a foreign potentate, is incalculably more formidable, as this potentate is beyond the reach of controul. To entrust power in the hands of those who acknowledge such a supremacy is, in effect, to entrust it to the person possessing that supremacy; and that person, it is well known, considers the religion of a Protestant state as heretical, and the ecclesiastical authority of the sovereign of such a state as au usurpation." (P. 42)

This distinction between Roman Catholics and Protestant dissenters, with regard to the danger of entrusting them severally with power, is recognized by the test-laws of this country, by which the adherents to the see of Rome, on account of their recognition of a foreign ecclesiastical supremacy, are excluded "from legislative authority as well as from political power."

"But (says the author) as far as the question relates distinctly to Ireland, the danger attending the sacrifice of the test-laws, in favour of the Roman Catholics of that country, is immediate and at the very door of the Protestant church." This position he illustrates by various arguments, the result of which is, that the case of Ireland, with relation to this subject,

"Is an extreme case. Of all classes of nonconformists, we have seen that the Roman Catholics are those from whom our Protestant establishment has most to dread, because they are distinguished by an acknowledgment of a foreign supremacy; a circumstance which should make them dreaded by all descriptions of Protestants. But, in Ireland, that establishment has abundantly more to fear from them than in Great Britain, on account of their ecclesiastical organization, and their formidable numbers. They there possess a complete hierarchy,-perfect in all its parts,-supported by the bigoted attachment,-by the enthusiastic feelings, of an indis. putably large majority of the population, and, like a finished vessel, waiting only for a full tide, to be triumphantly launched, amidst the shouts and acclamations of countless multitudes."

66

If, therefore, our object really be the preservation of our Protestant establishment, Ireland is the last spot where we should think of conceding the claim of the Roman Catholics to political power; for it is there that we should be least able to guard against the ef fects of such concession. If we mean to maintain, in any respect, the principle of the test-laws, the argument against the abandoning of that principle in Ireland is an a fortiori argument." (P. 57, 58.)

In these conclusions we entirely concur. And we cannot refrain from taking this opportunity of expressing our astonishment at the inconsistency of those persons, who having uniformly opposed the repeal of the corporation and test-acts, when such repeal was solicited by the Protestant dissenters, are now disposed to concede the claims of the Roman Catholics; claims which involve, in favour of nonconformists, who acknowledge a

foreign supremacy, a sacrifice of those barriers of the constitation, which the persons alluded to deemed it necessary to maintain against nonconformists, by whom no such supremacy is acknowledged.

In considering the expediency of entrusting the power of the state to the Roman Catholics, the writer observes, that prudence requires us to take into the account, not merely the principles, but the disposition and spirit manifested by those in whom we are thus called upon to confide; as we may thereby be the better. enabled to judge how such persons would employ the power which they are so ambitious to obtain. Upon this subject he refers us to history for the most instructive lessons.

In the fourth and fifth chapters of the work before us the author examines the conduct of the Irish Roman Catholics on two recent occasions, their contempt of the convention act, and their refusal to allow the crown a veto upon the nomination of Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, after a proposal to that effect had been made, with their privity and concurrence, in both houses of parliament. The facts and reasonings in these chapters we recommend to particular attention, pledging ourselves that they will be found to bring "confirmation strong" to the conclusion already so satisfactorily established, that the concession of the claims of the Roman Catholics, especially in Ireland, would expose our Protestant establishments to imminent danger, if not to certain destruction.

It is well known that the claims in question are brought forward under the specious pretext that their sole object is the admission of the persons, in whose favour they are preferred, to the benefits of the constitution. The fallacy of this pretext is most successfully exposed in the sixth chapter of the work before us, in which the author proves, not only that the right contended for is not to be found among the rights actually conferred by the coustitution, which rights he enumerates; but also that the pretensions of the Roman Catholics are directly at variance with the constitution, and that these persons "when they petition to be relieved from all disabilities on account of their religion, do, in fact, ask for an alteration of the constitution in their favour. They endeavour to mould the constitution to their purpose, under the pretext of seeking only to be admitted to its benefits." In the same chapter it is shewn, that the claim of “equal participation," advanced by the Roman Catholics, involves a sacrifice of the very principles of Protestant succession.

Viewing this subject in its political relations and consequences, it is impossible to forget that for upwards of a century we have been accustomed to consider the fabric of our polity as.com

pleted and settled at the time of the revolution, in 1688. In his next chapter, therefore, the author very properly considers "the claims of the Roman Catholics, with reference to the principles of the revolution." He justly observes, "the characteristic feature of the revolution was an arduous but a successful struggle with popery, and its main object the secure and permanent establishment of the Protestant religion. It was not, however," (he proceeds) "either a capricious or a merely speculative preference, which was given to the latter. The real object in view was to preserve and secure the liberties of the country, civil and religious. To these liberties, popery was known to be, upon principle, as it had invariably proved, upon experience, essentially and irreconcileably 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." (P. 96.)

Such were the principles upon which our ancestors acted at the period of the revolution; principles which were expressly avowed by the legislature, when, in the Bill of Rights, it declared the Prince of Orange to be "the glorious instrument of delivering the kingdom from popery and arbitrary power." In short," the great lesson taught by the revolution," as this writer pertinently observes, was, that power, in the hands of Papists, would be incompatible with the safety both of our religious and civil rights.

But it is contended that, since the revolution in 1688, "popery has undergone so great a change, that it is no longer formidable to a Protestant state." This is the argument mainly relied upon. Admitting, however, this argument to be warranted by fact, it would be very far from proving that those claims ought to be conceded. Supposing that the Ethiopian had changed his skin, and the leopard his spots-supposing that popery had ceased to be hostile to civil and religious libertythis wonderful metamorphosis would serve only to place the members of the church of Rome on the same footing with other dissenters, and their claim to a removal of every disability to which they are subject, on account of their religion, would be inadmissible, unless we chose to sacrifice, in their favour, the entire system of the test-laws. Still, however, so much stress is laid upon the argument in question, and it is so often represented as conclusive in favour of the claims which it is adduced to support, that to refute it is to break through the very centre of that formidable force which is assayed against our Protestant coustitution. This the author has done in his eighth chapter, which,

contains a great variety of important matter, and is, in our opinion, the most valuable in the work before us. We regret that our limits will allow us only to give a very faint sketch of its con

tents.

Protestants, it has been observed, have nothing further to fear from the church of Rome, because six foreign universities, upon being consulted a few years ago, at the desire of Mr. Pitt, have declared that some of the most obnoxious of the tenets imputed to that church form no part of the Catholic faith. This is an argument which, in the opinion of some, has decided the question in favour of the Catholics. But the author ventures to appeal from the opinions of foreign universities to the canons and decrees of the Romish church. He asks, "when were these universities, or any universities, constituted the mouth-piece of that church?" And he particularly insists on one tenet of that church, which, whatever doubts may exist with regard to its other tenets, is held by all its members to be indisputable, and beyond the reach of doubt and controversy;-that" infallibility resides in its ecumenical or general councils." Such being the admitted authority of general councils, he contends, that "instead of applying to universities, in order to ascertain whether the obnoxious tenets attributed to the church of Rome are really maintained by that church, it would be much to the purpose to consult the decrees and canons of those councils. And having established this general rule, he reminds us, that the obnoxious tenets which the universities have declared not to be maintained by the Romish church are expressly sanctioned by the decrees of general councils, that is to say, by the highest authority in that church. The tenets thus fixed upon the church of Rome are, that the pope may absolve the subjects of heretical princes from their oath of allegiance, and that faith is not to be kept with heretics, to the prejudice of the Catholic faith."

The author then proceeds in the following animated strain:

"It may be said, perhaps, that the church of Rome, far from attempting to enforce her exterminating and perfidious principles, suffers them to repose quietly in her judicial code, and that, in the present enlightened state of society, mankind can have nothing to fear from those thunders of the Vatican, which formerly convulsed and terrified the world. Satisfactory as this change of policy may appear, it proves nothing more than that the above church, without any sacrifice of principle, knows how to accommodate herself to times and circumstances. There is an elasticity in her system of policy, which enables it to dilate or compress itself, accord ing to the weight of the incumbent atmosphere; but, at all times,

and under all circumstances, she will be found to act upon one general principle,—that the good of the church, being paramount to every other consideration, must ever be promoted by all practical means. This principle, which serves to explain and to reconcile the whole of her conduct, flows naturally from the doctrine uniformly maintained by her-that out of the church there is no salvation; for, as salvation is infinitely the most important object of human pursuit, nothing can excite so deep an interest, or furnish so invariable a rule of action, as the good of a church-out of which that object cannot be attained. Accordingly, the prin ciple in question not only governs the polity of the Romish church, to whose ambition it always affords a fair and specious pretext, but supplies a standard of morality to her members." (P. 113, 114.)

The argument, were it to end here, would be complete and conclusive. But, to "make assurance doubly sure," the author adduces a document which is particularly calculated to put to silence those who contend that a great and marvellous change, or indeed any change, has taken place in the principles of the church of Rome. He appeals to a "Treatise" upon that very church, by the professor of theology in the Royal College of St. Patrick, at Maynooth; a work prepared, in an academical form, for the use of the students at that college. Such a reference is to us peculiarly interesting, because, as the author observes, "the principles avowed in it are inculcated among our own youth, and must therefore be expected to govern the opinions and the conduct of the Roman Catholic body, in whose opinions and conduct we have so deep an interest." The author enters upon a very close examination of this treatise (as it relates to the point in question), which we particularly recommend to the serious attention of our readers, but of which our notice. must be very cursory.

The three following doctrines are shown to be unequivocally, inculcated by the Maynooth professor: 1st. Papal supremacy. adly. That there is no salvation out of the Romish church. 3dly. That this church is infallible. And it appears that "the infallibility here claimed for the church of Rome is not confined to its general councils, but is also to be found in the bishops of that church, when they either unanimously concur in preaching any particular doctrine in the dispersed church, or when they are. employed in determining controversies of faith in a legitimate synod. Nay, in one respect, infallibility is here ascribed to the pope himself," whose decrees, addressed to the universal church, when assented to, or not dissented from, by the subordinate bishops, are considered as infallible."

כי