pliance, it finds itself utterly unable to withstand the hostile force which, during its period of vacillation, has been accumulating, and it is compelled to abandon, if, from a sense of weakness, it do not voluntarily sacrifice what, in the first instance, perhaps, is considered as out of the reach of danger. P. 34.

In the third chapter the author proceeds to shew that, if we would consult the safety of the Established Church, of all species of Non-Conformists the Roman Catholics are the last, in whose favour the principle of the Test laws should be sacrificed or relaxed; and that political power, in their hands, must be peculiarly dangerous to a Protestant establishment, both on account of the extraordinary zeal by which they are impelled to promote the ascendancy of a Church, out of which they consider salvation as unattainable; and also because they acknowledge sovereign power residing in a foreigner. This recognition of a foreign supremacy is shewn to be perfectly inconsistent with the allegiance of subjects to their temporal sovereign, and with their duties to civil society; and at direct variance with the British Constitution, which vests ecclesiastical, as well as civil supremacy, in the King. But in Ireland "the supremacy of the Pope exhibits a most formidable aspect,"-being supported by "a complete hierarchy, episcopal, sacerdotal, and parochial; exercising all manner of ecclesiastical functions under the immediate authority of its foreign head." In Ireland, too, the Roman Catholics constitute a considerable majority of the population, though, in the scale of rank and property, when compared with the Protestants, they are but a small minority. The case of Ireland, in relation to the subject under consideration, is therefore" an extreme case." "Ireland is the last spot where we should think of conceding the claims of the Roman Catholics to political power;"-and the argument against such concession, with regard to Ireland, has all the force of an argument à fortiori.

The fourth and fifth chapters are employed in displaying the disposition and character manifested by the Irish Roman Catholics, in their violation of the Convention Act, and in the proceedings respecting the Veto;—and we particularly recommend these chapters to the consideration of every individual in or out of Parliament, who is inclined to entrust political power to the

persons who have acted the parts which are here faithfully described. In considering the question, on which even the partizans of the Roman Catholic Claims are at variance among themselves, what securities should be provided for the Established Church, in the event of further concessions? The author justly infers, from the admission by most of those friends to claims now urged, that some securities are necessary; that "danger to the Protestant Establishment is to be apprehended from the Roman Catholics;" and he displays the extreme absurdity of supposing, that any security would be afforded by the Veto, even if the Roman Catholics were willing to concede that measure; the efficacy of which, in affording security to the Protestant Establishment, against the evident consequences of Catholic Emancipation, he aptly describes by saying: " as well might a fence of reeds and bulrushes be relied on, for protection against a heavy train of besieging artillery." In short, his reasoning on this part of the subject leads to the following rational conclusion: that the Established Church can hope for security only by maintaining those defences, which the Constitution has provided for its protection; framed upon the wise principle, that power is not to be entrusted to those from whom danger is to be apprehended. In the sixth chapter the author exposes, with becoming indignation, the fallacy of the pretext by which the Roman Catholics artfully recommend their claims to favourable attention-that the sole object of those claims is admission to the benefits of the Constitution. He proves that these importunate claimants are already in full possession and enjoyment of every benefit which the Constitution bestows; and that the principle of equal participation, which they seek to establish in their favour, is at direct variance with the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and "incompatible, not merely with the safety of an Established Church, but with social order and political union and energy,""a principle," indeed, "of discord and disorganization." He farther shews, that the claim of the Roman Catholics to equal participation, or in other words, their avowed object in asserting that claim--the removal of every disability and disqualification whatsoever, on account of religion-involves " a repcal, not merely of the Test laws, but also of the Act of Settlement-a

sacrifice of the very principle of Protestant succession." Thus do the Roman Catholics" endeavour to mould the Constitution to their purpose, under the pretext of seeking only to be admit ted to its benefits."

In the two following chapters the discussion rises in interest and importance. The subject is there considered, with reference tothe principles of the Revolution in 1688, and to the bold claim of the Roman Catholics and their advocates; that we should now abandon those principles, on account of a supposed change, which we are told has since that period taken place, in the Roman Catholic religion. The author justly observes, that "the characteristic feature of the Revolution was an arduous, but successful struggle with Popery; and its main object-the secure and permanent establishment of the Protestant religion." "It was not, however," he goes on to remark, "either a capricious or a merely speculative preference, which was given to the latter over the former religion. The real object in view was, to preserve and secure the liberties of the country, civil and religious. To those liberties Popery was known to be, upon principle, as it had invariably proved upon experience, essentially and irreconcilcably hostile; whilst an opposite character and disposition marked the reformed, religion, whenever, freed from the presence of its formidable rival, it could breathe its genuine spirit. In proof that this characteristic difference between the two religions was felt as strongly by Protestant Nop、 Conformists, as by the members of the Established Church," the author quotes the words of the historian (IIume), who states, that when King James endeavoured to obtain the concurrence of the Dissenters in his measures, by professions in favour of liberty of conscience, (the very game now playing by the Roman Catho lics) they (the Dissenters) rejected his overtures, well knowing that the genius of their religion was diametrically opposite to that of the Catholics."

These principles were not only acted upon, but most explicitly avowed by the Legislature, at this memorable epoch in our history. In the preamble to the Bill of Rights, says the author,

it is stated, that the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him,

did endeavour to subvert the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom."—"No sooner was the welcome deliverance achieved, than the character of the Protestant religion was shewn to be as friendly, as that of Popery had proved hostile, to liberty. Not only were our civil liberties consolidated, but religious liberty was, for the first time, legally enrolled in the glorious catalogue of British rights. By the Toleration Act freedom of worship, which constitutes the very essence of that liberty, was allowed and secured to Protestant Non-Conformists. It was not, however, thought compatible with the safety of the Protestant Church to admit Roman Catholics to the like privilege, so long as any danger was to be apprehended from a Popish Pretender to the throne. At length, however, when all danger of that kind had ceased to exist, the spirit of Protestantism was shewn to be favourable to universal Toleration. The Roman Catholics obtained their Toleration Act; by a Statute passed in the present reign (31 Geo. III. c. 32) they are relieved from all penalties on account of their religion, and they actually enjoy freedom and worship with as much security as any description of their fellow subjects. But scarcely are they in possession of this inestimable privilege, than they renew their attacks on the Protestant Establishment; to the mild and tolerant spirit of which they are indebted for so great a benefit; they call upon us to divest it of its safeguards-to repeal the laws which have been enacted for its security-in a word, to give up the fruits of the struggle which this country so long maintained with Popery and arbitrary power.".-P. 97.

But we are told that, since the period of the Revolution, the maxims and principles, the spirit and character, of the Church of Rome have experienced a great and extraordinary change; and that we ought, therefore, to admit our Roman Catholic brethren to a full participation of power and authority in the State. Supposing, however, such a change to have taken place, does it authorize-can it justify a departure from the principles of the Revolution?-principles which are recommended to us so strongly, not only by the high authorities by which they were then sanctioned, but also by the uniform experience of more than a century? Under the benign influence of those principles this VOL. I. [Prot. Adv. Oct. 1812.]

G

country has enjoyed, during that long period, and it still enjoys, in a high state of perfection, the invaluable blessings of civil and religious liberty. The same principles have placed the reigning family on the Throne. They are interwoven with our political constitution-with our national character-and with the very frame and habit of our minds. Their abandonment would involve, not merely a counter-revolution, but an actual disorganization of our social state. Sensible of the inestimable benefits which have flowed from them, we have been accustomed to consider their source as sacred, and to look back to the Revolution with a kind of holy veneration. But in spite of authority, of experience, and of feeling-we are now called upon to renounce those principles, and to remove the fences of our Protestant Establishment! We are called upon to level the barriers of our civil and religious liberties! Can any change in the religion of the Church of Rome justify our listening, for a moment, to such a call? Let Popery assume what form it will, would it not be madness-would it not be infatuation-would it not be political suicide to deprive the Constitution of those safeguards, which were so wisely provided by the wisdom of our ancestors, and which have proved so efficacious in their operation, and so salutary in their practical effects?

In considering the great question, whether Popery has really undergone that important change which has been asserted, and which is insisted on as a reason for our venturing upon a great and fundamental alteration of the Constitution, as settled at the Revolution, the author adverts to a circumstance which alone seems sufficient to prevent, even the most sanguine and the most credulous, from confiding in the reality of such a change; the positive and studious denial of the fact, by some of the most distinguished members of the Church of Rome residing among us.

"It is," says he, "a remarkable circumstance, that whilst respectable Protestants are endeavouring to persuade us that such a change has really taken place, some of the most distinguished members of that Church are making it a matter of boast, that its religion is unchanged and unchange. able." Mr. Plowden, a laick of that description, in a publication, entitled "the Case Stated; says, "If any one pretends to insinuate that the modern Roman Catholics differ, in one iota, from their ancestors, He