rm LIBERTY o? CONSCIENCE. 
ftitutiort. Hath (hall agree m reprefenting the compo- 
sient parts of our legiflature to be king, lords, and com¬ 
mons. They fb.al! agree in maintaining that the Great 
Charter is the balis of En'glifh liberty. But let us fup- 
pofe one of them inclined to ftretch the royal prerogative 
farther than could correfpond with the Act of Settlement 
-and Bill of Rights ; and, in his partiality for the houfes of 
Stuart and Tudor, defending the exaflion of (hip-money 
and benevolences, the injlitution of the flair-chamber and 
high-commiffion court. It would not be unreafonable to 
Conclude, that however you might have admired fuch a 
writer’s abilities, whilft he was dwelling on the founda¬ 
tion of the Britifti conftitution ; yet you could not pofli- 
bly admit his erroneous opinions concerning points in¬ 
compatible with our liberty. Between us and the catho¬ 
lics the cafe is fomewhat fimilar. We agree in averting 
the Gofpel to be the bafis of our religion. We agree in 
twelve articles as confeffedly fcriptural. Would that we 
agreed farther! but here we part. For, they would ob¬ 
trude or. us fuperadditions, which we can no more allow 
-to be confonant with the charter of our faith, than you 
can allow the obnoxious affts of arbitrary extortion and 
the odious inftruments of defpotic oppreftion to be con¬ 
fident with the charter of our liberty. And, becaufe we 
cannot allow them, you intimate that we defire ‘ to re¬ 
vive animofities between fyftems of religion grafted on 
-the lame dock and agreeing in the mod eflential articles 
of belief.’ Obf. p. 36. 
“ To this we anfwer, that, if the catholics would ac¬ 
knowledge twelve articles only to be eflential, then we 
fhould be agreed. But, if you will confult the mod ap¬ 
proved writers among them, they will tell you the articles 
fuperadded by fynods and councils, more elpeciaiiy by 
the council of Trent, are alfo eflential. In acknowledg¬ 
ing them to be eflential we are not agreed. And, lince 
for that reafon we are folemniy anathematized, it is evi¬ 
dent our unanimity on articles mod eflential does not avail 
fufficiently for our being regarded by them with Chriftian 
affeftion. Yet we hold not the catholics in difefleem. 
As proofs of that aflertion may be adduced thefe inflances : 
We affirm they have all the eflentials of a Chridian church. 
We admit the validity of their confecration to epifcopacy ; 
of their ordination for prieflhood ; of their marriage as a 
contrail facred before God ; of their baptifmal initiation 
into the Chriftian church. Then in private life 5 no pro- 
tedant of common fenfe ever diminifiies thofe civilities 
and that intercourfe, which fhould obtain between per- 
fons living in vicinity; or leflens confidence and edeem 
where frienddiip lias been contrafled ; merely becaufe ca- 
tholicifm creates dideren.ee of opinion. But, as a farther 
proof of our refpe< 51 , you demand for them competency 
■to exercife legislative authority over proteftants. To this 
we demur; and afk. Has the aggregate body of catholics, 
in the kingdom of Ireland, ffiown towards us a difpofition, 
which fhould induce us to concede legiflative power ? 
Did the conduft of the catholic laity in 1811, though pal¬ 
liated by your lordfhip as an ebullition from ‘ feelings of 
difappointment and anger;’ did the language of the ca¬ 
tholic laity in 1812, befpeak a cordiality towards the pro- 
Sedant government of Ireland, and fentiments of duty to¬ 
wards a quarter where fuch duty ought to have been paid ? 
Have their clergy defeended one dep from their high pre- 
tenfions to fuperiority over protedants ? Have they ‘ ab¬ 
jured infallibility in man,’ or do they ceafe to charge it 
on us ‘as a fault and crime,’ that we have abjured what 
we know belongs not to man ? You tell us otherwife in 
your Obfervations; and their own bifliop Chaloner, in a 
popular traft, which is circulated among the lower clafles 
of people, afks this quedion; ‘ Whatfecurity can fhe (i.e. 
the church of protedants) give her followers, that fhe is 
xiot actually leading them on in the way of eternal dam¬ 
nation ?’ Have they foftened their language when fpeak- 
jng of occurrences and of perfons coeval with centuries 
ziow fo remote, that a mind difpofed to forget and forgive 
aaight have imagined all words of alperity on the original 
canfes of our pad difeordance had long fince grown into* 
difufe ? Hear biffiop Milner ; ‘ If the catholic clergy 
were not deeply perluaded that the'change of religion and 
breach with the ancient church, effected by Henry VIII. 
and Elizabeth, were undertaken upon unjudifiable grounds, 
and that their church Itill continues to be the true church 
of Cbrid, they would certainly be, not only the mod 
wretched, but alfo the moll foo!ifti,of men, to fuffer what 
they do fuller, for adhering to it and ferving it.’-‘ In 
this (i. e. the Code of Catholic Inftitutes) there is no men¬ 
tion of the numerous and revolting blafphemies and im¬ 
moralities with which the works of Luther and Calvin 
abound; no notice of the perfidy, treafon, and rebellion, 
taught and praftifed by Cranmer, Ridley, Knox, and every 
other patriarch of the reformation in the leveral countries 
where it has prevailed.’ On thefe paffages fuffice it to re¬ 
mark, they were pubiifhed not longer ago than in 1810; 
and they demonflrate the juftnefs with which, by chang¬ 
ing only a fingle word, to catholics of the generation now 
exifting may be applied your observation made in behalf 
of their ancellors ; ‘ What we confider as reformation of 
religion, they imagine to be rebellion againft the mod fa¬ 
cred rights.’ 
“ It was in 18x0 that the father of our Englifli prelacy, 
bifliop Barrington, dated the grounds, on which he con- 
cejved might be effected a catholic union. They relted 
on the hope, that after calm difeuflion the catholics would 
accord with us in difallowing the civil and religious pro¬ 
priety of urging thofe points on which the churches of 
England and Rome have materially differed. In 1811, 
what (ays bifliop Milner? ‘ We would give our lives to 
unite in religion with our countrymen on the plan of 
Boffuet.’ And what account does the bifliop give of 
Bcfiuet’s plan ? ‘ This plan was never propofed to them 
(i.e. the proteftants) upon any other footing, than that 
they fhould admit the authority of the catholic church ; 
the pope’s fupremacy ; the feven facraments ; the faciifice 
of the niafs ; the invocation of faints, &c.’ This decla¬ 
ration does not very ftrongly invite us to a great.confti- 
tutional change in their favour; becaufe we cannot for¬ 
get that zeal for thefe articles of belief has been the ccca- 
lion of deeds very unfriendly to proteftantifm. It would 
be infulting to the catholics of the prefent day, if we were 
to fuppofe them actuated by lefs ardent zeal than the ca¬ 
tholics of former years^ and it would be irrational in our- 
felves if we did not think it poffible and probable, thac 
from the fame principle, applied for the attainment of the 
fame qbjeff, would refult limilar condufl. Zeal is a moft 
powerful incentive to energy. Laudable, or illaudable, it 
is in character, according to the circumftance in whiclr 
it is engaged, the manner in which it is directed, the end 
which it propofes to accomplifli. Of what character muff 
be that zeal, which could inculcate this do£lrin£? ‘The 
fouls of all proteftants, immediately on their departure 
from their bodies, are plunged into hell, there to fuffer 
eternal torments.’ Of what defeription mult be that zeal, 
which, in the true fpirit of thofe who maintained it was a 
damnable fin to be prefent at the divine fervice of protef¬ 
tants, ordains it fhould be a queftion put by the prieit to 
the perfon confeffing, put if not in exprefs words yet ac 
lead in fublfantial meaning, ‘Since your laft confeiiion, 
have you entered an heretical houfe of worfhip ?’ Is there 
nothing of indignity offered to proteftants in deeming it 
thus criminal to hear our public prayers ? Have protef¬ 
tants nothing to apprehend from the workings of a prin¬ 
ciple, which holds it finful for catholics even to af- 
feinble in the fame room with us, and to unite with us in 
devotional worfhip to the fame great Creator! the fame 
gracious Protedlor of us all ? If not towards the perfons, 
yet certainly towards the religion, of proteftants, fuch in¬ 
dignity and fuch a principle mull excite contempt and ab¬ 
horrence in the mafs of the people ; and muff create ftrong 
prejudices in the minds of the well-educated. If from 
any portion of thofe prejudices carried into the legiflature 
your lordlhip is confident there can arife nothing unfa¬ 
vourable 
