lieve, scarcely one theoretically, admit the Pope's infallibility. They obey him when it suits them; and when it suits them better they make war upon him, and take him prisoner. The Irish Catholics have rejected his authority twice, pointedly, on this very question. A legislator, to be sure, who should "hold it as a matter of "divine faith,"* must create a convulsion in the state; unless indeed he should happen to fall into the hands of that composing gentleman Mr. John Ketch in the attempt.

DANGER IV. From the Doctrine of exclusive Salvation.

In discussing this danger, you really do, for the first time in your book, venture on a pretty direct appeal to a practical point in the Catholic question. I suppose you think that you have got a very strong case; and, that I may not misrepresent you, I must quote you at some length. "Now, Sir, our complaint "against the Church of Rome is, not that it "excludes from salvation those who impugn "doctrines which it thinks fundamental, but that "it holds as fundamental one particular doctrine, "which requires the belief, under pain of dam"nation, of every thing else whatever which it "shall choose to prescribe, I mean the infallible "authority of the church. This one tenet enpage 56.

* Letter I.

"slaves the minds of those who hold it; or, at

66

any rate, it makes them unfit to legislate for other church. For it teaches them to regard that church as leading its members to

66 any

66

66

perdition." Though there is no positive unfairness in the application of the word "legis"late," there is a very convenient ambiguity. Though a member of either House of Parliament merely bears a part in legislation, he is called a legislator, and perhaps in common parlance may be said to legislate. That a legislature of one church should legislate for another, is certainly anomalous, though the anomaly exists in our own country; but that a Catholic legislature should legislate for a Protestant church, which it regards as leading its members to perdition, would indeed be highly unfit. But if the truth is, that some fifty or fewer Catholics are to form part of a body containing six hundred and fifty, Church of England, Protestant Dissenting, and Catholic legislators; and if this body is to legis late, not only for the Church of England, but for a Catholic church, and for a domestic community of which one fourth are of that persuasion, as well as for foreign communities, containing professors of almost every religion under the sun; if there is another branch of this legislature, possessing nearly equal powers, in which the Catholics will bear a still smaller proportion; and if over all there is a king who must be a Protes

tant; then indeed the case is changed, and the proposition which sounded so monstrous in your enunciation may be found to describe a very reasonable and a very salutary measure. You pro

ceed: "In respect to our own church, the Pro"testant church of England and Ireland, it is "admitted to be either an integral part, or an "inseparable adjunct, of the present constitution "of this kingdom. The writ of summons to “Parliament expresses now, as it did of old, "one of the principal ends of holding it to be, "to consult for the safety and defence of the "Church of England. We say, therefore, "that those who believe that this church leads "its members to damnation, as they cannot, "with a sound conscience, consult for its safety "and defence, cannot, on the principles of the "British constitution, be intrusted with the "legislative powers of the state." Now we say in reply, that if twelve thirteenths of those who are summoned to Parliament can, with a sound conscience, consult for the safety and defence of the Church of England, it is a matter of very little practical importance whether the other thirteenth can or not: and we say that the verbal inconsistency which you point out is of no moment whatever, because the safety and defence of the Church of England will always depend on the virtue, spirit, and integrity of those who are assembled in Parliament, not on

the wording of the writ by which they are called together we say moreover, that if we can only maintain the consistency of this writ of summons, by keeping Ireland perpetually on the eve of civil war, we have not that acuteness of sensibility to the consistency of writs which will induce us to pay the price; and, finally, that if the Catholics in Parliament should oppose this "one

of the principal ends of holding it," they will be powerless; if they should not interfere in the matter, they will be harmless.* I have brought the point as nearly as possible to arithmetical calculation, which is in all cases the perfection of argument.

You proceed further:-"A plausible answer "is sometimes suggested, that whatever may be "the doctrines of the Roman church itself, its lay members, those at least who would be

66

66

likely to sit in Parliament, will trouble them"selves very little with theological points, but "will suffer all questions respecting the church "to go on pretty much as they do at present. "Sir, I certainly will not insult the members of "a different communion," (this is indeed a point -on which you are studiously cautious,)" by

66

* No one who knows any thing of English society can doubt that, if a question touching exclusively, or even principally, the interests of the Church of England, were agitated in a parliament containing Catholic members, those gentlemen would take up their hats and walk out of the House.

66

speaking, or thinking, so ill of them, as to

suppose that, if they hold the doctrine of their "church in this particular it will be perfectly "inoperative." So far every thing is pretty clear. Some people think one way, and you think another; and you proceed to sustain your mode of thinking by the following argument. "On the contrary, "those who really hold it," i. e. the doctrine of exclusive salvation, "must feel every inducement "and temptation to act upon it," i. e. to act upon the doctrine of exclusive salvation; "their "spiritual instructors will be ready enough to

66

apprize them of their duty," i. e. the duty of acting on the doctrine of exclusive salvation; "and their own passions will make them very "willing to acquire the merit of obeying it,” i. e. of obeying the duty of acting on the doctrine of exclusive salvation. "In a church which "keeps so accurate a ledger of each individual's "merits and demerits, and allows so large a "premium on acts of obedience to itself, we

66

may be quite sure that there will be no want "of inclination to comply with so easy a de"mand,” i. e. to comply with the easy demand of obeying the duty of acting on the doctrine of exclusive salvation. The above is as complete a specimen as I have often encountered of the figure of speech called rigmarole, a figure in which I should be unjust if I did not say that you very seldom indulge; and with which I am