emancipate their minds from all impediments to the knowledge of the truth, and return to their ancient simplicity and independence. "Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast not kept thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and 'repent, and do thy first works; or else I will come to thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent."*

In a Postcript, the Bishop of St. David's examines the meaning of the phrase used by Clemens Romanus, respecting the extent of St. Paul's journey to preach the Christian religion" the utmost bounds of the West." In this enquiry, conducted with his usual critical acumen, his lordship demonstrates that this expression, in Clement's time, certainly included Spain and Britain.

We are sensible that this article rather exceeds the limits within which it, perhaps, might have been comprised; but the subject bears so directly on the great question, defended by the PROTESTANT ADVOCATE, that we are sensible we should have neglected a duty had we abridged it.

Of the Bishop's answers to a Roman Catholic's Reasons we shall probably say more on some future occasion. In the mean time we especially recommend to notice, on this subject, a very small tract entitled The Protestant's and Papist's Manual.

The Speech of His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex in the House of Lords on the Catholic Question, on Tuesday, April 21, 1812, with Proofs and Illustrations. Asperne, 1812.

WE had heard and seen in the papers, something of the Duke of Sussex's having spoken in the House of Lords in favour of what is called Catholic Emancipation. We had also seen the advertisements announcing that the Speech was published: but whatever curiosity we might have had to learn in what manner a Prince of the House of Brunswick would set about combating the principle upon which is founded his Father's title to the throne of these realms, as well as his own connection with Royalty, we had abstained from indulging it: not certainly from want of respect for his Royal Highness, or his angust family, but from the directly opposite feeling. Wishing most sincerely that such a speech had never been spoken, we could have no

Revelations ii. 4, 5.

.

pleasure in dwelling upon it. We felt as we should do, were we to observe any one of the order of nobility, either by his acts or language, derogating from the rank which he holds; or any elergyman, by the tenets which he professes, or the conduct which he pursues, directly attacking or bringing into discredit the church which he has solemnly engaged to defend and support: of both which cases we have sometimes suspected that more than one instance has forced itself upon our notice. Had therefore other reviewers suffered this voluminous and heavy compilation to pass without praise or comment, we should not have lent our hand to drag it from obscurity. But no choice has been left us in that respect: and our duty to the cause which we have undertaken, compels us to notice as well the speech as its panegyrists. Indeed, what says the Edinburgh Reviewer, with evident exultation and gaiety of heart? "When the sons of king write books, silence would be disloyalty and unwise neglect." No. xxxix, p. 55.

That indeed all the efforts made by the compiler of this tract, (whoever he was, for we do not, for reasons which we shall shew, believe it to be the work of his Royal Highness) ;-that the whole effect of it, we say, is directed to shew that the Duke of Sussex is not justly intitled to be called Royal Highness, nor his illustrious father King of England, is most glaringly apparent. It is not only the general scope of the argnment, (as it must be maintained by every advocate for the Roman Catholic Claims,) which tends that way; but the particular and pointed manner in which it is conducted. For the greatest part of the speech, or that at least which has the most plausible appearance, is taken up in shewing that " opposition to the claims of the Supreme Pontiff" (meaning thereby the Pope)" has at all times been invariably and constantly offered by almost every temporal potentate professing the Christian Faith, either in writings or by arms." p. 10. The Claims here spoken of are those which rest on the Doctrines of the Supremacy and the infallibility of the Pope." And the proofs adduced begin with Tertullian, and go down to the late Maria Theresa, the Empress Queen, not forgetting our Queens Mary and Elizabeth. Now then, if no danger is to be apprehended, in respect of the doctrines of the supremacy as well as the infallibility of the

.

Pope, from the crown being worn by a Popish any more than by a Protestant sovereign: if kings of all descriptions are and have been at all times equally disposed and calculated to oppose the usurpations of the "Supreme Pontiff," as he is politely called; we should be glad to know upon what principle it was that the son of James the II. was passed by, and the descendants of the Electress and Duchess Dowager Sophia of Hanover, being Protestants,and because they were Protestants,-were substituted as monarchs of these realms. We might ask, why at this moment the King of Sardinia is not King of England, rather than George III? For it is notorious that in point of strict hereditary title, he has the better claim And if all kings, of all descriptions, are equally willing and able to maintain the independency of our Church (for this and no less must be meant by opposing the Supremacy of the Pope), why is the proper line of descent departed from? *

:

But this is not all. In this Speech, the differences between our Church and the Church of Rome are represented (very ignorantly indeed but very confidently,) to be mere trifles, not worth contending for. If so, then surely here again great injustice has been done to the legal heir by excluding him upon the supposition that the difference was great and material; and from an apprehension, false it seems, that we were upon no account to risk the possibility of the Church of Rome's regaining her former ascendancy over us. If therefore we were to yield the full credit demanded to the positions maintained in this speech, the consequence which must inevitably follow would be, that the next time any deputation. should come from Ireland with an offer of the Royal Authority, it should address itself not to the Prince Regent or any Prince of his House, but to the much injured, since hitherto improperly excluded, Victor Emmanuel, in virtue of his descent from Charles I.

That this is the true and proper deduction to be made from the laboured and prolix argument, thus graced with His Royal Highness's name, we do and must insist. For we cannot believe that he or any one else would resort to the miserable subterfuge of saying that the constitution which should admit Popish Ministers could not admit a Popish King. For our constitution, we know

* See App al against the Roman Catholic Claims, p. 21, VOL. I. [Prot. Adv. Jan. 1813.] 2 B

entrusts every thing to the ministers. Of the king, whoever he be, it is laid down that he can do no wrong: he is considered as wholly guided by the counsels of those whom he employs. Their acts, therefore, and not the king's, are to be considered as liable to suspicion, as requiring to be watched, as alone capable of subverting or otherwise affecting the state.

Upon this view of the speech itself, we might therefore safely conclude that it could not have proceeded from a Prince of the House of Brunswick: but we have other reasons for being satisfied in our own minds that it is the production of a very different hand. If it be any way attributable to His Royal Highness, it must be, that, in imitation of his Royal Father, whose speeches to the Houses of Parliament are well known to be prepared by his ministers, we must presume that the Duke of Sussex considered it as more consonant to his dignity, when addressing the House of Lords, to deliver the sentiments of others rather than his own. To this we shall make no objection, except that legitimate one which is so often made to His Majesty's Speeches, that he has been ill-advised; that he has listened to evil counsellors ; which is what we shall now proceed to make out, we trust, to the complete satisfaction of our readers.

D

Our belief is, indeed, that the compiler of this tract is not only a Roman Catholic, but a priest, and probably a foreigner, We think this, because some of the expressions made use of, are such as no Englishman would employ. And the formal and pedantic style in which the whole is written, appears to have come from one who has been chiefly conversant with the barbarous Latin of the schools and the phraseology of monkish writers.-The reader shall judge.

The Members of the House of Lords (p. 4.) are told that "they should clothe and invest themselves with the wisdom, calmness, and scutriny of a Plato or a Socrates,"-which, besides that this use of the word "scrutiny" is absolutely not English, is a common-place, rising to about the level of a schoolboy's exercise. In the same page we have "the phrenetic tales of a heated imagination." P. 12, we find the auxiliary verb brought forward, and that repeatedly, in a way which always pointedly marks the foreigner. "It is evident by" (an Englishman would have said “ from)”

all our books and records that our ancient laws do give unto the king the supreme power and jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical, not spiritual," [a curious distinction, by the bye,] and that the same laws do utterly exclude the Pope in all causes." Again,

"In expressing myself in these terms, I mean the old common law-those judges who did expound those laws, were not Protestants or of the reformed religion, but old Popish judges, which were in those days learned in the canon law, which is the only law that doth uphold and maintain the Pope's Supremacy.'

In the next page, we are told that William the Conqueror acceded to pay the Peter's pence; but that he positively refused the legate's pretensions to swear allegiance to the Pontiff," which unquestionably is not English; and besides, according to the obvious construction of the words, should mean that the pretensions advanced were for the legate to swear allegiance, and not the king.

Lastly, (p. 19), we are told, of a man who follows the dictates of his conscience, though perhaps erroneously, that “he imagines to please his creator; instead of he "imagines that he pleases," which again is what never could have come from the pen of a man educated in England, under such tutors as the Duke of Sussex has had.

Having thus, we trust, established the fact that the speech, as now published, could not have come from his Royal Highness,with the more freedom, we shall proceed to point out the miserable stuff of which it is composed; not only with respect to the manner but the matter of it: nay, we shall shew it to be most decidedly at variance with itself.

But, first, what do our readers think of both the words and the sense of the following periods? In detailing the disadvantages under which the Roman Catholics lie, from not being allowed to bear the highest offices, it specifies their being shut out from the resource which they once had of entering into the service of foreign powers. For, as it is said, (p. 18),

"As loyal subjects, which I have always found Catholics to be, they must ever abhor serving a tyrant and a people whose sole object is the annihilation and ruin of their mother country: besides, if any one should be inconsiderate enough to make the attempt, the