be a good member of fociety and a true Englishman, notwithstanding the difference of my religious creed, I fhould happen to fay any thing that may give you offence, I am fure, Sir, you are too generous and too juft to fhew any refentment against the poor helplefs guests above mentioned, unacquainted as they are with our controverfy, merely because they are of the fame communion with me. In the fecond place, Sir, if you have judged thefe confcientious exiles worthy of protection, at a time when you formed fo unfavourable an idea of the caufe for which they were fuffering, I truft, you will not think them lefs deferving of it, when I fhall have vindicated that caufe and difperfed your prejudices against it.

But you take care to remind me, that the English Catholics themfelves were a few years ago in the condition of a profcribed people, from which they were only rescued by the liberality of the act of 1791. (1) Hence you argue on the fuppofed impropriety of their "religion being ftudioufly brought forward into public notice;" (2) and fignificantly add, that

nothing can fo much tend, as fuch a conduct, to make the legislature regret, if they could be induced by any thing to regret it, a meafure which originated. in motives of wisdom and humanity, and had for its object the comfort and relief of a confiderable body of our fellow fubjects." (3) The English Catholics, Sir, do, and ever will, acknowledge with grateful hearts the juftice of that parliament, which, first of all during the space of more than two centuries, deigned to investigate the grounds of the popular cla

(1) P. 5, 111. (2) P. 111. (3) Ibid.

mours

mours and prejudices that had been excited against them, and alfo the magnanimity which determined it to decide according to the refult of its enquiries. They will not forget, what you remind me of, that no class of our legiflators difplayed more liberality on that occafion than the bench of bifhops; (1) and I am happy to have it in my power to teftify, that you yourself appeared then to be animated with the fame fpirit, and lent a hand, as I believe, to the great deed of toleration. But, Sir, permit me to afk you, upon what ground was this parliamentary relief granted? Was it in the nature of a reprieve to convicted criminals; or in that of a folemn declaration of the innocence of men who had been long fuffering under an unjuft imputation? I can answer for what the ideas of Catholics were on that head, and I have reafon to believe that the opinions of a great part of the legiflators were not different from theirs. Again, Sir, let me ask you, were there any fuch conditions as those you hint at, either expreffed or implied in the aforefaid act? Was it then faid to us, you are free from the weight of the penal statutes, but it is on condition, that you do not bring your religion to public notice by any work of controverfy, or even of history, that may be construed into a defence of it, or of its inftitutions? Each one shall be free to publifh whatever Reflections on Popery he pleases, charging you with every degree of abfurdity, wickedness, and fedition, but you shall not be at liberty to make any reply to them, or even to write at all upon the fub

(1) P. 104.

ject

ject of ecclefiaftical antiquities? (1) No, Sir, the legiflature was not fo intolerant or fo illiberal. They received our pledges of fidelity to our king and country, and they left you and me to fettle whatever points of history or theology we may happen to differ about, by the best records and arguments we are able to discover for this purpose. To prove, however, that Catholics have not been of late very eager to engage in controverfy, even for the purpose of juft defence, it will be fufficient to observe, that whilst the pulpit has continued to refound, and the prefs to groan with the extravagant and malicious declamations of a Williamson, a Towson, a Wrangham, a Churton, a Daubeny, a Rennell, &c. (who, whilft they triumph over the fall of Rome, affect to dread her power) not more than one of this clafs has been called to an account for his calumnies, (2) and that by a lay gentleman, who had received a perfonal affront from him. (3) To convince you that I myself have not been fo ambitious of gaining controverfial laurels, as you fuppofe, permit me to remind you, that I have by name been called out to the theological combat by the difputant lait alluded to, (4) and that the first of those mentioned above, actually published a controverfial treatife against me, (5) both which challenges I have pofitively declined accepting of.

B

1) See Hift. and Surv. vol. ii, pref. p. 1. (2) The Rev. Ralph Churton, M. A.

I have

(3) Francis Eyre, Efq. of Warkworth, Letter to R. C. on bis Addrefs, &c.

(4) Anfwer to the aforefaid Letter,

(5) A Defence of the Doctrines, &c. by J. Williamson, B. D. Preb. of Linc. &c.

I have already fignified, that the legislature is far from rendering any theological opinions whatsoever or characters of paft time facred, or protecting them from the fcrutiny of history and argument. It seems however, that you, Sir, are defirous of fpreading your fhield over every perfon and caufe, whether public or private, you have any relation with. To my mind, the complaints in different parts of your book, of my having vilified public characters which you refpect and cherish, conveys the following meaning: Do not quote the infuriate expreffions of Martin Luther, because he was the father of Proteftantism. Do not mention the unworthy condefcenfions of Cranmer, because he imported this into England. Do not expofe the ruinous confequences of bifhop Hoadly's theology, because he was my friend and patron. Do not even acquaint the public with the falfehood, abfurdity, and contradictions contained in a former History of Winchester, which has hitherto been ascribed to the Rev. Mr. Wavel, late rector of St. Maurice's, becaufe he was the friend and predeceffor of the gentleman to whom I have thought proper to addrefs my Reflections. But, at this rate, Sir, what becomes of literary freedom, of mental improvement, and of the truth of history?

This language was not that of your friend and fellow ftudent in the fchool of Hoadly, whofe authority you so often appeal to, the late learned and fagacious Dr. Balguy. So far from stifling hiftorical truths, he would not have the prefs thut even against theological controverfy of any kind whatfoever. The following are fome of his maxims on

this head: The most unbounded freedom is the moft favourable to truth......The reception of truth, I mean religious truth, can never be prejudicial to fociety.....The profeffors of every religion fhould be left at full liberty to declare their fentiments to the world, and to explain the reasons on which they are founded. Oppofition to the established religion, if carried on by no other inftruments than the tongue and the pen, ought not to be confidered as a crime. To suppose otherwife is to make all reformation impoffible. It is to justify the perfecution of Chriftians under pagan emperors. It is to justify the perfecution of our own Proteftant martyrs. It is to justify, in fome inftances, the inquitition itself."(1)

If, Sir, you are true to your own principles, and confiftent with yourfelf, you will be forced to fubscribe to the whole of these maxims of your illuftri. ous condifciple, and thereby to condemn feveral of your late Reflections. By the fame rule you will be constrained to acknowledge, that the Catholics have no reason to fear, while their fentiments and conduct are fuch as you yourfelf defcribe them, that the legislature will "regret that wife and humane measure, which had for its object the relief and comfort of a confiderable number of its fubjects." For you a thousand times repeat, that nothing but imminent danger to the ftate can juftify religious perfecution, nor did even the fanguinary Elizabeth ever profefs to ground her's upon any other motive. Now, Sir, from the thickeft fight of controverfy you have the liberality

(1) Difcourfes by Thomas Balguy, D. D. Charge III. on Religious Liberty, pp. 224, 22.