Without yielding to any man in admiration of Isaac Barrow, I should venture, were he now living to answer questions, to propose with all humility to that great divine and moralist, the enquiry which I now address to yourself.

In what way, if you were his Majesty's Minister, would you advise him to treat those five or six millions of your fellow-subjects with whom "no man is capable with good conscience "to hold communion?" There can be no doubt, that your first step would be to withdraw from Ireland, the Lord-Lieutenant and Secretary of State, the Judges and Justices, the Protestant Bishops and Deans, and all other officers, civil and ecclesiastical, who are now, contrary to good conscience, in contact with these incommunionable people. This to be sure might be an unfortunate measure as respects the revenues of the Irish Church; but then John Bull could not hesitate to indemnify those who made such conscientious sacrifices. Good conscience being thus restored-whether Ireland should be abandoned to the wretches under strict nonintercourse regulations, whether armies should be sent to extirpate them, or a race of bloodhounds be trained up to worry them from the earth, might, as the matter would not press, be reserved for future consideration. St. Paul, to be sure, had rather different notions of these matters. He says, that we must keep company with the grossest

worldly sinners, if we would not go out of the world; but if any person professing peculiar piety lived in open and scandalous vice, with him we are to hold no communion, no, not to eat. (1 Cor. v. 11.) But how far does such a profligate hypocrite fall short of the atrocity of the wretch who holds the Pope's Supremacy! In the course of the seventeen pages in which labour this doctrine there are two attempts at application. The first is announced in the following emphatic words: "Sir, I must think that "a claim to supremacy, such as this, acknowledged and acted upon by all the ecclesiastics "in communion with Rome, entering into, di"recting their devotions-hallowed by associa"tion with all that is most sacred in their reli

you

66

66

а

gion-is"* (what? now we come to the practical point: now we come to the Catholic Peers, and M. P.s and King's Counsel, and Mayors and Aldermen. No! indeed; but "Oh most "lame and impotent conclusion !") "not a matter "to be treated with contempt." Sir, I think so too; so pass we on to application the second. "On all these, as well as other accounts, the "doctrine of the Supremacy of the Pope is one "which must make every wise legislature, par"ticularly every Protestant legislature, cauti"ous how they increase the power of those who "hold it." I believe I agreed to waive the little * Letter I. p. 121.

circumstance, that no Catholics do hold it in temporals, and that none of those who would be likely to sit in the Lords and Commons ever will; the doctrine fell very sick some two hundred years ago, and died quietly, no one knows exactly when. But this I must not mention, so I am happy to be able to agree fully with you again. The only question between us is-will the concession of the claims increase their power? meaning of course their power to do us injury. Mr. Pitt was of opinion that it would not, and I have already given you at sufficient length, my reasons for subscribing to his opinion. You proceed-" And can this seem of little moment, "when Irish Roman Catholic Bishops, who to "the mass of their people must appear to speak "with authority, scarcely less sacred than that "of the Pope himself—are describing an into"lerable tyranny as even now exercised by the governinent of their own land?" I can assure you, Sir, that it does not appear to me of little moment. I think it of the utmost consequence, that the intolerable tyranny, which the Bishops describe as being even now exercised, should be removed-that this strong inducement to appeal to the Pope's Supremacy should be taken away. Sir, it is not worth while to enter into nice shades of distinction, and I use the words, because you have supplied me with them. Letter I. p. 125.

66

F

The intolerable tyranny does exist. The history of the world does not furnish an instance of a country which, being from soil and climate able to breed and feed men and keep them in health, and being free from external aggression, has in any age been permanently miserable except by misgovernment. But to this topic I shall recur when speaking of a point with which it is more intimately connected.

DANGER VIII.-From the legal claim of Irish Catholic Bishops to seats in the Lords.

This danger you explain by these convincing arguments, and enforce by the following impressive warning: "For if they are indeed bishops"bishops of the sees to which they pretendthey have by law a right to seats in Parlia"ment. Those seats (except as they are affected

66

66

by the act of Union) are not conferred by sta"tute, but by the common law. No act ever "passed to deprive the Roman Catholic bishops, "and to substitute the Protestant; but if the "succession has (as they strenuously contend) "been preserved in them, and lost in our "church, they are the true and only bishops of "Ireland. Sir, our politicians may find, if "they are not cautious in their proceedings, that "the well-known maxim, only one bishop in one

66

see, is not a mere theological nicety, but may

66

"lead, unless provided for in time, to grave political consequences hereafter.” * How have we hugged ourselves in a vain security! We have been used to think that these Catholic bishops had received too many home thrusts to be able to enter again into such worldly contention. We have looked upon them as legally dead; as unsubstantial, almost ideal beings; the mere ghosts of episcopacy.

"The times have been

"That when the brains were out the man would die
"And there an end; but now they rise again,

"With twenty mortal murders on their crowns,
"And push us from our stools."

But surely, Sir, it ill became so zealous a Protestant as you to point out the flaw in our title. The matter is even more serious than you represent it; for if the Irish bishops-why not the English bishops? if the seats in the Lordswhy not the palaces and parks, and rents and tythes; in short, the snug sum, in whatever series of figures duly reckoned from right to left, as units, tens, hundreds, thousands, and so on, it may happen to be expressed, which administers yearly to the temporal comforts of our English and Irish episcopal benches? nay, why not our deaneries and prebends, and rectories and vicarages with their appurtenances? *Letter I. p. 155.