THE DUTIES OF PROTESTANTS WITH

REGARD TO POPERY.

LETTER I.

THE question, "Is Popery on the increase?" is often proposed. The answer varies with the politico-religious creed of the parties making it; the liberal invariably arguing that it is not unnaturally increasing, and the adherent of old English principles as firmly maintaining that its advances are fearfully rapid, and equally dangerous.

Another question of equal importance demands the serious consideration of all parties interested, viz., What are the sentiments of the different classes, constituting the religious world, and the body politic ?-or in other words, What is now the hue, tone, aud gauge of the morale of the question regarding Popery?

A revolution of sentiment always precedes any great external changes in either religious or civil society. If the same feeling prevails now, as existed when the Stuart race was driven from the throne, because of their adherence to Popery, and the Brunswick dynasty was founded on purely Protestant principles; if the same indomitable resolution to spurn a foreign, priestly, and tyrannous dominion exists, which led to the affirmation of the nationality of the English Church, and laid her foundations in principles eternally hostile to the claims of the Papacy; and if the same spirit predominates amongst Nonconformists, which led them to dissent from the Episcopal Church, because it did not remove far enough from Rome; then in the prevalency of this pure, national, and Protestant spirit, the country is safe, and may bid defiance to the new crusade of Popery against her noble bulwarks of freedom and religion.

The supreme importance of a living Protestant feeling, sufficiently deep, strong, and vigorous, to resist the encroachments of the enemy, is now most apparent; because it is evidently the only power, next to the truth, on which we have to rely. The time of penal enactments has passed away. The Popish Priest is no longer a recusant in law, and the mass-house a proscribed temple of idolatry. Popery has been admitted into the precincts of Parlia

A

ment, and invested with the rights of legislation; the door is open to high military, civil, and judicial employments; and in all respects, as a religious system, it is now more than tolerated, it is fostered and endowed.

The policy of the great measure of Emancipation is not now under discussion, but it will be recollected by the reader, that on the removal of legal safeguards, moral ones were confidently resorted to, as being sufficient. Ön a prima facie view of the enactments of that period, it is most evident, that it was the intention of the legislature to maintain the ascendancy of the Protestant religion, as by law established. Two sources of moral influence were then depended upon as the basis of security. First-the improved and altered state of the Romanists themselves; and secondly, the enlightened, sound, and religious mind of the British people.

of

It had long been held by all Protestant writers and legislators, that the well known dogma of the Romish Church, "that faith was not to be kept with heretics," still constituted an integral part of the creed of all Papists, and that consequently they could not be bound by an oath. This many their writers flatly denied. Evidence was taken on the question, by one or more committees of Parliament; the sentiment was indignantly repelled; and it was affirmed again and again that respect to the sanctity of an oath kept the proscribed and maligned people from the honours and emoluments of power; for had they not been bound by a scrupulous regard to religion and truth, it was only necessary for them to forswear themselves, and they would be at liberty to enjoy them all.

Trusting to these representations and promises, the legislature, so far as the Papists were concerned,relied on their conscientiousness, sense of honour, religious feeling, and improved morality, and placed the stability of our Protestant institutions on the sacredness of an oath. Whether this moral obligation, this solemn appeal to God, and this conventional and final arbitration of all differences betwixt man and man, has proved sufficient to bind the consciences of the disciples of the Church of Rome, we shall soon see. One of two things is certain, either that the authors of the emancipation measure did honestly and seriously intend to bind the consciences of Romanists to abstain from all efforts to injure the Protestant Church; or, otherwise, proposed the oath as a mere trap and expedient to beguile the British public into their measure. Some suspicion as to their sincerity, indeed, arises out of their present silence. The authors of the measure have lived to see its operation. The act is not an old, antiquated piece of legislation, the meaning of which is obscure, and only dimly to be guessed and deciphered by the learned in the law. Sir Robert Peel still lives. He can tell the world, in his place in Parliament, which of the alternatives above stated is the true one. If he intended the oath in question to operate so as to prevent Popish members from taking part, by vote or otherwise, in injuring the Protestant Church, how is it that he does not vindicate his own measure? This very oath was relied upon as the security of the Protestant Church, and yet, when the Deity is insulted the holy bible profaned, and an act of Parliament, of which that Right Hon. gentleman is the author is torn to the winds, in his presence, not a word is uttered! Why, if this solemn appeal to the Gospels means any thing but a mockery, was the Bishop of Exeter left almost alone in his proposition on this subject? Though his facts, his reasoning, and his eloquence remained unanswered, and unanswerable, yet his motion was left to fall to the

ground. When will statesmen learn that an eternal barrier exists between truth and falsehood, and that the only solid foundation of useful legislation and personal honour is, an uniform and inflexible adherence to the one, and avoidance of the other? To avert a pressing difficulty, it was thought expedient, by those who in their judgments and consciences considered emancipation to be wrong, to concede that measure. To avoid some other inconvenience, it is now thought expedient to abandon the only security for Protestantism proposed by that measure. When and where is this expediency to stop? There is now a mighty pressure on the Irish Church: will it be deemed expedient to leave her to her fate? An impartial spectator would conclude that, if it was thought necessary to abandon the ramparts on which it was originally intended to fight the battles of Protestantism, viz., the Emancipation Act, it was also intended to give up the citadel. If there is meaning in words, and such a thing as truth in the world, it was intended by that act to guard our Protestantism against the aggressions of Popish cupidity by the oath inserted. Why is not the question tried on this ground? Why allow the question, regarding the spoliation of the Church, to be directly decided by its enemies? Why not first determine who are the lawful jurors to give the verdict?

It is argued, by the Irish members, that the Protestant interpretation of the oath is an abridgement of their freedom as legislators. No doubt it is, and so every honest man in the world would consider it to be intended. Is there any thing extraordinary in this? It has long been a settled constitutional principle that the Protestant form of Christianity shall be the established religion of the land, whilst, at the same time, Popery is in all respects, excluded from that high eminence. Are not all our institutions settled on this foundation? Our gracious Queen holds her right to the throne on this tenure. She is not at liberty on the question of religion. Her ancestors accepted the Crown of these realms on the stipulated condition, that they should profess and sacredly maintain the Protestant faith. If the princes of the Brunswick line choose to change their faith, and go over to Rome, they are bound, on their solemn oath, to renounce all claim to the throne of these realms. The Stuart race, if any of them are living, are unquestionably the heirs to the British Crown, in case that Crown is worn in subserviency to his Holiness the Pope. At the settlement of the question, at the period of the Revolution, it was the resolute purpose of the English nation that the throne of this country should not be held as a fief of Rome, but rest on a national basis of independence. The noble spirits of those days spurned with resolute indignation the notion of being governed by the puppets of a priestly despotism, misnamed Kings of Great Britain. They knew by the experience of all ages that their civil freedom must perish, their dearest rights be invaded, and their property drained to support, in pampered pride, a herd of political priests, who only made religion the pretext of earthly power and grandeur; and they came to the resolution that they would only be governed by a Sovereign, who would repudiate the dominion of this foreign despotism, and respect the nationality of the country in her religious, as well as civil rights.

Here then we have the principle in question most clearly defined. It is of the essence of the British constitution to preserve Protestantism as the religion of the nation. The highest functionary of the State, we see, holds her right on this express condition of being, personally, a professor of the

Protestant faith, while she also abjures Popery, and swears fealty to the altars of the Protestant Church. Whilst the genius of the constitution thus guarded the throne against Popish intruders, up to the period of the Relief Bill, it did the same with the other two estates. That measure was of the nature of a concession; but in order to preserve the Protestant religion in 'security, it was required, on oath, that the Popish members of Parliament should exercise no power inimical to the faith and property of the national religion. The following is the oath taken by Popish members;—

"I do swear, that I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws; and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by law within this realm; and I do solemnly swear, that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am, or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion, or Protestant Government in this kingdom; and I do solemnly, in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever."

How has this provision of the law been respected by the Romanists themselves, and in what spirit and manner has the enactment been upheld by the Parliament and the nation? In answer to the first branch of the question, it is sufficient to state, that every measure, which has had for its object the spoliation of the Protestant Church, has received the advocacy and votes of nearly all the Popish members. The celebrated appropriation measure, having for its purpose the robbery of the Irish Church, has ever been the foster child of O'Connell and his brother Papists. The oath they had taken never stood in their way for a moment. From the period of their entrance into Parliament to this day, they have not failed to employ their utmost energies to render abortive every effort to settle the law of Tithes; and to render their exertions successful, the recess of every session has been employed in getting up an agitation.

These movements of the popular mind have not been in vain. The law has been interdicted in the hands of the judges. The officers of justice, in the execution of their duties, have been assailed, brutally beaten, and in many cases massacred on the spot. The unoffending ministers of religion have been deprived of their rights, their families reduced to beggary, and driven from their houses; while great numbers of their flocks have perished by the brutal hand of the assassin. In addition to all that has already been done, the Papists now make no secret of their future plan of operations. They tell us plainly that their object is the restoration of their corrupt and tyrannic Church to a state of ascendancy, not only in Ireland, but also in England. Facts agree to this threat, and this country is the selected theatre in which Popery, in these modern times, is destined to try her strength. Her avowal is no empty and bombastic boast. The proclamation of her claims, the extent of her plans, the anticipation of her triumphs, are boldly proclaimed, and an agency in Parliament, and a Jesuitical priesthood throughout the country, are seen to operate with vast ability, undying zeal, and determined perseverance on the plan laid down.

All this is taking place, let it be recollected, in despite of the oath of the parties. Away, then, with the childish notion that the improved state of Popery will be a safeguard of our Protestant institutions and liberties. We have here a demonstration "clear as truth of Holy Writ," that faith is not kept with heretics. Can the gentlemanly character, the elevated position, the legislative functions, the great numbers, and the notoriety and audacity of this perjury, alter the moral aspect of the evil? Truth is no respecter of persons. The boundary line betwixt good and evil is not marked out by a conventional compact. Resolute defiance of all the human enactments embodying Divine truth, cannot annihilate the truth so embodied. The rampant swearing on the part of the Popish members, that they will do nothing to impair the Protestant Church, as they enter the doors of Parliament, when in truth they immediately take measures to destroy it, though supported by a thousand subtle evasions, cannot lose its aspect of profanity and perjury in the sight of man, or be annulled in its obligations before the throne of God. On the evidence of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics and laymen, before Committees of Parliament; the petitions for the redress of grievances; the published opinions and avowals of persons in authority; a kind of compact, tacit, and well understood by both parties; the letters of Mr. Eneas O'Donnell, himself a Papist, and Secretary of the Catholic Association; as well as from the speeches of the gentlemen who conceded Catholic Emancipation,-it is most clear and certain, that the oath propounded to Romanist members was intended to bind them from taking any measures in their legislative capacity against the Protestant Church; and in fact, to place the security of that Church, so far as the Papists are concerned, on the sanctity of this oath.

How dreadful the scene opened to our view by this violation of so sacred an engagement! It indicates much more than a total disregard of the rights of the Protestant people of this country; though that is, of itself, sufficiently heinous. To deceive a large community of men, by glozing professions, hypocritical pretences, a seeming candour, a false and affected liberality, and

a thousand avowals that the obnoxious tenets of their Church were not understood in a vulgar, but a refined and modernized sense; and then for the same men to falsify the whole, is sufficiently base. Yet this is not the worst portion of the case. It argues an utter destitution of moral principle. To speak of that rectitude, honour, benevolence, and truth, which originate in the influence of religion, would in this place be beside the mark: but surely we have a right to expect the natural and conventional virtues to be respected. But instead of even this poor and sapless virtue, we are presented with a state of moral turpitude, which only the Papacy, with its complicated machinery of evil, could produce on the susceptible mind of fallen man.

We are, in this instance of wickedness, presented with the shocking aspect of the acknowledged leaders of the majority of a nation violating the most solemn engagements, and supported and countenanced in the crime by their united suffrages. "The evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit;" and it is impossible to avoid the conviction that the moral feelings of the whole body of Papists are most awfully depraved; how otherwise could they unite to support and vindicate a known, palpable, and open falsehood?

But the whole is in perfect keeping with the dogmas of their Church. In all this they are treating with a nation considered by them as heretics; and