Page images

and a postscript, and extending altogether to 116 pages) lets us into the track of study which he has pursued. He goes to the bottom of the Question ; and if the Protestant friends to the repeal of the few legal disabilities under which the Papists still lie, shall remain unconvinced, we can but pity minds occupied by fatal prepossessions, and lament the dangers to which our country is exposed. Our readers, however, may rest assured, that we shall not pine away in the languor of pity, nor vent all our regret in the sad luxury of lamentation ; no:-we shall seek for consolation in manly exertion,—and if the Coronation-Oath is to be violated, if the bulwarks of the Constitution are to be thrown to the ground, if Protestantism is to be extinguished in the land where WICKLIFFE withstood the tyranny, and exposed the corruptions of Popery, one hundred and fifty years before Luther flourished ; if the Papists are once more " to ride over our heads,"—this comfort shall at least remain, that we were not parties in our destruction. These miseries, we trust, will never take place, whilst our country enumerates amongst the defenders of her laws such exalted and able champions as Lord. Kenyon. His lordship considers thc Question, With reference, first, to the Nature of a Church-Establishment. Secondly, to the true Character of Toleration. Thirdly, to different Acts of Parliament, and the Coronation-Oath. Fourthly, to the Character of the Roman Catholic Religion itself, and how far it may have undergone any alteration.

Fifthly, to the grounds alleged in favour of farther Concessions to the Roman Catholics. .

Sixthly, to any probable good effect to be expected, on the whole, from such Concessions...

Our readers will see that these topics leave nothing untouched, for they embrace all the great points which are now at issue. We are at a loss as to the individual passages which it miglit be proper to cite, where so many offer themselves to our notice. We shall select, however, what his lordship says, under his second general head, concerning Toleration; and the rather, because of the very judicious quotation which his lordship has made from a sermon preached and published by the late Dr. Kippis; a passage whic', we hope, may induce many of our fellow Protestants, who are not members of the Established Church, to co-operate with us against the claims of our ancient antagonists.

We are now to consider the true character of toleration. Toleration means no more than a permission to every individual to adhere to that faith and form of worship which are most agreeable to the dictates of his conscience.

Toleration is opposed to persecution ; and, as the former consists in an unrestrained liberty of conscience and of worship, the latter cannot be said to exist, unless, by means affecting either the person or the property of an individual, some restraint be imposed upon that liberty. Where there is no such restraint, perfect toleration may be said to exist. There can therefore be no question as to the full enjoyment of toleration, as well by the Romanists as by every other class of Disgenters in the British islands. The question then with regard to restraints or disabilities is, whether too many exist, and whether good is not on the whole the result ?. That question must depend on the necessity of the restraints towards securing what is more advantageous to the community than the restraints are disadvantageous to those affected by them, which brings back the subject to what is essential to the security of a church-establishment. If the restraints go farther than to secure it from probable bazard, they extend too far ; but can any ove doubt, if the enemies of an establishment seek to be admitted to the power of altering those laws which are its security (indeed almost the establishment itself), whether those who would preserve the existing order of things are bound to resist the demand ?

It cannot be meant, that stipends to ministers of religion, paid by the public, are necessary to toleration ; because that does not exist in the case of any of the dissenters from the church, nor in that of the episcopali communion in Scotland; and the guarded care wbich was taken, on a late application in this country on behalf of the clergy of that communion, not to disgust the established church in Scotland, by affording any other than private assistance to the tolerated church, is a strong argument for my present position. The matter of policy, with respect to any such allowance of stipends, is a very different question. In the case of the Dissenters in Ireland it has been allowed, and no doubt because they were deemed friendly to the union with England, and to the constitution in church and state ; the allowance also for the education at home of the Irish Romanists results from policy merely; but these and any other accia dental cases which may be cited, are only deviations from the broad rule

and pripciple, for peculiar reasons not affecting its general application ; toleration may be considered as a right, generally speaking ; but, supo posing any religion should contain doctrines, which, if reduced to practice, would be hostile to the state and the interests of society, it cannot be doubted that to such a religion toleration would not or ought to be extended. The tolerant disposition, however, of the church of England is warmly proclaimed by even its enemies ;* and it is worthy serious consideration, whether any sound advocate for true toleration would endanger that important object, by lessening the security of a church, which so essentially cherishes that spirit and principle; and, if candidly considered, it would surely appear, that when the civil and religious liberty which is, now enjoyed throughout this empire is adverted to, and, what alone can give any hopes of either being perpetuated, that religion is a vital prin. ciple of the constitution and the laws, he must be hardy indeed, whọ would risk the blessings which are enjoyed for an amendment which at best is problematical. P. 12.

• See “ A Sermon preached on the 4th of November, 1789, before the Society for commemurating the glorious Revolution, by Andrew Kippis, D.D. &c."

" It is permitted us to think, to judge, to act, for ourselves; it is permitted us to search the sacred records with freedom, and to follow the instructions we derive from them; and every other advantage is enjoyed by us in the way to supreme felicity." Page 36.

" When every deduction is made, I ask, in what period we should rather have chosen to live than in that which hath succeeded the Revolution? In what period çould we have enjoyed superior advantages of a personal, domestic, social, literary, philosophical, and religious, nature ? The times of Alfred and the Saxon monarchs were times of darkness and confusion. In the victorious days of Edward III. and Henry V. ignorance and popery prevailed ; tbe land was uncivilized ; and the common people were little better than slaves to the barons. Queen Elizabeth was, undoubtedly, one of the greatest princesses that ever existed. She governed the realm with wisdum and courage, protected the Protestant interest abroad, raised the honour and credit of the nation, advanced trade, and caused the kingdom to flourish. But yet these were only the beginnings of improvement. At the same time, she was often arbitrary in the management of affairs and her treatment of parliaments. There were dangerous factions at bome; persecutions for conscience sake were not laid aside ; and the fole lowers of Essex were prosecuted with a rigour, which, to a milder age, appears to be unaccountable. Learning, indeed, was culiivated, but the noblest subjects of knowledge, religion and liberty, were, comparatively, but little understood. On the whole then, we shall with pleasure adhere to the testimony of Mr. Hume, who, in speaking of the æra which has been subsequent to the revolution, hath made use of the following language. So long and so glorious a period no nation almost can boast of; nor is tbere another instance in the whole history of mankind, that so many millions of people have, during such a space of time, been held together in a manner so free, so national, and so suitable to the dignity of human nature.'"

Vol. I. [Prot. Adv. Oct. 1812 F

We call the most serious attention of all who profess Whig principles, to the following extract from the 3d head. P. 16.

The alteration in the coronation-oath at the time of the union with Scotland; the principles established at the revolution ; and the declaration in the act of union, that the laws then existing for the preservation of the church were fundamental and unalterable, should not be forgotten; nor that it is on the ground of being the protectors of a goveroment essentially Protestant, and on those alone, that the House of Brunswick possess the Crown of this united kingdom. And it is indeed to be won. dered at, that any one professing bimself attached to that succession can wish to alter laws which his duty as well as interest, it may most justly be said, require him to uphold. If the day of trial should ever arrive, and the motives influencing those who profess Popery are called into action, either by a domestic or foreign cause, the safety of the throne and constitution will depend entirely on the strong ascendancy of the Protestant subjects. If the principle of Protestant union in church and state were abandoned, which I insist the granting of power, legislative or military, to the Romanists would essentially destroy, it is impossible to see on what it is that any title to the throne would remain to the family of the House of Brunswick. Let those who doubt on the admissibility of the Romanists to power seriously consider this.

Under the same head, we meet with the following very acute remark, which ought to silence those who have talked so unbecomingly, to use a mild expression, respecting the King's reverence for the coronation-oath. P. 31.

It surely will not be seriously contended, that the conscience of the Sovereign is not to be regarded. That would introduce a dilemma una answerable by the promoters of the claims of the Romanists ;- for, if the Sovereign were to have Roman Catholic advisers and a Roman Catholic parliament, on what but his own conscience would any maintenance of the established church have to rest ? By reference to the debates, at the time when the form of the oath was prescribed, it appears to have been stated (especially by Mr. Godolphin), that the security must be in the King's conscience: it is left for the plausible reasoners of the present enlightened times to explain away every thing which our guides and preservers deemed important at the Revolution ; and to justify the acceptance of such advice as deprived King James II. of his throne.

That the old notions of the Pope's supremacy remain rooted in the bosoms of the Roman Catholics, in all their pristine vigour, appears from the well-known conduct of Dr. Milner respecting the Veto. How the Duke of Norfolk and Mr. Grattan, after having been made the tools of the Papists, (by the intervention, and under the authority of the Doctor, himself a Roman Catholic bishop,) to offer the privilege of a Veto, in both Houses of Parliament; and then, having undergone the insult of retraction, can continue to argue on the behalf of those who thus mocked them, has ever astonished us; and we know not whether to class them with dupes or bigots.

A very strong argument (says Lord Kenyon, p. 49) to prove the uncontroulable power and influence of the Roman Catholic principles, arises from the late memorable conduct of Dr. Milner, respecting the Veto proposed to be allowed to the King on the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops. It will not be disputed that he authorised the Duke of Norfolk and Mr. Grattan to make the offer, on the part of the Roman Catholics, in each house of parliament; it is due to his character as a gentleman not to doubt it ; be must also have been aware of the ready and thankful acquiescence, on the part of the Roman Catholics, in his proposals respecting the concessions to be made in their favour. No one of a candid mind can suppose, that a reverend person, present during the debates, could permit a statement to be made in his name to which he did not asient : of his fair intentions no doubt is meant to be entertained ; but in the subsequent proceedings we are acquainted, that the whole Roman Catholic body in Ireland, at their grand meeting, on the 14th September 1808,* declared their unanimous refusal to make the sacrifice (a sacrifice not at all interfering with the Pope's spiritual conveyance of ordination); and in such declaration Dr. M. offers no apology to the houses of parliament, or to the British public, who were imposed upon by the offers, but contents himself with saying, that the proposal itself was nugatory, “and that he would shed the last drop of his blood rather than consent that 'the King should have any in. fluence, direct or indirect, in the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops !"+ after which he was again elected their agent to superintend their proceedings in England. Thus, therefore, the Roman Catholic agent in England makes a proposition which is thought to convey a security, and the question of granting farther privileges and concessions is debated on that view of the subject ; a declaration against the legality of such a proposition being drawn up by the authority of the mass of Roman Ca

Vide Irish Magazine, Sept. 1809, pages 449 to 454. See also the late Declaration of the Irish Roman Catholic Clergy. † “ Tous ia Ireland,” 2d edition, p. 309.


« PreviousContinue »