eight Considerations, it is probable the attempt may be made, in an Appendix to these pages, at the earliest opportunity: yet I am aware, that, in a Religious view of this great question, much greater caution becomes necessary than was so in a Political view of it. In politics, I cared not for being compelled to sacrifice the rhetorical advantages which are inevitably sacrificed by the system of answering studied queries; although, even then, I would much rather have stated my own case in my own way, brought forward my own facts, and marshalled my own arguments. Respondents can only shape their course by the previous question; and are not at liberty to arrange their own matter to the best advantage of their cause, but must arrange it in the order which the querist has chosen as most likely to promote his contrary conclusion: in the particular case now before me, the queries are so put, that much care will be requisite to avoid an irreverent and contentious tone. I have here now endeavoured to build up my own case: and if that be done, it is a full and fair answer to Mr. Davison: and while it is both full and fair, it is also a shorter system of answer, looks less like a party advocate, and more like an impartial inquirer; and is free from those provocations, of which I have been sensible, while pursuing an opposite system in thus specifically replying to his Political Considerations. On the other hand, a detailed reply to each particular question may be more satisfactory to general readers, and so may yet be given.

The same tract of country which a mountaineer would pronounce level, if no specific purpose were in view, he would, if consulted as an engineer, pronounce too hilly for a projected canal. It was much my wish, and seemed more my place, to consider the Popish claims in a Political and Constitutional view: and there are therefore, on many of these pages, printed before I heard of Mr. Davison's New Considerations, passages which, unless explained, imply more than they were intended to imply. On pages 5 and 7 and 14 it is clearly stated, that, upon political grounds, political power should not be conceded to Papists; and

that an undivided allegiance might be insisted upon, by those who yet, at the time they were insisting upon it, waved, for the occasion, all direct argument from religion, and chose to substantiate their inference on grounds of policy. The second sentence cited on page 15 should have run; and, had I entertained, when writing it, any notion of arguing the question on Religious grounds, assuredly would have run: "What is doubly miscalled Catholic Emancipation is not a question which cannot be decided without direct reference to Religion; and should not be represented as untenable in Politics, and only capable of decision by an immediate appeal to the Bible, as directly condemning the errors of Popery." It is my belief, that if Papists were as good Christians as Protestants, a justifiable and true policy should exclude them from our Legislature: and that as they are not, upon their own shewing, as good Christians as Protestants, but decline from the precepts of Christ, on that ground it becomes our duty, as Christians, to prefer Protestants in our Legislature, under the words of the New Testament and the analogies of the Old Testament.

The truth seems to be, that men of very different minds on other things have now agreed in one thing, to make a complete and most dangerous division between sense and conscience: each party follows but one of these guides: and it is no wonder that they are often just near enough in sight of each other to hear indistinctly their mutual recrimination that they are going wrong. This however might easily be borne, if either side would hold in mind, that it is safe travelling on both these ways, let us choose for the present whichever guide we may, provided we do not think it a duty to rail at the other guide: nay, under this reasonable restriction, so harmonious are the two, that we may place ourselves for the time and occasion principally under the one; and yet the other may love to be with us, and be content, in a subordinate character, to aid and sanction us in our In plain terms, the question is for any given disputants, a religious one, when they choose to look at it in that light it is

course.

the Protestant Religion, which hitherto is believed among us to be true, granting to every subject liberty of conscience and worship and yet let it leave entire freedom of debate to those of a different and most contrary opinion; that our Protestant faith, protected while it is supposed to be true, may never be supposed to be true merely because it is protected. In this way, there will be principle, without positiveness or a shadow of persecution; truth will be left to make good its own cause, which it will never fail to do; and yet conscience all the while will be steady to those points whereunto we have already attained, leaving the road wide open to correction and improvement. In this way alone the profession of religion will be sustained without bigotry, and inquiry encouraged without scepticism. This seems to me the genuine influence of Christianity on politics. Would that our Statesmen might see what must be called the irreligiousness of yielding up power into the hands of those, who would not only mar the truth, as we possess it at present, but do their utmost, at least as far as their own individual example and efforts might reach, to discountenance and obscure it more and more! It takes but little to discolour the clearest fountain at its gushing forth, and so to trouble the whole stream: and when once the whole effect of our Government is broken, to the nation at large, and to the world, the pitcher at the fountain-head is broken, and nothing but secret brooks of the living water will be left in the land. There may be separate Protestants connected with it, but the Government itself, our long-loved Constitution, will be no more Protestant. Many individual traits and touches of Divinity are still to be seen, even in fallen man: but Paradise is destroyed; the image of His Maker is gone. It would be wrong to press the Gospel unduly into the service of politics; but, with a spirit far different from irreverence, we may wisely hearken after certain whispers of worldly wisdom there, and thankfully apply them to temporal purposes. It was not said, in the first instance, to any particular order of things, though it was immediately applied to

one particular case, "A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." The maxim was declared to be universal by the Saviour of Mankind himself; and he can know but little of mankind, who does not perceive that it rests on universal and infallible principles. The application of it to our own great question, now at issue, is obvious; and its force cannot be distinctly met or fairly warded off. It is Wisdom, in the highest and Scriptural sense, to attend to the conscientious determinations even of our own minds: but to act against these, when they have become sanctioned by express testimony from God, will be found without doubt what the same authority has branded under the emphatic name of Folly.

It is one of the most striking excellencies of Christianity, that vastly as it refines and elevates our notions, and unboundedly almost as it enlarges our knowledge through faith, yet no part of it is to be found that is not calculated to have a present and practical influence over our lives. It looks after us, and follows us in all our doings; and it is required that all things we do be done with a view to it. As it is meant to reach us everywhere, itself also is reached and affected by whatever we do. The Spirit of Prophecy has cautioned us strongly and frequently against the pollution that will attach to those who suffer themselves to be united with an anti-christian or idolatrous Church. If such an union as this be not effected by granting the Papists their present demands, there is an approximation to such an union; and we should draw back from it, not because we have not interests in common with Papists, but because we cannot serve and promote them upon common principles. In the nature of things, we cannot be bettered by them in a degree at all equal to what we lose. If they profit us in some inferior concerns, they insensibly harm and spoil those which are the highest and best. It can never be desirable to fix upon the Papists harder names than they deserve: but we know well enough what Churches, encouraging practices like theirs, have been called by the Holy Spirit; and we are anxious to learn

from themselves, in an authorised form, that those epithets and awful sayings do not apply to them now. We wait in Christian hope, but in Christian wisdom and duty we must wait, to have this clearly made out, to vindicate us before God: and until this is made out, we are left at our peril, to tamper with Scripture, or to obey God rather than man. We can have no doubt which of these is Religion; and as little, if we lay these things to heart, that, under existing circumstances, it is still a religious duty to exclude Papists from power over a Protestant Constitution, like our own. Change, in the sense of growth, is a safe and happy thing but for this, it must be blessed with rain from Heaven, and with the light of God's favour: it must proceed according to known principles, and by safe degrees: it must in all cases be shewn advisable on sound reasoning, before it can be adopted. Otherwise, it is an unblessed work, and superscribed with a sacred warning against it: "My Son, fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change."

: