laws, upon discovery, would declare him treasonable." [A word, this last, which, in proper English, is never applied to persons, but only to acts.]

"Now" it is added, " to deprive a man of the power and liberty of acquiring a fortune or existence by honest means, is robbing him of the rights of nature, more valuable even than life itself: [that is, the power of acquiring existence is more valuable than existence itself. But this is not all]." And therefore to him who suffers, whether it be by the hand of justice, or by the hand of oppression, it is equally the same!! and neither gilds the pill nor sweetens the bitterness of the draught." Whatever is meant by this, for we are not sure that we understand it, it certainly sounds more like an apology for traitors, than an argument on behalf of loyal subjects. We rather believe, too, that "justice" is used here in the French and not in the English sense of the word. But, take it how we may, it is certainly, according to Lord Foppington's phrase "nice morality!"

Come we now to the main part of the argument.

P. 8, we have the writer's definition of toleration (of course the toleration which he contends for): it runs thus,

"By toleration, in short, is meant conformity, safety, and protection, granted by the state to every sect that does not maintain doctrines inconsistent with the public peace, the rights of the sovereign, and the safety of our neighbour."

What is meant by "conformity," in the above extract, we really cannot divine:-how the state grants conformity even to those whom it is most disposed to protect, we may learn when bas defined what he means by "conformity:" which in the Leufla time may pass for something like nonsense. Indeed we tho that, in all such cases, it was for non-conformity the pratention was demanded. As to the rest, this definition of tolura con agrees pretty much, with our ideas; and until it be shewn to us that the Roman Catholics are neither safe nor protested under our government, we must conceive and maintain that even upon this writer's own shewing, they have complete toleration.

We decline indeed to admit them to a share in the government of the country, because it is evident to us that they must be adverse to one part of it; they must necessarily feel themselves

bound, even in conscience, to overthrow the Church, which is an integral part of our constitution. And in this we are fully warranted not only by the qualification specified in the conclusion of the above paragraph, but by another still more remarkable to be found at p. 20. For it is there declared that

"It is a maxim of prudence, if not of law, that no man should direct what he has neither the power, capability," (here again what a word!) "or inclination to defend or protect."

Now it is impossible for any human being who knows what Popery is, to say that Papists, in the nature of things, can have any inclination to defend or protect the Church. As to "capability" or "power," James II. (for of him this is said) had quite a sufficiency of them; all that he wanted was "inclination."

But it is commonly agreed that the Church is one thing, and the State another; and that the Papists may well administer the latter, without prejudice to, or meddling with, the former. Now here again, what do we find in this Speech? Why, at p. 12. we are told, in direct opposition to this, that the spiritual and civil authority have not any really and substantially distinct departments; of course it must be impossible to ake such a separation of them as is contended for.

(

"The spiritual and civil authority," it is said, "are really distinguished not by the matter, subject or cause, in which they are exercised; but by the nature of the act of the power which they exert; and by the sanction or penalty wherewith they enfore it "That is, as it is explainod, spiritual courts excom4 the civil powers fine, imprison, and otherwise hemor destroy the body: though it is admitted that the former atometimes do this by commission or delegation from the latter. Armost a sanedly this has but too often taken place by the torturing burning of men for heresy. What, however, is the material part here, i the admission of the identity of the objects over which spiritual and civil authority are exercised; and the assertion implied that, as Dr. Milner would have it, the (Pope or the Church) is the supreme judge and dictator in morals as well as faith. According, therefore, to our adversaries themselves, it is not our constitution only, but the nature of things which makes the union between Churctrand State; and which of course inca

pacitates a Papist from properly administering the one as much as the other in these realms.

Thus it is that this writer supplies arguments against, nay, combats himself: and the reader may judge from hence, not only of his power of reasoning, but of the goodness of his cause.

We should not, however, wonder at this, because he further discovers what he is, not only by his apology for the Council of Constance, which burnt John Huss and Jerome of Prague, for mere difference in religious opinions, and in direct violation of a safe-conduct; but by being actually an advocate for the most positive persecution, even such as prevailed in Spain, Italy, and Portugal, under certain circumstances.

After stating (p. 7.) that "man is answerable for his thoughts to no one but his Maker, who alone has the knowledge, power, and right to judge them :" [And by the bye, while they remain merely thoughts, who but Popish Inquisitors, and men as bad as they, ever pretend to know or of course to judge them] he goes on;

"A limited state may wisely adopt sumptuary laws: and in ́ that case" [religion, it seems, is a luxury, and so may be restrained on that ground] "very prudently admit but of one religion however, this would be a very narrow and weak policy in a great empire like ours."

Just so it was that the University of Salamanca, in a part of its opinion, with good reason omitted by this gentleman in his citation of it, justified the kings of Spain for not allowing any settled inhabitant to have a religion different from that of the country; which is the most unqualified persecution: which, however, according to this writer, is very prudent, and of course allowable; only it must be in a small or limited state!-A few people may be persecuted, it seems, but not many. We should like to know how he classes Spain and Portugal or the Papal territories. But thus it is that certain principles always betray them

selves. After all this, our readers, perhaps, might be inclined to spare

See Milner's Pastoral Letter of 1808, p. 13; or Le Mesurier's Address to the Roman Catholics of England, p. 106.

us the trouble of going through the gross misrepresentations of our Church which are here to be found; as if it were essentially Popish, or little differing from the Church of Rome;-which, if it were true, would only be an aggravation of the intolerance of that most unchristian Church, in persisting, as she does, to excommunicate us as grievous heretics, and even deny us to be any Church at all. But we must produce one passage more that strikes us as peculiarly exceptionnable; which is, perhaps, for that very reason, highly commended by the Edinburgh Re

viewers.

In their last number, (p. 55,) after saying that the Speech " evinces a considerable share of talent and a still greater proportion of reading and of industry," and that "it evinces still more strongly what is of much higher value, a thorough knowledge of, and a profound regard for the interests of civil and religious liberty, and a rooted hatred of every thing which has the appearance of intolerance" [how far this is the case we have shewn above]: they proceed to extract the following passage from p. 5.

"If I should learn, instead of complimentary epistles addressed to divines under ministerial influence, encouraging and thanking them for inflaming the public mind on matters which had better be kept out of the pulpit-that a system of universal toleration, evangelical charity, is to be held out, recommended and approved, then indeed I will bless the discovery, &c."

They add, as their comment upon this trite and miserable reflection on the clergy,

"We sincerely hope these remarks were delivered in the hearing of those Bishops, who, in the discharge of their official situations are said to be using every possible exertion to exasperate their clergy against the Catholics, and to spread the spirit of religious hatred into every corner of their dioceses; a practice most disgraceful to the individuals who are guilty of it, and which admits of no other cure than a more equal distribution of the profits of Episcopal Sees."

Now, we have no hesitation in saying of this, that it is not only grossly slanderous, but without foundation in point of fact. The Bishops certainly have not "spread" any thing like "the

spirit of religious hatred into every corner of their dioceses." No one who knows them will believe it. But, in fact, they have hardly been active at all; the greater part of them, in the opinion of many, not sufficiently active. And as to the insinuation meant to be conveyed in the close of the paragraph, it is as false as the rest. Those Bishops who have been most active (we have particularized some of them in a former number) are for the most part those who can look, or are known not to look, for any further promotion; who cannot therefore have had any interested view in what they were doing. But what, if all the Bishops, if every Clergyman had been, as in former times they were, active in announcing to their flocks the danger to which the Church was and is exposed from the designs and attacks of the Romanists, what would this have been but most strictly to discharge their duty, to do that which they have most solemnly engaged to do? And when a legitimate and sufficient motive for an act presents itself, what is it but the vilest detraction to seek out, and to impute, one that is as corrupt as it must be strongly disclaimed?

But so it is with these gentlemen and all their tribe. Every attack against establishments is presumed to be in the highest degree pare both in its origin and progress; but every attempt at defence, opposed to such attacks, is always treated with the most virulent abuse, and as if it were not entitled to the least candour or even common justice.

These Reviewers next proceed to compliment the Prince (this honest and enlightened Prince," they condescendingly call him) because it is asked in this printed Speech, "did not we send our troops to sustain in Italy, what we constantly wish to extirpate and oppress and coerce here?" But the answer to this is obvious. We did not send any troops to prop up the Romish religion at all; either in Italy, or in the Peninsula. For in neither place was that religion attacked. The quarrel was purely of a secular nature, and among those who all equally professed that religion; and we interfered th it merely as such; merely to resist an overbearing usurper by temporal means, The repetition of this flimsy and confounded allegation, which we must expect to