as one specimen of" our ignorance in asking" and we cannot but intreat the author, if his style is to be the subject of his prayers, to pray for admission into any other school than that in which he has hitherto studied. What is designed by the "gravest schools of ancient learning," it is impossible to say. If Athens and Rome are designed, we must say that they are not the best seminaries for learning English. If Oxford and Cambridge are designed by this sonorous periphrasis, we beg no future pupil to these almæ matres 80 to presume upon the sanction of the reverend critic, as to conclude that the aged matrons keep no rods in pickle for such delinquencies, in arrangement, collocation, and punctuation, as those which this sermon contains. It will be seen, however, in our future extracts, that this discourse furnishes some specimens of spirited and vigorous composition. We come next to consider the principles of the sermon. It is designed to shew "the immense effect which the character of the teacher has in recommending his doctrine." What doctrines, indeed, he is to recommend by his conduct, Mr. Smith does not instruct us; but the conduct which is thus to give a passport to whatever theology he may teach, is fully detailed. This archetype of ministerial excellence is chiefly exhibited in two points of view,--as a politician and a moralist. The discourse is partly didactic, and partly illustrative. Mr. Smith in one paragraph teaches us what a minister should be; and in the next tells what he is himself. So that, after the manner of the lecture room, the principles of the science are first taught, and then ecce homo, Mr. Smith himself in canonicals is exhibited in illustration of them. Let us then proceed to examine this reverend gentleman, in his double character of politician and moralist. The political sentiments of the author are by no means disguised; and as we are persuaded he would rather tell his own story, and advocate his own cause, than entrust them to our hands, we shall let him speak for himself. After a little well-merited commendation of our church, he adds this qualifying note: A "From these praises of the Church are to be excepted the persecuting laws which have been unfortunately ingrafted upon it. Laws which intended for the security of the Church, have no other effect than to render her enemies active, angry, and united. mere conviction that their tenets are right, will hardly keep a set of men in one sect for any length of time: they must rally round Church; or round opinion, and a sense of opinion, wealth, and power, as in our oppression, as the dissenters do: and it is this last rallying point which I wish to take away. For the catholic cause, no reasonable man can doubt but that the great question of religious liberty which it involves will ultimately be carried, though, of course, every evasion, and subterfuge will first be resorted to, in order to avoid swallowing the bitter pill of justice. To its complete success I profess myself a very sincere friend, and hope, for innumerable reasons, that those statesmen who have hitherto been its advocates, will not now abandon it. If the catholics are given up, the distrust in all public men will become universal; the Irish, exasperated beyond reconciliation, will fling themselves into the arms of France; and the very men who have thus sacrificed their duty to their interest, will be sure, after they have lost the palladium of integrity, to be insulted by the court, and to be dismissed. I know of no misfortune so great,, as that the few politi cians who have a character to lose, should leave the people wholly without leaders; forfeit it upon the present occasion; it would and giving them up to the artifices, and misrepresentations of Jacobins, produce a mischief, in the present state of affairs, utterly incalculable. In the long and melancholy struggle which awaits us, it will hereafter be worth any price that the country should believe it contains a set of men who prefer their principles to their places: none but such men will ever be able to keep down the fatal clamors for peace which will soon arise, or inspire the people with virtuous patience under all the privations, and miseries which the state of the world is about to impose upon them. At a certain pressure of payment, and inconvenience, the liar, the sycophant, and the fine speaker, lose their authority with the multitude; when ruin stares them in the face, all men clamour for honesty, and wisdom in the public counsels; and soon abandon the defence of a country where they are not to be found. While I am touching upon this point, I cannot help lamenting that the catholics have lately put themselves so much in the wrong, by refusing to the crown a veto on the appointment of bishops. They should be compelled, after all civil privileges have been granted to them, to transmit their episcopal lists to the crown and if they continued any one upon them, to whom pointed objections were made, a power should be lodged somewhere or other of sending that man out of the country. I care very little for the extravagance of a few silly, and disaffected people among the catholics, because a little good sense, and firmness will soon put this down: but when five million of men ask what they are fairly entitled to, and cannot get it, I confess they are to me an object of great terror. If that be any alleviation of their wrongs, they have, at least, the satisfaction of beholding the universal contempt into which that set of politicians have fallen; who gained power by exciting the most hurrid passions of our nature for their oppression; and who, after ruining every thing by their ignorance, and temerity, are compelled to beg assistance, though in vain, of the very men whom they supplanted by their wickedness." pp. 20-22. To this is subjoined another note: "While the late scandalous clamours against the Catholics were raging from one end of the kingdom to the other, there were, I believe, only two clergymen of the Church of England who opposed it--the Bishop of Norwich and Dr. Knox." p. 22. ment; that those ministers who in any stage of the discussion resisted the catholic claims, and insisted upon the perils of emancipation, are to be considered as men who gained power by exciting the most horrid passions of our nature; as men who, "after ruining every thing by their ignorance and temerity, are compelled to beg assistance, though in vain, of the very men whom they supplanted by their wickedness;" that, finally, the whole body of the Church of England, with the exception of two (the author designs us to read three individuals) deserve the heaviest censure for their passive acquiescence in the popular clamour against the pretensions of the catholics. On several of these points we shall make a few remarks. In the first place, we think it too broadly assumed by the advocates of the catholic question, that they have all the equity as well as policy, on their side, and that their antagonists can defend themselves on neither ground. - In conducting this attack upon the anti-emancipators, the injustice of the first conquest of Ireland is sometimes urged against them;-a question into which it seems very unnecessary to enter, and which certainly ought to be allowed no influence in deciding what ought to be the line of our present policy towards Ireland; while many, who do not question the justice of our original conquest of Ireland, yet bring heavy charges against the laws by which we have governed our conquest: and though the repeal, or mitigation, of many of these laws during the present reign leaves less scope for attack, yet our continuing to connect certain political disabilities with the peculiar religious sentiments of the catholics is deemed sufficient ground for philippics such as that of the Reverend Gentleman which we have quoted. From these notes we gather that the author is a warm advocate for catholic emancipation, as it is usually but invidiously called;--that, even with the refusal of a veto to the King upon the appointment of bishops hanging over our heads, he would grant this emancipation; that, in spite of the contumacious spirit displayed by the catholics as to the veto, and their abjuration of their first principles, as stated by their advocates in both Houses of Parliament, these advocates ought still to uphold their claims:-that when the emancipation is granted, It is unjust, say they, to make any it will be right to thrust the veto sentiment in religion a bar to poli upon them on pain of banish- tical rank and power.-Nowi hould be remembered how much is comprehended in the term "religious sentiment." The religious sentiments of the Jesuits obliged them to sacrifice every other interest to that of their order: the religious sentiments of the great body of the catholics authorized them, at one period at least, to keep no faith with heretics: the religious senti ments of Ravilliac compelled him to stab one king: the religious sentiments of the adherents of Cromwell compelled them to behead another. Now it is plain, that, were such religious sentiments as these avowed, they would be fairly considered as involving or creating political disability. It would be deemed just to expel the Ravilliacs and Cromwellites from the "gardes du corps" of his Majesty; and to banish such persons also from the cabinet. Few would deny, that what fairly constituted a claim to Bedlam and Newgate, constituted also a disqualification for the seats of power and dignity. That religious sentiments therefore may create political disabilities, is undeniable; and the question therefore, as before, becomes not an abstract question, but a question of circumstances. Are the relative circumstances, then, of our catholic subjects such as to justify the nation in imposing political disabilities upon them? Till this point is ascertained, it is unfair to raise the hue and cry of injustice against what it is now the fashion to call the No-Popery Party. The above remark, it will be seen, applies to governments of every kind. But it is to be observed, that disqualifications are of the very essence of a free government. They are the ramparts which it places to the ingress of whatever it conceives hostile to the interests of the constitution. They are the weights by which it balances an undue preponderance of power in every part of the political machine. Our own government is fortified by a succession of such checks and guards; and there is not an individual, from the sovereign downwards, who is not fettered by them, either in the approach to power or in the exercise of it. Now this circumstance also should be received in apology for the opponents of emancipation. And those particularly, who justify every ebullition of popular spirit as in itself the "nurse of manly sentiment," and the offspring of a salu. tary jealousy of all encroachment on the constitution, should be the last to condemn a barrier of a different kind, interposed between the constitution in church and state and its supposed enemies. They should not indiscriminately applaud jealousy in one quarter, and indiscriminately condemn it in another, They should be ready to extend forgiveness at least, to those who, watching with more than parental tenderness over the constitution of their country, may possibly err by undue anxiety and by excess of caution.-We do not presume to decide whether the anti-catholics, under present circumstances, have or have not invested the catholic petitions, and the clamour of their advocates, with imaginary terrors; but of this we are persuaded, that, in many instances, their offence is the offence of patriots; of men who mean well and wish to deserve well of their country. Upon the whole, then, we conceive that the language of the reverend writer, in which he charges the supporters of the Crown in this great measure with designedly "exciting the worst passions of mankind, and supplanting their predecessors by their wickedness," is altogether indefensible; and we cannot but entreat him to remember, what he must know by a succession of experiments, that men are not unprincipled meerly because they differ from him in opinion. The question of justice being dismissed, that of policy comes next into review. Now it must be admitted that five millions of men asking a favour are very formidable petitioners; that any measure, in the present critical circumstances of Europe, tending to detach from the Crown any portion of its subjects, is sincerely to be deprecated; that in our present emergency it is of high importance to set every wheel of the political machine in free and easy motion, to rally every individual round the national standard, to give them such a stake and such privileges in their country, as may constitute her interest and well-being their own. But whilst the emancipators have harangued with vigour and feeling upon these popular topics, they have left several counter considerations wholly untouched, which we shall feel it our duty to notice. The first point which deserves to be noticed, is the unfair way in which perhaps both parties, but more particularly one, have reasoned upon this question. Each party has been more or less content to display the perils consequent upon the scheme of the other; but neither has honestly adverted to those evils which are consequent upon its own scheme. Now it ought to have been considered, that the government of five millions of men of an opposite religion could not but be encumbered with difficulties and dangers. Adopt which principle of government you will; emancipate or not; while a protestant king wears the crown of Ireland it will be, in some measure, a crown of thorns. The emancipators have, we think, especially failed upon this point. They have deemed it sufficient to display the alarming results of that scheme of policy pursued by their adversaries. Their adversaries admit many of these consequences, but ask, Can you point out any scheme, in the prosecution of which these, or worse, consequences will not follow?' Another circumstance which the emancipators have not sufficiently weighed, in estimating the policy of pressing their cause at this peculiar crisis, is, the avowed determination of the present ruler of Great Britain. If indeed it be a serious matter to refuse the petition of five millions of people, it is no less serious to force from the monarch a concession, esteemed nothing short of the violation of that oath to which he owes the crowns of three kingdoms. Some of the most unconsti tutional abuses in the parliamentary representation are winked at by these very politicians, because they keep the powers of the state from coming to measures of open hostility. It is deemed eligible that members to a large amount should be sent to parliament, not by the voice of the people, but by the purses of the government and the nobility, lest the royal veto should be pronounced upon any measures decreed by the two houses of parliament. But is this principle to operate only to shelter abuses, and not to silence clamour or prevent collisions? Must these petitions be forced up the steps of the throne, though the consequences of the measure be to arm against each other the distinct powersofthe commonwealth? But, finally, there is one subject, of supreme importance, which has been altogether overlooked by the emancipators; and that is, the influence of the measure upon the interests of true religion. It has been tacitly assumed, by a large proportion of those who urged that side of the question, and too much also by others, that it is a matter almost of indifference to the best interests of mankind, whether Protestantism or Roman-Catholicism prevails. Some religion, indeed, is thought eligible for the controul of the multitude; but one modification of Christianity, it is conceived, will provide as good a state tool as another. But surely it is neither good nor politic to forget the vast interval between the two systems; that the one has been the curse, and that the other is the choicest blessing, of society. For ourselves, we are indeed shocked to assist in fixing a stigma upon any modification of Christianity. We tremble at the remotest approximation in our own opinions to the spirit of persecution. We are unfeignedly diffident of in any degree opposing our sentiments to those of some of the greatest politicians of 1 the day. But we feel it necessary somewhat to qualify the bitterness of their charges; to question the fairness of their proceedings; to justify those who, fixing their eyes upon those monuments of desolation which popery has erected in almost every quarter of the globe, refuse to give any national sanction or as sistance to so detestable a system.We admit that there is a difference between mitigating the restrictions upon popery, and lending it direct assistance; between lowering its fines, and giving a bounty for its increase: but, still, in whatever degree men conceive emancipation favourable to the progress of this spurious form of Christianity, we cannot wonder that those who consult for the happiness of the species shrink from the measure. It is not altogether because, in reverting to the scenes of other ages, we see the governments of popery "rolled in blood," and that blood the blood of the saints; for the spirit of tyranny was then universal, and whoever had power abused it. But it is because wherever the seed of popery is cast into the soil, virtue and happiness are checked in the growth. It is because whatever country has been "swept and garnished" for the reception of popery, into what ever country she has fully "entered," "the last state of that" country has become "worse than the first." It is because Spain, and Italy, and Portugal, in which she reigned supreme, have almost vanished from the mass of kingdoms. It is because if Ireland continues a papal country, she can never be free, enlightened, and happy. These considerations might have been urged at any period in justification of the anti-emancipators: but under existing circumstances there is far more to be said. In a late debate in parliament, and in a letter recently published, the two great champions of catholic emancipation have avowed their design not to urge the question unless it be qualified by the exercise of the royal veto on the appointment of catholic bishops and by other important checks. What then, we would ask, becomes of their clamour against the present ministers as to this particular question? These last, with the great mass of their countrymen, believed, and the event has justified them, that the veto would never be conceded by the catholics. They therefore only led the way in opposing a measure which all the more moderate emancipators now concur in opposing. It would appear then that there is now little practical difference in the opinions of the present ministers and their opponents upon this question. As to the comparative merit of the two, there is this distinction; that the one resisted where resistance was profitable; and the other began to resist only where (but for the conduct of their opponents) resistance would have been useless if not ruinous. The reverend writer of the sermon before us, indeed, gored, it would seem, by the horns of this dilemma, clears himself from them by an "immense" jerk, and presents himself before the public in a character distinct from his former political friends. He thinks, perhaps, that, as among the Jews, the prophetical is part of the clerical character; or that, as among the catholics, the church is infallible: he therefore will not allow that he did not foresee this negation of the veto, or that his friends ought to be at all embarrassed by it. The catholics," says he, should be compelled, after all civil privileges have been conferred upon them, to transmit their episcopal lists; and if they continued any one upon them, to whom pointed objections were made, a power should be lodged somewhere or other of sending that man out of the country.", (page 21). Now this plan we must affirm to be either absurd, or something worse.-Does the author mean to offer the catholics emancipation, on the condition of their conceding the veto? They have told us already, |