« PredošláPokračovať »
the Anti-jacobin Review, the Protestant Advocate, the Antibiblion, and other periodical works, exclusive of numberless newspapers. By some of these he has been tauntingly challenged into the field of controversy, and wben he did not appear there, he has been posted as a coward.
A still more cogent reason, my Lord, for the appearance of this work, which, as I have said, was heretofore suppressed, at the desire of a former Bishop of St. David's, is furnished by his present successor, in a work which he has recently published, called THE PROTESTANTS CATECHISM. This work is no ordinary effusion of NO POPERY zeal. It was not called for by any increase of the Ancient Religion in his Lordship’s diocese, wbich teems with Methodist Jumpers, to the glaring danger of his Cathedral and his Parish Churches being totally deserted; while not one Catholic family is, perhaps, to be found in it. It was not provoked by any late attempt on the Established Church, or on Protestantism in general; as the Bishop does not pretend that such thing has taken place. Nevertheless he comes forward in his episcopal mitre, bearing in his bands a new Protestant Catechism, to be learnt by Protestants of every description, which teaches them to hate and persecute their elder brethren, the authors of their Christianity and civilization! In fact, this Christian Bishop begins and ends his Protestants Catechism with a quotation from a Puritan Regicide, declaring, that Popery is not to be tolerated, either in public or in private, and that it must be thought how to remove it, and hinder the growth thereof;' adding, 'If they say that by removing their idols we violate their consciences, we have no warrant to regard conscience which is not grounded on Scrip
ture (1). This, your Lordslip must know, is the genuine cant of a Mar-Prelate Independant; the
(1) Milton's Prose Works, vol. 4. The prose writings of this Secretary of the Long Parliament are as execrable for their Regicide and Anti-prelatic principles, as his poetry is super-excellent for its sublimity and sweetness, Four other English authors are brought forward by the Bishop of St. David's, to justify that persecution of Catholics, which he recommends. The first of these is the Socinian Locke, who will not allow of Catholics being tolerated, on the demonstrated false pretext that they cannot tolerate other Christians. The true cause of his intolerance was, that his hands being stained with the blood of twenty innocent Catholics, who were immolated by the sanguinary policy of his master, Shaftesbury, in Oates' infamous plot, he was obliged to find a pretext for excluding them from the legal toleration which he stood in need of himself. Bishop Hoadley, who had no religion at all of his own, would not allow the Catholics to enjoy theirs, because, he says: "No oaths and solemn assurances, no regard to truih, justice, or honour, can restrain them.' This is the hypocritical plea for the intolerance of a man, who was in the constant habit of violating all his oaths and engagements to a Church which had raised him to rank and fortune, and who systematically pursued its degradation into his own Anti-Christian Socinianism, by professed deceit and Treachery, as will be seen in the Letters to a Prebendary, Letter VIII. Blackstone, being a crown lawyer, and writing when the penal laws were in force, could not but defend them; but, Judge as he was, and writing at the above-mentioned time, he in the passage following that quoted by Dr. Burgess, expressed a hope, that the time was not distant, when the fears of a Pretender having vanished, and the in. fluence of the Pope becoining feeble, the rigorous edicts against the Catholics would be revised,' b. iv. c. 4; which event accordingly soon after took place. As to Burke, the last author whom the Bishop quotes against Catholic emanci, pation, it is evident from his speech at Bristol, his letter to Lord Kenmare, and the whole tenor of his writings and conduct, that he was not only a warm friend, but, in some degree, a martyr to it.
same cant which brought Laud and Charles I. to the block; the same cant which overthrew the Church and State in the Grand Rebellion. But what chiefly concerns my present purpose, in the Bishop's twice repeated quotation from Milton, is to observe that it breathes the whole persecuting spirit of the sixteenth century, and calls for the fines and forfeitures, the dungeons, halters, and knives of Elizabeth's reign, against the devoted Catholics ; since it is evident that the Idolatry of Popery, as he terms it, exercised in private, cannot be removed without such persecuting and sanguinary measures. The same thing is plain from the nature of the different legal offences which the Right Reverend Prelate lays to their charge. In one place he accuses the Catholics of England and Ireland, that is to say, more than a quarter of his Majesty's European subjects, of acknowledging the jurisdiction of the Pope in defiance of the laws, and of the allegiance due to their rightful Sovereign ;' though he well knows, that they have abjured the Pope's jurisdiction in all civil and temporal cases, which is all that the King, Lords, and Commons required of them, in their acts of 1791 and 1793. Again the Prelate describes their opposition to the Veto (though equally opposed, in the appointment of their respective Pastors, by all Protestant Dissenters, who constitute more than another fourth part of his Majesty's subjects) as · Treasonable by Statute,' p. 35. Now, every one knows that the legal punishment of a subject, acting in defiance of his allegiance, and contracting the guilt of treason, is nothing less than death. Nay: so much bent on the persecution of Catholics is this modern Bishop, as to arraign Parliament itself as guilty of a breach of the constitution, by the latter of its tolerating Acts; where he says: If the elective franchise be really înconsistent with the Constitutional Statutes of the Revolution, it ought to be repealed, like all other concessions that are injurious to loyalty and religion.' He adds, “ But it does not follow that because Parliament had been guilty of one act of prodigality, that it should therefore, like a thoughtless and unprin. cipled spendthrift, plunge itself into inextricable ruin,' pp. 53, 54. Thus, my Lord, though the Prelate after advertising in his Table of Contents, "A CONCLUSION, showing, the means of cooperating with the laws for preventing the danger and increase of Popery,' defers publishing it, because, he says, “it is connected with the credit of the Ecclesiastical Establishment ; yet, we see, as clearly, from the substance and drift of the Protestant's Catechism, what his conclusion is, as if he had actually pubJished it. Namely, we see that he would have the whole code of penal laws, with their incapacities, fines, imprisonment, hanging, drawing, and quartering, re-enacted, to prevent even the private practice of idolatry; and that he would have the Bishops, Clergy, Churchwardens, and Constables employed in enforcing them, according to the forms of Inqui. sition, prescribed by the Canons of 1597, 1603, and 1640.
Before the writer passes from the present subject of loyalty and the laws, to others more congenial with his studies, and those of the Prelate, he wishes to submit to your Lordship’s reflection two or three questions connected with it. First: is it strictly legal, even for a Lord of Parliament, and is it
edifying for a Bishop, to instruct the public, especially in these days of insubordination and commotion, that the reigning King, and the two Houses of Parliament, have acted against the Constitutional Statutes, by affording religious relief to one large and loyal portion of British subjects, in the same manner as King William, George I. and George II. had afforded it to other portions of them? We all know what outcries are continually raised about violating the Constitution, and we know what effect these are intended to produce. Now, if a turbulent populace are made to believe, that the present Legislature has acted illegally and unconstitutionally in some of its acts, is there no danger that they may form the same notion concerning some of its other acts, which are peculiarly obnoxious to them, and that they may rank these among the Fictitious Sta. tutes, as this Prelate terms the Acts of Parliament of three former reigns ?-Secondly: the writer wishes to ask your Lordship, whether or no you think it is for the peace and safety of the sister isle, to alarm the bulk of its inhabitants with the threat of their being dispossessed of the elective franchise, which they have now enjoyed for a quarter of a century? In like manner, is it conducive to the same end, for a person of his Lordship's character and consequence to assure this people, that the Pope's jurisdiction and England's dominiori over them' were introduced into Ireland by a mercenary compact of the Pope and Henry II.' p. 24. “founded on a fiction of the grossest kind, the pretended donation of Constantine,' p. v. though, by the by, this was never once mentioned or binted at by either of the parties ?-Lastly: the writer would be glad