under the guidance of the most fober reason, we confess that Jefus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the living God, affociating in that belief his incarnation, his life, his death, his refurrection, afcenfion, and atonement. His humility as man evinces him willing, his omnipotence as God evinces him mighty, to fave; clofing and combining the parts of one flupendous whole. The fyftem of Chriftianity includes all these; and the feparate articles of a Chriftian's creed are fo many different memorials of the wonders of his redemption. The conclufion of the difcourfe, referring to the future bleflings of the difciples of Chrift, and the happinefs which remains for them in expectation, is deferving of more than ordinary regard, as the voice of truth, of inftruction, and of comfort. Thefe hopes, not yet realifed, thefe mercies referved for the people of God, form the argument of the fixth difcourfe. Text. Heb. xii. 22, 23, 24.

Of this animated compofition, and of the feventh difcourfe, on the new year, from Pfalm, lxxiv. 9, we must refrain from giving a detail fimilar to those which we have attempted on the five preceding difcourfes. We are confcious that the limits, cuftomary to be obferved in these critiques, have, on the prefent occafion, been fomewhat exceeded; but we reft our defence, or at leaft our apology, on the momentous nature of the fubject, on the intrinfic merit of the performance, and on its peculiar utility at the prefent hour of evil working and of infidelity. That fuch a performance fhould have appeared at fuch a period, we cannot but deem a circumftance more than fortuitous. The Power who has pledged his inviolable promife to fupport and defend his holy truth, will proportion the inftrument to the work, and the means of defence to the fum of the danger. While religion has fuch advocates as these, and while there exifts, as we are perfuaded there still does, in this country, a fpirit difpofed to receive the word with all readiness of mind, and to fearch the fcriptures," whether thefe things are fo," we have little anxiety as to the ultimate refult. The Church may be perfecuted, but it will not be forfaken. The tempeft of obloquy, of prejudice, of evil working, may rage and bellow against it, but it will stand fecurely, for it is founded on a Rock.

In our next number we fhall gratify our readers with a few extracts illuftrative of Dr. Randolph's ftyle, language, and mode of reafoning Our duty will then have been performed. The reft must be fubmitted to the judgment of a difcerning public, a tribunal to which, in this inftance, we moft confidently appeal.

(To be concluded in our next.)

The Question as to the Admission of Catholics to Parliament, confidered upon the Principles of exifling Laws. With fupplemental Obfervations on the Coronation Oath. By a Barriiter. 8vo. PP. 79: Booker.

THE title page of this pamphlet contains, in the form of a motto, aquotation from Blackftone's Commentaries, which is calculated

to

to make an unfair impreffion. That quotation is as follows: "The laws against Papifts are rather to be accounted for from their hiftory, and the urgency of the times which produced them, than to be approved, (upon a cool review) as a ftanding fyftem of law." This paffage, when prefixed to a publication profeffing to treat of the Catholic Queftion (as it is called)" upon the principles of the existing laws" can only be intended to operate as a condemnation, on the high authority of Blackstone, of thofe laws. Now it happens that the laws here alluded to, by the learned Commentator, are no longer in exiftence. Whoever will open the fourth volume of Blackftone's Commentaries will find, that the obfervation in queftion applies only to the penal laws against Papifts, all of which are now repealed; and that it does in no refpect relate to the civil difabilities, which form the fubject of the prefent publication, and to which it is, rather difinge nuously (we muft fay) made to allude.

The profeffed object of this pamphlet is to confider "the Queftion as to the Admiffion of Catholics to Parliament" and the author's reafoning is directed to prove that they ought not, any more than other Diffenters, to be excluded from an exercife of Parliamentary functions. Their difability in this refpect arifes (as he justly obferves) from laws which affect them alone, and not, as is often erroneously fuppofed, from the Teft and Corporation Acts, which operate upon all who are not in communion with the eftablished Church, and which relate only to corporations and to civil and military employments under the Crown. The bar which prevents Romanifts (for by that name we think it more accurate to defcribe the Members of the Church of Rome, than by the ufual denomination of Catholics) from fitting in Parliament is the 30th of Charles II. Stat. 2. which, in the title is expreffed to be " an act for difabling Papifts from fitting in Parliament." This act requires all perfons fitting and voting in Parliament to take the oaths of allegiance and fupremacy, and to repeat and fubfcribe a declaration againft tranfubftantiation, the invocation of faints, and the facrifice of the mafs. This declaration, and the latter part of the oath of fupremacy, are repugnant to the religious fentiments of the members of the Roman Church, and occafion the parliamentary disability which the author contends ought to be removed. The grounds on which he urges this claim are that it is no principle of the British conftitution, that thofe who participate in the enactment of laws fhould profefs the eftablished religion of the State--that Catholics (Romanifts) alone, of all his Majefty's fubjects, are liable to any difability in that refpect-and that it is unjust to continue such a disability, with regard to them because their principles and opinions are in no refpect dangerous to the civil and ecclefiaftical establishments of this kingdom.

The Author, it must be owned, argues thefe points with confiderable ingenuity and force. But we must fay that his candour is far from being equally confpicuous. From his mode of reafoning any one would infer that the fole object of the Romanifts is to be put

upon

upon a footing with the other Diffenters, by being admitted into the Legiflature. But it is a matter of notoriety that much of the public alarm which is excited by the expected agitation of the question, commonly, but very inaccurately, termed "Catholic emancipation," arifes from the apprehenfion that this question is meant to involve the removal of all civil difabilities from every defeription of Diffenters, whether Romanifts or Proteftants: And if the claims of the former really extend beyond their admiffion into Parliament, they must neceffarily go that length. For as by a repeal of the 30th of Cha. II. they would in all refpects be put upon a footing with the other nonconformitts, their further pretenfions, if they have any, muft be to be freed from the operation of the Test Acts; and a repeal of thofe Acts would let in Diffenters of every defcription, and, in our opinion, as well as in that of every man who has ever ftood forth in fupport of the Church, be fpeedily followed by the overthrow of our ecclefiaftical establishments; and, confequently, by the entire deftruction of our conftitution.

It appears, therefore, that the author of this tract, in confidering the only question of " Admission into Parliament" confines himself to a part, and, indeed, a very fmall part, of the real queftion concerning the Romanifts. If, in his opinion, that was the only claim they ought to advance, it was incumbent upon him to fay fo in the most explicit terms. His argument would have appeared in a very different light if he had declared that "his brethren, (for we prefume that he is of the Catholic perfuafion,) confcious of their loyal attachment to the proteftant fucceffion, fought only to enjoy, in common with other Diffenters, who (certainly are not better fubjects than themfelves) the privilege of fitting in Parliament; but, far from entertaining any views of hoftility to the National Church, they were ready to pledge themfelves, on all occafions, to the fupport of the Test Acts, which they confidered as neceffary bulwarks to that Church." Accompanied by fuch affurances the author's reafoning for the admiffion of Romanifts to Parliament would have appeared to much greater advantage; and the mere omiffion to bring forward any affurances, of the above kind, is itself a fair ground of fufpicion that, while he was afferting one claim, he had others in his contenplation which he thought it prudent not to notice. This fufpicion is exchanged for fomething very little fhort of certainty by an expreffion in the 3d page, where, he fays, that "The Catholics are principally anxious to fit and vote in parliament." Now this word " principally" proves to demonftration, that their anxiety is not, in his apprehenfion, confined to the object here decfribed; but that they have further pretenfions (of which he evidently makes a referve) beyond an admifibility to parliament. We have already fhewn not only what thofe pretenfions muft be, but that a recognition of them would foon enable the fectaries to trample upon the ruins of the church. But whatever may be the prefent views of the Romanifts we are convinced that their admiffion into Parliament would be a very confiderable flep towards the

repeal

repeal of the Teft A&ts. For the body of Diffenters, confidered as a general clafs, comprizing all its fubdivifions, would, in that cafe, receive a great acceffion of ftrength; and however widely they may differ among themfelves, yet they have a common intereft to unite, in order to obtain the removal of difabilities which apply equally to them all. And he must be very ignorant of human nature, who can doubt that they would lend one another their mutual aid for that purpofe. The danger too would be increased by the operation of party motives. For it is obvious that the claims of the Protestant Diffenters, whenever they have been brought forward, have been invariably fup-ported, with very few exceptions, by the party in oppofition to government-although moft of the members of that party profeffed an adherence to the established church; and the defperation of those who oppofe government has certainly encreafed with the awfulness of the times, and with the difficulties of the country. Hitherto, indeed, no minister has ever been bold enough to countenance, in any degree, the above claims; but what may happen in this age of unaccountable viciffitudes, exceeds all human conjecture.

In deprecating, for thefe reafons, the admiffion of Romanifts into Parliament, confidering fuch admiffion as an infulated queftion, we are far from imputing to that body of men in this country, any views that are unfavourable to the established Government, or to the peace and good order of fociety. We confider them as good and faithful fubjects. And we rejoice that all the penal laws, to which, at any time they have been fubject, are done away. For their difability to fit and vote in Parliament is by no means of a penal nature. This is merely a precaution for the fecurity of the exifting eftablishments, and, as we have shewn, a necessary precaution. Indeed, far from admitting that fuch a difability can with fafety be removed, we do not fcruple to express our regret, that the right of fitting in the Legislative Councils of the King is not confined to Members of the established Church. We think that much of the danger, to which that church is exposed, is owing to the want of fuch a regulation. And therefore we lament, that the author is justified in saying, that "it is no principle of the British conftitution, that thofe who participate in the enactment of laws fhould profefs the established religion of the country." think that this ought to be a principle in every conftitution, because we think that it is effential to the complete fecurity of conftituted authority; and while we deplore the deviations from that principle which exift, we feel it our duty ftrenuously to oppose any encrease of thofe deviations.

As a fpecimen of the author's ftile and manner of reafoning, (which are entitled to commendation) and also in juftice to the refpectable clafs of men whofe advocate he is, we fubjoin the following

extract:

"It is faid, oh! but Catholics are not to be believed upon their oathsthey may violate any engagements contracted with heretics-and the Pope, nay even the prieft, may grant them difpenfations for the purpofe. That fuch a prejudice should ever have been entertained by men of fenfe; or that, having NO. XXXIII, VOL, VIŅI,

Y

been

been entertained, it should have been repeated in the prefent days by men eminent for their learning and high ftations, really appears aftonishing: the reflection of a moment will fhew the abfurdity of fuch a notion. When we confider that the Catholics, during a period of two centuries, have deprived themselves of the greatest advantages-hat they have refigned their moft valuable birth rights-that they have repeatedly facrificed their fortunes, their liberties, and even their lives merely from a peculiar fcrupuloufness in regard to oaths; furely they are entitled, if not to indulgence, at least to respect. To conceive that fuch men think lightly of oaths would be abfurd: to declare it with confident affurance, would be foul detraction. Had the Catholics ever conceived that faith was not to be kept with heretics-that the cause of their religion was to be advanced by every means, however unlawful—that they might be dispensed from all oaths of allegiance taken to a Proteftant Government, and that indulgences might be granted to commit fin-furely they never would be in their prefent ftate of exclufion; and all the provifions of the Legislature enacted against Catholics would have been of no avail. Thele confiderations, I am convinced, muft, with every candid perfon, remove the ill-founded prejudice to which I have alluded."

Respecting the author's obfervations on the Coronation Oath, we cannot do better than refer him to Mr. Reeves's excellent pamphlet on that fubject, which we have noticed in this Number.

MISCELLANIES.

The Claims of Thomas Jefferson to the Presidency, examined at the Bar of Christi anity. By a Layman. 8vo. PP. 54. Dickins. Philadelphia. 1800.

HE object of this tract is to convince the Americans, that, as Chris

is

is no Christian; and the author represents the infidelity of Mr. Jefferson to be a fact so notorious, from his writings and his declarations, that it would be the height of absurdity to attempt to prove it.

"To go about quoting books and conversation to shew the creed of such a man, is like furnishing an attested copy, from the records of the British Privy Council, of the proclamation of George the Third, as King of Great Britain, to prove that such is the name of the British Monarch."

The inference, very naturally drawn by the author, is, that the election of such a man to the office of supreme magistrate of the country would be a proof that the electors were themselves infidels. We know not what justice may be allowed to such an inference in the United States, but we are persuaded, that, in this old-fashioned country, all depraved and degenerated as the age undoubtedly is, it would be deemed incontrovertible. The Americans, however, have, since the publication of this tract, elected Mr. Jefferson, and are therefore open to all the censures which this strenuous advocate for Christianity has, conditionally, bestowed on them!It is a family dispute, and we shall leave the parties to settle it

between themselves.

Thoughts on the best Mode of Carrying into Effect the System of Economy recommended in his Majesty's Proclamation. 8vo. Pp. 62. Is. 6d. Wright. 1801. WHOEVER labours by argument, or example, to enforce obedience to the declared will of the lawful Sovereign of his country, is entitled to the

thanks