, of the word of God himself. The PROFANATION OF THE SAB- BATH is a characteristic of Popery, wherever that religion pre- vails; and the VIOLATION OF THE MARRIAGE Vow is almost identified with the same system. We see a Religion of forms, processions, ceremonies, and externals, usurping the place of that Faith, which produces the fruits of Holiness, without which, the Religion of every man is vain. PRAYERS AND IN- VOCATIONS OFFERED TO SAINTS, many of whom have been canonized by the Romish Church, after lives of open and no- torious sin, are as repugnant to reason as they are contrary to Revelation. The immoral and profligate Lives of the Ca- THOLIC CLERGY, as a body, chiefly arising out of their self- imposed celibacy, are a grievous scandal, which is thus de- scribed by PINKERTON. “The conscience is seared by the 14 practice of absolution; and the mind becomes reconciled to the strangest of all phenomena—theoretic piety, and practi- cal vice united in bonds almost indissoluble.” Such are the men to whom power is now to be given in England and Ire- land, and who are to be paid from English Taxation. I wish then to ask, with such facts as these before your eyes, what you and your Religious friends ean promise yourselves, or the cause of Truth, by the support of the Roman Catholic claims? why are you not rather found on the side of the Ark of Gop, in times when your ancient foes are unusually vigilant and active?—“ If BAAL be Gop, follow him; but if the Lord be Gop, then follow him.”—My next will have reference to the ancient policy of Protestant England. Iam, dear Sir, your faithful Servant, AMICUS PROTESTANS. LETTER V. DEAR ‘Sir, The Roman Catholic Question is no longer one of a merely speculative nature, nor are the interests which it in- volves of a secondary or subordinate.character. The state of suspense and jeopardy in which the Protestant Church of England has now for some time been periodically placed ‘by Romish Politicians, and Latitudinarian Professors, cannot, ‘in all human probability, continue ‘long, The claims of the Ro- man Catholics, if not peremptorily resisted by those who bear the name of Protestants, will eventually be carried by those who bear something more ‘than the name of their own faith, and who are heartily m earnest in advancing its interests, and acquiring for it the power which it’has lost. When a certain illustrious Statesman:complains, in every succeeding Session, that Parliament is troubled by the constant recurrence of a question, of which it would ‘be very desirable to hear no more, and then statedly ranges himself on the side of the Roman Catholics, is it possible that he should really feel any surprise that Parliament continues to be so assailed, when he and his friends are virtually inviting this periodical discussion, by declining to protest at once against these concessions ? and would there not be somewhat more of consistency in the Government making a stand, and rallying round a Protestant Constitution upon Protestant principles, as Sir THomas LETHBRIDGE, and Mr. BuTTERWORTH have publicly advised in the House of Commons? It is easy to see that if certain eminent characters are de- termined only to regard this question as one of mere human po- licy, without permitting the paramount consideration of Reli- gion; I mean the radical and fundamental difference between the two Creeds—to form a part of their calculations, or to influence their conclusions, so long are they leaving out of the debate one of the most important features which can proper- ly belong to it. So long as this great question is merely to be argued upon principles of expediency, it is no matter of surprise that certain sagacious Statesmen of our times are taken in their own craftiness, and that they are unable, under their own mode of treating the subject, to deal with argu- ments which are at least.as plausible, if not: as valid, as their own. They should take higher ground, and resolve to stand by the Constitution, which will then stand by them. “‘ Dent operam Consules ne quid detrimenti capiet Respublica.” CICERO. If they would consent to reason about the religious abomina- tions, and political evils, of the Church of Rome, as. did Queen ELIZABETH, and King WILLIAM, Lord BURLEIGH, and Lord Bacon, Sir WiILaIAM TEMPLE, and Lord CLARENDON, Sir MATTHEW HALE, and Bishop BURNET, and (though last not least), as Dr. Watts, and Dr. DoppRIDGE did, their diffi- culties would vanish at once; they would then stand firmly on the rock which the providence of Gop, and the wisdom of their ancestors, have placed under their feet; nor would all the sophistry of crafty and designing men avail to move them Nee at Wed from the true interests of our Protestant empire, or induce them to yield one inch of that sacred ground for which our Martyrs have bled at the stake, and our Warriors have triumph- ed in the field. If tranquillity and union be their object, let them take a Statesman-like view of this great question in all its breadth and length, and consider, that although a tempo- rary truce may be obtained, by conceding to Reman Catho- lics a portion of civil and political, of legislative or executive power, yet that such characters must be traitors to their own church and cause, if they could rest satisfied with a moderate share of that power, or with acts of mere neutrality, the con- sequence of which would necessarily be, that the real Pro- testants of this country (I do not mean the nominal ones,) who are far too enlightened, and too free, to breathe in the pol- luted atmosphere of a Religion of darkness, and much less to witness patiently its daily encroachments, or submit to its galling yoke, would soon be found more troublesome and less tractable than the Roman Catholics themselves. . If the peo- ple of this country could not endure the exhibition of the Heathen abominations of Popery, at the great epochs of the Reformation and the Revolution: much less can they endure them now, when a greater degree of Religious light is diffused over the nation, and the principles of civil liberty are better understood than ever. It is unnecessary, and would be inex- pedient, to describe the inevitable result of conflicting senti- ments called into operation under a new state of things; but I would say to “the Powers that be,” who are at present ho- noured and beloved by all those whose esteem is worth pos- sessing—be true to your Country and yourselves; be content to retain the affection, and to ensure the support, of those men who have stood by you in the day of trial, while God has gra- ciously stood by us all. Do not desert the best friends of the Church and. the State in favour of those who cannot, on their own principles, be the friends of either, if once they are put to choose between their own Church and ours. Take courage to resist the experiment of Political Empirics, who, while they magnify the virtues of their own panacea; have only in view 17 the furtherance of particular interests, or the aggrardizement_ of a Secular Church; who cannot be supposed, without trea- son to their own exclusive system, to feel any regard for Eng- land; its Laws, or its Religion; and who will be the first to laugh at the criminal folly which shall suffer itself to be per- suaded into the surrender of those privileges, which, however easily conceded, will not be so easily resumed. To yourself, Sir, and to such of your RELIGIOUS friends both in and out of Parliament, as are doing what in you lies to raise the members of a false and corrupt Religion into power aud influence, and to invest them with dignity and honour, I would say—you are resembling her of whom it was once said by MILTON ‘She open’d—but to shut Excell’d her pow’r” You are opening a door which no man can shut, however we, or our children may hereafter deplore the evil hour in which so terrible an experiment was made. This subject, however must be pursued in my next. I am, dear Sir, Your most obedient and faithful Servant, AMICUS PROTESTANS. LETTER VI. Dear Sir, . My last had reference to the extraordinary conduct of certain Members of his Majesty’s Government. In whatever way, however, the Members of the Executive Government may deem it wise to act upon this momentous question, I apprehend that the Christian Church will at least expect of yourself, as A PROFESSOR OF RELIGION, long en- deared to our hearts by every sacred and social consideration, that you should shew some attention to consistency. J ask you then, as a Member of the BisLe Society, how you can defend the introduction to power of the Members of that Church, the Head of which (whatever Individuals of suck Church may desire or design in favour of the Bible) has never revoked the Bulls against the free dispersion and use of the Holy Scriptures, and who has himself issued a fresh Bull of the most intolerant character against all Bible Societies (in- cluding our own), which is in force at the present moment. I ask you, Sir, as a Member of the CHuRcH MISSIONARY SociETy, and as one with whom it cannot have become a matter of indifference, whether distant nations shall be en- lightened by a Protestant Mission, or by the Propaganda College of Rome, whether you can reasonably expect that no obstruction should be offered to the operations of a Society which is deservedly esteemed by you, (and of which you are a Vice-President,) if ever the Church of Rome should attain any considerable accession of power or influence among us. As a Member of the SocIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE, I ask you, whether it can be a matter of in- difference to the Regular Priests, and other Emissaries of the Romish Church, that an Institution, which, in their esteem, is no other than a Society of Heretics, should propagate, at home and abroad, what in their consciences, as good Catho- lics, they must believe to be only so much Heresy, and that they should never attempt to exert the Parliamentary and pri- vate influence they will so soon possess, to “let and hinder” the exertions of such a Society? I ask you, as a Member of THE PRAYER Book AND Homity Socirrty, how long you think the English Liturgy will be tolerated by the admirers of the Mass Book, or what sort of defenders that Liturgy may here- after expect, from the candid latitudinarianism of a half Popish Parliament? I ask you further, how long you expect that the Homiuies of our Church are likely to be endured, when they protest so strongly and loudly against the errors and abomina- tions of what they, and I, and you, alike believe to be an Apos- tate, Idolatrous, and Anti-Christian Church? Can language like this, though supported even by the arguments of CRAN- MER, be long permitted to be circulated by the Homily So - ciety under a new state of things? Our Forefathers, Sir, had a way of calling things by their right names,* but this is not likely to be long parliamentary or fashionable, should the concessions be granted, for we shall soon find that it is not only uncandid, but unlawful, to designate those who will then be our legislators and rulers, by such opprobrious terms as Idolaters and Apostates. I ask, you, Sir, as a Member of THE Rexicious Tract Society, how long you think the friends of another Church and cause, will be likely to bear with this great engine of Protestant usefulness? and whether the Irish Priests will be long content merely with anathematizing and burning those Tracts as they now do? How long do you think the Irish Roman Catholic Clergy will tolerate the PRorEs- TANT SOCIETIES, or the PROTESTANT ScHOOLs, among themselves; and how long are the friends and agents of the Church of Rome likely, on either side of the water, to endure that a Church which they esteem both heretical in her doc- trines, and of surreptitious origin, should preserve her present elevation—derive a great part of her revenue from Roman Ca- tholics, and enjoy, without molestation, the tithes and advan- tages which once belonged and still, as they think, of right, belong to themselves? More especially, I wish to putit to you, whether you really believe, and expect us to believe, that the two Colleges of JEsurrs at SronyuHuRsT in England, and at CaAsTLE BRownkE in Ireland, are there for nothing, and intend to remain quiet spectators of the simplicity which now in- vites their church to influence and power ;—bearing always in mind, that this Order was established, at first, as the pro- fessed opponents of the REFORMATION, and after having been publicly suppressed on the remonstrances of all Christian Europe, was revived by the present Pope, for the avowed pur- pose of opposing Protestantism, and exalting Popery ? I could further wish to know, how long you and certain Protestant advocates of the Catholic Claims, (who, though not in Parliament, possess and exert considerable influence on this a EO “ Je ne puis rien nommer si ce n’est par son nom.” BRomnEeAv. 20 question,) expect that the CHRISTIAN OBSERVER will con- tinue to be published, after Roman Catholics shall have taken their seats in Parliament, and the new Ecclesiatical Commis- sion intended to be created by the Relief Bill shall have entered on the discharge of its functions? Iam perfectly aware, Sir, that if the Bartlett’s Buildings’ Society were to-morrow to be sunk to the bottom of the ocean, it would not much afilict the Dissenting interest; and that if the Bible Society, Missi- onary Society, Religious Tract Society, and “Christian Ob- server,” were to share the same fate, it would as little disturb certain other respectable members of Society; but I address you on these topics, as hitherto feeling, with a large multi- tude of my fellow Christians, that the interests of these bles- sed Societies, and the rights of a Protestant press, were at least safe in your hands; and as believing, even now, that you would be the last man on earth knowingly to hurt a hair of our heads. My next will review some of the arguments which have been adduced in favour of your late vote. I am, dear Sir, Your most obedient and faithful Servant, AMICUS PROTESTANS. LETTER VII. DEAR SIR, You will probably say, in reference both to the poli- tical interests, and the Religious Societies of England, that all my reasoning supposes.—lst. That Roman Catholics still con- tinue to feel the desire to injure Protestants; and Qdly, That the concession of the claims will give them the power to be mis- chievous; both which points you deny—contending that they are now an altered race of beings, and that, even if it: were otherwise, they cannot hurt us if they would. In proof that Roman Catholics are, and must be, the same, I refer you to the REVIVAL OF THE JESUITS, and the RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INQUISITION by the present PopE, both subsequently to the rejection of Mr. Grattan’s Bill, in 1813, since which 21 period also, the violent and disgraceful Bull against all Bible Societies was issued from Rome; and the Roman Catholie¢ Bishops of Belgium have also publicly declared that “the existence and privileges of the Catholic Church are incom- patible with equal favour and protection being granted to all Religions.” In addition to this, I would notice the very in- tolerant and indefensible conduct of the present PoPE towards the Vicar General of Constance, VoN WESSENBERG, four years after Mr. GRATTAN’s Bill was rejeeted, as it is detailed at length in the correspondence which took place on the sub- ject between the Court of Rome and the Grand Duke of BADEN, which was first published in German; and after- wards in an English translation, by ACKERMANN, in 1819. I also call your attention to the formal Rescript of the present Pore to all the Cardinals, dated the 5th of February, 1808, containing his decision on a proposal from France for granting the free exercise of Religious Worship to those who dissent from the Romish Communion, in which he observes—“ It is proposed that all Religious persuasions should be free, and their worship publicly exercised; but WE HAVE REJECTED THIS ARTICLE as contrary to the Canons, and to the Coun- cils; TO THE CATHOLIC RELIGION, to the peace of human life, and to the welfare of the State, on account of the deplo- rable consequences which would ensue from it.” The other pastoral Rescripts of the present PoPE which are before the public, declaim against the toleration of Protestant worship’ as pregnant with the most fatal consequences ; re- proach the French Government for its “‘ protection of Sectaries, Heretics, and Schismatics’—and regard such an indulgence to Protestants as an alliance between ‘‘ Christ and Belial, light and darkness, truth and error, sincere piety and impiety.” He expressly asserts the ancient maxim of Popery, that there is no possibility of salvation out of the Church of Rome (“« Della quale, non vie speranza di salute.”) He expressly condemns the intermarriage of parties, only one of whom is a professor of what he calls “ the Christian Faith ;” since the Church of Rome (he says) has always strongly reproved mar- riages with HERETICS, and held them in abhorrence, for which he further quotes the authority of his predecessor CLEMENT XI.; and again he says, ‘ the same laws which forbid the marriage of “* Christians with INFIDELS have also prohibited the sacrilegious nuptials of Catholics with HERETICS.*” I wish, above all, to call your attention to the unchanged hostility of the Romish Church towards the Religion of the Gospel and its Ministers, which the official and. private cor- respondence of a great Religious Society, with which you are intimately connected (and which it is not necessary for me to name), has evidently shewn to exist upon the Continent during the last ten years.. That Society, Sir, has wisely and rightly abstained from publishing, and it never will, or ought to pub- lish, the. immense: mass of evidence which it has received (without solicitation on its part), upon this subject, but it is impossible, from your connection with that Society, that you can be ignorant that for some years past, the Jesuits and other agents of the Court of Rome have been indefatigable in Ger- many, and particularly in Bavaria, in persecuting the Church of Christ ; you cannot but know (for its Secretaries, both from official duty, and personal friendship, will have informed you, as a Vice-President), that many faithful and laborious Preachers of the Gospel have been silenced by the Court of Rome—that others have been suspended—that some, and not a few, have been imprisoned, and that one, in particular, than whom a brighter ornament of Religion both in public and private life does not exist, has been driven from his country, his congregation, his family, and his friends, to an ignomi- nious exile in Russia. All this is in conformity with the pre- sent PoPE's proceedings against the Gallican Church, and his deprivation of her Bishops, of which acts the most severe complaints were made. In his less public correspondence, further evidence appears to the same effect. In instructions * See the Pope’s several Rescripts at length, in an important collec- tion, relative to the negociations between the French Government and himself, published in 1812, by Kzatine and Co. Booksellers to the En- glish Vicars Apostolic, ———E 23 addressed by him to his Nuncio at Vienna, in the year 1805, he maintains the pretended right which the Romish Church hasever assumed of DEPOSING HERETICAL PRINCES; and he deplores the misfortune of those times which, as he says, pre- vent the Spouse of Jesus Curist (the Church) from putting those-holy maxims into practice, and constrain her to suspend the course of her just severities against the enemies of the faith. —[See Essai Historique sur la Puissance des Papes.] To come nearer home.—I entreat you to consider the gross idolatries and degrading superstitions which at this moment abound in Ireland—practices, "I venture to assert, which had scarcely their counterpart in heathen lands, and certainly have not a parallel in the darkest régions of Popery at this time—all carried on, be it remembered, under the eye, and with the sanction of the whole Romish Hierarchy and Clergy ; and then reflect on the continued opposition in Ireland of the same power (wherever it can be safely displayed) to the Pro- testant Scriptures, to Protestant exertions, and to Protestant education—and I think it must be admitted, that Popery is neither more enlightened in herself, nor more tolerant towards ourselves than heretofore, It might indeed have been expected that, from examples like these, both that part of the world which admits, and that part of it which resists, the spiritual dominion of the Pope, would have been admonished, that the Head of that Church, in our own time, is as formidable to the liberty and tranquil- lity of the world as he was formerly ; and that in spite of the pretensions to superior liberality and charity which the Pro- testant friends of the Church of Rome may make on her be- half at this moment, the same system of darkness and into- lerance is in full operation, has lost no part of its distinctive character, has grown no wiser from its misfortunes, and has only lifted its head again, for the purpose of desolating afresh the afflicted and exhausted nations of the earth. Is, then, the Head of that Church to be courted and co- quetted with by the highest authorities of a Protestant State ? Or does England, either from ancient history, or recent ex- perience, imagine that she has any thing to gain, by offering incense at an altar, whose unhallowed fires only excited the indignation and alarm of her forefathers? Rather let us hear the warning voice of a Bishop of our own, when he says—“ Of this spiritual tyranny we freed ourselves at the Reformation, and we must guard against its entrance a second time: we must not forget that a UNIVERSAL BisHop is a thing as much to be dreaded as a UNIVERSAL MONARCH: we must not for- get, that as universal empire in temporal concerns is subver- sive of civil liberty, so universal empire.in ecclesiastical con~ cerns is subversive of religious liberty.” If the above proofs of intolerance and bigotry can be pro- duced by Protestants, does not a heavy onus probandi lie on yourself, when you argue (or vote as if you argued) that the Members of the Modern Church of. Rome are no longer the same as their forefathers? I wish in all seriousness to put it to you, whether, if it had pleased God to permit events to happen more calculated than others for our admonition, any stronger and better evidences of an unchanged and implacable spirit of hostility on the part of the Church of Rome towards Protestant Europe and Protestant England, could have been afforded by that Church in the short space of a few years (during which, be it remembered, she yet continued a Peti- tioner for Protestant concessions) than those proofs to which I have alluded ? I shall consider the second point, viz.i—How far the con- cession of the claims will convey the power of annoyance, in my next; and am, Dear Sir, your most faithful Servant, AMICUS PROTESTANS. LETTER VIII. DEAR SIR, Before I come to the second point adverted to in my last, I shall adduce a few more modern proofs of the present bigotry and intolerance of the Romish Church and Clergy.’ RE 25 It appears of the last importance that all Protestants who value the Religion of the Holy Scriptures, should observe the present feelings of the Romish Church, in reference to their general use and free circulation. In the Bull of the present Pops, the circulation of the Bible is characterised as “an abo- minable device, by which the very foundation of Religion is undermined.” It is stated to be the duty and object of the See of Rome, “ to employ all means for the purpose of detecting, and rooting out such a pestilence in every way.” The Primate of POLAND, to whom this anathema is addressed, is highly commended for his “ zeal and activity, under circumstances so threatening to Christianity, in having denounced this defile- ment of the faith, tending to the imminent peril of souls,” and he is ‘‘ earnestly exhorted to execute, daily, whatever he can atchieve by his power, promote by his councils, or effect by his authority, in defeating the plans which the enemies of the Catholic Religion,” are stated to have “ prepared for its de- struction.” It is further declared to be “ the special duty of the Episcopal office to expose the wickedness of such an abomi- nable scheme, by shewing, in obedience to the precepts of the Catholic Church, that the Bible printed by Heretics is to be numbered among other prohibited Books of the Index.” After which, it is expressly asserted, that ‘“‘ experience has proved, that the Holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, been productive of more in- jury than advantage.” For this cause it is declared to be “ ne- cessary to adhere to the Deeree of 18th June, 1757, which prohibits all versions of the Scriptures in the vernacular tongues, except such as are approved by the Apostolic See, and are published with annotations from the writings of the Holy Fa- thers.” In other words, the only Translations permitted, when Translations are used at all, are such as have been published by the Romish Church, with such interpretations as frequently dilute the strength, and corrupt the purity of the original text ; thus affording a vehicle for conveying such a sense of the Sacred Writings as may perpetuate the errors of the Romish Com- municn, 26 In this Modern Papal Anathema, suited as it is to the darkest ages, his Holiness does not stand alone, but finds in those of his Clergy who are now resident in our own Protestant Empire and Metropolis, the most faithful coadjutors ; in all which, we are led to observe the co-operation of parts, and the unity of design, which are secured by such a system as induces any per- sons to denounce the exertions for enlightening the world by the Holy Scriptures. Does the Pore declare that the Bible printed by Heretics, that is, the Protestant version, is a prohibited Book, and that the Scriptures are not to be read in the vulgar tongue ?—The Vicar Apostolic, and the Priests of his Commu- nion, now resident in the British Metropolis, inform a British House of Commons, that these are the undoubted dogmas of their Church, and tliat they are bound by every principle of conscience, and every motive of duty, to act upon them. Bishop PoynTeER, the Vicar Apostolic of the London District, in his answer to the Education Committee of the House of Commons, remarks; ‘* I could not in any manner approve of any Catholic children reading the Protestant version of the Scrip- tures :” because (he says) he should “act contrary to the constant discipline of the Catholic Church.” He afterwards states that all the Catholic versions have notes; so that when the Holy Scriptures are explained by Romish notes and comments, but not otherwise, they may be consulted. Upon being asked, whether the objection to the Protestant version would still occur, if pas- sages were taken which are exactly the same in the two versions, he replies, “ The objections would be the same, although the words were the very same!!!” He then states, that ‘‘ children and the unlearned” (or the poor) ‘‘ are not allowed to read the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, without the permission of their Pastors.” He further states, that ‘‘ there was never any pro- hibition at all in the Catholic Church against reading the Scrip- tures in Latin; but all the regulations referred to the translations “in the vulgar tongue; and the Church,” he adds, ‘* had two views :—one, that the translation should be such as was autho- rised by the Catholic Church,” (and we have before seen that there is no authorised translation without Romish notes), ‘and from Protestants ; 27 2diy, that they should not be read by those, from whose igno- rance or dispositions, the Pastors of the Church had reason to fear that the reading of the Scriptures would be rather pre- judicial than beneficial to them; or, as the POPE says in his Bull against the Bible Society, ‘‘ The Holy Scriptures, in the vulgar tongue, have been productive of more injury than ad- vantage”—a blasphemous position, by which the Anti-Christian power of the Apocalypse has placed himself in direct opposi- tion to Him, who has dictated those Scriptures by His unerring Spirit, declared them able to make us “wise unto salvation,” and enforced upon all men the paramount duty of searching them. The Romish Vicar ‘Apostolic adds, ‘ The reading of the Protestant version of the Bible is a point to which I could never give my approbation ;” and being asked, “‘ Could you al- low any portions of that version to be selected for the use of Catholic Children?” he says, ‘‘ No.” On being asked, “ Whe- ther he could consent, by the instruction of Protestants, to better the moral condition of those Catholie children, whom he. had admitted to have fallen into vicious and bad habits, arising f.om their ignorance ;” he replies, ‘“‘ As a Catholic Bishop, I do. not judge that their morals could be improved, but by Religi- ous Instruction; and J could not consent for them to receive it > and on being asked, ‘“‘ whether he con- ceived that the Religious Instruction which might be conveyed. by teaching them to read the Protestant Scriptures, would not better their Moral condition?’ he answers, “ Certainly not.” The Rev. JAMES BRAMSTON, a Priest, states, first, that “ it is not at all the practice to give the Scriptures to the common and secondly, that “the Bull Unige- 2 people without notes ;’ nitus” (the main object of which was to prevent the general use of the Scriptures,) ‘is still, undoubtedly, in force in the Romish Church.” Thus also, the Rev. James ARCHER, ano- ther Priest, states, ‘‘ that he knows of no Catholic version in England without notes ;” and that the Priests « think it unsafe for children to be taught even such parts of Scripture as BOTH CHURCHES AGREE UPON, without notes;’ after which, he still further reduces the chance of a free circulation, by stating, 28 that ‘* even with notes, the Priests do not sanction the promis- cuous reading of the Scriptures, but to such persons as they think will make a good use of them,” which is, to take upon themselves the tremendous responsibility of withholding the Word of God from all persons, whom they, in their wisdom, may deem unfit to possess it.* The Romish Bishop MILNER, in his charge to his Clergy, dated 30th March, 1813, while he severely reprobates those of his own Communion who join Bible Societies, remarks, ‘‘ The J > y) promiscuous reading of the Bible is not calculated, nor intended by God, as the means of conveying Religious instruction to the bulk of mankind.” Again :—-“It is evidently a much more rational plan to put the Statutes at large into the hands of the illiterate vulgar, telling them to become their own la.-wers, than it is to put the text of the mysterious Bible into their hands, for enabling them to hammer their religion and morality out of it.” Again:—*‘ The Church recommends the reading of the Bible to all who have some tincture of learning, and an adequate knowledge of their Religion, together with the ne- cessary humility and docility to dispose them to submit their own private opinion, upon all articles of faith, to the belief of the great Church of all nations, and all ages.” Again :—“* My brethren, I am confident you will not encourage, or countenance, the distribution of Bibles, or Testaments, among the very illite- rate persons of your congregations, as proper initiatory books of instruction for them.” The same Prelate, ina Letter, in the Orthodox Journal, for October, 1813, signed by himself, calls the Bible Society “a novel and portentous Institution, unknown to the Fathers and Doctors of past ages ;’ and concludes with this remark :-——“ It is evidently impossible to add any notes what- ever.to the Sacred Text, which will make it a safe and proper elementary book of instruction for the illiterate poor.” * See, for the above Extracts, and much valuable information, on this subject, the Report of the Committee of Education to the House of Commons, in June, 1816, — ee in further proof that the Romish Clergy holds: with the Pope, that there is no salvation out of the Romish Church, l add, that Archbishop TRoy remarks, in his Pastoral Instruc- tion of 1793; “* The Apostles, their disciples, and successors, in every age, have thought it their precise duty to gain pro- selytes to this one faith, to this one society, to this one fold, and have uniformly taught, that Salvation cannot be otherwise obtained.” And a greater authority than Dr. Troy, even the present Pops, expressly declares, ‘* that the Roman Catholic Religion, because it is Divine, is necessarily one, by téself alone, and can form no alliance with any other.” My last proof of the continued intolerance of the Romish Church, is drawn from the new Constitution of the Cortes, proclaimed at Madrid, the 4th of March, 1820. ‘“ The Religion of the Spanish Nation, is, and shall be, perpetually the Roman Catholic, THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION. ‘The Nation protects it by wise and just laws, and PROHIBITS THE EXERCISE OF ANY OTHER WHAT- EVER:” and the Oath prescribed for each Member of the Cortes is, ‘* | swear to defend and preserve the Catholic, Apos- tolic, and Roman Religion, WITHOUT ADMITTING ANY OTHER INTO THE KINGDOM.” From these facts I argue that Popery 1s, what Popery WAs, and that until the contrary can be shewn, Roman Catholics ought not to be Legislators, Privy Councellors, and Members of the Executive Government in the United Kingdom. Tam, dear Sir, Your most faithful and obedient Servant, AMICUS PROTESTANS. LETTER IX. DEAR SIR, I am now to consider how far the concession of the claims will convey to Roman Catholics the power of annoy- ance. It will not be disputed by you, that the required con- cessions manifestly involve, and necessitate, an extensive sub- ST al 30 version of the existing bulwarks and fences of a Constitution, which has been hitherto, and still continues, fundamentally Protestant. Let it be admitted, that it is not a matter capable of positive proof (as nothing prospective can be) that the re- moval of our present safeguards must, of necessity, overthrow Ss ) > the Constitution which they protect, and let it be as readily conceded, that all attempts to anticipate at what period, or in what manner, such an event may be effected, must be equally speculative ; I will still however put it to you, as a Christian, and a Statesman, whether it is either a righteous, or a wise measure, (without some stronger necessity existing for it than has been shewn by yourself, or others) to incur a risk which, however it may answer the purpose of a few political adven- turers, may possibly end adversely for our Protestant Church and Empire. If, in reference to the Spiritual Church of Christ, you cannot shew that her best interests are likely to be pro- moted, or her real adherents to be increased, by the proposed changes, but rather, on the contrary, that obstruction, injury, and persecution, are the more natural and probable conse- quences of this novel and hazardous venture, how fearful. is the responsibility which you are now taking upon yourself, when the only parties likely to be benefited by the scheme, are intriguing Jesuits, Irish Adventurers, and English Oppo- sitionists ; and when the parties, whose very existence is put to hazard, are no other than the Protestant Church and British Constitution ! country upon the present system, and what is it, but that she will lose the possible advantage of the unknown, and untried, services of some Popish Statesman, Warrior, or Judge, who, under existing circumstances, can neither enter the Senate House, preside at the Bench, or attain the highest rank in the Field; but look for a moment at the reverse of that brilliant coinage which great declaimers are now striking from the mint of their own ardent imaginations, in the hope of its passing current through a Protestant Kingdom, and behold a Roman Catholie Cabinet Counsellor, advising a Protestant Sovereign ; or a firm believer in the Spiritual authority of a Foreign Poten- Put the worst that cam happen to your own a ¥ SRS — ————EEee 31 tate, exercising any controul over the interests, or administer- ing any portion of the resources, of this great Protestant Em- plre—see a conscientious member of an intolerant Church legislating for the Evangelical Clergy of England; or a Popish Judge charging a Jury of the country (themselves indifferently of one or the other Creed) in any case affecting the Protestant ascendancy, ecelesiastical or civil. Look outward, to our foreign dependencies, and see the Church Missionary Society and its Ministers subjected to the controul of a Roman Catho- lic Governor, and though I know it has been said, that Roman Catholics, although eligible, will not be elected, consider, I pray you, whether, though this may not happen under the present Ministry, it must not happen under any change of Counsels. Reflect, Sir, I entreat you, on these contradictions, inconsistencies, aud absurdities, with any portion of that sound English common sense which Sir WILLIAM TEMPLE, says, is, ‘ after all, the best sense, or it never would have been sO > common ;” and then, how will these anomalies appear? Look a little farther, Sir, and ask yourself—for the Religious part of the Nation is now asking you—how far those Professors of Religion, who feel no more for the fate of our National Reli- gion than some of its Members are now doing, have any right to anticipate the Divine blessing on their (however well intend- ed) at best equivocal, but perhaps unhallowed, labours, and whether they ought not rather to look for the expression of the Divine displeasure upon that senselessness, and apathy, that spurious charity, and misplaced candour, which can shew no better warrant for its movements, and appears only indicative of a forgetfulness of the vast and innumerable blessings, both spiritual and civil, derived to us from the exertions of such reasoners, aS HOOKER, SHERLOCK, and JEWEL, or such poli- BLACKSTONE, and Serjeant May- NAR ‘RD. The ignorance of mercy on the part of rebellious ticians, as Lord SomERs, israel, was the signal for Divine visitation; and surely, if in- difference and insensibility, under the full blaze. of Religious light and liberty, and a long-continued course of Spiritual pri- vileges, be likely to forfeit the possession of such blessings, the areuments and votes of cerfai aracters, ae eat the vital and \i-important q vestion of Seb ditio ae t 1 Executive Power among Biidived: are eminently (eames Legislative and likely to produce such results as may convince us of the true nature of our National mercies, by the painful dispensation of their loss—‘* Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that.go softly—therefore now behold the Lord bring- eth up upon them the waters of the River, strong and many, even the King of Assyria and all his glory. ” Tt will be obvious, that this view of the subject can be understood only by such Senators and Statesmen, as profess to be governed by higher prin- ciples than those of mere human policy or expediency, but it is to such an one that I am now addressing tinyself. | I propose in my next to address a few words to those among our Clerical friends who profess, and truly profess, to adhere most nearly in their preaching and practice to the original plat- form of our National Church, as exhibited in her Articles, Homilies, and Liturgy, and who are yet, most unaccountably, found with yourself on the side of the Romish Church, upon the Roman Catholic Claims. Iam, dear Sir, Your most obedient and faithful Servant, AMICUS PROTESTANS. LETTER X. DEAR hae IT is no secret that many of ithe Evangelical Clergy, with whom you are connected, think, with yourself, that the Catholic Claims may be safely conceded. There has been in this case an action-and re-action, of which it is-idle to dis- guise that you are the focus and centre, and for which, as it operate usefully or adversely to the Church of Christ, and i may io this Protestant Nation, you will either have deserved well of your country, or the reverse. So long as it was doubtful (as for a long time it was) whether you were favourable, or adverse, 33 to the Claims—so long, a vast number of excelleit persons who are more or less influenced by. your name, and follow in your train, as strongly affected by the purity of your Religious and Moral Character, and the disinterested integrity of your political eareer, felt it only due to you and to themsélves to avoid coming to any positive conclusion either for or against the Claims: While this state of things continued, there was & mixture of good and evil, which left it doubtful on which side the balance preponderated. If the Church and cause of Rome gained nothing from the Evangelical Clergy of the Church of England, the whole injury accruing to our own Church; was the benumbing and paralyzing influence produced by the in- decision and silence of so important a part of her body; on a question of this peculiar character. When, however, your sentiments were no longer doubtful, the Clergy, with whom you are more particularly associated, no longer displayed their former diffidence in approaching this question, or the same delicacy in forming a coyclusion upon it. Thus much for the action of evil. Its re-action is of this nature — rank, and property,” upon the score of which qualities, you now claim to set them up over Protestants? Have the foes and persecutors of the Church of Christ, in any age, wanted for “ intelligence, rank, and property?” Really, Sir, it might have been expected, that you, at least, would have required some other requisites for the Government of Protestants, than the ingredients you have specified; but we here find you assuming, (in defiance of all that the pen of History has traced in characters of blood), that provided, the wisdom of this world, the elevation of place, and the influence of pro- perty, be only found to meet in Legislators, and Governors, it signifies little or nothing, whether they are Protestants, or Papists. If this be not the plain and evident sense of your argument, I contend, that it has no assignable, or intelligible; meaning. You, expressly demand, “ Pelitical Weight and Power,” for ‘‘ Roman Catholics, possessed of intelligence, rank, and property.” I humbly, but confidently, affirm, that no conceivable extent, of intelligence, rank, or property, will justify a Protestant Legislature, in giving Political Weight, and Power, ina Protestant Nation, to Men, who are bound both to. God and Man, to prefer the Romish Faith, to our own, and to use their utmost exertion, to obtain for that Faith, the Religious, and Political ascendancy, which it de- servedly lost, by the verdict of the whole Country, at the Reformation, and the Revolution. I propose to consider further, in my next, your Speech for the Romish Claims, And am, Dear Sir, Your most obedient, humble Servant, AMICUS PROTESTANS. FV ES ———— ae 87 LETTER XXV. DEAR SIR, In pursuing your public defence of the Romish Claims, you observe that ‘“ instead of possessing a Religion, founded like that of the Ancients, upon delusion, the evidence of ours, rests upon the principles of reason; and you thence infer, that “ intolerance is as repugnant to its spirit, as it is unnecessary for its support,” which, is to charge with “ in- tolerance” every opponent of the Roman Catholic Claims, after you had already designated, the same opposition as so much persecution.” These, Sir, are hard words ; but not hap- pening to hold with MiraBeau, that “ words are things,” I venture to doubt, whether your charge of “ intolerance,” can be any better supported than that of “ persecution.” Your assertion is most true, that the Protestant Religion, is not founded, like the Idolatry of the ancients, upon delusion ; but then you neglect to inform us, and appear, almost to have forgotten, that the Protestant Religion, as Established in Church and State, exists in fundamental, and eternal opposi- tion, to the Idolatry of the MoDERNS, as well, as to that of the Ancients ; and, until you shall have the courage openly, to vindicate the Church of Rome, from Idolatry, and shall succeed in the attempt, I must continue to think, that it sig- nifies very little, whether one form of Idol-worship or another, be in question, and that we might as well admit the believers in Polytheism, to political power, as the believers in Tran- substantiation—and perhaps, the former, more harmlessly of the two—there being no essential difference (as is abundantly demonstrated, by the first, and ablest, of our Theologians), between a belief in the many Gods of Heathenism, and a be- lief in the false God of Popery, as exhibited by the Priest, to the adoration of the worshipping multitude, after the per- formance of that standing miracle, by which his deluded fol- lowers are required to believe, in direct contradiction to the testimony of their own senses, that the bread they behold SE eS NS aes with their bodily eyes, is absolutely, properly, and essentially, no other than God himself!* It appears to me, therefore, that in choosing only, to introduce the Religion of the Ancient Idolaters, (which was not at all in question) into your argument, to the exclusion of the Religion of the Modern Idolaters, (which was peculiarly in question), you have dealt somewhat hardly by the Ancients, as bearing exclusively, upon their ignorance and corruption, and not dealt fairly by the Pro- testant Faith, as suppressing all notice of the ignorance and corruption of that Apostate Church, whose Members you now seek to invest with political rank and power. Really, Sir, it is something like throwing dust in our eyes, to remind us of Ancient darkness, and error, and, at the same time, to take no more notice of Modern darkness, and error, than if they had no existence, while in point of fact, the main reason, why the descendants of the English Martyrs, fear to see the adherents of the Church of Rome, in place and power, is, because they believe, they shall behold Modern Idolatry, exalted with them : it not being at all conceiveable by us, that the Modern Priests, and Servants of BAAL, would be content to accept of eminent station, upon condition, that they should leave their Religion behind them, or, that. they should cease from striving (as they have ever yet done), to gain converts to that Religion, in any, and every way. Your next recommendation of the Claims, is drawn from the excellence, and amiableness, of certain Members of the Romish Church, and you particularly instance FENELON, as having been “ sent from Heaven to bless’ mankind, with the mildness of his wisdom, and the efficacy of his example.” Perhaps, Sir, a more unfortunate reference, in proof of your * A Romish Missionary, after having taken great. pains to instruct a Chinese Disciple, in Christianity, asked him before a large assembly, “‘ How many Gods there were 2” To which the pupil, very unexpectedly answered “ None.” © None!” exclaimed the astonished Priest, ‘ why have I not always told you there was one?” “ Yes, Sir,” repliedsthe new Convert, “ but you know J ate him yesterday!” 39 position, could hardly have been selected than this. No otie has more forcibly mceulcated the danger of putting the Scrip- tures into the hands of the people (a fundamental tenet of Popery,) than the Romish Archbishop, whom you thus eulo- gize as “ sent from Heaven to bless mankind.”” I refer more particularly, to his well known “ Letter to the Bishop of Ar- RAS,” a Letter, Sir, which, however; yourself, and other Pro- testant Advocates of the Romish Claims, may happen to forget, will never be forgotten by any Roman Catholic, who desires to prove upon Episcopal Authority, that the general circulation of the Holy Scriptures, is eminently hazardous, eae Sea e Tit and that the Romish Church alone, is the proper judge, when, where, and by whom, they may be read. This single fact, may serve to show, that however respectable, and amiable, an individual, may be personally, who is in the Communion of the Church of Rome, he will inevitably be hampered by his Nee Ht system, and influenced by its unscriptural, and fatal errors. I am not quarrelling with FENELON, for this unchristian blunder, but, I do think it an extraordinary circumstance, that you, Sir, as a Vice-President, of the British and Foreign Bible Society, should have selected that particular Prelate, for this splendid eulogy, before a British House of Commens, when he would notoriously have shut up the Scriptures from the Laity, and when he strenuously maintains the duty of the people, to submit to the teaching of their Priesthood, in pre- ference to the instruction of the word of Gov. In proof that I'am justified in this statement of his sentiments, I refer to this celebrated Letter, of which an English translation was published as recently as the year 1816, by a Romish Priest of Birmingham, who has also favoured the British Public, with a printed account of a MIRACLE, performed by himself in the year 1815, upon a woman possessed with a Devil, which he has the audacity to declare, that he himself cast out! This Let- ID) Hil I} ter of FENELON is also fully quoted by Mr. BLAIR, in the very i admirable Series of Letters, which he publicly addressed to nm i Hi you in 1819, (See Letter 23d, p. 152 ;) and how it could i ae liave happened, that with such an open testimony against the lh Ug ED 90 Anti-seriptural Theology of FENELON, almost in every one’s hand, you should have expected the House of Commons and the Public, to believe that such a man was sent from Hea- ven to bless that world, from which he would thus have with- held the Bible, as “ the Book of Heretics, whose familiar use gaye rise to the sects of Protestants.”"—How, I say, you could asa Protestant Legislator, have expected to set up such a character in a Protestant Parliament, and to have rendered the Romish Claims niore palatable to the nation, by connect- ing that character with those Claims, remains to be explained. My next will continue my observations on your public de- fence of the Romish Claims. I am, Dear Sir, Your very obedient and faithful Servant, AMICUS PROTESTANS. LETTER XXVI. DEAR SIR, Your concluding point is, that “ England is a coun- try of Law, but that in Ireland, the inhabitants may be said to be remarkable, rather for an habitual abhorrence, than for an accustomed observance of the Law,” and you thence argue, that “ Irish Catholics, admitted into a participation of the blessings derived from the British Constitution, will be improved in character, ameliorated in condition, and their National habits and prejudices, softened and assuaged.” This is, certainly, a beaw ideal. Let us, however, examine it. It supposes, that the lower classes of Roman Catholics in Ireland, if the door to Political Power were open for those of their own body, who are better clothed, and better taught, would at once emerge from the barbarous and brutal con- dition, in which we at present find them, and that nothing short of a Moral regeneration would be produced, by the Political remedy, which is commonly called, ‘ Catholic Emancipation,” under which the Members of the Papacy, 91 would take their seats in the Senate, on the Bench, and at the Council Board; but who does not see, that the well-dis- posed labourer, who now subsists in his mud-built hovel, upon butter-milk, and potatoes, will fare no better, when his leaders shall have obtained the object of their ambition; and what honest man does not deprecate the delusion, by which the ignorant villager is profligately invited to entertain such hopes, as his flatterers know will never be realized? In reference to the criminal part of the Roman Catholic popula- tion, it is equally idle to suppose, that the mere concession of the Claims, will change the hearts and dispositions of those, who now subsist on rapine, and make a trade of blood. Such men, are only to be reached, and renewed, by the Gospel of CHRIsT, but the nostrum of “ Catholic Eman- cipation,” will only leave them far worse than it finds them» precisely in that proportion, in which it shall give greater credit, and influence, to an Apostate Church, a Tyrannical Priesthood, and a Corrupted Christianity. The greater the moraland mental ignorance, is, which’ prevails in Ireland, the more certain, and powerful, willbe the influence of de- grading Superstitions, and gross Vices ; and ignorance, both moral and mental, is inseparable from Popery. Let Educa- tion, instruct and civilize, and let Piety, illuminate and evan- gelize, and the great work, which you profess to have in view, in Ireland, will be certainly, and effectually, accom- plished, without making Papists (as you recommend) * the depositories of Political Power,”—a measure, which is, of all others, the most calculated, to perpetuate the Spiritual De- gradation, and confirm, the Mental Bondage, of this fine and generous people. The Head of the Romish Church is so sensible that his ‘craft is in danger,” and that “the great Goddess” of Rome, -whom the world has so long worshipped, is likely to be “set at nought” by Protestant Instruction, that he has only lately issued a Bull, against the Bible Schools of Ireland, as the most formidable foes of his Anti- Christian system, of crime and darkness. This Bull, like that nefarious Bull against the English Bible Society, which 92 was also issued by this pretended Vicar of the. Prince of Peace, may be treated with the contempt it deserves, so long as Protestant Legislators, bear rule in the United Kingdom; but if once that Church, of which this ‘‘ Man of Sin,” is at the head, shall be raised by you, Sir, and by others, to the rank it lost at the Reformation, and its intolerant Members, shall again rear their blood-stained heads, be assured, that na such an anathema as this, will be no longer a brutum fulmen, Rea or a dead letter, and multitudes will then know, to their cost, eae | what a serpent they have taken to their bosoms, Your great | cb i mistake appears to be, a confident expectation, that Protes- a tant Preaching, and Protestant Teaching, must still go on, no matter what may be the Political system in Ireland, and no matter who may administer it; but this is so far from being the case, that Popery must, in the nature of things, ul consolidate her strength, and increase her influence,.in a bi ten-fold degree, by the proposed concessions, while the ex- ait! hibition of Vital Religion, and. the diffusion of Human Know- ledge, will be proportionally discouraged, and put down, by the developement of the intolerant principles of Popery in power, We feel no surprise, when mere worldly politicians, would administer this grand specific of ‘Catholic Emanci- pation,” for the modern miseries of a Priest-ridden people, whose best Religion, is a refined Idolatry, and whose mental cultivation, is steadily opposed by the Pontiff and Clergy of Rome, who have ever acted on the principle, that, «* Ignorance an) is the Mother of Devotion,” (as indeed, of such a devotion, it certainly is)—it affords, I say, no matter of surprise, that Politicians, who-make no particular profession of Religion, i should think, or at least assert, that with Roman Catholics ; in power, (who have ever been opposed to the extension of Education, and the diffusion of Religious Truth), we shall suddenly come, to have a civilized, and an enlightened people. Such arguments, in such hands, might safely be left to their fate; when, however, such Statesmen as your- self, adopt, and advocate, these mischievous theories, they: require particular and public refutation, because, though 93 equally invalid, and indefensible, from whatever quarter they proceed, they yet acquize, from the sanction of your name, and the influence of your authority, an importance, and a danger, which do not naturally belong to them. Viewing this great. question, in its political relations alone, we feel astonished, when you so confidently predicate of an experi- ment, which the best and wisest amongst us, have agreed in considering, so full of hazard—that it is both safe and ex- pedient ; but, on considering the question, in’ its Theological and, Moral connections, and dependencies, we almost doubt the evidence of our senses, when we hear, the public advo- cate of ‘Practical Christianity,” pass through a public address, on the most grave and awful question, ever yet pro- pounded in a Christian Assembly, as if, with a studied, and systematic determination, to omit all notice of the solemn bearings of that question, upon the Religion of the Reformed Church, and upon the Professors of the Reformed Religion. Still more are we afilicted, and amazed, at the apparent levity, which, after discarding from consideration, the leading and more appropriate points of the argument; could adopt, with complacency, and recommend, with confidence, the “ flat, stale, and unprofitable,” Catholicon of ‘“‘ Emancipation,” (al- though purloined from the laboratory of every State empiric, for the last thirty years), as the only panacea for a country, the greater part of which, is notoriously bowing down before Idols -enslaved by the grossest superstitions—and immersed in the most palpable darkness. You, Sir, were just the last person in the world, from whom, either the Religious, or the Irreligious, ever expected to hear, that the political quackery of an imposing phrase, like that of ‘Catholic Emancipation,” was to effect the moral regeneration of Ireland! They sup- posed, you would never have referred to any meaner instru- ment, than the rod of Moszs, the power of effectually striking the rock of obduracy, passion, and prejudice, to. be found in a Popish population, but they now find, that you an- ticipate fullas.much from the use of the harlequin wand, with which Mr. GRATTAN, Mr. Fox, and Mr, SHERIDAN, ‘aT expected to shift the scenes, and change the machinery, of that great drama, in which they were all, in their turns, such conspicuous actors. This, in them, Sir, was well; for it was, at least, consistent. They made no other professions, and the public had no right*to expect any other results. I leave the application of this reflection, to yourself, with a single verse, which, with all the beauty of poetry, has none of its fiction :— Erin! thy silent tear shall never cease, Erin! thy languid smile shall ne’er increase, Till by the Gospel light Thy varied tints unite, And form, like rainbow bright, One arch of peace. I am, Dear Sir, Your most obedient and faithful Servant, AMICUS PROTESTANS. P.S. Itmay be proper to observe, that the Report of Mr. W’s Speech, as given in the Old Times, of the 17th March, 1821, is that which I have used in commenting upon such Speech ; because, however persons may differ in opinion, respecting the political character of that Paper for some time past, there appears but one opinion, as to the general correctness of its Parliamentary Reports. LETTER XXVIII. DEAR SIR, It is probable that many who have followed me through my observations on your public apology for the Ro- mish Claims, may be induced to exclaim of that apology, “« Tantamne rem tam negligenter !” but indeed, I acquit you altogether of a negligent, or perfunctory, discharge of the dif- 95 ficult task which you had gratuitously assigned to yourself, You have done as well as any one else, and better than many, what you, above all other men, ought never to have at- tempted at all. Your difficulty lay in the choice of your subject, for you had a cause in which the eloquence of an Angel, would not have availed him, unless, with one of MIL- TON’s Angels, he had possessed the faculty of making “ the worse appear the better reason.” Permit me, Sir, however, in all seriousness and sobriety, to inquire why you selected such a cause as the object of your attachment, and the theme of your oratory? Permit me to inquire why, with all the History of the Church and the world full in your face, you deserted a standard under which you had never fought but to conquer, and volunteered your services in the cause of a cor- rupt Church, condemned by the prophecies of God, abased in the sight of man, and only to be raised, through the medium of Protestant instrumentality, to the exercise of that abused power, which, though it once made her the scourge of real Religion, and the terror of all nations, you now consider to be no more than her right to challenge, and no less than our duty to concede? I know you will affirm (with MELANCTHON) that you deem as ill of the Church of Rome, in a spiritual view, as the strongest opponent of her political Claims; but if this be so, then I contend, that (like him) you have chosen a strange mode of displaying your sentiments, and that so long as men are to “ be known by their fruits,” so long you are necessarily subjecting yourself, by persisting in your present line of policy, to one of two inconveniences. Either it must be believed, that you do no¢ think as hardly of the An- ti-Christ of Scripture as you profess; or else that a judicial infatuation is inducing you to imagine that Anti-Christ, can re- sume the Throne of his Ancient dominion, without becoming more formidable, either spiritually or temporally, to Protest- ants, than now that he is under the disability of subjection and controul. I am persuaded, Sir, that if you would be content to ex- ercise only a portion of your old English common sense, you 96 would soon discover the folly of abetting and favouring either those men, or those measures, which at the same time you profess to contemn and abhor ; and that you would also discern the impossibility of your countrymen giving you credit for the sincerity of a profession which is so completely at variance with your practice, Let us put the case of an invading ene- my meditating our national humiliation (under the guise of friendly purposes) as the necessary preliminary to his own exaltation. Would the KING, or the nation, trust a man who, while he might profess to abhor that enemy quite as much as one else, should yet maintain, that the best way to disarm his hostility would be to let him into a share of the Govern- ment, and that the readiest way to silence his complaints would be to give him all that he asked, except, perhaps the Throne and the Woolsack? If this reasoner should further contend that, in spite of innumerable proofs of perjury, cru- elty, and profligacy, it was still our duty to give the common enemy another trial, in order to see how he would behave, would such a fallacious mode of argumentation be likely to make any converts? If it were further notorious that a large proportion of the population (as in Ireland for instance) were of the same Religion, and owned the same Master as the In- vader, and, of course, favoured his pretensions, and desired to see him at their head ; would the same logician be believed, if he should still contend that the Religion of the enemy was not likely to be encouraged, by giving its professors increased au- thority and influence, and that the bias towards a Foreign Allegiance was as little likely to be strengthened by making the warmest adherents, and most faithful subjects, of another Ruler, “ the depositories of political power.” I confess my- self, Sir, to labour under some disadvantage in dealing with such arguments as you have advanced for the Romish Claims ; for, as it has been often observed, that the proof of a self-evident truth, is one of the most difficult tasks which can be assigned to us, so, perhaps, the formal refutation of propositions which carry with them their own exposure, is not without its difficulty. T apprehend, however, that after all the logical halo’ in which. the advocates of the Claims, may involve the real merits of this question, there is no political sophistry which can ever ‘Separate such a measure from the interests and existence of the National Church. I am free to admit that the Estallish- ment, considered in a Religious point of view, may sustain a deteriorating change from many circumstances, connected with her secular alliance, her outward prosperity, or other causes; but however she may retrograde, as a Protestant Church, there is, “‘ hope in Israel” concerning her, and “ balm in Gilead” for her every wound ; but what power shall arrest, or retard, the process of dissolution in that BoDY POLITIC, which shall exhibit the morbid, and monstrous, anatomy of a Protestant Church, and a Popish Legislature—a Protestant King, and Popish Counsellors—Protestant Laws, and Popish Judges—a Protestant Police, and Popish Magistrates—Pro- testant Colonies, and Popish Governors—a Protestant County, and a Popish Sheriff? Such prodigies, now to be spawned for the first time, can have but one result—the destruction of the Church of England, and the downfall of the Empire. From yourself, Sir, we certainly had expected other con- duct than theavowed defence of Mr, PLUNKETT’S Bill, and we expected it under the most solemn sanctions of your Le- gislative Office. In the Oath of Supremacy, which you have now so often taken, you have sworn that ‘ no Foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate, OUGHT TO HAVE any jurisdic- tion, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or other authority, ECCLESIASTICAL, Or SPIRITUAL, within this realm.” A main object of the Bill you have publicly supported, is, to secure. to the Head of the Romish Church, “ Ecclesiastical and Spi- ritual authority,” although, as a salve, it denies to him tem- poral authority—a professed object of its passing at all, was to relieve the tender consciences of those who cannot consent to admit on oath, that their Foreign Master has no spiritual authority, although they are content, for the present, to deny his temporal power. But how, Sir, can you, consistently with your oath, that this Potentate “* ought not to have ECCLESIASTICAL, OF SPIRITUAL” (any more than temporal) 9 « authority, safely support a Bill of this description, by which it is contended (in contravention of your oath), that he OUGHT to have Ecclesiastical and Spiritual authority, and by which the existing law, is so jesuitically explained away as te leave him in undisturbed possession of it? I feel assured that this particular fact, cannot have been present to your mind, when you determined to support such a Bill, and I am not without the hope that itmay yet, receive your most serious consideration. I also conjure you, in conclusion, to consider, before another Session shall arrive, the awful responsibility which you are taking upon yourself, in the rejection of that vast ac- cumulation of Religious, of Moral, and of Political, evidence which the experience of ages, has amassed upon this momen- tous question. “ To resist” (says your old friend Dean Mit1- NER, in his posthumous Sermons), “ a sufficient evidence, and such evidence as Gop, in his unerring judgment and com- passionate providence, thinks proper and expedient for us is highly blameable, and incurs the danger of losing Gop’s blessing.” I also intreat you to consider the peculiar incon- sistency of your present policy. “ It is necessary,” says your favourite author Dr. OwEN, “ that all those who sincerely own the Protestant Religion, and make it the rule of their living to Gon, in hopes of the eternal enjoyment of him in another world, do Unite in one common design and interest, to oppose the ENTRANCES AND GROWTH OF PoPERY among us. And it is ahard thing to persuade rational men that they are in earnest for its opposition, and exclusion, who are not willing to do so.” It will be a hard thing, Sir, for any Re- ligious man (whether in or out of Parliament) to persuade ra- tional men, at present, that he can advocate the Romish Claims, to a successful issue, without, at the same time, emi- nently aiding, and assisting, the Romish Church. The things are inseparable, and it is an affront to our understandings to attempt to disjoin them. The Roman Catholics themselves know better, if their Protestant friends do not, and all the uhwearied and obtrusive efforts of the Romanists for the 99 Claims, suiliciently prove how indissoluble THEY consider the connection between the grant of tlose Claims, and the pros- perity of their own Church. They know, Sir, if you do not, that with such a fulcrum for their machinery as Legislative and Executive power will afford them, they can move a world. The anxiety of the Papists themselves, for secular authority and power, when the acquisition of Religious Toleration can- not be their object, (since it is already theirs in the fullest sense), speaks with too plain a voice to be misunderstood by any who have “ ears to hear.” By the measure, Sir, which you advocate, we have every thing to lose, and nothing to gain. To ‘ let well afone,” however homely the maxim, is no mean point of wisdom, “ Then I thought in my dream,” (says JouN BunyAn), “ that itis easier going out of the way when we are in, than going in when we are out.”—Now, Sir, entertaining as I do, the sincerest respect for you: per- mit me still to express my doubts whether, upon the subject of the Romish Claims, you ever dreamt to better purpose than this ?—and, as I know you value the opinions of the early lights of the Reformation, (whether in or out of the Church of England), I wish you to lay your hand on your heart, and ask yourself whether you really believe that JoHN BUNYAN and RicHARD BAxTER, JOHN FLAVEL and Dr. Owen, would, under any circumstances, or, at any period, have given power to Popery. I observe, in conclusion, that in the rejeetion of the late Bill, we have been once more delivered from impending ruin by the signal, unmerited, and, perhaps, too little regarded providence of Gop—we have been spared not only in defi- anee of our enemies, but in spite of our FRIENDS, and this fact, above every other, speaks our deliverance to be divine. Another short interval has thus been afforded for National hu- miliation, Protestant exertion, and Preparation for trial— Whether another year may be crowned with a similar mercy is only known to him “ who knoweth all things,” but, as- suredly, while we are bound to be thankful, we ought to re- joice with trembling. In looking to this extraordinary deli- 100 verance, so far as second causes were instrumental in affect- ing it, I cannot withhold my most sincere expressions of ac- knowledgment to the 26 Spiritual Peers, who formed so large a portion of the Majority of 39, by which this Bill was re- jected. Asa Member of the Establishment, I am anxious to acknowledge my obligations to those Bishops, who, under Gop, have thus saved the Church over which they preside, aud that, not for the first time. How far one of that venera~ ble Bench, who has for many years constantly resided on. the sea coast of Somersetshire, under the entire incapacity (from the afilicting loss of sight), of discharging all the active functions of life, but who has never failed for several succes+ sive Sessions to transmit his proxy FOR THE RoMAN CaA~ THOLIC CLAIMS; how far, I say, such a course of conduct is reconcileable with an Ordination Vow, and with Episcopal obligations, it is not my province to enquire—I only advert to the fact, in the way of caution to those distinguished charac- ters who have the selection of fit persons for the Episcopal Office, before they again recommend those to a station of such eminent responsibility, who are pledged to vote syste- matically in favour of the Roman Catholics, “ per fas atque nofas” Anglice, “ through thick and thin. I conclude with a single admonition to the People of Eng- land, which I cannot clothe in better terms than in the ex- pressive language of Scripture—* Now Go, STRENGTHEN THYSELF; FOR AT THE RETURN OF THE SEASON, THE Sy- RIANS WILL AGAIN INVADE THY BORDER.” I am, Dear Sir, Your most obedient, faithful Servant, AMICUS PROTESTANS. hoes —~— a eee 101 TO MELANCTHON. LETTER I. SIR, After no fewer than seven of my letters to Mr. Wi1- BERFORCE, had appeared before the public, you entered the lists as the Champion of that Gentleman, and of the Catholic Cause, by a Letter, dated ‘“‘ Clapham Common, April 2nd,” in which Letter, you avowedly answer my Seventh Letter alone, and avoid all notice of the Six which had preceded it !—Of this extraordinary opening of your correspondence, I do not intend to complain, since, in a free country like our own, it is, doubt- less, as competent to any third person to appear in a literary controversy, at whatever period of it he may prefer, as it is competent to him to select for examination, whatever argu- ments of his opponent, he may think proper, and to let such of them alone, as he may deem less tractable: I merely advert to the fact, as exhibiting, at least, a singular feature in literary polemics, and proceed to my promised rejoinder. You begin, by an eloquent protest against Popery, as both unscriptural in its Theological tenets, and perilous in its Poli- tical tendencies, and as you take frequent occasion to insist on your abhorrence of Popery, both as a Christian, and an English- man, I would observe, once for all, that as a plain man, and a Protestant, I, for one, am wholly unable to reconcile pro- fessions of this nature, with the unqualified advocacy of the Roman Catholic Claims, That you believe you abominate such a system as Popery, I do not for an instant doubt, and I there- fore acquit you of all hypocrisy; but, to suppose, that you may perchance lie under the error of imagining yourself a better Protestant than you really are, and may therefore, pos- Pal 102 sibly be the subject of self-deception, will, I hope, be consi- dered, no breach of charity, as involving no imputation on your moral honesty. The estimate which a man may form of the character and extent of his own Protestantism, upon a review of his own sentiments, cannot be admitted as an in- fallible criterion of the actual state of his mind; any more than the conclusion to which he may come, upon a review of his spiritual character, can, atall times, be admitted, as of itself, an evidence, of his ‘real condition—we all know, that, in this latter case, a defective conscience, may conduct him to au erroneous conclusion in regard to himself, without, in any degree, involving him inthe imputation of a desire to impose upon others; and thus, in reference to the quality and extent of his Protestantism, it is equally possible, that in the absence of some higher, and less equivocal test, than in the present prosperous state of the Church, he can have had the oppor- tunity of resorting to, he may be greatly over-rating both his knowledge of, and attachment to, the doctrines of thie Refor- mation, and (however unconsciously to himself) be taking eredit for principles and sentiments, which will not bear the guage of a minute examination—at all events, it may be worth while for such a reasoner to consider, whether, while his ar- guments for the outward aggrandizement and exaltation of the Church of Rome, are so numerous and ingenious, he can rea- sonably expect the Protestant world to believe, that he holds the principles and dogmas of that Church, in the abhorrence which he professes, or whether, since men are to be known by their fruits, he can honestly expect, that we should be simple-hearted enough to imagine, that a modern Protestant, who would liberally give the Roman Catholics all they ask, is to be deemed as good a friend of the Church of Christ, as the illustrious men of a former age, who, at least, understood the genius and character of Popery, as well as their descendants, and who would give place to her in nothing, “no not for an hour.” It is necessary, Sir, on this subject, to speak plainly: I must therefore beg leave, in the very outset, to question the wae? egg 103 validity of all those pretensions to just and accurate feeling, on the vital and paramount interests of the Reformed Church, which are now so boldly advanced by yourself, and other Protestant advocates of Popery. It certainly was not thus, that our Forefathers “ resisted unto blood, striving against Sin,” nor am I aware of any dispensation, in virtue of which, they, who now call themselves Protestants, can claim to serve two Masters, and yet, expect it to be understood, that they are only attached to one. Iam well aware, that, in a cer- tain quarter, it will be deemed the perfection of uncharita- bleness, to suggest any doubts, as to the attachment of our neighbour to the Protestant Church: as it would be in other quarters, to venture on an intimation, that “all are not Israel, who are of Israel,” but it must not be forgotten, that in both these cases, the very absence of all suspicion, on the part of those who may possibly be the subjects of error, is, itself, the best evidence of their need of self-examination, and enquiry; and that they are, perhaps, the last persons, competent to form a judgment on their own case, who least suspect the probability of their being mistaken. in immediate connection with your opening professions of abhorrence, for the whole Ecclesiastical system of Popery, stands the open assertion of your opinion, that “ the present Claims of the Catholics, ought to be unhesitatingly granted,” an opinion, which exposes you to the imputation both of inconsistency, and temerity, since it assumes, at once, that none of the odious qualities, which you yourself ascribe to Popery, can be injurious to the Nation, when the Members of that system, shall possess equal rights with Protestants, The inconsistency of your reasoning, will appear thus—You designate Popery,—Ist, as “ one of the most infamous of im- “ postures, that ever insulted the human understanding, or “ degraded the human heart :”—2ndly, as « Politically inju- “rious in the highest degree, affecting equally the proper * dignity of the Crown, and the true Liberty of the People :” “—Sdly, that ** time flows in vain for it, and that it is, with et all its errors, and mischiefs, in spite of the course of-im- shipwreck, where “ provement, and the march of mind, unchanged, and un- « changeable :’—and 4thly, that “ it is, and ever must be, ia ‘spirit, and in action, irreconciliably hostile, to the genius « of a Protestant Government, and the interests of a Protes- “tant Establishment.” Now, I venture to affirm, that te draw from premises thus laid down by yourself, that “ the Catholic Claims, ought to be unhesitatingly granted,” is emi- nently inconsistent, since they are premises, which cannof, imately, conduct any sound reasoner to such a conclu- legit and, that your argument is full of hardihood, and sion ; temerity, is equally manifest, because, so long as it is barely possible that you may be mistaken, in supposing, that danger will not follow the entire, or divided, possession of power, by the Roman Catholics; so long will it be a hazardous, and unwise experiment, to subject the Government in Church and State, to what must be, at all events, a risk, the issue of which, as it cannot be calculated by the most sagacious, would only be invited by the most presumptuous. Surely, Sir, you must have effected an insurance for your country, upon a bankrupt and insolvent capital, when, in the face of such admissions, respecting the dangers of Popery, assure us, that we have nothing to you still magnanimously fear from it. That our existence might be secured for a I shall not deny, but, in the event of combustion, or shall we fly for reimbursement, and pro- We shall have abandoned a certain advantage, for bstance, for a shadow! We season, tection ? an uncertain speculation—-a su shall, indeed, enjoy a reversionary interest in all in their complete entirety, but what will they avail ainst them, when they your pro- mises, us? The experience of all ages was ag e given; and if it should so happen, that the result of hould complete the accumulated series of shall only have our own wer another trial, s evidence we already possess, we simplicity, and folly, to blame for the.consequence. I am free to confess, that I have been charged by you, with trusting too implicitly to conjectures of evil, in regard to the future. The difference, however, between us, I take to be a oe of this nature, and it is not slight:—I argue to the future from the past; you look forward, with a sovereign contempt, for Antiquity, and, without troubling yourself with the docu- ments of History, or the evidence of Experience. I find a Snake in the way, that I believe will bite, because, it always did so, before it was rendered innoxious by certain physical obstacles. You are for restoring this reptile to animation, and setting it at liberty, under a conviction, (believed, or professed), that its nature will be changed with its condition, —that it will be overwhelmed with gratitude, and never bite any more. All this, indeed, may be very true, but, if it should; then Zsop might have spared his pains, and Snakes must have been scandalously misrepresented, from the period of the Fall, until the present era of liberality, and light, which, it seems, has set every thing to rights, and corrected all sorts of Prejudice, and Bigotry. It is impossible to reason, with any chance of correctness, respecting the future, except from what we know of the past; and, therefore, when you dispute, or deny, the ap pli- cability of former facts to future events, you reject the only light which can be shed, upon the otherwise pathless tract which lies before us. We cannot be positively certain, that if we cultivate, and tend, the Deadly Nightshade, it will pro- duce its poisonous berries; but, former experience suggests, the strong probability of such a result: and, acting on our knowledge of the past, we abstain from contributing towards the production, or growth of evil. . If you can persuade the Protestant public, to unlearn all that they have ever been taught; to forget all that they have ever read; and to dis- credit all that they have ever believed; the question, between the Roman Catholics and ourselves, is at an end, and the sooner we burn our books, the better. I am, Sir, Your most obedient. humble Servant, . AMICUS PROTESTANS, P LETTER I. SIR, You proceed to contend, that all the accumulation of evidence which has been produced, against the spiritual and moral corruptions of the Papacy, and against the intole- rance, bigotry, and cruelty, of such a system, afford no ar- gument whatever, against conceding the Claims, because, “ we are legislating, not for the Clergy, but for the Laity,” but I venture to deny, in limine, that it is possible to satisfy the Roman Catholic Laity, by any legislation, which shall not satisfy the Clergy :—in other words, which shall not give influence, and power, to their common Church, and in the same proportion, aid a cause, which is as essentially opposite to the cause of Protestantism, as darkness is opposite to light. Since the period, when certain disabilities, affecting the exercise of Religious Worship, and the acquisition, and trans- mission. of property, were removed by the Legislature, from the Romish Laity, it has become impossible, so to help that Laity, by any further enactments, as shall not, at the same time, help the Clergy, and the Church, of Rome. The in- terests of these bodies, may be separated in theory, both by interested, and ingenious reasoners, but they never can be disunited in practice; and, among other proofs of this, we need only advert to the question, of admitting Roman Catholics, to Seats in either House of Parliament. It is notorious, that many persons (among others, the late Speaker of the House of Commons), made a stand at this point,* but what said both * ¢ There is much ground for apprehension,” (said this distinguished Indi- vidual, in his celebrated Speech of the 24th May, 1813), “in the Roman “ Catholics sitting here collectively, as a body—their peculiarity of con- “ nection, must, necessarily, produce that combination of strength, “ which, coalescing in critical times, with all the other embodied dis- « content, incident to a popular state, would produce an overwhelming “ force, and endanger the general establishments of the country.” After which he adds, ‘I feel it incumbent on me to repeat, that, in my _—— ———— 107 the Catholic Clergy and Laity,—* We will lose vur Bill, rather than take it on the terms of exclusion from Parliament.” Had seats been conceded, Roman Catholics would, of course, have become the repealers, and makers of laws, and, however some may chuse to refer their solicitude, for the representative fran- chise, to the mere abstract love of sitting on the same benches with their neighbours, or of saying, aye, or no, as they might be minded, it is not to be doubted, that a strong conviction, of the advantages to be derived by the Romish Church, the Romish Clergy, and the Romish Cause, was the leading mo- tive, in the abandonment of a Bill, which, in its altered form, would not have secured to the Romanists the right of legislating, in favour of a Religious system, which they must have been hypocrites not to have preferred, to the established Religion of the country. Upon this branch of your argument, namely, the expediency of dividing the’ Clergy of the Church of Rome, from the Laity, I observe, that it is utterly hopeless, to expect such a disunion, and manifestly impracticable, to brmg it about, by the mode which you suggest. In reference to the hopelessness of the scheme in general, the very account you have yourself given, of the profound ability and address, with which the system of Popery was constructed, for cementing and consolidating its constituent parts, affords a sufficient answer to your own argument, of “ Divide et impera.” So long as the Laity of the Church of Rome, continue in its communion, and so long as the Clergy of that Church, are inseparably connected with its existence, so long is it impossible, that the Romish Laity Should separate themselves, or be separated, from the Clergy, They must cease to be Roman Catholics, in order to the “ opinion, the great stand to be made, for the preservation of our Con- ‘¢ stitution in Church and State, must be against the admission of Roman ** Catholics, to Seats in Parliament ; a concession, which would virtually ** accomplish, and at no distant period, their admission into every other “ branch of Political Power ; an event, which I dread, ‘and deprecate, “ and shall think it my duty to resist, to the uttermost.” Sr aS eee change which you so ingeniously contemplate :—you admit, that among other contrivances, ejusdem farine. AURICULAR CONFESSION, is one of the bonds, by which the influence of the Romish Clergy, over its Laity, is held together; but where is the Layman of that Church, whether in or out of Parliament, who will renounce the doctrine of Auricular Confession, as a boon for Political Privilege? Which of them will be so captivated by Protestant Concessions, as to deny the supreme authority of his own Church, in matters of faith, merely on account of the Protestant simplicity, which shall enable him to do more for that Church, than he has ever been able to effect before? Either these men must, themselves, become Protestants, (a consequence, which you can hardly anticipate), or they must become Infidels, (a re- sult, which you can hardly desire), before they can be rea- sonably expected to dissolve the ties which bind them, by every principle of conscience, to their own Religion, in favour of a Creed, which they have been taught from their infancy, is inconsistent with salvation. It is neither correct in point of fact, nor is it very complimentary to the Romish Laity, to imagine, they will give up their Clergy, any more than their Creed; indeed, it is impossible, that they should abandon the one, without surrendering the other. That men, of such good sense and liberality, as Mr. PLUNKETT, among the Protestants, or Mr. BuTLER, among the Roman Catholics, may be easily brought to see the intolerance and bigotry, which have been displayed by certain High Priests of the Romish Church, is not to be doubted; and indeed, were they slow to discover, .or unwilling to admit, the intemperance and folly of some of the leaders of the Roman Catholics, the cause they advocate, would not for a moment detain the attention of a British Legislature; but although respectable men, both in and out of the Romish Church, may come to right conclusions on such a subject, and may deplore, and deprecate, as fatal to their own hopes, the violence, and absurdity, which characterize the proceedings of certain of the Popish Clergy, it is still no less true, that a connection 109 of an indissoluble nature, subsists betwen the general body of the Romish Clergy, and that of the Laity, which is quite independent of any secular, or subordinate considerations, and will no more be affected by the indiscretion, or impolicy, of particular Priests, than it will be by the worldly wisdom of particular Laymen. The connection between the two bo- dies, is founded upon the hold which their mutual attachment to their common Creed, has upon each of them, nor can this alliance be dissolved, but with the conversion of one of the bodies to a purer faith, and a more enlightened system. I suppose, you would, yourself, give up the Romish Priest- hood, as not very likely to come over to Protestantism, and the question then, between us is, whether the grant of the required concessions, is likely to bring over the Laity? I think not: at all events, it betrays (I wish to say it without offence), a very slight acquaintance with the History of the Church, and the World, to contend, as you do, that the tenure by which the Romish Clergy hold their influence over the Laity, is slight, when that tenure is sanctioned, and cemented, by a belief in their common Religion, and an ad- herence to their common policy, and when the uninterupted experience of so many ages, proves it to be as strong and enduring a tenure, as spiritual: and secular obligations can form. Still less is it consistent with all analogy, to suppose, that this influence can be dissolved, by investing the Laity with Political Power, in the idle hope, that such a grant, will throw the Clergy and Laity into opposite interests, and finally lead to the rejection of the Ecclesiastical yoke. The fallacy of the conclusion which you draw from your statement, of the nature of the union between the Clergy and the Laity, may, perhaps, be illustrated somewhat in the following way :— let us suppose a Sovereign at the head of a numerous army, a division of which, including the General at its head, and all the Officers, is found in a state of revolt, other means of bringing them to a sense of duty, proving ineffectual, the King, with the remainder of his army,’ surrounds them, dis- possesses them of their arms, and disbands them. It is, how- ever, found, that they still combine together, and form a separate establishment, and community. The General, cannot forget, that by his particular “ craft,” he “ got his wealth.” The other Officers, in like manner, wait.for an opportunity to renew the revolt ; these, (to use your own words, of the Romish Priesthood, and the Pope), are “‘ connected indis- solubly with each other, and with their General.” The com- mon soldiers, however, who (like your Laymen), are “ by far “the most numerous and important branch; these, become ‘amalgamated with the great body of society,” because, forsooth, being dispossessed of their arms, they are deprived ef the means of annoyance, and the prospects of plunder; their minds have, in consequence, assumed a pacific bias, by no means natural to them, and the connection between officer and man, has gradually began to disappear; the Su- perior, has neither glory nor plunder to propose, and the Private, therefore ceases to regard him as the means of pro- curing them. We will suppose this state of things to con- tinue, till the whole of this refractory division, has become comparatively harmless members of the community. It is, however, still known, that each individual, is bound by an oath of fidelity, and obedience, to the Commander and Officers ; that they all continue on the best terms; and are ready to act together, if any occasion should present itself. Now, will any individual, in possession of his senses, argue, that the surest way of dissolving all connection between the Officers and the Men, would be to restore to the whole division, their arms and ammunition? Would they not be likely to avail themselves of the power, with which they were invested? Would not the Commander know where to find his forces, however “amalgamated with society?” Would not the long neglected discipline be revived, and the Soldier begin to re- gard his Officer with renewed feelings of allegiance and attachment, and as his probable leader to honour and fortune; and ail this from the mere potentiality of mischief, occasioned by the restitution of power? If it be asserted, that all this is problematical, I reply, that-my view of the probability of 1T1 power producing union, and consolidating strength, is at least as probable, as the opposite theory, namely, that disunion, and disaster, will be the effect of such a grant, and I think, at least, that all History is on my side, while the contrary opinion, rests on a pure hypothesis. To pursue this imagery a little further—I observe, in re- ference to your notion, of the exclusiveness of the interests of the Clergy, preventing their influence over the Laity, that, however the Soldier may suspect, that his Officer cares almost exclusively for his own honour, and advancement, and however the Officer may imagine that the Soldier cares only for himself, yet that mutiny in an army is comparatively rare: However the two classes may be effected as individuals, yet as consti- tuent and neeessary parts of one entire and organised system, they are strongly compacted together, The different parts of an army, whatever their subordinate differences may be, ac- knowledge a mutual standard and rallying point, so far as the common enemy is concerned. Thus it is also with the Clergy and Laity of the Church. of Rome. Their interests, as con- nected with each other, and their common head (no matter for the argument whether such Head be found ina Pope, or Bishop of Reme, or in a General Ecclesiastical Council), can never be so disjoined, as to let in the foreign. relation of a Protestant Church and Cause, since the very nature of their original compact, and the necessity of their conti- nuing to make common cause, will always provide the best security against those separating wedges which. able logicians, like yourself, may ever hope to. thrust between two bodies ** link’d more close than wedded pair.” The testimony of His- tory will afford no support for your theory that the alliance subsisting between the heads of Popery and its Members, is of so infirm a nature as to be dissolved by an accession of politi- cal strength ; and the simple reason why you can adduce no in- stance of a Protestant kingdom attempting to disunite its Popish Clergy from their Laity, by extending to each of them a share in its government, is, that the unreasonableness of the scheme as likely to be productive of good, and the overwhelming pro- | ul iii Hil i ability that it cotld only be attended with evil, have in every age prevented the adoption of so desperate an experi- ment. No one indeed will attempt to deny that your scheme has at least the charm of Novelty. It is indeed perfecly origi- nal, but perhaps some of my Readers may be disposed to say, with Crcrro, “ Magister optimus est Usus.” You contend indeed that the influence of the Priesthood “ during the very «© dark ages,” was conditional on “ the perpetuity of the igno- “* rance out of which it arose,’ > and this is true, so far as the ignorance intended is of a Religious character, but where Re- ligious ignorance yet prevails, so far the influence of the Romish Priesthood is as great, even at this moment, as it was in the dark- est ages—as in vast portions of the Continent, and in many parts of Ireland—The remedy, then, for this sort of ignorance is, not the knowledge of letters alone, but the knowledge of Di- vine Truth—in other words—preservation from Popery—and this is the only ** Catholic emancipation” from which any real good is to be hoped, either at home or abroad. Now we are in- debted to Protestantism alone for the introduction of Evan- gelical light, and while that light continues to burn, what can we promise ourselves from the introduction of those who are ready to extinguish it, because it tends to make their own dark- ness manifest? If then, the light of Truth has, under Pro- testant influence, so greatly increased, is it impossible that un- der a contrary influence, it might with equal rapidity decline ? That such would in all probability be the consequence, I pro- pose to shew hereafter. T now come to a singular inconsistency in your argument, and one into which, even a logician of less adroitness could hardly have been expected to fall.—After endeavouring to prove that the Romish Priesthood, and Laity, are strongly united and identified, and that the concession of the Claims would be a masterpiece of policy, which would not fail to detach them from each other; you observe, as if in total ob- livion of such a position, that these two bodies, “ having in- « terests and views decidedly distinct from eaeh other, ought < never to be confounded together, as if they were one har- ee “ monious body,” &e. all which tedsoning is in direct oppo- sition to your repeated advice that we should strive to dissolve the coalition of the two bodies ; for how can we “ detach ** the Catholic Layman from the Catholic Priest,” as you re- commend, if they are not already acting in concert, as ** one harmonious bedy,” and how can we, as you advise, “withdraw the Laity from the contracted circle in which “ they have heretofore trodden, and dispose them to act a ** higher and nobler part than to be the dupes and puppets of “ Priestly domination ;” if the Laity have not been to this hour the willing instruments of their own Priesthood? I must leave it to yourself to réconcile the incongruity of having thus, in the same page, recommended the annihilation of an existing union, accompanied by a distinct proposition for ef- fecting that object, and of having denied, uno flatu, that any such union exists ; by which, as it appears to me, you have in- volved yourself in inextricable contradiction and confusion. Either the Romish Clergy and Laity, are unitedly pursuing a common object—the exaltation and increase of their own Chureh and system—or your proposition for dissolving their union by means of “ Catholic emancipation,” is out of place, and might have been altogether spared.—TIn one instant, you suggest that the Romish Hierarchy have not “ the power of 5S “ dragging the Laity after them, and making them the pas- ** sive instruments of their will,” while in another, you con- tend that the Relief Bills will detach the Laity from the Clergy, and prevent their being any longer “ the dupes and puppets of Priestly domination. The friends of the Pro« testant interest might indeed have been dispensed from treat- ing with seriousness such opposing theories; but as the gene- _ ral tenor of your reasoning appears to suppose the union of the Romish Clergy and Laity to have a real existence, and to suggest the expedient of the Relief Bills, as an effectual mode of dissolving such union, I have chosen to waive the advantage which you have given me, of the “ reductio ad absurdum,” and after extracting from the chaotic mass, the only argu- ment which appeared capable of assuming a tangible shape, Q $5 OEE Wi WEAR ad so Rare 2 SS Tliave endeavoured (with what success must be determined by others) to shew that such a view of things cannot be sup ported. You conclude your First Letter by a splendid panegyric on the National Establishment, in which I most heartily coneur, although not in the conclusion which you draw from. it. Af- ter painting, in glowing colours; the benefits and blessings of our Protestant Church; you argue that because she is thus great and glorious; there can be no possible danger to appre- hend in the proposed concessions—you treat our fears for her safety as absolutely chimerical—and you are pleased, from this giddy elevation of your own argument, to smile with a kind-of contemptuous superiority at all those “* timid sup- «« porters,” (as you are pleased to term them), of our Esta- plished Church, to whom you impute a wish for “* penal Sta- tutes to support her mild ascendancy.” This view of the ex- cellence, and deserts, of the Church of England; as sufficient to guarantee her security, and preserve her existence, has no more warrant from History; or Experience, than some other of your propositions. It supposes all mankind (the Roman Catholics included) to fall naturally in love with goodness, for its own sake, and to determine on its support, simply be- cause it deserves their patronage. It would persuade all those better, that they have the happiness to live in and just, and amiable, must who know no a world where all that is pure; of necessity command their hom by its own native elasticity to respect and influence; while all that is base, and secular, and sordid; must in the same find its proper level, and sink into insignificance Against this fallacious reasoning, all History, risesin judgment—the inspired descrip- age and affection ; and rise proportion, and contempt. sacred and profane, tion of the human heart is equally opposed to such a view ; and as well might it be contended that the perfection of our Divine Master, and the integrity of his first followers, would dafavourable reception for the cause of Truth, have insure as that our Pro- | and secured it from opposition and injury, testant Church is invulnerable, because of the excellence she 115 boasts. If indeed, men did not “ love darkness rather than “ light,” we might entertain greater hopes from the superior claims which Protestantism offers to their esteem above Po- pery; and the “ grateful millions” whom you claim as the undoubted allies of Piety and Virtue, might, in that case, find their swords leap from their scabbards in defence of the Church of England. But even admitting that all this knight- errantry could be mustered upon an emergency—of which there may perhaps be some doubt—it is surely the part of wisdom not to necessitate the display of so much military prowess, when we are very well off already, and have no need to risk hostilities, ‘in order, to enjoy peace.—Let it be granted that the Church of England is at present on her Throne—Was ever Monarch so secure, as to justify a presumptuous con- tempt of danger, in the gratuitous invitation of a Foreign foe, or the arming of Domestic enemies. Do the numerous Dis- senters (the large majority of whom are now, either openly or tacitly, favouring the Romish Claims, for their own objects) afford no reason against any further concessions to those who have far fewer reasons for loving the Church of England, and’ far more for disliking it, than the Dissenters themselves? Is there nothing to fear from Infidelity—nothing from Indiffer- ence—nothing from “ the form of Godliness without its “« power,” existing in some cases, even within the pale of the Establishment itself? It must be remembered that all persons are not affected with the same sentiments of veneration and esteem for our National Church, as we must in charity believe to be entertained by’a Writer who can polish such a period in praise of the Church, as the concluding paragraph of your First Letter—but I am warned to terminate a Letter which has already grown too large under my hand, And remain, Sir, Your most obedient Servant, AMICUS PROTESTANS, | 4 HRA GRD SHES creer ———E 116 LETTER III. Gir, Having replied to my Seventh Letter in your First, (without attempting to answer any of those which preceded it), you now pursue the same privilege of selection and rejec- tion, and write a Second Letter, which takes no notice of my Eighth Letter, and avowedly answers the Ninth alone! You open this Second Letter by intimating that to refuse the required concessions, is to exclude the whole Catholic body from the rights and privileges of the CONSTITUTION ; and you repeatedly, in the course of this Correspondence treat the refusal of equal power as a species of State dis- ability, to which Roman Catholics were not always subjected, and to which they cannot now be exposed, without doing vio- lence to the CoNSTITUTION.—It has appeared to me of so much importance, that this question of the CONSTITUTION should be placed on its right legs, that I must crave your in- dulgence for examining it somewhat at large. The Truth then is, that the very exclusion in question does in fact form an es- sential and fundamental part of the British Constitution, as composed of King, Lords, and Commons; because all those several branches of the Legislature, from the Reforma- tion downwards, have been parties to every Statute of exclu- sion which has been enacted, and have hitherto refused to be parties to such as the Roman Catholics would have had them enact, When therefore you argue, that the political disabili- ties of the Roman Catholics, either form no part of the Con- stitution, or are not in unison with its principles, there ap- pears to be some want of information on the very origin and character of the British Constitution. ‘The Roman Catholics, never had the rights they now claim, except when the Throne was Popish, and the Religion of the State was Popish ; it is at present no part of the British Constitution, that either of these should be Popish, but the direct contrary; and it is in order to keep them Protestant, that we refuse to subject the ae Es er en ct ee hata nn fiz €onstitution, as it stands, to the hazard of political experi- ment, and the practice of Romish intrigue: neither does it by any means follow, that because of their political exclusion the Roman Catholics, as a Body, have the least reason to complain of invasion on their rights. HoRNE TOOKE, in his celebrated Letter to Lorp ASHBURTON, dated 10th May, 1782, says ‘“‘ Freedom and Security ought assuredly to be ** equal and universal, but some of the Members of So- * ciety may be free and secure, without having a share in the “© Government. The freedom and security of the whole, to- * gether with their happiness, may even be advanced by the 66 © exclusion of some, not from freedom and security, but from “ pose, that these new “ legislative attornies,” for the Church of Rome, (as StR CHARLES WoLSELEY would call ‘them), will not find their course entirely unobstructed, in either House of Parliament, and will not advance to their object, without considerable opposition, and (if you will), without a serious struggle; nay, in order to suppose the worst against my own argument, I will even fora moment imagine, that the Protestant Church and Cause, may come off conquerors at last, and that Pepery will never obtain:a final ascendancy in this land of Bible Societies, Orthodox Clergymen, and a Free Press—but, is it wise to provoke so much dissention and division, as your scheme proposes, when we have the choice of avoiding them? Is it politic, to necessitate by this gra- tuitous experiment, such a clashing of interests, and such a confiict of parties, with, perhaps, even an appeal to the sword itself, when we may just as easily resolve against per- petrating this act of Political suicide? Have we not, to use your own words, “ the vantage ground of possession ?”’—and can we not, to employ a more homely adage, “let well alone?” Whoever else may be benefited by our fool-hardi- , ROS tig 156 ness, I challenge you to prove, that WE can be gainers by it, either as Protestants, as Churchmen, or as Britons? ‘The martyrdoms of bloody Queen Mary, (for so I take leave to call her), were so far from injuring the true Church of Christ, that no trne Protestant doubts they benefited it; but who would, on that account, desire to see a Popish Queen again on the Throne, in order that we may dislodge her by another Peformation; or a Popish King, because he may perchance be unshipped, (as JAMES 2nd, was), by another Revolution ? Upon the modern scheme of liberality, alt the bloodshed of one of these Reigns, and all the terror of the other, are to go for nothing; and such epochs of our History are to be stoically contemplated by Protestant Christians as not very terrible, because, forsooth, we have still so much Protestant- ism left, that whatever may be the temporary disadvantages of concession, we may still exercise our ancient prerogatives, and powers, by a fortunate resumption of them at some time or other, though it be net very clear when, or how—a theory not much unlike the fortuitous concourse of atoms, which is supposed by some Philosophers to have produced the world, or the felicitous restitution of all things, which is imagined by some Religionists as likely to set every thing to rights, in the long run. With regard to the highest branch of the Legislature—it becomes me to touch so delicate a subject with the tenderness and caution which belong to it—but it is one on which I can- not consent to be wholly silent. The sentiments of our late revered Monarch are well known, nor has it ever been dis- puted, that he protested with such firmness against what is called Catholic Emancipation, as to declare that his single Vote should prevent it.—Assuming that similar sentiments are likely to actuate any succeeding Monarch, who owes his throne to the influence of Protestant Principles, and its sta- bility to their conservation—who feels the cbligation of his Coronation Oath—and remembers his covenant with his peo- ple—would it be decent or patriotic to propose a, measure for the Royal assent, which could only be viewed as a compro- ORO Sn FO ig Enero a a mise with sentiments directly opposed to the first elements of the Constitution, and as involving a dereliction of those princi- ples from which the line of Hanover dates its origina! exaltation, and to which it owes its subsequent glories?) Assuming still, that such would be the feelings with which a proposal of this kind must be contemplated, how painful, beyond the power of expression, would it be to the Monarch of our united Em- pire to be found, for the first time, affixing his Veto to a mea- sure, which the other branches of the Legislature should have previously sanctioned with their approbation, as probably not acting under the peculiar bond and guarantee of those official and personal obligations which the Constitution has imposed upon THE MonaRcu in reference to this particular question— { ask, whether any real lover of his King, or his country, would desire to witness the First authority in a Protestant state, contending with an alternative of this description; or wish to expose that authority to the afilicting consequences which might ensue from his conscientious refusal. The nature of the subject must prevent enlargement upon those conse- quences—you will indeed, yourself, be as ready to admit. them as any one: but the way in which you will attempt to eseape from such a difficulty, will be to contend, that such a thing as a refusal cannot reasonably be anticipated; you will, no doubt, assert, as you have virtually done already, that the measure of Emancipation is one of such unequivocal and un- mixed good, that no single doubt should be entertained upon it, in the highest, any more than im the lowest, quarter— and that, therefore, every fear of future consequences may be confidently committed to the winds. You will, doubt- less, expect that any existing Monarch should be as easily satisfied as yourself, that only the highest advantages can follow the concessions; and, consequently, that there can be no pretence, on his part, for opposing the universal flow of milk and honey which is to irrigate the whole land, so soon as this hopeful accession of Popish Legislators, Privy Coun- sellors, Judges, Magistrates, and Jurymen, shall have taken place. Net heing myself able to climb to such a dazzling elevation as the Pisgah from which you have beheld the en- chanting prospects in store for us, I must be permitted to remain content with the humble enjoyment of present hap- | piness, in the fertile vale of England’s Protestant privileges ; | and while, I trust, that no British Sovereign will ever be per- | suaded to encounter the desperate risk to which you invite | him, I would go farther, and spare him the odium of refusing what a multitude of wicked men, emboldened by your inge- nious reasonings, will not fail to represent as the greatest boon which subjects could ask, or a King concede. I am, Sir, Your most obedient Servant, AMICUS PROTESTANS. ae ‘ing MERTER,, VIL. SIR, In illustration of a part of my last Letter, I would add, that the English Roman Catholic Peers are Eight in | number,—the Irish, Nine,—and the Scotch, Two. a The English Roman Catholic Peers are understood to be | 3 | The Duke of Norfolk. | The Earl of Shrewsbury. a Viscount Fauconberg. | a | Baron Stourton. HHe as Petre. | ih | ‘ -Arundel. | Dormer. hea ______Clifford, [of Chudleigh.] : i The Lrish Romish Catholic Peers are understood to be | The Earl of Fingal. Waterford and Wexford.* See eee eee * This Title is at present united in the Earl of Shrewsbury. t Beth 159 The Earl of Kenmare. Viscount Gormanstown. ee Netterville. | Taaffe. Southwell. Baron Trimleston. -- French. ; weit The Scotch Roman Catholic Peers are understood to be i | The Earl of Traquair. —— Newburgh. The Roman Catholic Baronets of England (Seventeen in number) are understood to be Created, Sir William Gerrard,—Lancashire.......1611. HEP Sir Edward Hales,—Kent..............1611. Wa Sir Henry Englefield,—Berks...........1621. Sir George Jerningham,—Norfolk.......1621. Sir Henry Tichborne,—Hants...........1620. aa an Sir George Throckmorton,—Berks......1642. ean Sir Edward Blount,—Shropshire........1642. int Sir Henry Hunlock,—Derbyshire .......1643. nt Sir Carneby Haggerstone,—Lincolnshire. .1643. | Sir Thomas Webb,—Wiltshire..........1644. . Sir R. Smythe,—Warwickshire..........1669. at | Sir Richard Bedingfield,—Norfolk.......1660. Hi Sir T. H. Stanly,—Cheshire....:.......1661, rai Sir Thomas Gage,—Suffolk......-.....1662. as i] Sir H. Maire Lawson,—Yorkshire.......1665. Hat] M Sir Piere Mertyn,—Flintshire.........-.1670. Coun 1 Sir Thomas Constable,—Staffordshire. ...1814. a The Roman Catholic Baronets of Ireland (Six in number) are understood to be Sir Edward Bellew,—Louth............1608. Sir Jobn Blake,—Galway...,........-.1622. Sir John Burke,—Roscommon..........1628. 160 Sir John Burke,—Galway.....ee..00++. 199%. Sir T. Esmonde,—-Wexford.........-+-- 1628. Sir George Goold,—Cork........-.+...1801. Amongst the English Roman Catholics, are many families whose present heads, are mostly Country gentlemen of ancient lineage, and considerable wealth, but of unambitious, and retired habits. Such are the names of Constable, Clifford, Weld, Howard, Plowden, Townley, Giffard, Jones, Stapleton, Carey, Stonor, Eyre, Heneage, Stanley, Turberville, Selby. Browne, Tunstall, Eyston, Errington, Chichester, Chomley, Tasborough, Biddulph, Eccleston, Huddleston, Berrington, Charlton, Dulton, Sheldon, Perrers, Canning, Berkely, Manby, Riddall, Davell, Fermor, Trafford, Weston, &c. The friends of Emancipation assume, that the quiescent state of the great Roman Catholic families, is disadvantageous to the country at large, and’ that a principal use of the proposed changes, will be to present a stimulus to the ambition of the many Roman Catholic Noblemen, and Gentlemen, who are at present blushing unseen, and wasting their energies in an inglorious repose. It may, perhaps, however, be as well to consider, whether the calling into action so many dormant faculties, and supplying them with excitement, by the ap- plication of the most powerful principle of action which can operate on the human mind, may be altogether wise and con- siderate, so far as our own Ecclesiastical, and Civil Polity, are concerned; and, in order that some judgment may be formed as to the means, and facilities, which the Heads and Leaders of the Roman Catholic Cause would find ready to their hands, under a change in the whole frame of our Laws, I will notice the present state of the Roman Catholics in England. It is not to be doubted, that their total number in England . and “Wales, much exceeds 300,000. Some persons even compute the number at 400,000, but Iam inclined to think this estimate as at present, overstated, and that the truth may lie between. The principal Catholic Counties are Lan- 161 eashire, Yorkshire, Staffordshire,. Warwickshire, and Nor- ol thumberland. These, with Durham, Cheshire, Norfolk, Suf- Ha folk, Kent, and Worcestershire, contain at least 200,000. London and its suburbs, with Surrey and Middlesex, have certainly been underrated at 50,000. The remainder are scat- tered throughout the other Counties and Cities, but chiefly in Bristol, Bath, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Southampton, Exeter, Gloucester, and a few watering places. In the single summer of 1813, Dr. Smith, then the Vicar Assistant of Dr. Gibson, in the Northern District, and now the Vicar Apostolic, con- firmed 3000 Roman Catholic Children in three towns alone, viZ.— dn i Manches ters: sj. -0 fig tele bulacan a BOD Liverppol: sini ayieee so paiine ad O00 Bros tqaincite: nid pins ietuhsi bs oecad sng 1 COO In every County of England, there are now Roman Catholic Chapels, amounting in number to not fewer than 900, mostly erected within the last 25 years, and generally commodiouns, and well built. Lancashire alone enumerates above 100 Romish Chapels. Most of the Roman Catholic country gen- tlemen of fortune maintain Chapels in their own houses, in- dependently of the estimate above given, in which Mass is daily performed, for all who chuse to attend. The public Chapels are no longer hidden in remote and obscure situations, as they were even within our own memory, and the magni- ficent Temple of Dagon, lately erected in the centre of the City of London, affords a-remarkable example of the con_ fidence of the Roman Catholics in the Religious indifference of the Protestants. To this Chapel, Protestants are now invited, on the chief fasts and festivals, by advertisements previously inserted in the public newspapers, when collections are made; and there a multitude of our inconsiderate country- men are content to sanction, by their presence, the Idolatries of the Romish Worship, (which their forefathers refused to do, even when death was the consequence,) and to give their money liberally at the door, for the support of a system of ¥ Ue Idolatry and Superstition. Conversions to Popery are of course no longer a rare occurrence in Protestant England, no can this be any matter of surprize, when its. outward at- tractions for the eye and ear are considered, as well as its peculiar adaptation to the heart of every, man in a state of nature. The influence of the College of Jesuits, at Stony- hurst, near Preston, on that Town and the surrounding Coun- try, is very remarkable, many of the Townsmen and adjacent Farmers, as well as several of their connections, having now renounced the worship of the Protestant Church;* and it is no uncommon thing for Roman Catholics of fortune, (especial- ly females) to support the entire expence of educating the sons of British Farmers, for the Romish Priesthood, at the College of Stonyhurst. Clitherow, (in that neighbourhood) may now be considered a Popish town. At Walsall and Wol- verhampton, in Staffordshire, the Roman Catholics, as in many other Towns, are rapidly increasing. In the former place, more than one or two instances of conversion have re- cently occurred, which have excited a strong sensation; and among others which might be mentioned, the two daughters of the late Protestant Rector of that Town, who are the sisters of a beneficed Protestant Clergyman, now officiating in the same county, have deserted the profession of the Reformed Church, and now go regularly to Mass. The Roman Catho- lics of Walsall used till of late, to be contented with a Chapel at Bloxwich, about a mile from Walsall, (where they have a School), but they have now converted the Assembly room of Walsall, into a Chapel, in addition. Their Priest was educated at Oscott, near Birmingham, where is a Romish college and seminary on a very extensive scale, and there are to be found the children of Protestants (so called) as well as of Papists! There being a deficiency of Protestant schools in that neigh- bourhood, many children from Perry Bar, Wilton, Aldridge, and other places in the vicinity, are sent to this Romish * For a full account of this College, its wealth, and influence, see the Hisrony OF THE JesutTs, lately published, 2 vols. octavo. London. Bist jy 163 Seminary, where they aretaught at a very cheap rate. One effect of this amalgamation, is to diminish the distaste and dread which once prevailed for the Religion of Popery; and numerous Proselytes have been notoriously gained at this Col- lege. Its conductors have lately purchased from its savings, a handsome Estate at Perry-Bar, by which means the number of their dependants has been increased, and their influence ex- tended. .Much money has been lately expended in improving and embellishing this Establishment, where there is a fine and spacious Chapel, which is attended by persons residing within a circuit of several miles distance. It was here that the pre- sent Duke of Norfolk received his education, and here the Popish Bishop and Vicar Apostolic, Dr. Milner, has apartments, and occasionally officiates. He generally resides at Sedgley Park, near Wolverhampton, where is another Roman Catholic seminary of considerable extent. In Birmingham and its vicinity, the increase of Roman Catho- lics is placed beyond all doubt. They had formerly but one Chapel in Birmingham,: with a congregation .of moderate size, and few attendants exceptof the working class; there are now two Chapels, well frequented, and many of the attendants are of great respectability and property. In that which was last built, an organ has lately been erected, at a considerable ex- pence. At Handsworth, near Birmingham, is another Roman Catholic School. At Harvington, near Chaddesley, in Wor- cestershire, the extreme activity of the Romish Priest in pro- selyting, has recently engaged him in literary hostilities with the Rector of Chaddesley. The estates in that neighbourhood chiefly belong to the Roman Catholic family of the Throckmor- tons. In Manchester, ‘the principal Priest of the place, em- boldened by the rapid increase of Popery in that Town, and neighbourhood, has recently made an attack on the British and Foreign Bible Society, and its Agents, and indeed on the Bible itself, and the whole Protestant Church, which attack has given rise to some controversy. Notice of this fact, as also some judicious remarks on a funeral sermon, lately published by the same divine, in which the Romish Doctrines of Justification by NES ES nase een a om arse nn eh human merit, add Purgatory, are stoutly maintained, may be found in the CHRISTIAN OBSERVER, for December, 1821. The small parish of Tixall, in Staffordshire, is nearly become a Roman Catholic one, from the exertions of a powerful land owner, who possesses much influence from his personal respec- tability, and extensive property, and who spares no pains, with the aid of his family, in forwarding the good work of. conver- sion. He is now erecting a detached Romish Chapel, of con- siderable size and elegance, which will be open to the surrounds ing Country, as a smaller one in the interior of the mansion has hitherto been. In Tixall, as elsewhere, Protestant Children are taught, free of expence, by Roman Catholic instructors, and the professors of either faith now inter-marry with each other as a matter of course! There are several regular Ecclesiastical and Monastic Estab- lishments of Popery, for hoth-sexes, in this Protestant Country, some of which are of considerable magnitude, and are hand- somely endowed ; especially those at Taunton, Shepton Mallett, Lulworth, and St. Gregory, Downside ; while Schools, for the gratuitous education both of Roman Catholic and Protestant Children, are springing up in every direction; where, if the lat- ter are not actually carried to Mass, they must necessarily imbibe such principles in early life, as they are never likely to lose—to say nothing of the Books which are placed in their hands, or of the companions with whom they associate. A re- markable instance of this description is to be found at the end of Stamford Street, in the Blackfriars Road, where is a Popish School of considerable magnitude, now containing nearly 400 Children, which (perhaps upon the modern system of liberality towards all Religions, and of adherence to none), was erected in a considerable degree with PROTESTANT MONEY, and which bears upon its front an equivocal inscription, which in one way of reading it, would make His present Majesty appear to be the Head and Patron of the ScHOOL, although by another .con- struction, it may be understood to convey that it is only of the Benevolent Society of St. Patrick that His Majesty is the Patron. Let this juggle pass—but I must at all events protest against the jesuitism of applying to such’purposes as building Romish Sein cli xt) i 165 Schools and Chapels, the money collected from well-meaning Protestants, who support Romish Societies, under the impres- sion that they are only aiding objects of conviviality or bene- volence. They are made to do much more by their Romish friends, whether they will believe it or not. I have already noticed, in my Fifteenth Letter to Mr, WIL- BERFORCE, the official account of the Associated © Catholic Schools under the Society of St. Patrick, which appeared in the principal London Newspapers, in June 1820, and commented on the circumstance of 2460 Children, having been then under the Education of Reman Catholic Teachers, in London alone, with a large proportion of Protestant money. All this is very intel- ligible, and they who are thus inadvertently forwarding the insidious designs of the Ancient Foes of Britain, and British Liberty, will do weil to pause, before it be too late. It appears from the New Timss, of the 15th June, 1821, that £360 was collected from Roman Catholics, and Protestants, for the Associated Catholic Charities, at the Dinner given at the Freemason’s Tavern, on 14th June of that year, when no fewer than 700 Children were introduced to the Meeting, and that at the Dinner of the St. Patrick’s Benevolent Society, on the 16th March 1822, the enormous amount of £1665 5s. was collected for the Romish Schools and Chapels! I leave the fact of these Love-feasts to speak for itself. In the Roman Catholic Laity’s Directory, for the year1822, (published with Authority, by Keating and Brown, Duke- street), are Advertisements or Notices, of the following Romish Chapels, inand about London. The newly built one in Moor- fields ; Virginia-street, Ratcliffe-highway; Great St. Thomas Apostle, Bow-lane; Duke-street, Lincoln’s Inn-fields ; where is a Society for praying Souls out of Purgatory; Sutton-street, Soho; Warwick-street, Golden-square; Spanish-place, Man- chester-square; South-street, Grosvenor-square ; Little George- street, Portman-square ; Romney-terrace, Marsham-street ; (the Congregation of which consists of at least 2000 persons.) London-road, St. George’s-fields ; (the Congregation of which consists of about 7000 persons.) East-lane, Bermondsey ; (amounting to nearly 3000, and where Schools are in contem- plation.) Clarendon square, Somers-town; where is a Pur- gatorian Society). Wade-street, Poplar; (where a School House is intended to be erected, and the Pastor of which Chapel (the Rev. B. Barber) has engaged, in public print, ‘ to offer ** up the Masses of two Sundays, every year, for the Bene- ‘* factors to the Chapel, and likewise one Mass in the year ** for all who lie in the burying ground belonging to it!” Cha- pel-place, Chelsea ;* Holland-street, Kensington; King-street, Hammersmith, and Brook Green House, Hammersmith ; Shrews- bury-place, Isleworth; Holly-place, Hampstead; Clark’s-build- ings, Greenwich ; New-road, Woolwich; Chatham Barracks, Brompton. Ata greater distance in the Country, are enume- rated (among many others) Chapels at Sheerness ; Margate ; Richmond ; Carshalton; Stratford; Essex: Pilgrim Hatch, near Brentwood; Winchester; Burton Chapel, near Christ- church; Portsea ; Gosport; Southampton; Newport, Isle of Wight ; Cowes, Ditto; Brighton; Salisbury’; Blandford ; Cannington, near Bridgewater; (the residence of the Vicar ‘Apostolic, of the Western District). Shepton Mallet; Chel- tenham ; Abergavenny; Exeter; Plymouth Dock ; Harvington Hall, near Kidderminster; Blackmore Park, Malvern Hills; Stourbridge; Reading; Worcester; Oxford; Bath; Coven- try ; Warwick ; Birmingham, noticed already, (the Chaplain of “ It was of this Chapel that the New Times, of 24th March, 1820, favoured the Protestant Public with the following edifying information. “ On Sunday last, the 19th instant, in the Chapel erected for the use “of the Catholic Veterans, of Chelsea Hospital, the course of public “* prayers daily offered up since the 19th of January, for the repose of the “ Soul of His Royal Highness the Duc pz Berri, was closed by a so- “ lemn High Mass. The Rey. Mr. Voyaux de Franous, Chaplain to the “ French Embassy, and Pastor of the Catholic Congregation at Chelsea, *“* delivered a very impressive discourse, adapted to the occasion, upon * the text ‘ Blessed is he that understandeth concerning the Needy and “ the Poor, the Lord will deliver him in the evil day. He was assisted “ at the Altar, by three other Honorary Canons, of the Royal Chapter “‘ of St. Denis, the Rev. Messrs. Mathias, Vasnier, and Dubosq. The «« whole ceremony was conducted with the greatest order and solemnity, “ and was numerously attended,” n wn 7 107 which, the Rev. E. Pzacu, has lately published a statement of a pretended Miracle, performed by himself on a young Pro- testant female, a full account of which, may be seen in the CHRISTIAN OBSERVER, for February 1822). Walsall, al- ready noticed, and Bloxwich, near it, (where is a Purgatorian Society, under the sanction of the Midland Vicar Apostolic). Longbirch, near Wolverhampton; Lichfield ; Stafford; Cob- ridge, in the Potteries ; Ashley, in Staffordshire ; Leicester : Nottingham ; Derby ; Knaresborough; Halywalls ; Pontefract : Whitby (where is a circulating Roman Catholic Library, and provision for Education). Liverpool; Poulton; Shields; Bun- gay; Glasgow, (a magnificent and capacious Edifice lately erected, the Congregation of which is stated in the Laity’s Di- rectory, to. consist of 20,000 Souls!) Falmouth; Taunton: Wolverhampton ; Arundel; Norwich; Ulverston, (where con- siderable enlargement is contemplated in the Chapel, and. as an inducement to the contributions of the Faithful, the following tempting notification appears with the recommendation of the two Vicars Apostolic of the Northern, and Western Districts; the Jesuits of Stonyhurst College, and three Romish Priests; of Preston, Lancaster, and Ulverston - ; viz. “ Besides the or- ** dinary commemoration and prayers offered up in the new “« Chapel for the Benefactors, both alive and dead : aepasneny ** Jar service shall be performed for them every year.” Pres- ton ; a Chapel is in contemplation at Nor thampton. In the same Work, among the various Catholic Charities, for GRATUITOUS EDUCATION, now found among us, there occur Advertisements or Notices, of the following, viz.—The St. Pa- trick’s Charity Schools, in Denmark- street, and Dean- street, Soho; and the Asylum for Female Orphans, in Church-row, Hampstead ; in addition to which, the Associated Catholic Charities, are stated to have Five great Schools, viz. Two in the neighbourhood of Moorfields; one near Lincoln’s Inn- fields’; and Two in Mary-le-bone, in which about 700 Children, are under Education. At the Southwark Charity Schools, upwards of a hundred Children are now Ed ucating. The East London Charity Schools, have lately purchased valuable e premises in Red Lion-street, Wapping, capable of aff furding convenient ac- commodation for 250 boys, and 150 girls. wo numerous Schools in Somers Town; the Male School being liberally sup- ported, and the Female containing about 100 Children. Two Establishments for Education in Ratcliffe Highway, containing 100 boys and 40 girls. Marsham-strect, Westminster, a School for hoth sexes. A School at Chatham Barracks, Brompton, for wpwards of 100 of both Sexes. A Roman Catholic Orphan Society was instituted m 1818, one object of which is ‘ to « enable the Children to continue at their Schools.” At Strat- ford, in Essex, are considerable Day, Evening, and Sunday Schools. At Cobridge, in the Potteries, the Vicar Apostolic, of the Midland District, has publicly certified, under the date of September 1821, that “* the Pastor of that place is en- «© caged in erecting Schools forthe Youth of both Sexes,” and the Laity’s Directory informs us, that a School-house is now begun, that there are “ 300 Children in want of Education,” and that “ at the different Schools there,” (the PROTESTANT Schools), “ they are without the first, and most important « point, RELIGIOUS InsrRucTION !” while at Bermondsey, near London, it is stated, that ‘ Schools have now been opened, « where numbers of boys and girls are admitted, many of « whom have been withdrawn from Anti-Catholic Schools.” Anglicé the Schools of our Protestant National Establishment ! Among the Colleges and Seminaries, for Education and Re- ligious Establishments, advertised, or noticed, in the Laity’s Directory, the following occur, viz.—St. Edmund’s College, near Ware; Ushaw College, near Durham ; St. Mary’s College, Oscot, near Birmingham ; Stonyhurst College of Jesuits, near Preston; anda Seminary for Education, in connection with it, at Hurst Green; Ampleforth College, near York ; St. Gregory’s College, Downside, near Bath, where is a Monastery. In Scot- land, are two Roman Catholic Colleges, one for the Lowlands, in Aberdeenshire; the other for the Highlands, in Argyleshire. Among the Female Religious Establishments, or Nunneries, noticed in the Laity’s Directory, oceur the following, viz. the Barr, at York ; Bishop’s House, Winchester; the very consi- 169 dlerable Religious establishment at Taunton, alread y mentioned ; New Hall, near Chelmsford; Spetisbury House, Blandford ; Stafford House, Warwickshire; Clare House, Plymouth; Ca- verswall Castle; Stone, Staffordshire; Hartpury Court, near Gloucester; Scorton’ Hall, near Catterick, where a Chapel ‘is about to:be built by-Subscription ; Orrel Mount, near Wigan ; a very considerable Establishment of the Sisters of St. Francis de Sales, at Shepton Mallet; and a. Religious Community in King-street, Hammersmith. Of stipendiary places of Roman Catholic Education, the fol- lowing: are’ noticed: in: the :Laity’s Directory,—for Males— Sedgley) Park, near Wolverhampton; Baddesley Academy; Acocks Green, Birmingham ; Cowley Hill Academy, near Prés. cott; Pontefract, conducted.by a. Jesuit, from Stonyhurst; Grafton House, Worksop, (a place of preparation. for the larger Romish Colleges); Bornheim House}; Carshalton; So- mers. Town Academy (kept by another Jesuit; from Stony- hurst); Kent House, Hammersmith ; Southall, ‘near London ; Great Newton-strect, Liverpool; Shefford,. Bedfordshire ; and Church-row, Hampstead. stl ; The following Roman Catholic Schools for Females, are ad- vertised, or noticed, in the Laity’s’ Directory, viz. Woolton, near Liverpool ;' Crane-street,- Chester ; Little Beake-street,. York ;, Wolverhampton ; and Saredon, near Wolverhampton ;. Walsall, Handsworth, near . Birmingham ; Chaddesley Corbet, near Kidderminster ; Chipping Norton; Laws Hall, near Bury. St. Edmund’s ; Norwich.; Brook Green House, Hammersmith ; Montague House, Ditto; Thornton-street, Kensington; Queen’s Elm, Brompton ; Hampstead. In ‘London, Beaumont-street, Portland-place; and Fitzroy-street, Fitzroy-square.—Codsal House, near Wolverhampton, is a School for both Sexes. A system of organization and vigilance is observed, by the Romish Hierarchy, which appears to involve something more than mere Ecclesiastical discipline. The Members of that Church in England, are governed by Vicars Apostolic, who are deputed by the Pope, and exercise Vicarial Powers of no ordi- nary character. Their jurisdiction is of a summary, and ex- tensive nature; and affords an example of the imperium i un- perio, which called forth the severe reprobation of LorpD CoL- CHESTER, in his celebrated Protest against the Romish Claims in the House of Commons; in which he declared the exercise of such a power in this Country, to be absolutely contrary to Law; abhorent to the British Constitution; and pregnant with danger. Each of these Vicars Apostolic is a Bishop in the Ro- inish Church, and, of course, has taken the celebrated CATHO- Lic Oath, to oppose and persecute all Heretics (or Protestants), tothe utmost of his power. Of these Vicars, Dr. SmMrrH, pre- sides over the Northern; Dr. MILNER, over the MIDLAND ; Dr. PoynTER, over the London; and Dr. COLLINGRIDGE, over the Western Districts. It is no longer a secret that some of the principal London Newspapers, as well as others in the Country, are decidedly under Roman Catholic influence ; and will admit of no reason- ing, but on the side of “ EMANCIPATION,” (as ‘it is called) as the ablest Reasoner on the Protestant side of the question, may soon convince himself, if he will make the experiment 5 while on the other hand, no single opportunity is omitted of earnestly recommending a departure, from our long established policy, as essential to the interests, if not. to the existence, of the Country. ‘The New Times in particular has never ceased, from its commencement, to advocate the Roman Catholic Claims, a line of policy the more remarkable in that particular case, as it is well known that all the arguments of the Opposi- fion are on that. side of the question; so that this is perhaps the solitary instance in which the Loyal and Orthodox Editor of that Journal, is most inconsistently found in perfect har- mony, through the year, with Messrs. HopnHovusr, HUME, Cospsett, Hunt, and Hong, all decided sticklers, in com- mon with himself, for Roman Catholic Emancipation ? Thus much for certain advantages which the present state of the Roman Catholics in England appears likely to afford them, in attaining their ultimate object of Ecclesiastical and Political power, should they succeed in obtaining the concessions which fhey now modestly solicit, in the first instance. The ordinary 171 condition of Ireland, appears to afford a far less problematical indication of absolute ruin, as a consequence of the proposed concessions, but this must be the subject of my next Letter. I am, Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant, AMICUS PROTESTANS. LETTER VIII. SIR, The peculiar situation of that vulnerable heel of the British Achilles—IRELAND; and the conduct of the Roman Catholics there, invest the concession of the Romish Claims with considerations of far higher moment, and render that concession a far more formidable thing, than would: be the case in England proper, whatever might be the increase in the numbers, or influence, of the Roman Catholics among our- selves. In the Sister-country, extended concession has only provoked a vitiated appetite to crave for more—whatever has been obtained, has been received as a matter of right ;—what- ever has been withheld, as food for fresh discontent, and cause for new revolt. This view of the subject has been so well put by a late writer, that I shall avail myself of the sub- stance of his arguments. The privileges which the Roman Catholics obtained by the Act of 1793, were considered by themselves, at the time, as complete Emancipation, since by that, and former Acts, every restriction with regard to liberty of worship, the transmission of their property, and the education of their children, was removed; and their present disability is only exclusion from certain offices of power and trust, which they could not pos- sibly hold, consistently with their allegiance to the Pope, without doing every thing in their power to subvert our Pro- testant Establishment, Nay, by the Act of 1793, Political Power, in one kind, was conferred upon them; for it, gave | them the:right of yoting for Members of Parliament, but to use the argument of a certain nobleman, “ the moment they «‘ gained this standing place, they assumed the language of «* menace, and intimidation.” Having obtained from a Protes- tant Legislature far more than they at first expected, they began to aspire still higher, and now they regard all that has been conceded to them as nothing; they are still demanding «« Emancipation,” as if they were still in bondage ; and nothing less will satisfy them now, than the surrender of the Kingdom to them. According to their own principles indeed, they must be in bondage while Heretics shall bear rule over them ; nor will they consider themselves “ emancipated,” till they get the government into their own hands, and unite the king- dom to the See of Rome. This change, upon the supposition that they really believe their own doctrine, must appear to them a very proper and laudable object. Doubtless, if we were Papists, we should think so too; and all Papists must think so, upon their own principles. They believe that Jesus Christ gave to St. Peter, and through him to his Successor, the Pope of Rome, sovereignty over the whole Christian world, including Great Britain and Ireland; and that for sup- porting Romish Christianity, with becoming splendour, their pious ancestors appropriated immense wealth, including much of the best land in the kingdom, and built a great number of magnificent Edifices, which are at this day in the hands of Heretics. They believe, that by a series of acts, of unparal- leled wickedness, the King of England threw off his allegiance to the Pope, abandoned the true Church, and drew away the majority with him; that he most sacrilegiously plundered the Holy Church of all her wealth, which he bestowed upon a Church of modern creation, of which he declared himself the Head. A Papist, on the contrary, plumes himself on his having remaived unshaken in his allegiance to the Holy See.’ On this account he feels himself superior to Protestants, whom he looks upon as Heretics, and Schismatics; and, what is perhaps worst of all, vicious depredators of the property of his Church; in short, as unjustly holding possession of that which belongs not to them, but to his Holy Mother. “He 173 waturally, upon his own principles, desires the restoration of this property to the right owner, which implies the restitu- tion of the Church of Rome to all her former splendour and power ; and he feels himself imperiously called upon, to use every means to bring about this happy restitution. Besides, there was a great deal of property forfeited by Papists in successive rebellions, especially in Ireland, from the time of Queen Elizabeth, down to that of King William. These rebellions were encouraged by the Pope, with a view to the restoration of Popery; and property that was forfeited in consequence of obedience to the Pope, in defence of what is deemed the true Religion, must be considered, by Papists, as having been unjustly wrested out of the hands of the law- ful proprietors. Perhaps one half of the land in Ireland is in this predicament. The present possessors hold it in virtue of purchase, or of inheritance, from those to whom Queen Eliza- beth, and subsequent Sovereigns, gave it, on the attainder of the ancient proprietors; but upon the principles which every Papist holds to be infallible, all these forfeitures were unjust. The property belongs to the lawful heirs, and lineal descend- ants, of the ancient proprietors. When Popery shall be re- established, every man, it is expected, will obtain his own: and it is as a step towards this, that Papists are so anxious to be in Parliament, where they will occupy a higher standing ground; and where, by combination, and perseverance, they will ultimately carry their point. There are many poor per- sons in Ireland, who have the record of their lineage distinctly preserved, who publicly claim to be the heirs of certain estates, and have never relinquished the hope, that the pro- perty will be restored to them, or to their descendants. In order to preserve the knowledge of it, it has been the prac- tice of Fathers, from age to age, to preserve pedigrees of their families, properly authenticated, and to lead their children round the boundaries of the lands which they claim as theirs. All this is done in the hope, that one day, these lands will gevert to the right owners. Lorp CARLETON, in his celebrated speech, in the, House of Lords, declared, that ‘‘ Not many years ago, maps of the ¢: Trish forfeited estates were industriously circulated on the <¢ Continent, an indication that: some important object. was “ Jooked at for:attainment; and that it was desirable to con- ‘« ciliate foreign Catholic, potentates, with a view to the suc- < cess of that project... Since the Union, it has been openly «* avowed, that the Revolution was an usurpation; the exclu- << sion of Roman Catholics from Seats in Parliament, an ex- “ cess of the power of the Legislature; that the old. Roman «‘ Catholic proprietors had. never offended; that. the. confis- «‘ cations were unjust; and that the present possessors hold ‘< by usurpation, and ought to be dispossessed.” What is thus distinctly avowed, is no more than what is naturally to be expected. Papists must desire the restoration of the ancient order and state of things ; believing, as they do, in the divinity of their Religion, they confidently expect such restoration; and what men desire, and expect, they will most certainly endeavour to accomplish. Give them the power of doing it, and it will be done. It is only what every man feels he would do, if he were in their circumstances, and believing as they believe. Nothing can. be more natural, than that if they desire the re-establishment of their Religion, and the restoration of what they. consider their property, they should aspire to in order to enable them to effect these places of power, but, that Protestants should strengthen them with objects ; But such is the their aid, is, beyond measure, astonishing. fact. There is scarcely a company of half a dozen individuals into which one can -enter, in which advocates of what is called “ Catholic Emancipation,” will not be found. Nay; there are Protestants, and Presbyterians too, who go the length of maintaining, that if it be proper to have an estab- lished Religion, that of Ireland ought to be Popery, since Papists are the majority. Upon the same principle, it is proper, that Mahometanism should. be the established. Reli- gion in Turkey, Arabia, and Persia. And, by all means, be 175 it so, if the Government. and People in those Countries, choose to have it so. The powers of Christendom have no right. to hinder them, or to force. Christianity upon them: but, for Christians to argue, that it is proper, and right, .to establish Error; Delusion, and Idolatry, because the majority of the. people are deluded Idolators, would be somewhat strange.—Not more strange, however, than for Protestants to argue, for the establishment of Popery, where the subjects of that delusion happen to be the majority. I would. say, if it be proper to have an.established Religion in any country, it ought :to be the true Religion; in. which, I am sure, all Papists will agree with me, whether all Protestants will or not. As Christians, and Protestants, we have nothing to do with Popery, or any other false Religion, but to endeavour to win men from it, by instruction, and persuasion... To estab- lish error of any kind, is to throw an obstruction in the way of those, who would perform this Christian duty. It is to put a weapon into the hands of «the ‘Enemies of the -Truth, with which: they. will destroy its: ‘Friends; and, to establish Popery in Ireland, ‘would be at, once, to extinguish the light, that has begunto dawn uponit; for it is a fact, confirmed by the experience of ages, that, where Papists have power, they will persecute, and destroy, those who presume to teach genuine Christianity. There are, ‘however, few Protestants who contemplate the possibility of Popery becoming again, the Established : Reli- gion, in any part of the British Isles; and, perhaps, fewer who think it ought to be so. Mosti of the advocates of “* Emancipation,” mean by the term, no more than admissi- bility into places of power;:and, judging, either from their own indifference about the ascendancy of one Church over another, or their consciousness that they would not make use of power, if they had it, to enforce conformity to the princi- ples of their own sect, they charitably conclude, that Pa- pists would. be equally indulgent to those who might not choose to conform to Popery, and) equally indifferent. about the re-establishment of it. But all this is contradicted by 176 the avowed principles of Papists, and by every historical fact for a thousand years, that bears any relation to the sub- ject. Suppose a Papist in Parliament, or in the Privy Coun- cil, were even disposed to act as liberally as a Protestant, and to refuse to lend himself to promote the designs of his sect, his Priest would soon teach him better:manners. The salvation of his soul depends upon his keeping on good terms with his Confessor, who has, power, as he believes, to ab- solve, or not absolve him, from his sins; and this absolution, is usually granted upon condition, that the Penitent shall undergo some penance, or perform some good work; and, of all the good works that can be devised by a Papist, there is none more meritorious, than the extirpation of Heresy, that is, the Protestant Religion, and the establishment of Popery in its place. If a Papist has really imbibed the spirit of his Religion, the work will appear to himself in this meritorious light, and he will feel it to be his most imperious duty; and if he has not this, as the result of his own conviction, his Confessor will soon make him both feel, and act, as he ought to do for the sake of his Holy Church. No wise man would take into his confidential service, or intrust the charge of his affairs, with. a known dependant, and sworn vassal, of an enemy, and a rival; but, every Papist, living in a Protestant state, is a vassal, and a dependant, of a rival and hostile master, and, of course, cannot be safely entrusted with power over Protestants, or with the confidential management of their affairs. It may be Jaid down as.an incontrovertible proposition, that by “Emancipation,” which Papists demand with. so much claniour, they mean, ultimately, nothing less than the restoration of the Church, and other forfeited property, as well. as the. establishment: of -their Religion. There are, doubtless, Protestants so romantically generous, that. they would concede even this to them, and we have all heard doc- trines advanced, that must naturally lead to it. It is ad- mitted, that the Tithes and Church Lands once belonged. to Papists; and that many great Estates, now in the hands of iy 177 Protestants, were transferred from Papists, in conséquence of what we call their Rebellion, but what they call ‘their Loyalty, and their Religion: and, if the Church of Rome and her adherents, were unjustly deprived of this property, why ought it not to be restored? Is not restitution, a Christian duty? Yes: but if they were not unjustly deprived of that property, it would be great injustice now ‘to take it from those, whose ancestors paid a price for it, or who received it-as the reward of meritorious services. My purpose is not so much to enter ‘upon the subject of | forfeitures, and attainders, which are matters merely civil and political, as to shew, that Popery, as a false, disloyal, and persecuting system of Religion, ought to incapacitate those who profess it, from holding places of power, and trust, among those who believe, and profess, the true Religion; be- cause, it imperiously binds them to use whatever power they may possess, to extirpate Truth. But, I suppose, all Civilians are agreed, that Rebellion against the Sovereign power, as established by law, infers ‘the forfeiture of the property, and even the life of the rebel. The property, re- verts to the Sovereign, who may give it away, or ‘sell it, ‘as. he pleases. There is no injustice in this; for no subject ever held his property upon any other condition: and the man who holds property without the condition of allegiance, is not a subject, but a Sovereign. But I shall be told, perhaps, that Papists do not admit, that the conduct of their ances: tors was Rebellion; and I reply by asking, what Rebel ever made such an admission? If the opinion of Rébels them- selves, and of their advocates, be the rule by which we are to judge, there never was Rebellion in the world, and never will be. If modern Papists shall seriously maintain, that the conduct of their Ancestors, by which they forfeited their Estates, was not Rebellion, it will be fair to retort, that they hold it lawful to act as their Ancestors did, and if Protestants be wise, they will not put it in their power to do so. 2A RE What was called Church property, was equally subject to Civil. Allegiance ; for those who gave it to the Church, could not convey it more unconditionally than they themselves re- ceived it. The Church of Rome, as such, never owned Al- legiance to the Protestant Sovereign of Britain ; and of course, cannot lawfully hold property; and if she had done'so, it would long ago have been forfeited by the Rebellions excited by her Head, which must be understood to have had the con- sent of the Members. In point of fact, however, the Church property was not in general confiscated, except in Scotland. In England, and Ireland, it was appropriated for the support of the purer system of the Reformation, and so it continues to this day. These few remarks may shew that in a Religious and Moral point of view, there is no injustice done to Irish Papists, by their exclusion from places of power, or in re- fusing to restore to them the property which their Ancestors forfeited. Should it be said that too much is here assumed. about the devotion of Papists to the See of Rome, and. their hostility to our Protestant Government,, it may be answered that evidence upon the poirt, is so abundant and so accessible that any man who chooses may satisfy himself on the subject. There are, however, Three works in. particular, which furnish such a compendious view of the question, and-contain such ample references to the most unquestionable authorities, that any man may, ina short time, obtain such information on the subject, as will make him dread the admission into places of power, of persons who-really are not their own masters, but the instruments of a Spiritual Power, that is bent on the overthrow of the Protestant Religion, and the destruction of its Ministers and Defenders. I mean—the Annals of Ireland, by the Rev. Mr. GRAHAM, commencing in 1536, and coming down to the period of the Revolution; Mr. SPEARING’S Work, which comes down to the present day, entitled “ The | < true state of the question, whether the admissibility of «© Romanists, to the higher offices of the State, be compati- « ble with the principles of the British Constitution,” and 179 * The History of the Irish Rebellion, in 1798, by Sir * RicHARD MuscGrave, Barr.’— Dublin 1802. Thus far, the Reasoner to whom I have referred,—Let it then be remembered that it is not only in ENGLAND where the danger would, (at least in the first instance) be less obvious, but that it isin IRELAND, where this portentous change is recommended to take place by Christian Statesmen, and de- clared by them to be so far from awakening their fears, that they deem it to be absolutely indispensible; nay, that it is- our bounden duty to make this change; that it is a debt we have too long delayed to discharge; and that payment can- not, and ought not, to be longer protracted. Do such rea- soners, however, really believe, in the midst of their over- weening attachment to their new friends the Roman Catholics, that the PRorEsTants of Ireland deserve no better measure than to be indecently dismissed from all place in their recol- lection, and all share in their affection? © Is nothing due to the Protestant Church, and Cause, in Ireland, while so much is to be done for the Church of Rome, and her numerous ad- herents there? Are the affectionate attachment, and un- shaken allegiance of the small, but faithful, minority of our Protestant Fellow Subjects in Ireland, to find no better re- ward from the Liberators of Africa, and the friends of Phil- anthrophy, than the cool and heartless abandonment of them and theirs to the fury of those persons who only wait for an opportunity of avenging themselves, for what they consider to be the plunder of their own Church, and the waste of their own Estates, Is it possible, Sir, that it.can be any secret to Mr WIL- BERFORCE, or to yourself, as his Defender, that the Ecclesi- astics of Ireland, are at least as much alive to the desirable- ness, and probability, of their again filling the Bishop- rics, and Benefices, from which they have been ejected, as the Irish Laity are, to the importance of resuming their forfeited Estates; and can either Mr. WILBERFORCE, or yourself, require to be informed, that Titular Bishops, as well as other Dignitaries, are even now appointed to the higher offices in the Church, in regular succession, so that RITE OE eg NE ET 1380. there actually stand behind the curtain, ready for action, on the first shifting of the Political Scene, the entire dramatis persone of a new order of things? . Be assured, Sir, that a ready-made Constitution for the French, was not more duly ticketed and labelled in the well known Pigeon-holes of the ABBE. SIEYES, than is the Machinery of a Popish Estabiish- nent, all ready to the hands of our liberal Protestants, the instant they shall have helped the Church of Rome to remove the lets and hindrances which have so long stood in their way. nd how, I would ask, do Irish Roman Catholies derive their Claim, to such an exclusive display of liberality, at the expence of the Protestant Church and Cause? What have these amiable persons done to ingratiate themselves so deeply in the esteem of our Modern Philanthropists. Even you, Sir, will not con- tend that their RELIGION has interested either Mr. WILBER- FORCE, or yourself, in their favour. And is it then their Loy- ALTY, when it is notorious that they have repeatedly prof- fered their own services, nay tendered the Crown of their Sovereign, to Foreign Potentates; when it is well known that on the landing of General HUMBERT, in Ireland, he was joined, exclusively to a man, by Roman Catholics ; and when it is equally certain that BUONAPARTE, through the whole course of his unprincipled career, enumerated among his warmest friends, and. partizans, the Irish Roman Catholics, who made no secret of their joy onevery fresh triumph he atchieved ; as the surest pledge of their own eventual success; and al- ways sunk into depression and despondency, whenever his unjust and wicked usurpation experienced any reverse of for- tune, as placing them yet further than ever, from the object of their unceasing desire—their separation from the Mother Country. Now let us only imagine the case of a King, sur- rounded with Popish Counsellors, and Popish Ministers, and then let us.suppose, what is by no means impossible, a Popish Rebellion in Ireland, and what will be the situation of Govern- ment? If the Roman Catholics, who may now promise to maintain the» Rights of the Protestant Established Chureh, should happen. to change their minds, and call for the re- — se = _ oe SRS ere eee SL valuable, in Protestantism, | she should: stretch out her arms so widely, -as to receive the -Papists into.a division of, Power with herself, and place: them ‘by her'side, on the throne which she at present fills. Such Wa i] is the kind of latitudinarianism,- to’ which your proposition Hi invites her,’ but-I think, she-may patronize’all the really de- serving Protestant Socicties in existence, and all that we may yet have—nay, that she is: bound to herself to do so—if it were only on the meaner principle of Policy—without shewing ‘any single act of Political favor, ii addition, towards His Hoh- ness the Pope—the Sacred Convocation of Cardinals—the | Society de Propaganda fide—the Colleges of Jesuits, at Stony- [bal hurst, in England, or at Castle.Browne, in Ireland—the Col- lege of Romish Priests,at. Maynooth—or: the Holy Reman Vicars Apostolic, of this Protestant Country. Rea { will also add, with all “ plainness of speech,” that I fear our Religious Statesmen are not taking the best course, to re- commend our Religious Societies to the countenance and sup- port of the Church of England, when they are found advo- cating the claims of the Church of Rome—and it may be well worthy of their consideration, whether a large portion of the suspicion which has been entertained in certain quarters, in reference to those very Societies, may not, more or less, lie at their door—At all events the enquiry can do no harm, if, in inducing reflection on the past, it should suggest more cau- tion for the future. Iam, Sir, Your most obedient Servant, AMICUS PROTESTANS. LETTER XII. Sir, I shall now consider your Fifth, and last, Letter, which opens. by an assertion that— the object of the mea- sure, of relieving the Roman Catholics, is “ simply, that they may be placed on the same Civil Footing ‘ as Protest- ants.”—It is painful to be obliged to repeat. that, although this is the avowed, it is not the real, object of the measure. I wish to believe, Sir, in all charity, that both you and Mr. WILBERFORCE, consider this to be the real object, or other- wise that he could not vote as he does, and that you could not reason as you do; but be assured, that the real object of the Romanists themselves, in urging these claims, is a very distinct thing from the ostensible one, and their Protestant Advocates would do well to consider this distinction. Both Mr. WILBERFORCE, and yourself, believe, no doubt, that equal ‘ Civil” privileges are all the Roman Catholics desire, and believing as you do, in addition, that these “ Civil” ad- vantages will satisfy them, and that the concession cannot lead to such further and other privileges, as will injure us, you Sr ea nD ORL pursue the course which we witness—It will be for others to determine, whether, after the reasons which I have- ad- duced to the contrary, such a view of the subject can be supported. The three great positions advanced in your Fifth Letter are ist.—That Protestants, as wellas Roman Catholics, have per- secuted, and still continue to do so, and that all such perse: cution (no matter under what form) is an invasion of free enqui* ry; and a denial of the right of private jadgment—that it assi- milates the Protestant Church to the Church of Rome, and is equally indefensible in either.—2ndly. That this Policy effee- tually defeats its own object, and is proved, more particularly in the case of Ireland, to’ be absolutely useless—and ordly. That—[as this proposition is short, and stands denuded of any consecutive reasoning in its support, I will give it in your own words,]| ‘* the measure of Emancipation must be carried— “« the time is suitable—the Protestant Public is prepared— “ all things are ready—and the sooner the thing is done, the “ better it will be for the Constitution, and PARTICULARLY “ FOR THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.” To begin at the beginning—I- shall address myself. to your first point, where you observe that Rome, having in the plenitude of her power, the physical means of opposing the Reformation, preferred them to the moral means of argument, and “laid on the blood-hounds of persecution,” in which mis- taken conduct, you affirm that she was followed by the Members of the Reformed Church, who persecuted in their turn, and that even down to this hour, the system of “ setting up human ** authority in matters of Faith—of imitating the Anti-Chris- “* tian spirit of Popery, and of interfering, for Political pur- *“ poses, with the consciences of men,” is quite as much the sin and folly of our own Church, as ever it was of the Church of Rome—you represent us, ‘« while the Laws against *« the Catholics remain in force, as treading in the very steps of “© the Mother of Abominations, by making our Creed, as she “* made hers, the test by which the Political situation of In- ” * dividuals is to. be determined ;” and you maintain that the aa . <1 3.2 5S us wR ea ees se ne SS ce eeees ERE EE “aa i eran eR te «© principle being the same in both cases, her guil é is only ‘« ereater than ours, as she has had the courage to be more «« openly consistent than ourselves—she trading with the souls « of men—we, stopping short at their Civil privileges.” Now I observe, in the first place, that you assert what you cannot support, when you go the length of affirming, that <¢ Protestants as well as Catholics, have sat upon the Inqui- “ sitorial Tribunal; that Catholic, as well as Protestant, «© Martyrs, have sealed the convictionof the truth of their << testimony with their blood,” —and that ‘* Protestants have « entailed upon our ProtestantInstitutions, a stain, and a dis- «< honour, which we: have not yet succeeded in completely -+ wiping away.” You call this “ an undoubted historical fact,”—but I CHALLENGE YOU, IN THE FACE OF THE PUBLIC, TO PRODUCE ANY PROOFS IN SUPPORT OF IT. Lam per- fectly aware that the Roman Catholics themselves (whose ar- gument you here adopt, and make your own) have honoured with the crown of Martyrdom, and -even of Canonization, at Rome, some of the very men who were hung for the Popish conspiracy of the Fifth of November, in the Reign of JAMES I. and I admit that al! the writers on the side of the Roman Catholics, would have us believe that every Execution which took place in the Reigns of EL1zaABETH, and JAMES |. were «. for conscience sake.”—I know that the most righteous legal sentences which were executed in consequence of the Political Treasons of those Reigns—especially the first of them-—have been stigmatized by the Romish Chroniclers, and even by some Protestant Advocates of the Romish Claims, as so much pure. persecution ? and that such Reasoners have argued as if they thought thatthe intriguing Priests and Jesuits, who en- deavoured to incite the people to rebellion, by putting in foree the Bull of Pope Pius V. which excommunicated and de- posed QUEEN ELizABETH, and who openly preached. sedi- tion to her subjects, were as undoubted Martyrs, under Pro- testant persecution, as any of the most illustrious Martyrs of the Protestant Church, were such, under Papal persecu- tion when they suffered at the Stake.—Now, although I med- dle not with the principle of conscience (however mistaken) 223 which has led these Priests and Jesuits, or other Political disturbers of the same Church, to make war upon our Pro- testant Sovereigns, and to violate the Laws: of the Country which was protecting them, I must yet deny that they have suffered martyrdom, in the same sense, as those who perished merely for their Religious opinions, and not for manifest vio- lations of the Laws of the Land; and I must further deny that the Judges, or Juries, who hung these political agitators, either occupied the Inquisitorial Tribunal, or brought any stain, or dishonour, upon the Protestant Cause.—There is nothing new in this charge, for it has been repeatedly adduced by the Advocates of Popery—especially by Mr. Dauas, in his Modern Defence of the Jesuits, but RAPIN, BURNET, Cam- DEN, and Hug, have all demonstrated the entire absence of Religious persecution in those cases, and the mere infliction of deserved punishment for the commission of the highest Political crimes known to the Law. ‘ The Judges of the Realm affirmed, (says Rapin) that no person had been “« made to suffer for his Religion, but only for dangerous prac- ** tices against the Queen and State.”—-Again—‘ The Ene- “* mies of the Queen studied,” (says he) “ always to confound « two things—namely—Religion, and the crimes against the “ State, under pretence that most of the Conspirators were *“« Catholics."—Tinpat’s Rapin, Vol. 9. p. 36. Edit. 1729. Again—-“‘ She is warmly accused of persecuting the Catho- “* lics, and putting several to death—It is true, there were “some that suffered death in her Reign, but one may ven- “ ture to assert, that none were punished but for conspiring “ against the Queen, or the State, or for attempting to de- ** stroy the Protestant Religion in England, and restore the ** Romish, by violent measures. The Catholics who lived in *« quiet were Tolerated, though with some restraint as to the “ exercise of their Religion, but with none as to their con- “* sciences—IF THIS MAY BE CALLED PERSECUTION, WHA®. “‘ NAME SHALL WE GIVE TO THE SUFFERINGS OF THE PRo- “ TESTANTS IN THE REIGN oF QuEEN Mary ?’—Rapin, Vol. 9. p. 224. Much more to the same purpose may be found in the early part of the same Vol. especially at p. p. ! 6—19—14—-48—and 49. SULLY proves the same fact in his ! History Vol. 4. Book 5. p. $57. Edit. Londres, 1768. CAM- if DEN’s ANNALS throughout, are full of. evidence to the same fact. Hume in his History (more especially in the 41st Chapter, Reign of ELizABETH) has proved to demonstration that—to use his own words—‘ ‘the Priests who maintained «« the Catholic superstition in its full height of bigotry, being « educated with a view to the Crown of martyrdon, were not « deterred, either by danger or fatigue, from maintaining and «© propagating their principles.”—-BURNET, in the 4th Vo- lume of his Abridgement of his own History of the Reforma- tion p. 381. (a precious Volume which certain Modern Pro- testants would do well to study) has a masterly passage upon those times.—My space will only permit me to refer to these different authorities, but a single passage from Lorp Bacon, oceurring in his ‘¢ Observations on Libel,” appears too im- portant to be omitted. —** Of Catholics,” (says he) ‘* I mean ih << the traiterous sort of them—a man may say as Cato said of Bh < Coosar, “ eum ad evertendam Rempublicam sobrium acces- “ sisse,”—they came sober, and well advised, to their treasons « and conspiracies; and commonly they look not so low as « the Counsellors, but have bent their murderous attempts « against her Majesty's sacred person, as may appear by the i ** conspiracy of Somerville, Parry, Savage, the Six, and ae : «“ others; nay, they have defended it in their theses, to bea *¢ lawful act.” de a Now, Sir, you have only one escape from this reasoning of our best Historians, and wisest Statesmen, establishing the fact as they do, that Legal Sentences for disloyalty and trea- son, are not Religious Martyrdom; and that is—again to take refuge in the assertion, that all our refusal of Political Power and Pre-eminence to the Church of Rome, and her Members, is only one continued act of Persecution, alike opposed to the Law of God, and the policy of a Protestant Nation—a | position from which I shall not attempt to dislodge you here, | as so much has been advanced by me already, in order to | shew that such a fastness cannot be maintained for an instant | with any colour of sound argument. 225 T shall, therefore, next advert to the virtual inference which, in common with the Roman Catholics, you draw from - this supposed case of Protestant persecution~-namely, ‘that Pro- testants having been, at some time or other, Persecutors, as well as Papists, there is not much to chuse between them, and that we ought to feel quite as easy under the prospect of Popery assuming the reins, as we do-under the present sys- tem—the fault being, not so much in one or the other Creed, as in human nature when in possession of power—and' not being in any case so much the error of the Men, as of the Times in which they have lived. There is no novelty im all this argumentation—since the celebrated Roman Catholic Lawyer, Mr. Burier, has urged it already, and been so compleatly answered by a most re- spectable Protestant Layman, who is also of. the legal pro- fession, that I have little more to do than to avail myself of his powerful reasoning. If (he argues) it could even be fully proved that Individual Protestants had not been faultless in this particular; “ the principles of Toleration which’ allow ‘* various sentiments, and modes of: faith, are necessarily in- “herent in Protestantism, and every instance of coercion or ** persecution in a Protestant, is a departure from his own le- “gitimate principles, while all Toleration exerciséd by a “Roman Catholic is a departure from. the principles of his ‘© own Church, which admits no other interpretation of Scrip- “ture than her own; denies the right of all other Ministers ‘to officiate in Religious offices; and declares that there is “no Salvation out of her own pale. “We know whence the persecutions of the Church of Rome *“ proceed, because we know that she’ does not, and, to be “consistent. with herself, cannot, tolerate other modes. of a * That the Church of England is perfectly tolerant, and abhors the em- ployment of force, is proved from her 20th Article—‘ Although the ** Church be a mistress and keeper of Holy writ, yet as it ought not to “decree any thing against the same, so besides’ the same, ought it not ~ © to enforce any thing to be believed for the necessity of salvation,” 26 66 66 66 6c 6 66 Ge 66 66 66 &é (a4 6<¢ 6e 6é “6 ce 6 226 faith. She considers her mode of faith to be perfect, her spirit- ual dominion to be universal, and her interpretation of the oracles of God to be. unquestionable. She cannot err, and therefore will make the opinions of her sons bend to her. authority, and. all who dispute that authority, she treats as enemies. If to-day were the first day of giving birth to such principles, it would require no great effort of sagacity to predict, that coercion and persecution would as neces- sarily flow from them as light from the sun. The practice of persecution would naturally follow intolerance of prin- ciple. On the other hand, Protestantism is the Religion of the Bible. It allows that Book to be the standard of faith and practice, and it imposes no specific interpretation of that divine and illuminating volume. Protestantism allows its votaries to bring human creeds to that great touchstone of all truth; but compels none to reduce their mterpreta- tion of it to the imperfect. and erring standard of human creeds. Whatever Creeds or Articles may be adopted by. Protestant Churches, it is quite clear that the distinguishing spirit of Protestantism, and which all Protestants admit, is the right of private judgment in matters of Religion; which ‘s the natural result of making the Scriptures, unmixed by human comments and opinions, the only infallible rule of Christian faith and practice, Where this. right is admitted to be the general and indefeasible property of man, as, it must be by every legitimate Protestant, the principle of coercion or persecution cannot exist. Therefore, if perses cution be maintained or exercised by a Protestant of any denomination, it is in contravention of the principles of Protestantism. You may censure the man, but you cannot blame the principle of Protestantism which he has thus abandoned.” “ The very principle of the Church of Rome, as evidenced in the Oath taken by her Bishops, is Persecution. The words are, ‘ Heretics, Schismatics, and Rebels, to our Lord ‘the Pope, or, his Successors, 1 will to my power. perse- ‘cute and oppose.’ Persecution, or coercion, being thus Hitt 227 “€ a principle of the Church of Rome, to be exercised as o6¢- ““ casion may serve, the circumstances were not accidental ‘* which have occasioned the destruction of millions of lives, * at her instigation, in different ages of the world, for alledged ** offences which were merely of a religious nature. The ** Church of Rome, admitting no right of Toleration; or Re- “ligious Liberty, must, of necessity, maintain coercion ih “matters of Religion, as a principle. This she has done, aid ** will continue to do, till she recognizes the right of others to “follow their own opinions and sentiments. The /presetit ** Pope’s Circular Rescript, of the 5th February 1808, sets this ““ matter in the clearest light, for he there states, that he has “* rejected the article proposed by Buonaparte for granting “the free and public exercise of religious worship to those ‘who should’ dissent from the Roman Catholic communion. ‘““ Now it is only upon a principle of coercion, or, in other “words, of persecution, that the Pope would have rejected “that article. But we need not rely upon a single act of the “* Pope, since it is notorious that nothing is more repugnatit “to the principles of the Church of Rome than the Toleration “ of other modes of faith.” Here then lies the essential, and eternal, distinction be- tween a Church which, in its very constitution and origin, claims the divine right of infallible perfection, and the consé- quent power of punishing heresy, when the opportunity may permit; and a Church which, like our own, renounces and disclaims any such right to punish the Professors of another faith, and avows and maintains principles of the most unqua- ‘lified Toleration, so far as a different Religious creed or wor- ship are concerned ; although, irom her connection with the State, she may no more deem herself obliged to concede cer- tain political privileges to every claimant, than she may aduiit “her obligation to ordain to Spiritual functions, in her own communion, the Members of another Church. In the case of ‘the Church of Rome, her Members—especially her Eccle- .siastical Members—are ranged on the side of persecution as an integral part of her. creed, whenever the opportunity to 228 persecute may occur, and all departures from*this rule are so many exceptions, arising from the mere necessity of the case *. With regard to the Church of England, she is essentially tolerant in her constitution, and openly abhors and rejects a contrary system. Any Minister, or Member, therefore, of our Church, who should become a Persecutor, would find no countenance, or sanction, in such a course, from his own body, which would scorn the employment of those unhallowed wea- pons. It is in vain that you strive to avoid the consequences of this predicament, by affirming that the refusal of ‘‘ equal ‘‘ civil privileges” to the Papists is so much positive persecu- tion, since you can only expect the sympathy of the Romanists, or their friends, in attempting to establish such a position: the very phrase of “ civil privileges” upon which you so ex- clusively rest, is itself an unfair view of what is really denied ; _the privileges withheld, being not so much of a merely civil character (such, for instance, as protection in person, and pro- perty) as of a political character—in other words, the equal participation of power and influence in the State. It cannot be too often repeated, that it is for Political rank, and influ- ence—involving, as the Romanists believe—the ultimate: pos- session of Ecclesiastical rank and influence for their own Church——both in its spiritual and secular character——that they. have so long sighed and struggled-— Hinc ille lacryme !” The refusal of these advantages may be branded * Bishop Hurp, than whom few men better understood the prin- ciples of Civil and Religious liberty, or the bearing of Popery upon them, observes [Works—Vol. 5, p. 315.] “ BossurT regards the per- “ secution of Heretics as so little dishonourable to his Communion, that “‘ he considers it a point not to be called in question—calls the use of the ‘6 sword, in matters of Religion, an undoubted right—and concludes that “ there is no illusion more dangerous than to consider TOLERATION as a & mark of the true Church—Vexercice de la puissance du glaire dans les < matieres de la religion, et de la conscience ; chose, qui ne pett étre revo» “ guée en doute—le droit est certain—il n’y a point @illusion plus dan- ‘ gereuse que de donner LA SOUFFRANCE pour un caractere du vraye “ Eglise” Hist. des Vari. 10, p. 51. Par..1740, 12mo. 229 with the name of Persecution by Mr. Witserrorce’ and yourself, but this will not prove it to be such, nor’ will the continuance of the same policy by a Protestant Church or State, be to inflict any real injustice, or hardship, upon Roman Catholics. Were it possible to believe that they were merely Petitioners “ for:conscience sake,” or were only claiming the free exercise of their Religion, unfettered by’ those penalties attaching to its profession, which the fears—perhaps not al- together groundless—of our Ancestors (including Mr. Locxs in their number) had imposed; there would appear some pre- tence for further alteration in the existing law, but (to avail myself of the powerful argument of Sir Wittiam TEMPLE) when speaking of the United Provinces— No man among ‘them can complain of pressure in his conscience: of being “forced to any public profession of his private faith: of being ‘restrained from his own manner of worship ‘in: his. house, or “obliged to any other abroad; and whoever asks more in “point of Religion, without the undisputed evidence of a “particular Mission from Heaven, may be justly suspected “not to ask ror Gopv’s sake, but for his own; which is ‘* pretending to sovereignty in opinion, instead of liberty in at. It is therefore; Sir, that I cannot consider the Roman Ca- tholics entitled to the exuberant flow of your feelings in their favor, because they ask not for God’s sake but for their own— Although the Newspaper, which is so strongly im’ their- in- terest (the NEw Times) has designated the different Petitions of Protestants against their claims as ‘‘ Petitions against the ‘““ Religious Freedom of the Catholics,” 1 deny that their religious freedom has ever been affected, or was’ ever meant to: be ;\ and certainly a more sophistical, and unworthy, colour could not have been given to the opposition of. Protestants against further concession, than by such a mode of character- izing that opposition. So far are we from obstructing, or mo- lesting, the Religious freedom. of the Roman Catholics, that they not:only’ plant their Colleges, and Nunneries, in the heart of our Protestant empire; but the Chapels for their Idolatrous 250 worship are occupying, as in defiance, the most public parts of our Capitals. ‘To this I offer no objection, although I have ‘already observed upon the gross inconsistency of Protestants becoming their builders; but, at all events, while Protestants will build Roman Catholic Chapels, and Protestant Statesmen will advocate their claims; in the name of common sense, let us hear no more of PERsEcurIon. The opprobrious charge of Persecution, as applied to the supposed injury done to certain Individuals, by refusing them any share in making, or executing, laws for those persons whose Religion they call heresy, and whom they avowedly regard as unworthy of To- leration, would really be deemed an affront to our reasoning faculties, if it did not come recommended under the sanction of great names. The vague and unfounded complaints of the Roman Catholics who are asking ‘‘ not for God’s sake, but “for their own’—present a case of imaginary hardship, un- der which, we must be excused for retaining some portion of that scepticism which, as the present Lord Barnurst has observed, leaves us in some fear of “ a notice to quit in favor «< of new Tenants, before we have got another house over our “ own heads.” The charge of Uncharitableness, and Intolerance, is a stale accusation. It is thus that the able author of THE PURSUITS OF LITERATURE met it, five and twenty years ago; aud it is thus that I would meet it now—‘I have pity for them, and “relief too, according to my ability; but Cuariry is in ‘reality a principle of general safety, of discernment, and of ‘prudence. It originated from Him who commanded his «< Disciples to assume the innocence of the Dove, and the wis- “¢ dom of the Serpent. Surely this is not to teach persecution, ‘or intolerance. My language and arguments are designed «only to shew that the spirit of the system of Popery yet “remains unaltered, in its great and leading principles. I Joye Toleration, in the constitutional sense of the word, as « much as the most designing patriot of the day: but indif- ference to the public form of Religion is the first step to its negleet, and to its consequent abolition. I cannot think’ it é n 231 “‘a mark of intolerance, when I: deprecate: the revival ‘of the ‘‘ Romish. Superstition in England, There. is. an enthusiasm ** an opyacwos, in the professors of it, which L know never for- sakes them. It is active where its influence can hardly be supposed. It surely will be understood I am only. speaking of the spirit and tendency of the system itself, 1 would carry Charity with me in my heart, and in my hand, but I know that Charity is, and must, be, eonsistent with a love to my country, and to her rights civil and religious. Iam no enemy to the liberty of discussion, and the toleration of opinions; I am for no literary proscription. But I think it is plainly our interest, as well as. our duty (while we yet may) to. strive to support that Constitution in Church and State, which has hitherto been able to build us up, and to. give us an inheritance, or rather the pre-eminence, among all those who have been strengthened by policy, or sanctified by re- velation. They know their hour, their protectors of noble rank, their opportunity, their advantages, their revenue from the State. They advance by approaches, not desultory, but, regular. The Papal genius never sleeps, no, not for a moment; but directs and animates, and acts, uniformly and constantly, at home and abroad, in cities, in towns, in villages ; it takes. aid from stupidity, and from ability, from | above, and from beneath. I have veneration for the truly | pious of every persuasion in the Christian faith. «There is one Lord!’ But, I have, and it is an Englishman’s duty NH to have, a watchful eye upon the insinuating, or domineering, “‘ spirit of the Romish Church. I have. no opinion of the sin- ‘“cerity of their attachment to us, or of their gratitude for “our favors, I insist. upon it they regard themselves as the original and rightful inheritors of our Land, and I call upon the guardians of our Church and State to be watchful. I am not, speaking to those who are. indifferent about all or wei any Religion; but to those, who from their station, poli- waa * tical or sacred, should understand the importance of the ih H * cause, the interests of Christianity and. its purity, the evi- iid i} *« dence of history, the nature, and the essential and unal- | 66 66 a4 6 n =~ ican eaten" ieee ae ———————————EE 232 ‘tered spirit, of the Romish priesthood, and their subtilty ‘< and peculiar arts, by persuasion, or by terror, over weak con- ‘‘ sciences. Iam speaking to the Governors of Great Britain, “to the Ministers of the Crown, who should guard, and who “‘ [ trust will guard, against the revival of the Romish Church, ‘‘now working in secret; as well as against the more open ‘and more terrible democracy of some: descriptions of the “‘ Dissenters. What is:said to us all, is said at this hour to ‘‘ Ministers, and Rulers of States, with a more important, “and a more sacred: emphasis. ‘ Watch—for ye. know: not «« the hour when destruction cometh’.” Pursuits of Literature. I shall conclude this Letter by quoting the sentiments of the late Bishop or Lonpow upon this question, which he delivered upon its rejection in May 1805, and which forms a striking contrast to the sentiments lately delivered upon the same question by the present Bisuor or Norwicu. “Tf,” (says the venerable Porrzus) “ the Petition from “the Roman Catholics had been for more. complete Tolera- “tion in matters of Religion, though it can‘hardly, 1 think, ‘be more. complete than it is, there was not an Individual in ‘¢ the House that would have given a more hearty assent to «it than myself, but it was not a Petition for. liberty of con- “science, it was an application for Political Power, and that “Power, I, for one, am not disposed to grant them; because, “I believe it would be difficult to produce a single instance ‘«< when they have possessed Political power, in a Protestant «‘ country, without using it cruelly, and tyrannically. - And “ this, indeed, follows necessarily from the very doctrines of ‘¢ the Church, several of which are well known to be hostile, “not: only to the Protestant Religion, but to a Protestant «Government. ‘«‘ It has been said, indeed, that these are not now the tenets ‘©of the: Church of Rome; that they may be found perhaps “in some old musty records;. but that they.are now grown ‘¢ obsolete and invalid, and are held in utter detestation by “ the whole body of. the. Roman Catholics both in England “and Ireland. But the musty records in which these doc- 233 ““trines ‘appear, are nothing less than General Councils ‘con- “firmed by the ‘Pope; and Dr. Troy, ‘Titulas Archbishop “of Dublin, in his Pastoral ‘Instructions to: the Roman Catho- *lics of his Diocese,’ published in 1793, tells his Flock “They “must adhere implicitly to the Decrees and Canons of the “Church, assembled in General Councils, and: confirmed by “ the Pope;’ and ‘the celebrated Lay Roman Catholic writer “Mr. Prowpen, in his ‘Case Stated’ published in 1791, “maintains the same doctrines, and the infallibility of Gene- tal Councils. These are, therefore, unquestionably at’ this ‘day the tenets of their Church. They have never been re- nounced or disavowed; and till they are so disavowed by authority, every good Catholic is bound to obey them, “Tt is true they have been renounced by certain Petitioners “from, Ireland, but they can only renounce them Sor them- “‘ selvés; they cannot renounce them for the whole body of “Catholics in that country; and this renunciation, besides, comes unaccompanied by any competent authority. It is “neither authorized by the Pope, by a General Council, by “ the Bishops, or by their Clergy. On the contrary, it is very “remarkable, that not one of the Clergy signed the Petition. “ One cannot therefore help fearing that the same thing may “happen in this case that happened in 1793, when the Lords “Prrre, Stourron, and many other Roman Catholic gen- “tlemen, on applying to Parliament for farther indulgence, “made the same renunciation of the same obnoxious doc- “trines that appears in the Irish Petition. The Church of “Rome immediately took the alarm, and announced. their “entire disapprobation of that measure by their Apostolic “ Vicar in England, who wrote an energetic Letter to those “Gentlemen condemning what they had done; which con- “demnation was sanctioned by the Pope, and by all the “ Roman Catholic Bishops in this Country, and in Scotland.* *The object of these Roman Catholic Peers, and of several distin- Suished Laymen who joined them, was to soften down, by a Public Declaration, the offensive tenets of Popery, but it was immediately met 2H Le sateen seaieetn. 27 Jenin digicam a RT nT IE 234 “ But laying these Doctrines out of the question; there is ‘one certainly which the Petitioners have not renounced, ‘and indeed cannot renounce;) namely, THE SUPREMACY “ow tHe Pope; the acknowledgment ofa Foreign jurisdic- “tion. It is)céntended indeed that this jurisdiction :is' only a ‘¢ Spiritual one; but the jurisdiction of .a Foreign Catholic “ potentate, of any kind whatsoever,)»must always be a dan- “ gerous thing ina Protestant Country. This argument has ?) Does Mrrancruon seriously believe that the College of Jesuits at Preston in England, and Castle Browne in Ireland, so strongly adverted to by Lord CoxcuzstEr, the College of Popish Priests at Maynooth—and the several Popish Bishops and Vicars Apostolic in England, will find no more work to do when the Emancipation Bill shall have passed than: they have at pre- sent ; or that the Catholic Board of London will always continue (as Mr. Burxe says,) to “ dip their pens in the milk of human kindness”’ as at present? But even supposing that they should not finally obtain the power to persecute, will all their struggles for it cost us nothing to defeat them, and will it not be better to “ , We Mt i hit ‘keep the door shut, as it is, than to open it, in the presumptuous- ae Vi confidence that we can always shut it again when we choose? Cae Why provoke a conflict which at all events must be inevitable, Hail whatever may be the eventual result? In plain but intelligible English, why not “ let well alone?” “ Then I thought, in my dream,’’ says honest Joun Bunyan, “ that it is easier going out ; of the way when we are in, than going in ‘when we are out.” i Before I conclude this Letter, I willjust observe, in reference to Mexancruon’s delicate allegation, that Amicus ProrEestans *“ reads histories.of his own,’’ that the histories which I “have i ni used are quite as open to the British public as to myself, since al (to use the words of the Apostle) “ this thing was not done in ann il a corner :’’ and as these histories happen to be among the most i} HH valuable and accredited sources of our common information, I | ah think the gratuitous affront thus offered by Metanernon might ea have been spared. I cannot at this moment recollect a single | historian cited by MeLancruon himself, but I have either quoted, or referred to, the following histories: Mrtner’s Ecclesiastical ant History—Davixa’s Civil Wars of France—De Tuov’s invaluable al History—Sir Joun Tempie’s History of the Irish Rebellion, in 1645—Sir Ricuarp Muserave’s History of the Irish Rebellion, in 1798—Sir Wiiu1am Tempxie’s History of the Low Countries et —Rarin’s History of England—Pinxerton’s Geography—Cam- | Hi pEeNn’s Annals of the Reign of Elizabeth—Hvume’s History of England—Sir Marrusw Hare—Lord Ciarenpon—Ricnarp Baxter—Bishop Burner—Svuuuiy’s History—Lorp Bacon— vi Purrenporr¥ s Spiritual Monarchy of Rome—Dr. Caramy—The | Srare Triats—Sovurney’s Life of Westeyv—Granam’s Annals of Ireland—Spzarine’s Historical Work on Ireland—VI.uErRs’s History of the Reformation—Dvuvat’s “ Tableaux de Naples” — the ‘Siecle de Louis Quatorze’”—and the ‘*-Essai historique sur la puissance des Papes.’’ Besides the above, I have adduced the testimonies of various authors of the highest reputation, who, i | _ though not strictly historians, had yet arrived at the conclusions i | eat they had formed on this all-important subject from a perfect ac- a i | quaintance with history, and almost all of whom supply the most a copious historical authorities for the views entertained by them. Het me Among ‘these are the following: Hooxsr—Suertock—JEWEL en i i —Brackstone—Lord Sommrs—Marrusew Pore—Dr. Warrs— | Dr. Dopprince — Bishop Hari — Dean Swirr— Dr. Gate — ane ETE Dr. Owzn—Mr. Henry—Mr. Locxe — Jonn Fraver— Bishop Bs 34 Porrevs—Bishop Hurp—and three modern divines, Mr. Ceci —Mr. Scorr—and Mr. Simeon. I should certainly not have stooped to this vindication of my authorities, but that many will see this unfounded charge of Mexancruon, who, not having met with my book, might be led to’suppose that no writer (however adroit at the weapons of disputation,) would have advanced such a charge as this, if it had not been in strict conformity with truth ; and that at the hazard of its immediate refutation. My appeal, as before, is to the Public—It is for them to judge of the character of my historical authorities, and to decide for Mr- LANCTHON or myself on this as on other points. I am, Sir, &c. Amicus ProTEestTaNns LETTER VII. Sir, Having now, as I should hope, overthrown the main body of those arguments by which Me.ancruon in his Seventh Letter contends for the entire distinctness of interests between the Romish clergy and laity, and for the facility with which Catholic Emancipation is to effect their complete separation, I shall content myself with a running fire upon some remaining’ auxiliary remarks with which he hopes to guard and support his principal position. And, first, of his notion, that “‘ we are legis- lating with reference to political objects for the laity alone;”’ an assertion which, of course, supposes that we can help the Romish laity. politically, without aiding their church and their religion. Now, Sir, let us suppose that those conscientious laymen, Sir Everarp Diesy and Mr. Percy, together with that renowned layman, Mr. Guy Fawxes, had been charged with intending, by their rough mode of legislation, to forward the interests both of the Romish priesthood and laity, and had replied that they only meant to help the laity, would any man in his senses have given them credit for the assertion? Our ancestors would no more have believed that those laymen could have helped their own brethren without helping the clergy, than that they. undertook the plot. itself without the instigation of their clergy ; and that the latter was not the case we know from the confessions both of Sir Everarp Diesy and of Rooxwoop (another layman), who declared that it was from thei strong attachment to Carrssy LS ———— a a 30 (the priest) that they had at first been led to entertain the pro- ject: Sir Everarp in particular affirming, in addition, that his “first motive was not ambition or discontent, but the cause of religion, for which alone, seeing it lay at the stake, he resolved to neglect in that behalf, his estate, his life, his name, his me- mory, his posterity, and all worldly felicity whatever.’’—See State Trials, vol. 2.p. 187, 8vo. edition. Again, would any Pro- testant who lived in the reign of Exizaneru have believed that the Spanish armada (if the breath of the Aumrenry had not sunk it in the mighty waters), could have invested the Romish laity of England with political power, and at the same time have done nothing towards setting up the Romish religion. and its priests? and yet who does not see that the only essential dif- ference between those cases and our own is that the same object was in former times sought to be carried all at onee, and by violent means, which is now proposed to be accomplished by Act of Parliament, with somewhat less noise indeed, and so as to have a more gradual operation ; but still in such sort as eventu- ally to destroy our Protestant Constitution, and to overturn our established Church no less effectually than if the Protestant Suc- cession were cut off at a blow, and the dissolution of the Pro- testant Church were provided for in some Jess ceremonious way. In the mode proposed for effecting our overthrow at an earlier period of our history, by the members of the church of Rome (for there were then no Protestant advocates for Popery) our destruction was certainly meditated without our own consent ; but then we were spared from being parties to our own hu- miliation, and were not expected, even by the sanguinary Church of Rome herself, to sign (as at present) our own death warrant, or to become our own executioners; but with these exceptions, there seems but little difference between the ancient and modern mode of bringing about an identical object. If, however, the downfal of our national church, and the destruction of our Pro- testant Constitution, are equally in contemplation, what can it signify whether the citadel is taken by open assault, or whether a wooden horse is introduced in a more quiet way, which will be opened at night when every body is asleep, and vomit forth its armed contents upon the unsuspicious victims of their own apathy. It is really difficult to treat with seriousness this novel notion of the practicability of administering to the political necessities De of the Romish laity, without at the same time supplying both the spiritual. and temporal wants of their clergy. The Romish clergy and laity are precisely in the situation of lawful man and wife, and however they may bicker and differ upon minor points, which do in no way affect their mutual alliance, they can never be divorced by any third party, until the higher bond of their union shall be first broken by themselves. It is not even a quar- rel which might go the length of separating them a mensd et thoro (though that has never yet taken place, and is not likely to do so) which will enable any sagacious Protestant legislators to disunite the clergy and laity. It is only the complete divorce a vinculo matrimonii arising from the absolute infidelity of one of the parties to the other, which can effect such an object. as this. That complete divorce took place at the great Reformation in the case of every layman who then renounced his religion, and he was then aided accordingly by ourselves, and has ever since shared with us in all our own privileges, political, civil, and re- ligious : but as I have fully shewn already, there is no separa- tion short of this which can enable us to help the Romish laity in contradistinction to their clergy, while that laity shall volun- tarily continue in union with its anti-scriptural hierarchy, and of course in professed dependence on, and subjection to, another and an external supremacy. Tam next induced to observe upon the kind of Machiavelian policy by which Mexancruon proposes to entrap the Roman Catholics (who are, after all, quite as knowing as himself ) into the overthrow ef their whole system, while, at the same time, with no small hazard to his plot, he kindly advertizes them of his intentions in the public newspapers. Until this notable scheme of “ Divide et impera’? was propounded by Muxanc- ron, both the Parliament and the public had supposed that the Emancipation Bill—that grand “ arrangement for general con- fusion” (as Mr. Burxe once called another measure), would tend to the pacific adjustment of all the grievances under which the Roman Catholics were supposed to labour; but Mxanc- THON having now opened our eyes to discover the real nature and object of the Biil in question, I shall beg leave, when it gets into the Committee, to suggest an addition to the preamble, and am not without the hope that some well wisher to the measure will propose the following recital :—‘‘ Whereas, for the purpose of affording all possible relief to Roman Catholics in general, it ee am egg 37 is necessary and expedient to divide the Romish priesthood more effectually from the Romish laity, and (in order to our own hap- piness) to set them together by the ears; but, inasmuch as such desirable object cannot be effected, without the aid of Parliament, therefore, be it enacted,” &c. &c. I believe, also, that until Merancraon made the discovery, it was just as little suspected, either by Parliament or the public, that the Emancipation Bill would bring about the most complete harmony of sentiment among Protestants themselves on the sub- ject of the Romish claims, and this chiefly in consequence of the immense advantages which would at once accrue to our own Protestant Established Church—a> circumstance which naturally suggests a further recital in the Relief Bill, which might run in something like the following terms :—‘“ Whereas, for the pur- pose of allaying the fears of Protestants, on the subject of the Romish claims, and of putting an end to all further doubts as to the duty and necessity of conceding those elaims, it is expedient to effect what cannot afterwards be undone, and to. grant what cannot thenceforth be recalled, for the purpose of trying a new. experiment upon a scale of unexampled liberality and magnifi- cence upon a Constitution essentially and fundamentally Pro- testant.* And whereas, the participation of political power by the lay members of an unscriptural and intolerant Church cannot possibly tend to increase the power, influence, or credit of that Church, its creed, or its members, and much less to call. forth the display of any intolerant spirit, but must, on the contrary, in the nature of things, tend to consolidate the power, and multiply the resources of our own scriptural and tolerant Church; and thus afford the most complete security to Protestants for their own continued safety and peace. Be it therefore further enacted,’ &e. &e. In reference to the alledged oppression under which the Roman Catholics labour, in consequence of our present laws, and the supposed union of interests which MELancTHON imagines thence burbiar dbs vitor ws rine, dint tess sett ag alin Oe a a ee * The utter hardihood of the experiment of ‘‘ Catholic Emancipation ”’ in a Protestant land, reminds us of some of Lord Bacon’s wisdom. ‘* As there are mountebanks,”’ says he, ‘‘ for the natural body, so there are mountebanks for the body politic. Certainly, to men of judgment, bold persons are a sport to behold; for, if absurdity be the subject of laughter, I-doubt not but great boldness is scldom without absurdity. Boldness is a child of ignorance and baseness.” EE on Pe xd ee SE wie we ns comet 38 to result, by reason of which, those injured bodies, the priesthood and laity, aré urged by a sense of common misery to make com- mon cause against’ their oppressors, when, if they were left to themselves, they would e’en quarrel and part ; I observe—First, that there is no pretence whatever for the charge of oppression in a ¢asé Where the dominant power in a state merely chuses to entrust the members of its own religion with the power of making and administering its laws, and of advising its Sovereign, in preference to the professors of a false and superstitious faith, and the devoted servants of another master. It is one thing for persons to complain of oppression and to clamour for redress of grievances, but it is another and a very different thing for them to make out a case of oppression, and prove that a remedy is called for. Lord Bacon observes, in reference to imaginary gitievances of this description, “‘ Certain men are so sensible of every restraint, that they will go near to think their girdles and garters to be bonds and shackles.” Such men have been found in every age; and we have had them in our own. We have only lately heard a great deal about the oppression of the subject, the injustice of rulers and laws, and the necessity of a change. These pathetic complainers have well nigh sickened us of such complaints ; nor are they now silent because they have either gained their object, or relinquished its pursuit, but simply be- cause all among us who could distinguish between real and fan- cifal grievances, knew that these men did net themselves believe their own lie, but employed such sophistry as a pretext for ac- quiring @ power which they would immediately have abused, and for seizing upon property to which they had no rightful claim. I instance this, not so much to shew that Roman Catholics and their friends are revolutionists, (though that would be found true in the long run,) but to shew that their complaints of oppression and injustice are not to be taken for granted, because they are so loudly reiterated, and may perhaps turn out, on nearer exa- mination, to resemble the ‘ girdles and garters’’ mentioned by Lord Bacon, or the arbitrary and oppressive cruelties so piercingly bewailed by Messrs. Hunt and Cosserr. I think I have a right to complain of Mzrancruon’s lending himself to the support of this popular delusion, while he is evi- dently too wise to be himself its victim. I complain of his giving currency to puling lamentations, and sentimental whiningss in fa- vour of the oppressed Catholics, who, after all, possess the liberty 39 of worshipping Gon according to the forms of théir own Church, ‘and the dictates of their consciences, of enjoying and transmitting their property, and of being protected. by the same laws in respect of life, person, and estate, as ourselves, while they are only de- prived, (as I contend, for the common good,) of the right of making and administering the laws of a Protestant empire, and prevented from molesting the majority of the nation in the open profession of another faith, and the support of another Govern- ment than. can be acceptable or even tolerable to Papists. Se- condly, It is not true that the Romish priests and their people are more cordially united by our opposition, while we are refusing them the political power of accomplishing their mutual object than they would be if we were to place that object more within their reach, and much less is, it true that they are more united now than they would be if they had actually attained that object. All our experience proves, with a force which is not to be resisted, that concession is the parent of demand; and that to descend from that elevated attitude where the providence of Gop and the wis- dom of our ancestors have placed us, is only to subject ourselves to the dangers of that still deeper descent, which even a heathen poet has characterized as one of the easiest things imaginable during our downward progression, while it will be found the most arduous, if not impossible operation, to retrace our steps. What has concession done for us hitherto, but to engender in- creased demand, and to necessitate extended indulgence ?. Now to alledge that our continued defence of ourselves and of our re- ligion against Popish aggression and ineursion, ought to be aban- doned, because forsooth it tends to consolidate the union between the Romish priests and their laity, is to argue that no civil coali- tion can be justified for purposes of mutual protection, whether of person or property, against spoliators and depredators of an- other character, because, in uniting for our common protection, we shall strengthen the alliance of marauders—who does not at once discern the fallacy of this reasoning ? Let it even, for the sake of the argument, be eonceded that ene consequence of an attacked party. standing on the defensive would be to unite two i Hi ought such a circumstance wh arms, and give more closely to- >? Who does not alliance. (even if assailing parties more closely together, to induce the party attacked to throw away his up the struggle merely for fear of his drawing gether the ties subsisting between his enemies see that the circumstance of strengthening their CRANES ee a elt ow EE wet eA es ween, 40 such a résult should follow,) is altogether secondary and subor- dinate, when placed in competition with the primary duty of preserving his own existence, and protecting his own interests ? And who does not feel that, if, by his necessary attention to what he owes himself, he should incidentally unite his enemies more closely than ever, this would not dispense him, under any law of Gop or nature, from the plain and positive obligation of taking care of himself? At one time Meuanernon invites us to give the Papists at once whatever they demand, for no better reason than because they must have it at last. At another he urges upon us the same dereliction of the simplest duty, because the continued defence of ourselves will consolidate the union of our enemies! I have endeavonred to shew (with what success the Public must decide,) that one of these arguments is equally invalid with the other. In reference to the allegation of Meiancruon, that our ‘ penal laws and political proscriptions” (as he is pleased to term them,) have been an experiment for “ putting down the Catholic reli- gion” —Mewancruon must be well aware that no Protestant out of Bethlem hopes or expects to put down the Roman Catholic religion* by “ penal laws or political proscriptions,”’ and that to characterize the laws of exclusion from place and power by such an epithet as this, only requires to be noticed in order to be re- futed. That experiment, therefore, cannot have failed (as Mer- LANCTHON asserts it to have done), which has not been tried ; and it is no more true that the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the seats of council, of judicature, and of legislature, has been an experiment for putting down the Romish religion, than the exclusion of Protestant clergymen from seats in the House of Commons has been an experiment for putting down the Pro- testant Church ! One word only, in conclusion, on Metancraon’s Seventh Let- ter. He invites “ the friends of Catholic Emancipation” to hallo before they are out of the wood, when he congratulates them on “ the unceasing progress which their cause is making both within and without the walls of Parliament.’ It is very true that, when this premature triumph was penned, the House of Com- Nall Pee RNC aE * Ido not call it the Catholic religion, (as MELANCTHON does) for the rea- son given by the translators of the English Bible, in their Preface, ‘“ Heretics they call us, fer the same reason they call themselves Catholics—bhoth being wrong.” Al mons had decided in favour of Mr, Canntne’s Bill for bringing’ Popish Lords into the House of Peers; but then this nctable project happened to require the consent of both Houses ; and, as Sir Tuomas Letupripce exclaimed—“ Thank Gop for a House of Lords!’ Mrancruon should have recollected, that although the Ides of March had come, they were not over ;—to use a common, but significant English phrase, he chose to ‘ reckon his chickens before they were hatched,’’ and will probably be more cautious in future. He must not hope to escape from this inconvenience by contending, that the loss of Mr.Cannine’s Bill has in point of fact given no check to the march of Catholic Emancipation. If he should venture upon this line of argument, his good friends the Roman Catholics will soon convince him of his error, by sounding in his ears the public Resolutions of the British Catholic Board, of the 22d June, 1822, which describe the law excluding Popish Peers, as one of those laws by which the Roman Catholics “ are hourly degraded in society, and con- stantly deprived of every political privilege of the Constitution” —while in remarking upon this very law, and on the refusal to abrogate it—the New Times of the 24th June last, asks—‘ Is it not morally certain that long before half a century longer, the present state of things must end in concession, or Revolution ?”’— I answer for one, that it is not so certain, and I add, that the New Times (however uniformly or strenuously it may advocate the cause of the Roman Catholics,) has no more right to threaten the House of Lords with a Reyoturion for not admitting the Popish Peers, than Mr. Brovenam or Mr. Denman had to threaten the same august tribunal with a Revolution for certain other reasons quite as fresh in all our recollections, but not at all necessary to be here enumerated. I am Sir, &c. Amicus PROTESTANS. LETTER VITI. Sir, I am now arrived at Mxranctuon’s Eighth Letter, which opens with a repetition of the same hardy assertion upon which he had ventured before, and which | have already pub- licly examined, viz. that the measure of emancipation will give the Roman Catholics “No New vowrr.” It is undeniable that they themselves believe the concessions of Protestants will acquire for ee Lk ne Pe co See OE ae al hes ho A2 them considerable power, or why all the restless and unwearied anxiety we witness for carrying their point? But waiving the advantage to be derived from the evidence afforded by themselves, I contend that both religious and political power must necessa- rily follow the grant; and first, of ReLiaious power. Will any man believe for a moment that the present Romish peers (of whom I have shewn there are eight English, nine Irish, and two Scotch) can sit in the House of Peers, and that the Crown can be at the same time empowered to place as many more Romish Peers there as it may be advised to do by those ministers who see no harm in them or their religion—and all this without giving influence and credit to the religion of Popery ? Will it be nothing to proclaim to the Protestants of this kingdom by a so- lemn act of the Legislature, that there is no such vital difference between the two religions of Curisr and Antichrist as ought any longer to hinder the members of the Church of Rome from occupying the highest place in the aristocracy, or from bearing their part in the enactment of our laws? Is it nothing to inform the English nation that our Protestant ancestors were under a grievous error, and that the martyrs shed their blood in vain? When the lay lords of Popery, professing the Romish creed, and acknowledging both a foreign allegiance, and an external supre- macy in spirituals, shall have been admitted to the upper house, upon what principle can we refuse seats to the titular bishops and vicars apostolic? We shall no doubt be told then, as now, that the Protestant religion and British Constitution can suffer no more injury from the ecclesiastical lords of Popery than from the temporal lords, so long as they do not form a numerical ma- jority, and so long as their own religion is not the religion of the state; but what man in his waking hours will believe this? The same observations, so far as the question of RELIGION is con- cerned, apply to the introduction of Popish members into the House of Commons. The bare tolerance of such a novelty will be itself a virtual dereliction of the religion of Protestantism, and Protestant constituents will sooner or later discover this, although its first effect will be to lead a multitude among them to imagine that there can be no essential difference between the two reli- gions, and to recommend that religion to their personal choice which, after all, is the most comfortable religion in the world, or as Cuanxes II. designated it, the only religion jit for a gentle- man. The moval impossibility of excluding the pissmnrers from oe iain aS nna En 43 the House of Commons, and the concurrent abolition of ail tests, should the Papists be no longer subjected to tests, and once come to sit in the lower house, are also points too closely connected with the religion of the national establishment to pass over in silence. With regard to the Privy Councin, how is it possible even for Mr,ancruon himself to believe that Papists can feel so careless about their religion as not to concern them- selves about their Sovereign’s conversion, when they conscien- tiously believe him to be out of the pale of salvation, so long as he shall continue a Protestant ; and @ fortiori, how can they feel so little for the interests of an empire as not to do their ut- most to bring back that empire to what they believe to be the only true church, and the only way of salvation? Again, will Popish judges, magistrates, lords lieutenant, and sheriffs of coun- ties care no more for the honour and success of their own reli- gion than if it had no existence, and resolve by a new self-deny- ing ordinance, to attend only to the secular duties of their offices, without ever casting an eye on what their confessors will assure them is of far greater moment than the administra- tion of any, or all, the human laws which were ever promul- gated, namely, the interests of the church, and the good of souls? Let us now turn to the GOVERNORS OF OUR COLONIES, and inquire whether a Papist in such a situation is likely to do nothing for his own religion; or rather, whether it is not abso- lutely certain that he must do much for it?) Take Bombay, for instance, where the Popish Bishop Prenpsreasrt has lately pro- ceeded with a large and chosen band of priests and jesuits. Really, Sir, I should not be without my apprehensions, if a Pro- testant who was only popishly affected were to go out to that or any other part of India; but when I contemplate the probabi- lity of one or more avowed Papists bearing rule in an empire so far removed from the parent country, the idolatries and supersti- tions of whose worship harmonize so admirably with those of the Romish faith, and where the power to persecute, or molest, the Protestants must, if carried out into practice, be so irretrievably mischievous to the interests of Protestantism in India, if not to the very continuance of its connection with the mother country —I say, when these things are considered, they will surely make us pause before we commit the ark of our religion, abroad or at home, to the charge of men who can have no sense of the pre- Pee ii fi? ‘ 44 ciousness of the deposit, and who are bound, on their own prin- ciples, to patronize another creed than our own. Merancruon indeed asserts in this Eighth Letter, that “ eligi- bility to office is not office,” and this is logically indisputable. But I ask, who will dare to object to the appointment of men otherwise qualified, whose religion alone can afford any reason against their advancement, after the British Parliament shall have solemnly declared that such religion ought not to operate as a bar to their holding of office, and shall no longer do so? Let us not deceive ourselves. Let Papists once become eligible, and they must be elected ; nor can Metancruon, with all his logic, dispute the propriety, the duty, and the policy of our choosing from those agents for whose eligibility he contends with all his might and main. Either he is deceiving his good allies with the fallacious prospect of attaining to advantages which he never means them to possess, by conceding eligibility to office without election (in which case his moral honesty will come into ques- tion), or else he conscientiously believes they can, with safety to the Protestant religion, be placed in the high and responsible stations to which I have alluded. He will take his choice of either horn of this dilemma. I am now to shew that poxiricat power must necessarily fol- low the grant of “‘ Catholic Emancipation,” and first of the le- gislature. With regard to the higher branch of the legislature, I have already shewn (see page 155 of former Letters), that if, on such a vital question as this, there was only a majority of THIRTY-NINE peers on the great trial of strength in 1821, of whom twenty-six were bishops° (and who therefore voted, as may be supposed, more or less professionally), this humble ma- jority of only rumTEeEN lay lords who then stood between us and Popery, may well lead us to “ rejoice with trembling,’ and not to be very confident of future majorities in favour of Protestants, their church, or their laws, so soon as Popish peers shall have taken their seats in that august assembly—* If these things are done in the green tree, what will be done in the dry?” In reference to the other branch of the legislature, I have al- ready shewn (see pp. 151-2), that although a numerical majority of Roman Catholic members is not soon to be expected, yet that at least eighty of the hundred members returned from Ireland will almost inevitably be Roman Catholics in the first Parliament which shall meet after the concessions—while at home, Patritian influence will have an additional operation in the case of Roman Catholic Patrons, both in the Peerage and elewhere—and that the same influence, even among Protestant Patrons, whose in- difference will prevent them (as at present) from making what they call invidious distinctions, must necessarily operate to a considerable extent. I have further shewn that Government in- fluence must also have an extensive share in returning Roman Catholic members, it being absurd to suppose that any Sovereign, or his Ministers, after having first decided in favour of the eligi- bility of Roman Catholics to sit in Parliament, should hereafter consider them unfit to be chosen, and not rather avail them- selves of services which will be peculiarly at their disposal, espe- cially when the aristocratical tendency of the Papal system points out its members as among the most fitting instruments of any regular government. I have further shewn, as no man can doubt, and even Mextancruon himself will not venture to dis- pute, that another source of influence, not necessary to be more particularly mentioned, cannot fail to havea very sensible effect ; and that the ways and means possessed by a large portion of Roman Catholics for placing their relatives or friends in the ranks of legislation cannot failto beresorted to, unless we should suppose them to be both unlike other men, and themselves—while in ad- dition to all these unfailing sources of supply, the utter indiffer- ence (not to say profound ignorance) as to the distinction between the two religions entertained by the great majority of electors will leave us little or no security from popular elections. It is under this view. of things that I have already observed ‘the balance, in favour of the Protestants, in point of numbers, will soon be more than counterbalanced by the superior activity, intrigue, and vigilance of the formidable minority of Roman Ca- tholics, who will be opposed to them; the successful working of ail which machinery will afford the best encouragement to the Roman Catholics themselves, that they will not always be doomed to toil in a minority. Most of those persons who are ac- quainted with the distinctive characters of the two religions, will, naturally, anticipate of our new Senators, that a hearty ear- nestness in their own cause, and an ardent zeal for the enlarge- ment and enrichment of what they believe to be the only true Church on earth, will characterize their Parliamentary exertions, and be likely eventually to triumph over the inactivity, security, SRR i ‘ id j ‘ aw . ee oe Penas pe “a = ws — = a i ial 7 Senin nteess. 2°" Seer pe yas an Rp 8 Gh and apathy of their Protestant colleagues. No one, too, who is acquainted with the mighty and overwhelming influence of the Romish hierarchy, over the consciences and affections of its lay, as well as spiritual members, can doubt the power of such a powerful principle of action, in reference to the unremiting ef- forts which will then be made, to rebuild the falling Temple of Popery out of the old materials of the Protestant Church.” My Seventh Letter to Mzzaneruon (which he very prudently declines to meddle with,) presents a full view of the large in- crease of Popery in this Protestant land ; and in order to prevent mistakes, I have quoted largely from the Roman Catholic Laity’s Directory for 1822 (sold by Kuarine, Duke-street). The cha- pels which now swarm throughout our country, and the congre- gations which now inundate it, are calculated to awaken the most slothful, and to alarm the most secure, Let any Protestant read the enumeration of these temples of idolatry, and these wor- shippers of “them that are no gods,” and then let him say whe- ther this is a fitting system for receiving the patronage of Mr. WixseRForcE and the support of his school, his name, his vote, and his influence—let them say whether, if opinion be power, (as Metancrnon again and again contends it is), it is not morally certain that the Papists must increase their power in proportion as they grow in credit and numbers, and in proportion as the general multitude of Protestants (so called) begin to be- lieve that the Papists are an injured and misrepresented people, whose religion is not so very terrible a thing as it was formerly considered, and whose politics are no longer as dangerous as they were once supposed to be. I therefore contend, that so far from “ no new power” being conveyed by the concessions, both religious and political power must inevitably ensue to the Roman Catholics; that it is for re- ligious and political power which they do not possess, and not for either religious toleration or civil advantages which they do possess, that they are now struggling as one man, and that the grant of the required concessions must needs convey such power in both kinds (religious and political,) as cannot possibly consist with the continued security and permanent existence of our Pro- testant Establishment in Church and State. If I am right in my view, Romish concession is nothing less than Protestant destruc- tion. If I am wrong, the worst that can happen from the refusal of the claims is, that Protestants will still continue to repose 47 under the protection of the existing laws, and deliver over to their children the fair and goodly heritage for which the Martyrs laid down their lives ; although, as I readily admit, at the conti- nued inconvenience and discomfiture of all those religious and political adventurers who would raise the glory of the Romish Church and cause upon the ruins of our own, but not so as to abridge them of a single genuflexion before the images of the Virgin and the Saints, or to offer them the slightest. molestation in any other part of their antichristian worship. Mexnancrnon proceeds to assert, that the opponents of the claims commit the greatest blunder “when they confound eli- gibility to office, or even office itself with power ;’’ and he asserts, that “‘the power of the State is only the aggregate of the power of the individuals who compose the State;” that ““the power of any particular set of men in the State is in pro- portion to their numbers, their wealth, and their intelligence ;” and he adds, that ‘‘ if any party possess these, they will possess power, whether we allow them office, or eligibility to office or not’’—“ although deprived of office,’ he contends “they would still have power, their numbers, wealth, and intelligence, enabling them to influence the minds of those who actually possessed office’’—he adds, ‘‘if the Catholic party here could gain the ascendancy over the Protestant in numbers, wealth, and intelli- gence, that party would govern the nation, and that absolutely, although every law against them might remain unrepealed, and no single Catholic could legally find his way either into office or Parliament.. They would govern in that case by influence; the same power which now enables them to secure a majority of the House of Commons in their favour, and by which they appear likely to do the same in the House of Lords, in a session or two, notwithstanding the efforts of Amicus Proresrans and _ his friends.’’ Now it is obvious here that Mriancruon is pleased to designate that as ‘‘ power’ which I shall at once deny, and I hope disprove, to be power; and if I shall succeed in this, it is clear that all. the superstructure of academical logic, which he builds upon so precarious a substratum must fall. It appears to me then, ‘a blunder’ (I use his own word), at least equal to any committed by the opponents of the Papists, to affirm (as Menancruon does), that Roman Catholics, without either pos- sessing office, or eligibility to office—without any single law Hit against them being abrogated, and without the doors of Parlia- — sae aeet 0 Aiea aii ca eee ar arn pre er a OE 48 ment being opened, are, notwithstanding, in actual possession of the very thing which they themselves declare they have not got, and will use every effort to procure. Are they the best judges of their own wants, or is he? Nay, is he not here found in clean contradiction to himself; for if the Roman Catholics have already, as he affirms, sufficient “ numbers, wealth, and intelli- gence,” to “influence the minds of those in office,” which influ- ence he again and again declares to be “ power,” though ‘‘without either office or eligibility to office ;’’ for what is he, as well as they, making all this mighty stir? I contend, in opposition to all the unreal and imaginary power of which he contends the Roman Catholics are in possession, that they have absolutely no power at all, in the only intelligible and legitimate sense of that term. Their struggle is to obtain power, and so is MeLancrnon’s to obtain it for them; only inasmuch as it will exceedingly aid his argument to prove that they are already in possession of power (because if he can once induce a conviction that they have any power already, the concession of the claims will appear likely to involve the grant of so much less power), he therefore seeks to shew that ‘‘ the power of influence” (ab- stracted from the power of governing), which, after all, is a speculative and metaphysical power, as ill calculated to feed the appetites of hungry Papists as of their priests, is their undoubted > property and heir-loom. Now in order to prove that they have just no power at all, I observe that it is clear they have not rEGAL power, for no one of them can occupy the Throne—they have not Lecisiative power, for they can be parties.to no laws which are either made or repealed—they have not Executive power, for they cannot carry either old or new laws into execution—they have not DreLiper- ATIVE power, for they are precluded from themselves advising a Protestant Sovereign, or sitting in Council with his Protestant advisers—they have not J upicavive power, for they can neither be Judges, nor Magistrates—they have not even MinisTeRtAL power, for they cannot be Lords Lieutenant, Sheriffs, Undersheriffs, nor Coroners—and much less have they DELEGArTiIvE power, for they can bear no sway, and exercise no functions, in the distant Colonies and Dependancies of the Parent Country—they have no Reuicious power, for they can neither hold nor present to benefices, with or without the cure of souls, and still less can they occupy those high Ecclesiastical offices which necessarily 49 involve and suppose government and rule in this Protestant empire—they want also the power to execute the religious Bulls of their Spiritual Head, and to enforce the decrees and dogmas of the other branches of their hierarchy—they want the power to place their own Religion uppermost as well as to persecute the Religion of others—indubitable rights of the Holy Roman Church, which she has never conceded, either collectively or individually, and never will. Now in the absence of all this tangible and definable power, which (in spite of the metaphysics of Mexancruon) I contend is the only power which can set the governors over the governed either here or elsewhere; as the Roman Catholics very well know, if Merancrnon does not— let.us see what is the power which Mevanctuon says they have got—it is the power, forsooth, ‘“ of influencing the minds’ of those who possess office ;”? but with great submission I contend that the power of influencing certain minds in office will not avail the Roman Catholics for any substantial: or practical pur- pose, unless and until it shall amount to such an extent as may induce the whole British Legislature to change the entire frame of our existing laws in favour of the Romish claims—a change which it is evident must involve and necessitate the grant of office—of eligibility to office—of seats in Parliament—and in - short of the different modifications of power already enumerated by me—in other words, as must convey such new and extra- ordinary rights and privileges, political and religious—as it is perfectly idle to say the Roman Catholics at present’ have, or can obtain in any other way. To assert, then, that if the portion of influenee necessary for the purpose shall ever be obtained by Roman Catholics, all this fundamental change will be brought about, is only to state what cannot be contraverted ; but to affirm that they are already in possession of power, because they have the moonshine power of influence, or that such a change as they desire can be accomplished without at the same time investing them with eligibility to office—with office itself—and in short with power as the result—in the full sense and accep- tation of that term—both political and religious—is' to advance propositions—I will not say for the purpose of throwing dust in our eyes, but with the certain effect of doing so in all cases where such propositions shall be courteously taken for granted as proving themselves. ; Tn illustration of the correctness of his theory, MstancrHon E Ree”, ek eS ee oe LS wits ee eet oe asserts that “it is Opinion and not Law which governs the world, Law being the mere creature of opinion, and being either for- mally altered or contemptuously neglected whenever it is at war with opinion’’—from all which we are expected to believe that the general. opinion of the Protestant public being now for “* Catholic Emancipation,’ a new law suited to the occasion must either he licked into shape under the influence of opinion, and so enable the Roman Catholics to take all they ask ‘* dans les formes et sélon les regles’’—or else that these gentlemen, and their Protestant advocates; will “ contemptuously neglect” the existing law, for no better reason than that it is “ at war with opinion ;”” in other words, with rHerr opinion. This reminds us of the Revouurion with which the Editor-of the New Times threatens us, if we refuse any longer to emancipate the Catholics, upon which threat I have already remarked in the end of my last Letter. To all this theory about Law and Opinion, we have only to oppose the old barénial sentiment “ Nolwmus leges Anglia mutari.” Tet us only determine to keep the law as it stands, and the Romanists and their friends may continue to derive all the benefit they can desire from opinion. Whatever they may threaten, either from contemptucus neglect, or revolutionary resistance, we know that we are safe with the law on our side— but let us once in an evil hour consent to change the ancient law in compliment to modern opinion, and then indeed shall we cast off our armour, and lay down our swords, in favour of any projectors or despoilers—teligious or political—who may first present theniselves at the lure of so fair a booty. I am, Sir, &c. Amicus PROTESTANS. LETTER IX. Sir, The remainder of Mrexanctruon’s Eighth Letter will now fall under review. It is simply an enforcement of his former argument, that the exclusion of the Roman Catholics from eligibility to power, and from power as a consequence, is absolutely to deny them the privileges of tax ConstTITUTION 5 and because I had already shewn (in answer to his imputation that the refusal of equal power was a disability of modern origin) that there never was a period when Roman Catholics had shared ol in those religious and political privileges of the British Consti- tution which he now claims for them, and therefore that they could not be excluded from what they had never enjoyed, he charges me with an attempt to make the mere fact of exclusion a ground for exclusion. I shall not be deterred by this specimen of dialectic skill from repeating, that as Mrtancruon and. his friends cannot deny that the Roman Catholics intend, by sharing in the blessings of tux Consrrrution, the participation of religious and political power, it was the great struggle of our Protestant ancestors to prevent their possessing either ; that in this struggle they effectually succeeded, although not without a vast expense of blood and treasure; and that it is our wisdom to tread in their steps, lest by setting up for ourselves in defiance of the dight of history, and the evidence of experience, we should only exhibit our own ‘folly, at the hazard of our own existence. Mer.ancruon contends that the religious and political disabilities of the Roman Catholics neither form a part of tux Constrru- TION, hor are in unison with its principles ; but the fact is, that they never had, or were entitled to the right which they now claim, and which he claims for them, except when the Throne and the national religion were Popish together ; and it is in order to keep them both Protestant, that we refuse to subject the Constitution to the experiments of himself, and other modern empirics. In proof that no real injustice is committed, and no real hardship inflicted by the refusal, I am tempted to repeat what Swirr formerly, and Horne Tooxz latterly, have advanced. “ It is one thing,” says Swirt, “ to tolerate such different forms in religious worship as are already admitted ; but another to leave it in the power of those who are tolerated, to advance their own models upon the ruin of what is already established, which it is natural for all sects to desire, and which they cannot enjoy by any consistent principles, if they do not endeavour ; and yet which they cannot succeed in, without the utmost danger to the public peace. To prevent these inconveniences, it seems highly just that all rewards of trust, profit, or dignity, should be given only to those whose principles. direct them to preserve the Constitution in all its parts. ‘To argue that no man should on account of conscience be deprived of the liberty of serving his country, is a topic which may be equally applied to admit Papists, Atheists, Mahometans, Heathens, and Jews; and E 2 SS xy ie a. Aw Re te a ens - ~ et, | a ee » If MeLancrnon can persuade us that we have nothing to do with the religious part of this question, we may as well at once abandon all concern for the vital, expe- rimental, and life-giving doctrines of the Reformation, and sub- stitute in their stead the delusive and deadening principles which it now appears that Protestants may openly renounce by their baptismal vow, and yet virtually establish by their public ar- guments. I ought, perhaps, to have enlarged a little more in my last, on the poniticaLt union of the Romish hierarchy and laity—or, per- haps, 1 should rather say, upon that mixed union, which is never purely and abstractedly either religious or political, but which (with a happy facility of accommodation, worthy of its prime inventor,) is one, and the other, or both, as may best suit. the purpose of what the Bible calls “ the Man of Sin’’—and I might, more especially (had my space permitted,) have quoted abun- dantly from the powerful and incontrovertible evidence adduced to this point by that great master of sound argument and fine writing, Professor Roserrson, who has set this question com- — aeennnn ine _aneninenel Si ‘pletely at rest, in that able account of the British Reformation, which occurs in his History of Scotland. I shall, however, atone for any deficiencies of this nature, by a single quotation from Lord Crarenpon :——“ It is in vain,’’ (says he,) * to legislate concerning the Roman Catholic laity, unless you could also bind their clergy ; for they turn things civil into things spiritual at their pleasure, and holding in ‘servitude the conscience, they do therefore govern also the actions of the laity.”"—Now I shall not multiply my former arguments to shew that when we can hold the wind in our fist, and not before, we may hope to bind the clergy of Rome. } Thus much, once for all, for the theory which would, for its own purpose, attempt to disconnect and disunite two bodies which the constitution of their common church, and the univer- sal practice of each, abundantly prove to be one in origin, and one in action, because they ever have been, and ever must be, one in interest. I am naturally led by the quotation which I have just given to notice Mexancruon’s reiterated call for “ Evipence,” and to ask him, in return, by what sort of evidence he means to be con- cluded? I can readily excuse his treating my arguments and the opinions Which are founded on them, with all the contempt which he is pleased to pour upon them ; but it so happens that, in the full expectation of no better treatment from any advocate of the Romish claims, I did not chuse to go alone, but have been rather profuse than otherwise in my references to some of the principal lights of our own nation, and of other nations, and in my cita- tions from authors of the highest rank, whose names I have been only lately at the trouble of enumerating for the benefit of Mz- LANCTHON'’S memory. The way in which he flatters himself he shall dispose of these unimpeachable witnesses against him and his cause, is to thrust them at once out of court by designating them as “ certain undistinguishing ecclesiastical historians of my own stamp.” Now, Sir, I ask Meancrnuon, in the face of the public (and I expect his answer), which of the historians whom I have cited he means to include in this literary proscription ? Are Lord Bururieu, the President pr Tuov, Suny, Rapin, Lord Bacon, Davita, Lord Somers, Campen, Hume, Bishops Harr, Burner, Hurp, Nzwron, Porrsvus, and Suertocx, Lord CiarEnnon, Sir Joun Tempiz, Sir Marruzw Hate, Sir Win- bL1am Trmpie, and Sir Ricwarp ‘Muserave, included in this , RE A “ ee RR ee errr Ox 82 challenge? Are the Protestant Judges who drew up the Actio in Proditores in the reign of Jamus I., or the Bishops who re- sisted the Popish innovations of Jamzs I1.among their number ? As well might Metancruon call the warriors and divines of Queen Exizazern, or the statesmen and lawyers of King Wir- LiAM, so many “‘, Ecclesiastical Historians” to serve a particular purpose, as the unimpeached authorities I have mentioned here, or quoted before. In reference to the indecent flippancy with which Metancruon thus treats the greatest names of antiquity, and the unbecoming spirit with which he closes his eyes upon the broad day-light of history, I will remind him, that while mere obtuseness of intellect is no crime, there is yet a certain state of mind—not peculiar either to Socinians or sophists—but equally common to both—the errors of which, as they are not referable to the head, are likely to prove somewhat more dan- gerous to their possessor than the most inveterate dulness of the veriest rustic of the village. There is also much more in this question than a wilful shutting of the eyes upon Prorzsranr testimony. It may be admitted, for the sake of the argument, to have been just possible that Lord CuARENDoN, because he wasa Protestant, might have been a bigot ; that Lord Bacon, beeause he was a Protestant, might have had an illiberal and narrow mind ; and that Sir MarrTruEew Haz, beeause he was a Protestant, might have come to unjust conclusions from invalid premises. But how will Merancrson ever get over the testimony of the entire history which the Ro- mish Church has filed of record against herself ever since she had an origin down to the present moment of her existence? Even we dares not to deny that Popery, with the power to put down, or ‘persécute, the true religion, has never. yet ceased to do:so. Even uz does not attempt to prove that a single decree or dogma ofthat intolerant and sanguinary church is repealed, and where then is the evidence, except from his own assertion, that things shall be otherwise, when Popery shall reassume her throne and empire? I apprehend that, while we have such evidence, “ab hoste,” -supplied. by her own: accredited acts to her own confu- sion, the testimony against. Popery is of such an overwhelming nature, that we could sately afford to waive the entire advantages to.be derived from the eviderice of Protestants, without feeling any apprehensions for the result. Let-us riow consider the unfounded assertion of MeLaNcTHON, inne OE AEA Laser eo CBee eS ee that, because in*the House of Commons, the holders of discord- ant religious tenets are found acting in harmony, therefore reli- gious belief has no necessary connection with political partizan- ship, and I would ask who does not see at once that the utmost shades of difference which can possibly obtain ina Proresrant House of Commons, are in no way to be compared with the ra- dical and fundamental difference which would be at once called into action and embodied in hostile array, if one part of that House were Protestant and another were Popish. Who, that knows any thing of the two religions, or ever collated a Mass Book with the Liturgy, does not at once distinguish between the two cases? If far more of dissent from the established Church could find its way into the House of Commons than does at pre- sent, what relation would such a casé bear to the case of a House of Commons composed of the members of the Church of Eng- land and those of the Church of Rome? All the Protestant Dis- senters, of whatever sect or name, who might be Members of a Protestant House of Commons, would have no foreign Church to share their affections, and no foreign Potentate to divide their allegiance. Not so the Popish Members of Menancrnon’s new House of Commons—all the Dissenting Members of a Pro- testant House of Commons would still hold the fundamental and leading doctrines of the Bible as essential to salvation, how- ever they might dissent from their Protestant colleagues upon minor points, affecting only the question of discipline, and there- fore never coming into discussion at all, Very different, how- ever, would be the case where the Members of the Papacy would of necessity desire the agerandizement and exaltation of their own Church and cause, and do their utmost to secure them. The cases, therefore, which ave instanced by Metancrnon, have absolutely no parallel. All the Dissenting Members of a Pro- testant House of Commons, however harmoniously differing upon non-essentials, have a mutual interest in common with the representatives of the ecclesiastical establishment in preserv- ing our Protestant laws and institutions inviolate, while the Parlia- mentary Representatives of the Church of Rome would have as obvious an interest in overturning, by all or any means in their power, the constituted order of things, both in Church and State. It is impossible, in the nature of things, that any evils which could be meditated by Protestant Dissenters in a Pro- testant House of Commons would bear the slightest analogy to aQ soc SE ith a, aban te ae ee cma 84. the more fatal plots and conspiracies that would certainly be hatched by Papists, if they were once erected into legislators, and it betrays a strange forgetfulness of the character of the Constitution to suppose that, even if Protestant Dissenters could be supposed to feel the inclination to pull down the National Establishment, they could ever work such a defeazance by it, as the Innovators and Revolutionists of Popery must necessarily atchieve, if they were to succeed in their object. The utmost evil that would happen upon the present system, even if Pro- testant Dissenters could be supposed to succeed in their worst designs, would still leave the religion of the nation Prorestanv ; in other words, would leave us the religion of the Bible; but should Romish legislators accomplish their object, we shall only have left us an anti-scriptural religion. of idols, of priestcraft and of superstition. I am, Sir, &c. Amicus PROTESTANS. LETTER XIII. SIR, I have endeavoured to shew in my last, that MeLanc- rHon is wholly mistaken in his supposition, that because some Protestant Dissenters in the House of Commons do not set the nation together by the ears, therefore that Popish Representa- tives in the same place would be full as harmless, and ought .to excite no other apprehension than if they were so many Pro- testant Dissenters; which is, in fact, to make no difference between Popery and Dissent: manifesting either an actual or an assumed insensibility on the part of Merancruon to the essential distinction which exists between the Churches of Rome and England, and placing on the same footing the unvarying tenets and cruel anathemas of the Council of Trent, and the harmless modifications of the Protestant faith. Let us take, for example, the worst heresy known to the Protestant Church— 1 mean that of Socinianism. Gross as is the darkness of that delusion, its professors so far respect the true light where it shines, that they do not molest or persecute their fellow- creatures for receiving a revelation which they themselves renounce. Their own deplorable laxity and latitudinarianism is a security for the Church of Curisr. ‘* Gaxuio careth for none of these things,”’ nor yet for those who do care for them. This ee a —— is, perhaps, the only good connected with so much evil—that owing to the restraining mercy of Gop, the Socinians, although they neither serve nor worship the Gop of the Scriptures, will yet permit others to love and serve him as much as they please. The Papists, however, are persecutors of the true religion on principle, and by profession, and therefore, so far as the Pro- testant Church and nation are concerned, it is obvious that ** the little finger’’ of Popery in a British House of Commons would be heavier than “ the loins” of Socinianism. Again, the saine heresy in the midst of all its disloyalty to Gon, recognizes no immutable and infallible Head upon earth of its own errors, thereby necessitating their continuance to all future time, and precluding the possibility of amelioration; nor does Socinianism acknowledge that same Foreign Head as having any jurisdiction or authority whatever in this Protestant realm, whether spiritual or temporal. Now let this redeeming character of even the lowest. and worst species of Protestant. Dissent be contrasted with the spiritual and secular claims of the apostate and into- Jerant Church of Rome, together with the blind admission of those claims by the lay members of that’ Church, whom Metancrion would now clothe with legislative authority over Protestants in the two Houses of Parliament, and the distinction between the cases will be seen at once. Mevancruon employs himself in this Tenth Letter. by string- ing together, without their context, several passages in which future danger is anticipated by me, but omits to give the reason- _ ing by which they are respectively supported, in the vain hope that such conclusions, despoiled of the premises by which I was conducted to them, may appear to his readers as so many absurd propositions, fit only to be rejected in the lump; without ex- amining upon what foundation they were built. He will pardon my telling him, that while these tricks of sophistry will not aid a bad cause, a good one scorns their assistance: Upon this principle, a writer of any ordinary syllogistic attainments might have proved Mr. Burke in error, when he foretold. the horrors of the French Revolution. . He need only to have collected together some of the strongest predictions of evil which that celebrated writer had made, and then have left the inference, full and direct, to his readers—that as some things are too good to be true, so these ominous forebodings .were too bad to be true. [am no more to be deterred by the imputation of being HOA a MO ne coe RE ek el re 86 thought to be an alarmist, than were My. Burke and Mr. Reeves, when dangers were impending, which the timely caution of the good and the wise among us (under the blessing of the Aumicury). prevented from bursting over our heads. I am old enough to remember with what ridicule—approaching even to, contempt—those low-spirited men were treated, who then “‘ stood in the gap, and stayed the plague.” They have their reward ; in their country’s deliverance, in the preservation of her ancient laws, and the protection of her Scriptural Religion. It was well said in the House of Commons only last Session, that “ there is no fear so foolish as the fear of being thought to be afraid.’ The conservative principle of fear has saved whole empires before now, and our own among the number, more than once or twice. The man who laughs.at fear is likely to rue his folly in both worlds; but as he cannot perish alone any more than Acuan did (Joshua xxii. 20,) so it is the duty of those who can feel for their countrymen, to advertise them of their danger, and to seek their deliverance, however they may be despised or ridiculed for the attempt. The worst that can happen upon my principle is, our continued safety through ex- cessive caution; but Merxancrnon’s worst is our common destruction for want of sufficient caution. We know how ue has chosen in this dilemma, but the Public are yet free to choose for themselves ; and if they will only use their common sense (which some learned author has said is, after all, the best sense, or it never would have been so common,) they cannot fail to choose well, in spite of all the involutions and entanglements of that fine-spun metaphysical net-work which is now so warily spread for them. At all events, if danger should ensue from the projected changes, I shall at least enjoy the satisfaction of haying raised a warning voice against it—* Hoc saltem restabit solatii—meam negligentiam haud detraxisse malum.”” Another effort of Mexancruon, in this Tenth Letter, is to shew, that because every Papist does not publicly maintain, or even privately believe in, the entire errors of the Romish Church, therefore it is not true that Popery has been yet able to establish (as she boasts) a perfect uniformity of faith ; from which he would argue that Popery is not the potent spell which it has been represented, nor the alliance of her sons the undivided and indissoluble league which has been stated. Now though I readily admit that these wise men have not yet agreed among 37 themselves how long purgarory is to continue (the present King of Francz having ordered prayers at St. Denis for all the Monarchs of three whole Dynasties, while others maintain that souls are not in Purgatory above thirty years), yet I suppose Menanernon will not deny that all Roman Catholics equally hold the doctrine of Purgatory. Again, although the Romish Theologians may differ as to the mode of subsistence of the Aumigutry. in a piece of bread, and a cup of wine, yet Mevanc- THON must know that all of them and their benighted: votaries alike, most heartily receive the doctrine of TRaANsUBSTANTIATION —namely, that after the priest has muttered certain words over the Elements (for as Bisop Burner says, “ words that are not to be heard, agree best with a change that is not to be seen’”)— those elements of natural bread and wine do instantly and ab- solutely become the proper body and blood of our blessed Saviour, who is therefore thus eaten over and over again by his faithful followers !—Again, although Papists may disagree as to the precise extent of the spiritual authority of the Head of their Church in a Protestant State, and are as little agreed as to the exact line where his temporal authority ceases, and his spiritual rule commences, yet Mexancruon does not mean to contend that Papists do not all, and with one voice, sincerely subscribe to his possessing some portion of spiritual authority in this our realm, without even the possibility of satisfying their Protestant friends how far this spiritual power mixes itself with the secular, or where the line of demarcation between them exists. Again, although some of the Papists are for placing the Pore exclusively at the head of their religion, and others are for investing the Ecclesiastical Councils with that authority, yet he does not mean to contend that it can make any great difference to our Pro- testant Church which of these opinions may prevail, since in either case the government and headship will still be equally conceded by every Papist in existence to some other power than the Church of England recognizes, or ever can. Again, though itis not’ yet settled which of the Saints in particular is most prevalent in intercession for the faithful (the Virgin Mary always excepted), yet where'is the Papist who doubts or denies the value and efficacy of the prayers of departed Saints, as such, to intercede for our transgressions (and this, notwithstanding that many of them have been canonized, or made Saints, by the Church of Rome, after lives of the most open and flagrant sin), ———E 7 _ scamnantee an" mieninaae ae a Rn, ee re ai } 4 $ } 124 the number of representatives, the Roman Catholics will return eighty of the hundred, to the first parliament which may meet after they shall be rendered eligible to seats, since it cannot be doubted that they will elect none but men of their own faith. We cannot be surprised that many of the Irish members are ad- vocates of what is called ‘‘ Emancipation,’’ for their election has depended upon their declaring themselves on that side: but if they were not very short-sighted, they might discern that the Parliament which shall concede what is demanded with so much clamour, will be the last Parliament in which they are likely to sit. In vain would they apply to the people, or to the priests, to be returned again, unless they should become Roman Catholics, for no Roman Catholic would vote for a Protestant, if there re- mained a qualified Roman Catholic in the three kingdoms. If Ireland should not contain a sufficient number of persons so qua- lified, there are great plenty to be found among the sons of Popish peers, and the inferior gentry of the same communion in England and Scotland, who would be as eligible to be returned for Ireland as if they belonged to that kingdom. The probability then is, that at least three-fourths of the Irish members will be Roman Catholics, as soon as _ the eligibi- lity of that profession shall be pronounced; but let it, for the sake of argument, be taken at a much less proportion, and then let us-turn our eyes to England proper. It is sufficiently noto- rious that there are, and probably always will be, other ways of entering the House of Commons than by popular election. I am not so much objecting to such a condition of things, as simply stating the existence of a fact which no man in his senses wilk deny. There is such a thing for instance as patrician influence, which in the case of Roman Catholic patrons, can of course be exercised only in favour of Roman Catholics, and in the case of many—perhaps a majority of—Protestant patrons, will operate in favour of Roman Catholic nominees, from absolute indifference to any distinction existing between the religion of Protestantism, and the religion of Popery. We know where it is written ‘“* Gallio cared for none of these things,’ and are there no Gallio’s in England? There is also such a thing as government influence, a principle of action which in the nature of things must probably operate more or less, while government itself shalt exist ; but who can imagine that when a useful instrument of a ruling administration shall present himself, it will be any objec~ 125 an tion to those members of the Government who shall. have brought in the Roman Catholics, that the individual about to be seated in Parliament happens to be a Roman Catholic. The last i question assuredly, that Lord Harrowsy, Mr. Cannina, or Mr. Piunxer could ask, upon their own avowed principles, would be, whether a man were a Roman Catholic or a Protestant, pro- vided it should only appear that his talents might be available for a the purposes of the State. It will indeed be the height of injus- : tice for any member of the Government to object to the intro- duction into Parliament of a Roman Catholic, as such, after the ATG | united sense of the Legislature shall have thrown open every i avenue of admission to the Roman Catholics. Here, then, TGR would be an unfailing source of supply, by which the House of i iH Commons, as well as various offices of executive trust, would, Hi from time to time, be fed with Roman Catholics, especially when the aristocratical bias, and tory sentiments, indissolubly connected with the Romish system, so clearly indicate the mem- ‘bers of that Church, as among the most fitting instruments for the confidence of any regular and ancient Government. In addition to Patrician and Government influence, there is also a species of influence, the nature of which will be quite as intelligible, without much enlargement, as either of the other, to every one who is in any degree conversant with men: and Ki things ; Iam as little disposed to quarrel with this, as with other modes of introduction into the same interior, but no one can doubt that there are certain ways and means, by which any Ro- man Catholic nobleman or gentleman, who shall chuse to see his ! son or his friend in Parliament, can accomplish his object; and i i! will any man who is acquainted with the means possessed by Ri | i We | the Roman Catholic body, of arriving at the same end, imagine for a moment, that after having carried the question of their i friends’ eligibility to seats in the House of.Commons, they will, it by any “ self-denying ordinance,’”’ omit to avail themselves of ae the privilege of seating them there? Let this part of my argu- att i3 ment be seriously considered, and let him who talks or writes on HAG ‘ nn a this subject, for any higher end than victory, lay his hand on his aa heart, and honestly answer whether, from the necessary prepon- derance of wealth, a considerable portion of influence must not be brought into action in favour of the Roman Catholics, \in- AOL dependently of all other sources of supply whatever. a RSS — — see Senin 21° ina aioe eer aR pr reg EE ope? 126 In enumerating these several ways of elevating. Roman Ca- tholics into legislators, so scon as their eligibility shall have been once determined, I wish to be understood as by no means of opinion that the principle cf a Popular Election, to which 1 first adverted, would help us much in keeping the Roman Catholics out of the House of Commons. So far from it, I apprehend, with great submission to the general body (or as Spenser has somewhat unceremoniously called them, “ the rascal many,’’) that rue mos, whether of Westminster, South- wark, or elsewhere, would be quite as little likely to discrimi- nate betwee: a good and a bad Religion, as their betters; and that with the utter indifference, not to say the profound igno- rance, which reigns upon the question of Religion, in any large and tumultuous assemblage of the people, in these times of apathy, a Roman Catholic candidate, even in this Protestant country, would stand quite as good, if not a better chance of success, than a Protestant himself. With these combined causes, then, in operation, who will venture to deny the strong probability, that, before many years shall have passed over our heads, we may see a considerable. proportion of the national representatives Roman Catholics ? The Advocates of the Claims will have advanced no nearer to their object, if they could even prove, that for some time to come, the numerical majority of members will be Protestants in their religious profession; for the balance in favour of the Protestants, in point of nwmbers, will soon be more than coun- terbalanced by the superior activity, intrigue, and vigilance, of the formidable minority of Roman Catholics who will be op- posed to them ; the successful working of all which machinery will afford the best encouragement to the Roman Catholics themselves, that they will not always be doomed to toil in a minority. Most of those persons who are acquainted with the distinctive characters of the two Religions, will naturally anti- cipate, of our new Senators, that a hearty earnestness in their own cause, and an ardent zeal for the enlargement and enrich- ment of what they believe to be the only true Church on earth, will characterize their parliamentary exertions, and be likely, eventually, to triumph over the inactivity, security, and apathy of their Protestant colleagues. No one, too, who is aequainted with the mighty and overwhelming influence of the Romish 127 hierarchy, over the consciences and affections of its lay as well as spiritual members, can doubt the power of such a principle of action, in reference to the unremitting efforts which will then be made, to rebuild the falling Temple of Popery, out of the old materials of the Protestant Church. : IT have, however, as yet adveried but to one branch of the Legislature. With regard to rue Hovuss or Lorps, the Popish Peers, both in England and Ireland, will, of course, imme- diately take their seats ; and when the Church of England can at the present moment, only boast of a majority of vumry- NINE Peers, against Mr. PLunxer’s late preposterous Emancipa- tion Bill, of whom twenry-six were Bishops (and therefore voted, as may be supposed, more or less professionally), leaving only a majority of ruirrzEN lay Lords, opposed to the Romish Claims ; what must we not expect, when a fresh accession of Temporal Peers shall be thrown in upon us, the whole of whom will be open, and avowed, Roman Catholics? I am even willing, for the sake of the argument, to suppose, that these new “ legislative atiornies’”’ for the Church of Rome (as Sir Cuartes Woxsevtey would call them,) will not find their course entirely unobstructed in either House of Parliament, and will not advance to their object without considerable opposition, and (if you will) without a serious struggle; nay, in order to suppose the worst against my own argument, I will even for a moment imagine, that the Protestant Church and Cause may come off conquerors at last, and that Popery will-never obtain a final ascendancy in what Merxancruon calls this land of Bible Societies, Orthodox Clergymen, and a Free Press—but, is it Wise to provoke so much dissention and division, as his scheme proposes, when we have the choice of avoiding them? Is it politic, to necessitate by this gratuitous experiment, such a clashing of interests, and such a conflict of parties, with, per- haps, even an appeal to the sword itself, when we may just as easily resolve against perpetrating this act of political suicide ? Have we not, to use his own words, ‘‘ the vantage ground of possession ?”’—and can we not, to employ a more homely adage, ““ let well alone?’’ Whoever else may be benefited by our fool-hardiness, I challenge him to prove, that wx can be gainers by it, either as Protestants, as Churchmen, or as Britons; the martyrdoms of bloody Queen Mary (for so I take leave to call her,) were so far from injuring the true Church of Christ, that 128 no true Protestant doubts they benefited it; but who would, i tt on that account, desire to see a Popish Queen again on the ae throne, in order that we may dislodge her by another Reforma- bey A tion; or a Popish King, because he may perchance be un- \ | ; shipped (as Jamus II. was,) by another Revolution ? Upon the ii i modern scheme of liberality, all the bloodshed of one of these he : reigns, and all the terror of the other, are to go for nothing ; a : and such epochs of our History are to be stoically contemplated if \ by. Protestant Christians as not very terrible, because, forsooth, 1 ti} : we have still so much Protestantism left, that whatever may be i a the temporary disadvantages of concession, we may still exer- MS cise our ancient~prerogatives and powers, by a fortunate re- Ihe iy i sumption of them at some time or other, though it be not very clear when, or how—a theory not much unlike the fortuitous 1; concourse of atoms, which is supposed by some philosophers to have produced the world, or the felicitous restitution of all things, which is imagined by some Religionists as likely to set li every thing to rights, in the long run. te With regard to the highest branch of the Legislature—it Ki becomes me to touch so delicate a subject with the tenderness and caution which belong to it—but it is one on which I can- { not consent to be wholly silent. The sentiments of our late revered Monarch are well known, nor has it ever been disputed, that he protested with such firmness against what is called Catholic Emancipation, as to declare that his single Vote should prevent it. Assuming that similar sentiments are likely to actuate any succeeding monarch, who owes his throne to. the influence of Protestant principles, and its stability to their con- | servation—who feels the obligation of his Coronation Oath— th and remembers his covenant with his people—would it be decent i or patriotic to propose a measure for the Royal assent, which ae could only be viewed. as a compromise with sentiments directly it jf opposed to the first elements of the Constitution, and as involv- ing a dereliction of those principles from which the line of fi Hanover dates its original exaltation, and to which it owes its LAE subsequent glories? Assuming still, that such would be the feelings with which a proposal of this kind must be contem- plated, how painful, beyond the power of expression, would it be to the Monarcnu of our United Empire to be found, for the ie first time, affixing his veto to a measure, which the other branches of the Legislature should have previously sanctioned 129 with their approbation, as probably not acting under the pecu- liar bond and guarantee of those official and personal obligations which the Constitution has imposed upon toe Monarcu in re- ference to this particular question—I ask, whether any real lover of his King, or his country, would desire to witness the First Authority in a Protestant state,.contending with an alternative of this description, cr wish to expose that authority to the afflicting consequences which might ensue from his conscientious refusal? The nature of the subject must prevent enlargement upon those consequences ; but while, I trust, that no British Sovereign will ever be persuaded to encounter the desperate risk to which Menancruon and Mr. WiLserrorce would invite him, I would go farther, and spare him the odium of refusing what a multitude of wicked men, emboldened by their ingenious reasoning, will not fail to represent as the greatest boon which subjects could ask, or a King concede. In illustration of this part of my argument, I would observe, that the English Roman Catholic Peers are eight in number,— the Irish, nine,—and the Scotch, two. The English Roman Catholic Peers are understood to be, the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Shrewsbury, Viscount Fauconberg ; Barons. Stourton, Petre, Arundel, Dormer, and Clifford (of Chudleigh.) The Irish Roman Catholic Peers are understood to be, the Earls of Fingal, Waterford, and Wexford, (at present united in the Earl of Shrewsbury,) and Kenmare ; Viscounts Gormanston, Netterville, Taaffe, and Southwell; Barons Trimleston, and French. The Scotch Roman Catholic Peers are understood to be, the Karls of Traquair and Newburgh. The Roman Catholic Baronets of England (seventeen in number) are understood to be, Sir William Gerrard—Lanca- shire, created in 1611; Sir Edward Hales—Kent, in 1611; Sir Henry Englefield—Berks, in 1621; Sir George Jerningham— Norfolk, in 1621; Sir Henry Tichborne—Hants, in 1620; Sir George Throckmorton—Berks, in 1642 ; Sir Edward Blount— Shropshire, in 1642 ; Sir Henry Hunlock—Derbyshire, in 1643; Sir Carneby Haggerstone—Lincolnshire, in 1643; Sir Thomas Webb—Wiitshire, in 1644; Sir R. Smythe—Warwickshire, in 1669; Sir Richard Bedingfield—Norfolk, in 1660; Sir. ‘Tl. H. Stanly—Cheshire, in 1661 ; Sir Thomas Gage—Suffolk, in 1662 ; Sir. H, Maire Lawson—Y orkshire, in 1665 ; Sir Piere Mertyn— Se nit ar