Church, though I own that I should have expressed myself with limitations. The indiscriminate use of the Scriptures is, I think, not allowed by the Council of Trent: and your great oracle Bellarmine declares of the Scriptures, (Lib. II. de verbo Dei cap. 16.) "Pontificios-hoc duntaxat velle, quod non debeant publice legi linguâ vulgari, nec passim omnibus permitti linguâ vulgari legendæ." You yourself, Sir, go no farther than to say, that "the Catholic Church has never absolutely prohibited the reading of the Scriptures," which implies at least that the general reading of them has never been absolutely aliowed. And though you are much to be commended for your own practice of distributing the Bible, it is only an exception to the rule, and not the rule itself. I should rejoice to hear, that these exceptions became so numerous, as to constitute a new rule; and that the Bible were universally received in the character, which I have uniformly assigned to it, "the sole fountain of religious truth."

I will embrace also the present opportunity, when the Church of England has "so much at stake," of expressing the opinion, which, after the most mature reflexion, I entertain of the consequences, which would result from the concession of the claims, now imperiously urged by the members of your Church. I acknowledge, agreeably to the principles maintained in the preceding Letter, that the Legislature, as such, has no concern with the question, whether your religion be true or false. No vote, either of the House of Lords, or of the House of Commons, can decide the purely theological questions, whether there be two or whether there be seven sacraments, whether the consecration of the bread at the Lord's Supper converts, or converts it not, into a different substance. But it is the business of the Legislature to determine, whether the religion, which a man professes, renders him, or renders him not, a good subject

of the state. It is the business of the Legislature to deter mine, whether the religion, which a man professes, renders him proper, or improper, to be trusted with offices in civil government. No authority should interfere, to prevent a man from worshipping God in that way, which his conscience prescribes to him. This is a natural right, which no obligation of civil society can cancel. But it is a contradiction to say, that the right to political power is a natural right. The right to political power can be derived only from political relations: which again in this country are dependent, more or less, upon religion. If the religion, which a man professes, renders him less attached, than another, to the constitution of this country, the former must be less qualified, than the latter, to administer that constitution. Now the constitution of this country is a compound of Church and State; and we know, as well from experience, as from theory, that the one cannot be endangered without endangering the other. But all men, without exception, who differ from the established religion, must in their hearts be desirous of new-modelling that religion according to their own opinions; and though prudence may repress their exertions, while they possess not the means of obtaining their ends, yet as soon as a change of circumstances has furnished them with the power of opposition to the Establishment, that power will be exerted against it. In this respect, there is no practical difference between Dissentients of one kind and Dissentients of another; an Anti-episcopalian Protestant must be adverse to our episcopal Establishment, as well as those who are attached to the religion of Rome; and it is a fatal mistake to suppose, that, because a Protestant Dissenter has not a foreigner for the head of his own church, he has therefore no temptation to overturn the established Church. But they who do acknowledge a foreigner for the head of

their church, are certainly much less fitted to be trusted with political power, because their allegiance is divided between the Sovereign of their country, and a foreign authority, to which, by the very tenets of their religion, they are bound to pay implicit obedience. It is true, that this obedience relates immediately and directly to spiritual concerns, while they are ready to acknowledge the authority of their Sovereign in every thing, which relates to temporal matters. But when allegiance is divided, let the distinctions be ever so nicely marked, it is impossible, that men should be as good subjects, as if their allegiance were concentered in their Sovereign alone. And however nicely the distinction between temporal and spiritual authority may be marked in theory, yet in practice, the boundaries will soon be overleaped, and the authority, which commands the conscience, will command the conduct of the

man.

Don't mistake, Sir, my meaning, and represent me as saying, that the Catholics in this country are not good subjects. I mean no such thing: I speak only by comparison. I assert only, that their religion prevents them from being so good, and so useful, subjects of the state, as the members of the Establishment, or as they would be themselves, if they became members of the Establishment. I readily acknowledge, that they constitute a respectable and loyal body; that they are attached to their Sovereign and to their country. But their best intentions must perpetually be checked by the intervention of that external allegiance. The strength of that allegiance, and the warmth still excited by the object of it in the hearts of his true disciples, you yourself, Sir, have displayed by exhibiting the Pope at the head of your Pamphlet. In short, that external allegiance, when added to the desire, which all Dissentients possess, of making their own the established religion, gives a new

impulse so powerful in its own operations, and so easily directed by foreign intrigue to purposes subversive of our constitution, that the guidance of our constitution cannot safely be entrusted to those, who profess such allegiance.

Under these circumstances, the consequences are obvious, which must result to the established Church, if the present demands of the Roman Catholics be conceded. These demands, which are so imperiously urged, as in the very mode of preferring them to excite alarm, extend to the unqualified repeal of every law which affects their civil disabilities. We are not concerned with a question of religious toleration, which they already enjoy to its full extent; they can exercise their religious worship, and publish their religious opinions, without reproach or interruption from the members of the Establishment; they may educate their children without reserve in their own opinions, and have even the benefit of an extensive seminary supported at the public expense. But they now require a participation of political power in all respects equal with that, which is enjoyed by the members of the Establishment. Now, if this equal participation be granted to those, who profess the Romish religion, the same equal participation must a fortiori be granted to the Protestant Dissenters. But when the making and the administering of the laws in this country shall be equally extended to all religious parties, it is easy to foresee, that the honors and emoluments, which are now exclusively enjoyed by the ministers of the established Church, but which all parties are equally desirous of obtaining, would then be demanded by all parties; and, as those demands would then be urged by the weight of political power, we should no longer be able to resist. The established Church therefore would fall: for, as Dr. Paley observes in his chapter on Religious Establishments, "If the provision which the laws assign to

the support of religion, be extended to various sects and denominations of Christians, there exists no national religion, or established Church," Whether Whether any other national religion, or what national religion, would finally arise out of such a political and ecclesiastical Chaos, it is unnecessary at present to examine. It is sufficient to know, that the present Establishment would be destroyed,

Cambridge,

Jan, 20, 1813,