The next queflion is the confideration of the civil dominion established among ourselves. Now the papal power here was manifeftly an ufurpation on the previous rights of the throne. In the earlier times of our Church, the fovereigns enjoyed the power of erecting bifhoprics, granting inveftitures, affembling fynods, and making laws in facred matters. At the Conqueft the papal encroachments began, but even in the time of Edward I. a refiftance to thefe encroachments commenced, which ended in the Reformation. The Chriflian Emperors of Rome united in their thrones the civil and religious authority; our princes had anciently, and now have the fame fulness of authority. This principle was afferted at the Restora tion; the attempt to violate it produced the Revolution. In the Union with Scotland, and in the Union with Ireland, it is promifed, that "The Proteftant Religion as eftablifhed in these countries fhall be preferved FOR EVER." Thus then are we enabled to understand and to apply the rule of toleration. And now let the author fpeak for himfelf. "There is one government over all. There is one Church, which exprefsly acknowledges its right of ecclefiaftical as well as civil rule, and which therefore obtains its efpecial protection. All others, refufing this concurrence, are allowed to perfift in their refufal, fubject to an inferiority of civil privilege. To toleration (or the fafe and practicable ufe of their own mode of worship) they are entitled through the claim of Chriftian charity, and the religious refpect which is due to the confcience of men towards their God. To a certain forfeiture of civil privilege they are neceffarily. fubject, on account of their denial of an effential part of the civil fovereignty, and their standing want of compliance with the full demands of the conftitution. This is the true notion of toleration, which must always be confidered in fubordination to an establishment,-as an indulgence, and not as an inftitution. "It is indeed too much the fafhion of our times to overlook the foundations of government, to reafon from the feelings of the moment, and to neglect fubftantial principles. And hence it is, that toleration is confounded with equal encouragement, and perfecution with mere exclufion from political power. Yet let it be remembered, that no writer, whofe opinions have any in fluence on fociety, has ever ventured to place religious notions entirely beyond the pale of reftraint. For this we may appeal to the authorities which have been principally quoted during the Jate difcuffions. By one of thefe, a partial toleration has been faid to allow to Diffenters the unmolefted profeffion of reli. gion, but to deny the entrance to offices of truft and emolu. lument in the flate.. A complete toleration is faid to be the al lowance lowance of both. But notwithstanding the widenefs of this pofition (which indeed deftroys the yery nature of toleration), an exception is immediately made; for it is juftly fuppofed, that cafes may occur, in which "certain tenets of religion are rea fonably concluded to have a connection with difpofitions dangerous to the state." This is the fubftance of the opinion of Dr. Paley, a writer whom none will accufe of a want of liberality on religious fubjects. "A much higher name has lately been ufed as an authority for the unlimited claims of toleration. Mr. Locke is apt to inconvenience his fubfequent reafoning by affuming too great a latitude for his fundamental pofitions. His general maxim (the only part of him which fome of his readers feem to remember) is, that the civil magiftrate, having, in the nature of things, nothing to do with the religion of any country, can exercise no control over the fubject on account of religious opinions; and that all fubjects together are entitled to the fame common rights as men and denizens. This is his toleration. But, when called upon to defcribe what he means by the common rights, he defines them to be "the protection and impunity of men, not offending in civil things." And he fuppofes in the Diffenter "mere feparation and difference of opinion joined with innocency of life." Nor is this all. Nor is this all. Mr. Locke, who, at firft, fo exprefsly excludes the magistrates from any control on account of religious opinions, is obliged, with all others, to call him in on certain occafions. On every principle stated in this discourse, he defends the fuppreffion of idolatry among the Jews. God exercised the fovereignty over his chofen people; but idolatry naturally promoted an alienation from his regal authority. It was therefore liable to reftraint, as "the acknowledgment of another King, against the laws of empire." Again, in points of faith, he pronounces thofe which are merely fpeculative to be entitled to an unlimited freedom, even to the denial of the truth of revelation itself! But in practical cafes, or those which involve moral actions, he establishes a control. He excepts Atheists from his toleration, and those whofe opinions are contrary to the existence of fociety. To thefe he adds another inftance, of much importance to this argument. "That church can have no right to be tolerated by the magiftrate, which is conftituted upon fuch a bottom, that all those who enter into it, do thereby ipfo facto deliver themselves up to the protection and encouragement of another prince: for by this means the magiftrate would give way to the fettling of a foreign jurifdiction in his own country." He makes another exception elsewhere, and will not grant his toleration to thofe religions which are themfelves intolerant. Nor is this faid through vengeance: for it may well be supposed, that a religion which is intolerant when poffeffed of power, will be a religion of intrigue when out of power, and is therefore to be watched over, rather than thoughtlefsly and too liberally trufted," P. 14. The The fubject certainly cannot be placed in a more im preffive point of view. What then is the ground on which the Church is called upon to wave its claims? Liberality.But liberality must confift with juftice and with loyalty.Can we refign our fovereign lightly to the mercy of thofe who deny his juft authority? The Roman Catholics, if confcientious, muft perfift in denying the prerogative of their fovereign, and are confequently difqualified for those offices under him, which involve the joint concerns of church as well as ftate. The great advocates of what are. called the Catholic Claims uniformly, and with all their talents, and indeed without difguife, attack the authority of our government, and the prerogative of our fovereign. This is fpecified in two recent and ftriking examples. Our Church, fays Dr. Ireland, with great and becoming emphafis, is connected with the State, and both are bound to the Throne. Religious diffent produces civil incapacity, and difqualifies those who avow it from the administration of the powers of our proteftant government. This excellent difcourfe thus concludes: "What then is the duty of the Catholic? He may retain his belief in peace and fafety; but he ought not to covet political power, while his principles are at iffue with the very nature of the government. I addrefs this to his confcience, and propofe to him an example from an age which he profeffes to venerate. The first Chriftians could not act upon the principles of heathenifm, and therefore never claimed the privileges or the profits of Roman office. They would have been content to be merely fafe from the fword of perfecution; yet even this was denied to them. The government exercifed all its natural rights in the maintenance of a national worship, but it applied no tole. ration to diffenters. And hence came the unprincipled perfecutions of that half-enlightened age. Meanwhile, the believers knew the duty of loyalty, and performed it amid the prefervation of their confcience towards God. They were exemplary fubjects of Rome, though idolatrous. They fupported its government, though marked with the most bloody hoftility to them. They entered freely into its armies, fought its battles, and maintained the caufe of the empire till they had matured it for the acknowledgment of the faith of Chrift. "To the Diffenter from our Protestant Establishment I would fay, You experience that toleration which paganifm would not grant, and for which the primitive Chriftians would have returned their heart-felt thanks and praifes to heaven. While therefore you enjoy the privilege of confcience, learn to refpect the rights of that government, under which Providence has placed you. But know, that to demand a share of political power power from the hands of the fovereign whofe prerogative you continue to deny; to irritate a government which would rather leave you to repofe, and then to upbraid it with perfecution, is neither political loyalty nor Christian obedience." P. 24. Having thus given the fubftance of this Sermon, it can not be neceffary to exprefs our particular opinion. The Church has in all times of peril and attack met with advocates equally zealous and equally powerful, and we doubt not but it always will. In this hope and confidence we thank Dr. Ireland for this excellent publication. ART. 11. BRITISH CATALOGUE. POETRY. Oriental Tales, tranflated into English Verfe. By J. Hoppner, Efq. R. A. 12mo. 144 PP. 55. Murray. 1807. We are far from being furprised to see a fecond edition of these pleasant tales in fo fhort a space of time. Mr. H. has written a new preface, in which he gives the following account of the origin of the tales." Four are felected from the Tooti Nameh, or Tales of the Parrot, viz. 1ft, zd, 4th, and 6th. The third is founded on one of a fet published in a fmall volume by the Rev. W. Beloe. The fifth is from the Heetopades of Veefhnoo-Sarma. The 7th and 8th are from the Fables of the 12th and 13th Centuries, published by M. Le Grand." At the latter end of the preface, Mr. Hoppner very properly retorts upon fome cavillers, who it feems had attacked his first edition. In concluding, he offers the following neat apologue to their confideration. "A Horfe before an Afs was led, So Sir, the foreft has been ringing, With what you're pleafed to call your finging. ART. ALT. 12. Defcriptive Peetry. Being a Selection from the best modern Authors, principally having Reference to Subjects in Natural Hiftory. 8vo. Price 3s. 6d. Savage. 1807. This felection is made with much judgment and tafte, and has in fome degree the diftinction of novelty. It in a particular manner unites inftruction with amufement, and may very properly be recommended to all who have the care of young perfons. The authors felected for the purpose are of high character among modern authors for poetical talent, namely, Hayley, Maurice, Charlotte Smith, George Ellis, Sotheby, Bloomfield, &c. The following fpecimen is from Mr. Kett's Juvenile Poems. " TO THE RIVER WYE. "O Wye, romantic ftream! thy winding way ART. 13. 8vo. Still a remnant of thefe fatires is on hand. This poem, in the Lyrie ftyle, appears to have been written before the downfal of the Talents, and from fome typographical fymptoms, as well as critical marks, is probably to be attributed to the ingenious author of Elijah's Mantle. The poet rings the changes on the uti poffidetis, and ftatus quo, in a very amuling manner. ample, Uti Poffidetis, and Status Quo: a Political Satire. 20 pp. Is. 6d. J. J. Stockdale. 1897. 7. "Courted by Fox in language fweet, Politeness would compel him. Tis ftrange, that Peace fhould look fo queerly, On men who fraternized fo dearly At Paris, Ante Bellum. For ex 8. "Tho |