haps this may be worthy of notice,-that, when"ever the usurper, or any of his instruments of "blood or sycophancy, resolved to take away the "life or estate of a papist, it was his loyalty, not "his religion, that exposed him to their rapine and "butchery."

Other protestants have not done so much justice to the catholics perhaps you will be of opinion, that lord Clarendon should have said more of their fidelity to Charles II, after the defeat of the royal army at Worcester,-than that "it must never be

denied, that some of their religion had a great "share in his majesty's preservation,"--when you are informed, that, during the six first days after that disaster, his majesty was wholly in the hands and under the protection of the catholics. Fiftytwo of that religion were apprised of the secret: some of these were in low circumstances; but neither fear nor hope induced even ONE of these worthy catholics to swerve from his fidelity. On the sixth day his majesty reached the house of Mr. Lane; from this time, he was in the hands of protestants, who served him with equal fidelity. In their praise, the noble historian is minute and eloquent; but on the fifty-two loyal catholics, with the single exception of father Huddlestone, a benedictine monk, he is meanly silent*. It should be added,

* See Dodd's Hist. vol. 3, part VII, book 1, art. 1. From a manuscript signed by father Huddlestone and by Mr. Whitgrave of Moseley, at whose house the monarch was concealed two days and two nights, Mr. Dodd gives the particulars of the monarch's wanderings which followed the battle, and the names of the fifty-two catholics entrusted with the secret.

that, at the time of the death of Charles I, the Irish catholics were the only compact body, throughout the extent of the British empire, which had preserved, untainted and unshaken, their loyalty to the royal cause *.

Much of the landed property of the romancatholics was confiscated: it would not be estimating the amount of it too high to assert, that the adherence of the roman-catholics of England to Charles I. and his son, cost them one-third, at least, of their real, and one-half, at least, of their personal estates.

Thirteen priests suffered for their religion during the reign of Charles I; eleven under the Usurpation; and, during the last period, further severities were inflicted on the roman-catholics.

Of all that I have noticed, you say quite nothing: Is this impartiality? Is it justice?

XVII. 2.

Solemn Judgment of Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland against the Toleration of the Roman-catholic Religion.

A FAIRER, a more learned, or a more honourable name than that of archbishop Usher, the church of England cannot produce :-yet, did this venerable man, with a file of musketeers, enter the catholic chapel in Cork-street, Dublin, during the celebration of divine service, seize the priest in his vestments, and hew down the crucifix :—yet, did this

* See Mr. Plowden's Historical Review of the State of Ireland, an able and instructive work, vol. 1, c. 4.

venerable man, with eleven other Irish prelates, sign what is termed, "The judgment of diverse of "the archbishops and bishops of Ireland on the "toleration of religion;”—and declare by it, "that "the religion of the papists was superstitious and "idolatrous; their faith and doctrine erroneous "and heretical; their church, in respect to both, apostatical; that to give them, therefore, a tole"ration, or to consent that they may freely exer"cise their religion, is a grievous sin.”—It is observable too*, that this took place at a time when Charles I. was in his greatest distress; and the catholics of Ireland were straining every nerve to serve him.

I beg of you to observe, that in this solemn doctrinal judgment of the Irish prelacy, nothing is said, nothing insinuated respecting the conduct, the civil principles, or even the civil tendency of the religious principles of the roman-catholics, or their religion. Toleration is denied to them wholly, and merely, for their religion; for the heresy and errors of their faith and doctrine, and for the apostacy of their church-Upon these accounts, and upon these accounts only, "a grant of toleration to their religion" is declared "to be a sin."

Here then I take my stand:-I call upon you to consider all you have heard or read of the history of the roman-catholic church, in any age, or in any country;-I desire you to place before you all that the most intolerant roman-catholics have said or

* See Plowden's Historical Review of the State of Ireland, vol 1, c. 4; an able an instructive work.

written ;-I then defy you to produce one single instance, in which the detestable dogma of religious intolerance has been more explicitly, solemnly, or unqualifiedly propounded. . . .

Should it then be attributed to protestants, as a tenet of their creed? . . . This,-I do not say: But I do say, that, if it should not be attributed to the protestant church, no intolerant deed or doctrine of roman-catholic individuals, however eminent in rank or character, should be attributed to the roman-catholic church*.

Surely the archbishop must, have forgotten the just rebuke, which, not long before this time, he himself had given to a clergyman for a want of charity. Being wrecked on a desolate part of the Irish coast, he applied to a clergyman for relief; and stated, without mentioning his name or rank, his own sacred profession. The clergyman rudely questioned it, and told him peevishly, that "he doubted whether he knew the number of the "commandments." "Indeed I do,” replied the archbishop mildly, "there are eleven." "Eleven!" said the clergyman, "tell me the eleventh, and "I will assist you." "Obey the eleventh," said the archbishop, "and you certainly will.-A new "commandment I give unto you, that ye love "one another."

* It is observable, that in April 1642, Charles I, then actually holding out to the roman-catholics of Ireland the fairest promises of the repeal of the penal code of the laws against them, took the sacrament from archbishop Usher, upon a promise that he never would connive at popery. Birch, p. 278, 279; Husb. Col. p. 134; Rush. vol. iv. p. 346.

SIR,

LETTER XVIII.

CHARLES II.

311

FOR some passages in the chapter of your work at which I am now arrived, you have my sincere thanks; to others, I object. The principal of these I shall now proceed to mention :-I. I shall first notice your defence of Charles II.'s violation of his promise at Breda to the roman-catholics and the protestant dissenters. In a note I shall show a near resemblance between this conduct of Charles, and the conduct of the British government towards the Irish roman-catholics at the time of the Union :II. I shall then shortly advert to some of your criminations of the roman-catholics in your present chapter:-III. Then, briefly notice the Corporation and Test Acts:-IV. Then, suggest to you some consideration on the act of the thirtieth of Charles II, which disables roman-catholic peers and commoners from sitting and voting in parliament:V. Then, mention Oates's plot :-VI. Then, notice James II, the Bill of Rights, and the Acts of Settlement: VII. Then, conclude my letter, with some observations upon your repeated charges against us of Superstition and Idolatry.