As many of the above books are quoted by Dr. Wotton with reference only to a particular subject contained in them, it would be almost necessary that the student should possess the pamphlet from which the above list is extracted, in order to learn the Doctor's intention, as well as to be acquainted with the characters of the respective writers. In the list, however, which will complete the series, such as are retained will be amply described.

PRO-POPERY SOPHISTRY.

MR. EDITOR,-I will now, by your permission, resume my examination of Mr. Daniel Wilson.

VII. Mr. Wilson next advances with a cloud of light cavalry, expecting to sweep the wrecks which his heavy artillery have left:

In a religious view, then, what are the chief objections which now press on the minds of conscientious persons?

Does the proposed adjustment involve any approbation of Popery as Popery, any union with idolatry, any indifference to the Protestant faith? Is there any sin necessarily involved in thus legislating for the Roman Catholic subjects of our realm? This is the first objection. So far as my judgment goes, I would answer, No: I think there is no sin involved in the settlement of it. The Irish Roman Catholics are fellow-creatures, fellow-countrymen, fellow-Christians. They belong to a true, though a most corrupt, Church. They were a part of your people, would I say to my countrymen, long before the Reformation. To alter the details of legislation concerning them is nothing new. You have been doing it ever since that glorious era. They form an integral portion of your population; they live amongst you; they are a third or fourth part of the British Empire; they obey your laws; they pay taxes; they form your armies; they fight your battles; they are already united with you in government, rights, and protection; you derive from them a share of all the benefits which subjects confer upon a state. Legislate for them you must, either in the way of conciliation or coercion. Remain as you are, you cannot. If you re-model your laws, you do it in order to strengthen the Protestant Church; to meet altered circumstances; to render justice, and requite years of neglect or injury, to Ireland; to complete and make consistent your previous benefits; to carry into effect the spirit of your constitution.—Christian Observer, March, 1829, p. 193.

This distinction of " Popery as Popery" reminds me of certain other distinctions between adjectives and substantives, not unknown to the walls of the Upper House, but to which, from respect to a certain old maxim, "de mortuis," I waive further allusion. But what does Mr. Wilson advance against the plain statements which he here attempts to bear down by accumulated sophisms? That the Papists are “fellowcreatures, fellow-countrymen, fellow-Christians, part of the people, live among us, form a large part of the empire, obey the laws, (this, perhaps, might have been advantageously omitted,) fight our battles," &c. &c. Well: and all these things, undoubtedly, entitle them to political protection; but do they, therefore, entitle them to political power?

"But we must legislate, either in the way of conciliation or coercion." Why? because the Papists were in a state of rebellion; for no coercive legislation could be otherwise necessary. And was such the time for conciliation? Besides, Mr. Wilson has neglected to meet the Protestant argument, that concession was not identical with conciliation; an argument which subsequent facts have appallingly illustrated.

But we re-model our laws" to strengthen the Protestant Church;" (which the parliamentary Papists have already avowed their intention to dismember or destroy) "to meet altered circumstances; (i. e. to

truckle to rebellion)" to render justice, &c. to Ireland ;" (by depriving her freeholders of RIGHTS consecrated by the most solemn acts of public legislation, and giving men, who are the bane of that country as well as this, ample power to be mischievous) " to complete and make consistent our previous benefits;" (which argument would overthrow the Protestant succession, for the admission of Papists to twothirds of legislation is woefully "incomplete" and "inconsistent," as we shall be told ere long) " and TO CARRY INTO EFFECT THE SPIRIT of OUR CONSTITUTION;" (which constitution the parliamentary sophists, less expert than the ecclesiastical, declared to be, by that very remodelling," VIOLATED!)

VIII. Mr. Wilson proceeds,

66

You do this, moreover, with an avowed and open profession of unalterable attachment to the Protestant religion; you do it with such provisions against the worst practices of Popery as proclaims your dread of its corruptions; you exclude the Jesuits; you put down the Popish Associations; you take the peasantry out of the hands of priests and demagogues; you exact from the Catholic senator an express oath that he will maintain the Protestant succession to the crown, and the Protestant Church; that is, you exact more securities than any reasonable Protestant ever imagined possible. You avoid, further, in the conduct of the arrangements, every thing that can give any colour to the charge of an union with Popery; you declare you will have nothing to do with it; you will not be implicated in the nomination of their bishops; you will not support their clergy; you will have no intercourse with their corrupt hierarchy, no dealings, no concordat, no understanding, no compromise with Rome. You thus stand forth as a Protestant people, avowing your attachment to the Protestant religion, and performing an act of national equity, which you are persuaded will also go to undermine the artificial supports of the apostate church. If this be to unite with idolatry, or to countenance Popery, I know not what would be protesting against it. Nor have you done this till necessity positively forced it upon you, So fearful have you justly been of the Roman Catholic religion, that nothing would lead your government to interfere, but a necessity so imperious as to admit of no delay. It is no sin, therefore, but an obvious duty, a plain act of national piety, a reparation made for long-continued misrule. It is to set to rights an anomalous state of the laws, and take from the Papists the factitious strength arising from indignation at a sense of wrong.-Ibid. p. 193.

66

"Avowed and open professions of attachment!" Yes, Sir, indeed, there have been enough of these! Professions have been the ruin of an honourable, and consequently, confiding people. Though not afraid of Mr. Wilson's arguments, I wish not to expose you or myself to the undoubtedly sound ones of the Attorney-General; the frequent application of whose logic lately appears to indicate a deficiency of other ratiocination in his employers. I therefore say no more. Hail, Master!" and a kiss are "avowed and open professions of attachment." But Mr. Wilson's facts are as mistaken as his arguments. The Jesuits have their colleges at Maynooth and Stonyhurst; the Popish association is only nominally suppressed; the people are still in the hands of priests and demagogues, with a real and pressing injustice, which the ungrateful objects of legislative indulgence, in whose express favour that iniquitous law was passed, improve to insurrection and sedition. As to the oath requiring a Papist to support the Protestant Church, it is sin to offer it, and (without a dispensation express or explicit, from infallibility) it would be sin to take it.

And now for the famous "necessity." Here, Sir, I am at fault; I am not one of the favoured. Mr. Wilson, doubtless, knows what it was, but, like his parliamentary friends, he has been very cautious of making it too public. But I must entreat room for a passing observation. "So fearful," says Mr. Wilson, "have you JUSTLY been of the Roman Catholic religion," that nothing but a necessity, admitting no delay, would induce you to do what? "An obvious duty, a plain act of national piety," (so plain, by the by, that Mr. Wilson could not see it "for nearly twenty years,") "a reparation for long continued misrule!" And this is "just" fear, which is only compelled into duty by necessity! Which is, in the first instance, the fear of doing a good action, and in the last, the fear of man! Oh, Mr. Editor, how unfortunate are they, whose moral constitutions are too phlegmatic to keep pace with the "march" of ethical illumination! According to my antiquated notions, I should have said, "Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum!" my obsolete philosophy would have told me that a "just fear was the fear of God, not the fear of doing an obvious duty," plain act of piety," but the fear of leaving undone even duties less obvious!"*

66

IX. Another charge of light-armed sophisms:

66 a

Repeal the disabling statutes, and you will see peace and amity gradually restored; education and scriptural knowledge diffused; prejudices and passion insensibly abated; inquiry into the foundations of the Protestant religion awakened; adherence to the errors of an ancient faith loosened; the superadditions of human invention dropping off; the tyranny and subtilty of priestcraft detected; the Bible calmly read and studied; Popery in its essential mischiefs tacitly forgotten and abjured; the religion of Thomas à Kempis, of Pascal, of Nicole, of Quesnel, and of Fénélon, revived,—if not that of Jewel and Latimer, Hooker and Hall, Leighton and Beveridge. Then add the temporal benefits which may follow-commerce widened; the administration of law purified; property secured; absenteeism lessened; English capitalists mingling with Irish, and pouring their joint stores of wealth and talent into the lap of the country; a resident gentry and nobility bearing the noble functions of protection and charity; the animosity between man and man exchanged for confidence and good-will; and a benignant government dispensing a thousand benefits to a united people.-Ibid. p. 194.

Again:

Fellow-Christians, THERE IS NO GROUND OF ALARM; the pending measures are so far from constituting a sin against God, that they are a paramount dictate both of piety and wisdom; they will eminently contribute to the honour of the Protestant faith, to the stability of our Protestant institutions, to the safety of our Protestant Episcopal Church, to the pacification of our irritated fellowcountrymen, and the prevalence of pure Christianity throughout our empire.— Ibid. p. 195.

It is obvious that where a writer assumes the truth of a quantity of disputed propositions, without condescending to offer one argument in their support, no answer can be necessary, and he entangles his cause

In another part of his letter, Mr. Wilson says, (and puts his statements in capitals) 66 FEAR IS THE WORST OF ALL COUNSELLORS." Q. Whose counsel did Mr. Wilson and his patrons take, even by their own shewing? There is, however, a worse counsellor than fear-TREASON. And I leave Mr. Wilson to decide which of these honourable advisers was the author of " the atrocious bill." I confess I do not see any third resort,