general defence of the Roman Catholics, with an endeavour to prove, that the doctrines of "no faith with Heretics," and the "difpenfing with oaths," &c. fo much dreaded by Proteitants, are not tenets of their Church. But, unhappily, hiftory fhows abundantly that they have been acted upon, again and again *. The prefent ftruggle is mott clearly a ftruggle for POWER. Every kind of liberty and toleration has already been conceded; but ftill they pretend they are not "emancipated," because they have not power. They agree (for the prefent) that the throne. fhould be limited to a Proteftant, but every other public office they would have thrown open to Papifts. This being once granted, who fhall tell us how long it will be before the throne itfelf fhall be declared open alfo to Roman Catholics? Proteftants have had, warnings in plenty; let them only be upon their guard!

ART. 21. Subftance of the Speech, delivered by Lord Viscount Caftlereagh, on the 25th of May, 1810, upon Mr. Grattan's Motion for a Committee to take into Confideration the Roman Catholic Petitions: to which are annexed, Copies of the Original Documents therein referred to. 8vo. 51 PP.. 2s. J. J. Stock.

dale. 1810.

In the Advertisement to this Speech, we are told, that a very erroneous statement of it appeared in the newspapers, and that this publication was undertaken with a view of correcting that mifreprefentation. From this circumftance, we fuppofe that it has been conducted under the aufpices of the noble Lord himself; who muft be peculiarly interested in preventing any misconception of his fentiments on a fubject of fo much importance.

The Speech itself deferves particular notice, not only as an. able compofition, but as containing the most authentic information which we have met with, of the plan conceived by our late excellent Minifter, Mr. Pitt, for conceding to the Roman Catholics, the privileges which they claim, and at the fame time, fecuring the established Proteftant church and government. The principal fecurities required by this plan, were, it appears, not merely the Veto of the Crown on the appointment of Romish Bishops, but also the prohibition of any intercourfe between those Bishops or their Clergy, with their fpiritual head, the Roman Pontiff, unfanctioned by the government of the country. It was. alfo a part of the plan to eftablish, under certain regulations, a provifion for the Romish Clergy, that they might (in the words of the noble Speaker) “feel it was not lefs their intereft than their

* See the fentiments of Popes, Councils, and Teachers, cited by Solomon Lowe, in a piece entitled "The Proteftant Family Piece," 1716: often bound with Sir Richard Steele's, "State of the Roman Catholic Religion." (P. 231, &c.) But it is no new thing that all authorities are rejected, when they make again, the caufe. See Brevin: on this fubject.

Tt

BRIT. CRIT. VOL. XXXVI. DEC. 1810.

duty

duty to maintain at all times a reputation for loyalty and fidelity," inftead of being "compelled, in times of tumult and popular delufion, to flatter the paffions of their mifguided flock."

The expediency or practicability of this plan, (under the prefent circumftances of Ireland,) it is now needlefs to difcufs; as it is admitted in this Speech, (and is indeed notorious,} that the Irish Roman Catholic Bishops have retracted their affent to the Veto, given exprefsly by their refolutions in 1799, (cited in this Speech,) and afterwards tendered through their agent, Dr. Milier, and the friends to their caufe in Parliament. On this ground, chiefly, the noble Speaker objects to the propofed appointment of a Committee on their Petitions, as not likely, under the exifting circumstances, to produce any good.

The promife alledged to be given to the Irith Roman Catholics, previously to the Union, and (as was pretended) in order to preCure their meafure, is firmly denied in this Speech; and the paper circulated in Ireland, refpecting the refignation of Mr. Pitt and his colleagues in 1801, (about which fo much has been faid,) is, we think, fatisfactorily explained. The following paffage, being expreffive of the grounds on which the plan of Mr. Pitt was formed, and thofe on which the noble Speaker contended on the prefent occafion against the Roman Catholic Petition, is, we think, peculiarly worthy of attention; as it fhows the complete, and abject dependance of the Irish Roman Catholics on the See of Rome.

"Whilft the Roman Catholic clergy feel a becoming confi dence in the purity of their own intentions, and juftly appeal to the tefts by which they have folemnly disclaimed all the noxious tenets which have, in former times, been imputed to their church; -whilft they declare that they owe no obedience to the Pope, inconfiftent with their duty as good fubjects, and that their alle. giance to the external head of their church is purely fpiritual, and restricted to matters of faith and doctrine, yet they must be too well verfed in the hiftory of mankind, not to feel and to allow, that, fo long as fpiritual authority is exercised by men, it is prone to mix itself in temporal concerns, more especially in matters which may be confidered as affecting the interefts of the church itself; that a take for power is infeparable from human nature, and that the times may return when the power and influence of the See of Rome, if not reftrained by wholesome regulations, (a fuppofition not extravagant, when the visible head of the Catholic church is a prifoner, and confequently an inftrument in the hands of the enemy,) may be turned against the temporal interefts and fecurity of the ftate. Why is the British Government alone, of all the Powers of Europe, to remain expofed to a danger, against which it has been the invariable policy of all other ftates, Roman Catholic as well as Proteftant, to provide ? Why fhould Spain, the country perhaps, of all others in Europe,

See all thefe initances alluded to in Sir J. Hippifley's fpeech.

leaft difpofed either to herefy or fchifm, have fedulously excluded the See of Rome from any intercourfe with their church, except through the state? Why did Auftria? Why did France, unless they were fatisfied that fuch a power, if fecretly exercised over the clergy, paffing by the ftate, might, and must be abused? If Roman Catholic ftates have not thought it fafe to rely upon the mere fecurity of oaths, defining the allegiance of the clergy to the temporal government, the interpretation of which, in all cafes of doubtful import, as matter of confcience, can only rest with the individuals fubfcribing them; and if they have deemed it effential to their freedom, and fafety, to fence themselves round with additional fafeguards, and even to exclude the direct power of the See of Rome, from operating within their do minions, in concerns not purely appertaining to faith and doctrine; can the Roman Catholics of thefe dominions complain, if the Proteftant ftate of this realm fhould regard that foreign power with similar sentiments of fair and juftifiable jealousy, and infift upon correfponding meafures of fecurity and precaution? Shall the Roman Catholics of Ireland complain, or are they rationally entitled to impute to their own government, views either illiberal or unwife, when they demand fecurities from them not greater than flates purely Roman Catholic in their ftructure have required? If the Sovereigns of Ruffia and Pruflia claimed not only the right of excluding all briefs or refcripts from the See of Rome, not previously fubmitted to the temporal authority of the refpective ftates; if they further affumed (if not with the formal fanction of the Sovereign Pontiff expreffed in a Concordat, yet certainly with his full and cordial acquiefcence in giving effect to the appointments made) the direct and pofitive nomination to all the Roman Catholic Sees within their dominions; if regulations fimilar in principle have prevailed in Proteftant ftates, popular in their form of government,-fhall it be imputed as a demand unreafonable on the part of the crown of Great Britain, not actually to nominate, but to have the power of excluding perfons from the exercife of the epifcopal functions, in whofe loyalty his Majefty cannot confide?-Shall all the Roman Catholic fubjects in Europe, cheerfully confide fuch power to their refpective governments-Shall the head of the Roman Catholic church himfelf acknowledge fuch powers, not only in all the Roman Catholic fovereigns in Europe, but in the Monarch of the Greek church in Ruffia, and in a Proteftant Monarch in Prussia ; and yet refuse to the King of thefe realms a much more limited interference? That any fuch repugnance would have been found in the late, or prefent Pontiff, when in poffeffion of their perfonal liberties, has always been denied by perfons moft competent to anfwer for their fentiments. Does it then become ine Irish Roman Catholics to raise difficulties on this head ?-Does it become their titular bifhops, after all that has paffed on this fubject, to object? They ought to recollect that their church,

being a ftrictly papal church, peculiarly warrants the ftate infuch a demand. The Roman Catholic Church of Ireland, from caufes already alluded to, never has vindicated its own liberties against the See of Rome, it has no Concordat, it has no domeftic rights exprefsly fecured. The Pope has, on many occafions, rejected the recommendations of their bishops to vacant Sees, and fubftituted direct nominations from himfelf in their room. In fhort, it may be afferted, founding their difcipline and church government principally on the canons of the council of Trent, a council which pointedly faved to the See of Rome all its rights and privileges, in the moft extended and objectionable fenfe, and which has never been acknowledged, in points of difcipline, by the Gallican and other free churches, that the Irish church is at this day one of the moft dependent in Europe, and that in which the power of the Pope has the moft unqualified fway." P. 24.

If the foregoing representation be accurate, which is fully confirmed by the fpeech reviewed in the preceding article, it ought to make an end, for the prefent at least, of what is called "the Ro-, man Catholic Question."

ART. 22.

DIVINITY.

The Accomplishment of Prophecy, in the Character and Conduct of Jefus Chrift. From the impreffive Treatise on the Truth of the Chriftian Religion. By James Abbadie, D. D. formerly Dean of Killaloe. 12mo. 267 pp. 4s. Rivingtons.

1810.

Few books have been more highly or more justly commended than the treatife of Abbadie, on the Truth of the Chriftian Religion. It appeared first in 1684, and has gone through at least feven Editions, in the original French. It was tranflated into English by Henry Luffan, of New College, Oxford, in two volumes, which appeared in 1694 and 1698.

The prefent publication is, with great judgement, extracted from that part of the work which is moft ftriking and most important; where the author treats of the Meffiahfhip of Jefus Chrift, and the proofs relating to it. The Original is divided into two principal parts, and fubdivided into fections and chapters. Part I. contains four fections: 1. On the Existence of God; 2. On the Truth and Neceffity of Religion in general; 3. On the Truth of the Jewish Religion; 4. On the Means fupplied by the Jewish Revelation to eftablish the Truth of the Chriftian Religion. In this fourth part, the prefent publication begins; namely, from the fifth chapter, which treats on the calling of the Gentiles, and the predictions of Christ as the Mesfiah. Part II, of the Original, under.akes to eftablish the Christian Religion on its own proofs, and it contains alfo four fections: 1. Proofs drawn from the teftimony of those who firft published it; 2. Proofs drawn from the Scriptures of the New Teftament; 3. Attempt to path the proofs from fact and fenti- . ment to a degree of demonstration; 4. Proofs drawn from the

nature,

nature and properties of Chriftianity itfelf. From this part the prefent editor has felected only three chapters, taken out of the fecond fection; these are, ch. 6. Examination of the facts related in the Gofpels, to fee whether they are capable of illufion or impofture; 7. On the Holinefs of the Life of Chrift; 8. On his Prophecies. By this mode of selection, a very useful treatise is formed, confifting of thirteen chapters and prefenting to the reader abundant proofs of the truth of Christianity, without going into too extenfive and fatiguing a difenfion. The felection is excellent in itself; fhould it revive the knowledge and the fame of the original work, it will render a more extenfive fervice. Abbadie added a third part, on the Divinity of our Sa viour, against the Socinians; which forms a third volume in the French editions of his book.

The prefent Editor has occafionally corrected the language of the old translation; and has fubjoined a few judicious notes, in which the remarks of Bonnet and others are introduced. The notes of Seigneux de Correvon, on Addifon's Evidences are alfo cited; the tranflation of which, by the late Dr. Purdy, deferves to be made known to every English reader. A chronological table is fubjoined, from "Collyer's facred Interpreter." We much commend, and recommend the publication.

ART. 23. Thoughts on Reafon and Revelation, particularly the Revelation of the Scriptures. By Jofeph Gurney Bevan. Second Edition. 8vo. pp. 23. Arch.

That this very fenfible and well-written pamphlet should pafs through two editions, will not appear furprising to those who fhall read it with the attention which it merits. But how we fhould have omitted it fo long, is furprifing even to ourselves. The fubjects are Reafon, Revelation, Infidelity, the Scriptures, Faith and Experience. On thefe fubjects we have the author's thoughts given, in the manner of which the fubjoined extract is a fpecimen.

§. 1. Before any book profeffing to relate facts, can be intitled to credit, its authenticity and veracity must be established. Now there is no book in the world of equal age, of which the authenticity is established upon firmer ground than the New Teftament fo that if a fceptic, unable to withstand the arguments which it affords in favour of Chriftianity, fhould be difpofed to reject it, he muft be driven to the abfurdity of rejecting all the hiftorians of the fame age; a piece of folly which would difgrace a fchoolboy.

"The profane authors, as they are called, though now held in general and deferved credit; and their narratives relied on, as the beft fource of information concerning their refpective countries and governments; fuffered, during the decay of learning in the middle ages of Chriftianity, a temporary eclipfe: but the facred writings, before, during, and fince the fame period, have been un

Tt3

inter.