and principle, for peculiar reasons not affecting its general application; toleration may be considered as a right, generally speaking; but, sup. 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 principle of the constitution and the laws, he must be hardy indeed, who 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, 1788, before the Society for commemorating 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 could 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; the 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 wisdom 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 home; persecutions for conscience sake were not laid aside; and the fol lowers of Essex were prosecuted with a rigour, which, to a milder age, appears to be unaccountable. Learning, indeed, was cultivated, 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 there 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 rational, 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 government essentially Protestant, and on those alone, that the House of Brunswick possess the Crown of this united kingdom. And it is indeed to be wondered at, that any one professing himself 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 unión 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 unanswerable 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; he 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 assent: 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 influence, 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.

"Tour in Ireland,” 2d edition, p. 309.

tholics, the agent declares, first, that the proposition which he offered was completely nugatory,-and next, that he would on no account allow the King to have any influence, direct or indirect, in the appointment of the bishops. Thus, then, the members of the Roman Catholic church at this present period will not allow, the trifling security we require, in return for, the privileges and power they so imperiously demand: the conclusion is surely obvious; that whatever concessions they may be inclined for a moment to propose, the constant and unabated influence of the Roman Catholic doctrines on their mind,-the powerful domination of these principles (to which they bear an attachment as unalterable as the principles themselves are professed to be) on their conduct, must threaten with certain destruction our establishment of church and state, if it is once deprived of its antient and approved safeguards, if the bar riers between itself and its implacable and unchangeable enemies are removed and dissolved.

Here we must stop; our limits will not allow us the pleasure of making further extracts from a tract which cannot fail to produce many good effects to the cause in support of which it is written. Perhaps, on some future occasion, we may present our readers with two or three of those passages which we had marked for quotation. We hope that we may be allowed to return his lordship the thanks of all good Protestants. For the present, we take our leave of him.

The Claims of the Roman Catholics considered, with Reference to the Safety of the Established Church, and the Rights of Religious Toleration, 1812.Cadell and Davies, pp. 176.

AFTER the productions of certain of our Right Reverend Prelates, and after the pamphlet of Lord Kenyon, we proceed to notice a very able publication, which bears, indeed, no name on its title-page, but which would do honour to the first of those authors, who advocate the combined cause of Protestantism and their country, at this alarming crisis. We shall follow the writer step by step; but we shall reserve room for quotations, on a liberal scale, from his eighth chapter;-there are nine chapters in all.

The author begins with proving the necessity of Church Establishments, in order, on the one hand, to keep alive a sense of

religion, by making due provision for its public exercise, and for the support of a regular ministry, devoted to the sacred office; and, on the other, to prevent religious differences from disturbing the peace of society. It is clearly no part of his plan to advert to the peculiar excellence of the Church Establishment of this country; but merely (as he informs us in an advertisement prefixed to his work) to represent that Establishment "as entitled to support on the ground of its being a National Establishment, allied to the State and interwoven in the Constitution." Treating the subject on this general ground, he proceeds, in his second chapter, to shew that Test laws, requiring conformity with the Church as a qualification for office in the State, are essential to the security of Church Establishments; that such laws, as they have for their object the general good, to which all private and personal interests ought to give way, involve neither disgrace nor hardship; and that they are, in reality, favourable to tolera- ` tion, by affording security to the establishment without the aid of penal laws, without any interference with the sacred rights of conscience and worship. He then concludes this part of the discussion, with pointing out the dangers which attend a relaxation of the principle of the Test laws. The following general observations we recommend to the serious attention of our readers, as containing, in our opinion, a just as well as a striking description of the fatal process, by which relaxation of principle leads to the destruction of social establishments.

Such are the dangers which the Established Church has to fear from à relaxation of the exclusive principle of the Test laws. It may, indeed, be considered as a general maxim, (and happy would it be for mankind if the maxim were never lost sight of) that in no instance can relaxation of principle be unaccompanied with danger. For the human mind is apt to lose its respect for principle, when it ceases to regard it as inviolable; and it is wont to view with indifference, what it before looked upon as sacred. Fixed to no rule, but deeming itself at liberty to follow the dictates of its own discretion, it becomes unsettled and wavering; it changes its opinions and its views according to the fluctuation of circumstances; it loses the manly qualities of firmness and decision; it knows not what to oppose to solicitation, to which it gradually gives way, in the vain hope of conciliation; at length, enfeebled by irresolution and com