turers of the most abandoned and inexorable temper, under the form of a commonwealth, who governed according to their lawless passions, robbing the nobility of their hereditary rank, and the people of their esta blished franchises. The restoration of the second Charles to the throne, after an interregnum of twelve years, replaced the church on its former foundation, and the bishops regain ed their sees and ecclesiastical juris. diction. Charles, however, was scarcely seated in the regal chair, when he found himself involved in the same difficulties, occasioned by the inveterate jealousy and intolerance of puritanism, which his father and

democracy. It is an indisputable truth, though but little known at this day, that during the reigns of James and Charles, the catholic peers, by their votes in parliament, were the main supporters of the new established church; they were constautly voting against the innovations sought to be introduced by the puritan faction; and hence, as this party grew in strength, they found themselves under the necessity of instigating the populace to proceedings which intimidated both the protestant bishops and the catholic peers, and deterred them from attending in their places in the upper house, before their measures to rob the sovercign of his prerogative could be effectuat-grandfather met with before him.→ ed. The catholic religion teaches subordination to lawful authority, and fidelity to superiors; but selfinspiration, accompanied by ignorant presumption, can only lead to tumult and innovation. It is, in fact, the very groundwork of jacobinism and infidelity, and as it was the cause of the subversion of the church and state of England under a Charles, as well as the altar and the throne in France under a Louis, so does it now threaten a second overthrow of the establishment in this country, unless the friends and supporters of ecclesiastical and civil authority combine, as they did prior to the passing of the acts under consideration, in its support.

The sacrifice of blood and treasure made by the catholics, in defence of the just prerogatives of the crown and the civil immunities of the people, proving unavailing, the church shared the same fate as the constitution. The ministers of the former found themselves supplanted by fanatic gospel-inspired coblers and draymen, who railed with equal vehemence against lawn-sleeves and prelacy, as against slavery and popery; while the authorities of the latter were filled by political adven

He had spent the most of his exile in catholic countries, from the sovereigns and people of which he received, though a protestant, the greatest kindness and attention; and he had previously experienced the most unshaken attachment of his catholic subjects to his interests, as well as those of his unfortunate parent; it is therefore not to be wondered, that on his coming into possession of the crown, he should evince a predilec tion for the services of such tried adherents. It has been insinuated by Rapin, that this monarch, had actually embraced the catholic faith previous to his ascending the throne, but he advances no credible authority in support of his assertion, and the conduct of Chatles in sacrificing so much innocent catholic blood, to gratify the sanguinary intolerance and credulity of his protestant subjects, does not tend to strengthen the historian's, veracity. Be this, however, as it may, there can be no doubt as to the partiality of the king towards the catholics, and his dis trust of the presbyterians, who had been chiefly instrumental in bringing his royal father to the block. This coldness on the part of Charles, of course, produced great discontent

a restoration of popery. There were other parts also in this speech of the king relating to papists, particularly one, wherein he bore testimony to their unshaken loyalty, in these words "I must confess to you, there are many of that profession, who having served my father and myself very well, may fairly hope for some part of that indulgence I would willingly afford to others who dissent from us," which gave considerable alarm to "the saints” in parliament, and they immediately sent up another address to his majesty, begging he would order all the popish priests and jesuits out of the kingdom. Accordingly, a proclamation to that effect was issued.In the year 1666, the dreadful fire of London occurred, and great care was taken by the no-popery leaders to attribute this awful visitation of Divine Providence to popish malice, and a madman was actually tried and executed to give a colouring to the base and wicked insinuations.About this time also, the lord chancellor Hyde, earl of Clarendon, who was a bitter enemy to the papists and no lover of the presbyterians, fell into disgrace at court, and sir Thomas Clifford, of whom I have before spoken, came into favour, along with Ashley Cooper, afterwards earl of Shaftesbury, the earl of Arlington, and others. This earl of Clarendon was the father of the duchess of York, the first wife of James II. who became a convert to the catho

amongst the disciples of calvinism, which was still farther increased by the passing of the act of uniformity in the first year of his reign. The forementioned historian says, that on the day (St. Bartholomew) appointed for its being put into execution, no less than two thousand presbyterian ministers quitted their livings rather than they would conform to it. Soon after this body addressed the king and council for a dispensation from the penalties annexed to the above act, on which a declaration was issued, containing an assurance of his majesty's firm adherence to the act, but, nevertheless, he was willing to dispense with some matters in it, for the sake of those who might not conform through scruple and tenderness of misguided conscience. In the beginning of the year 1662, he addressed his parliament on the subject of this declaration, in which he says, "I am, in my nature, an enemy to all severity for religion and conscience, how mistaken soever it be, when it extends to capital and sanguinary punishments." These liberal sentiments, so truly becoming a christian king, did not please the puritans, who could declaim against the supposed intolerance of the church of Rome, yet considered it an abomination to tolerate those who differed from them in religious belief; for the commons addressed the monarch, in reply to his speech, and stated to him, that such a disposition of lenity would expose his majesty to the restless im-lic faith, from reading Dr. Heylin's portunity of every sect or opinion, History of the Reformation, in oppoand of every single person also, who sition to the strict injunctions of her should presume to dissent from the father to stick to protestantism, and church of England; that it would was the chief means of proselyting her be a cause of increasing sects and royal husband. Clarendon was basectaries, whose numbers would nished the kingdom, and sought reweaken the true protestant profes-fuge in a catholic country, where he sion so far, that it would at least be difficult for it to defend itself against them, and might at length lead to ageneral toleration, and in the end,

met with hospitality and protection from those whom he had assisted in persecuting here. In 1668, the king sent three messages to parliament to

urge the passing of the money-bill, | but the commons pretending to discover that it was designed to obtain a general indulgence for all nonconformists, in which papists were to be included, under cover of eas ing the presbyterfans, presented an address to the monarch, praying him to enforce the laws against conventicles, and the unlawful assemblies of papists and non-conformists; in compliance with which a proclamation was published to that purport. These proclamations, however, were not deemed satisfactory by the meek and merciful ancestors of our present race of patriots and bible-mongers, because the execution of them was not so vigorously enforced as they could wish. The discontent of parliament therefore increased rather than die minished, and a project was agitated by the cabinet to make the king absolute; to which, however, he would not consent. In 1670, the parliament passed a bill, to which the king gave his consent, the substance of which was, that "if any person, upwards of sixteen years of age, should be present at any assembly, conventicle or meeting, under colour or pretence of any exercise of religion, in any other manner than according to the liturgy and practice of the church of England, where there were five persons or more, be-ercised his functions publicly, great sides those of the household, in such cases the offenders were to pay five shillings for the first offence, and ten for the second. And the preachers and teachers in any such meetings, were to forfeit twenty pounds for the first, and forty for the second offence. And lastly, those who suffered any such conventicles in their houses, barns, yards, &c. were likewise to forfeit twenty pounds." This act, Dr. Burnet says, was so severely exact ed in London, and put things into anch disorder, that many of the trading men began to talk of remove

ing with their stocks over to Holland; but the king put a stop to farther severities. After this specimen of toleration in a protestant parliament, I hope we shall hear no more clamouring from modern puritans of the intolerance of popery. Soon afterthis law was passed, both houses of parliament addressed the throne on the alarming causes of the growth of popery, wherein they set forth among others, "The great insolencies of the papists of Ireland (where do publicly appear archbi shops and bishops, reputed to be made so by the pope, in opposition to those made under his majesty's authority, according to the religion established in England and Ireland) and the open exercise of the mass in Dublin, and other parts of that kingdom, is further a great cause of the present growth of popery. That Peter Talbot, the reputed archbishop of Dublin, was publicly consecrated so at Antwerp with great solemnity; from whence he came to London, where he exercised his functions, and was all along, in his journey to Chester, treated with the character of his grace by the popish recusants whom he visited; and at his landing at Dublin, was received with great solemnity by those of the popish religion there, where he also ex

multitudes flocking to him, and still continues to do the same."”—To remove these intolerable grievances, these liberal protestant senators submitted the following remedies; that all priests and jesuits should be ordered to depart the realm; that the judges should cause the laws against popery to be strongly enforced; that persons should be restrained from attending mass at the foreign ambassadors' chapels; that care should be taken, that no office or employment of public authority, trust or command in civil or military affairs be committed to, or continued in the

hands of any person being a popish | this declaration the commons sent recusant, or justly reputed to be so; up an address to the king, in which that no catholic schools should be they informed him, "that penal laws permitted in the kingdom; and that in matters ecclesiastical could not orders should be given to apprehend be suspended but by an act of parliaand bring over to England, "one ment."-To this his majesty replied, Plunket, who goes under the name that he had issued the declaration of primate of Ireland, and one Peter for the purpose of quieting the kingTalbot, who takes on him the name dom, but he found it had proved a of archbishop of Dublin, to answer cause of disquiet; that he was sursuch matters as shall be objected prised to find his power in spirituals against them.” The king, says questioned, as it had never been be Rapin, replied to this address, that fore in the reigns of his predeceshe would do what was desired, "but sors; that he did not pretend to sussupposed no one would wonder if he pend any laws wherein the propermade a difference between those pa- ties, rights, or liberties of his subpists, that had newly changed their jects were concerned, nor to alter religion, and those that were bred any thing in the established docup in it, and had faithfully served trine or discipline of the church of him and his father in the late wars." England; but that his only object But here was the rub; here was was, to take off the penalties inflictthe main cause of the uneasiness of ed by the statutes upon the dissentthis seditious and turbulent faction; ers, which he believed, when well' they could not bear to see the per- considered of, they themselves would secuted catholic preferred before not wish should be executed accordthem to fill the most important offi- ing to the rigour of the law. This ces of the state, and hence sprung answer of the monarch was not sathose jealous complaints, those un- tisfactory either to the parliament' charitable insinuations, those un or the presbyterian body. feeling and merciless requests, which former sent up another address, and stain the parliamentary records of the latter suspecting the favour the reigns of the Stuarts. During evinced for them, was principally the sitting of this parliament, the designed to ease the papists, whom dake of York made a public abju- they hated mortally, so far from ration of the protestant religion and thanking the king for his liberality, an open profession of the catholic ungratefully and uncharitably raised faith, which gave fresh occasion for a clamour in the country against the alarm amongst the professors of the measure.-In return for this conduct, former creed, and this alarm was the house of commons passed a bill, considerably increased by the king's by which all the penalties against assuming a power to suspend the presbyterians in the act of uniformity operation of two acts of parliament, were removed, and voted another and publishing a declaration, in vir- address against the papists.-The tue of his supreme power in ecclesi- bill was frustrated by the parliament ástical matters, (a right, he said, in- being prorogued before the amendherent in his person, and declared ments made by the lords could be to be so by several acts of parlia- agreed to by the lower house; and ment), in which he suspended the the proclamation issued, in conse execution of all penal laws in mat- quence of their address, being less ters ecclesiastical, against all non- satifactory than former ones, beconformists or recusants whatsoever, cause, says Rapin, it extended to under certain regulations.Against | but one single article of their pe

+

The

might deem necessary to remedy all their just grievances. This conduct of the monarch was highly gratify ing to the senate, who went in a body to thank him for it; but the cabinet were so displeased, that it not only occasioned its dissolution but was the great cause of Shaftes bury's deserting the king, and going over to the violent party. The cha racter of this prime promoter of the declaration laws, is thus given by Mr. Higgons, in his Short View, p. 319. Among these, (the cabinet ministers) the chief was the famous Anthony Astley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, who, from an old presbyterian, either through ambi tion or inconstancy, was entirely come over to the royal party; this minister was a man of extraordi

་་

tition, without any mention of the removal of papists from places of trust, in order to obtain their end, they resolved not to pass the money bill till they had procured a redress of their grievances, and particularly a revocation of the declaration for liberty of conscience. This resolution of the commons placed Charles and his cabinet in greater difficulties than ever. The nation was at this time engaged in a war with the Dutch, who after rebelling against their lawful sovereign, succeeded in forming themselves into a protestant commonwealth, under the name of the united provinces of Holland. His exchequer was empty, and the last named historian asserts, that as his army and navy, with the excep. tion of a few popish officers, were protestants, there, was, no depend-nary parts, great knowledge of the ence on their fidelity, if the king persisted in measures so contrary to their religion and liberty. What a stigma on protestant loyalty and allegiance! yet these are the men to accuse catholics of breaking faith with heretics, and holding divided fealty to protestant rulers. When, let me ask, did the Irish catholic soldiers or sailors evince such a disposition to betray the temporal interests and honour of their protestant sovereigns, when engaged in warfare with catholic states, notwithstanding they were even persecuted for their religious opinions, and debarred the rights of conscience? In these perplexities Charles's council was divided; one, part, including Shaftesbury, was for supporting the declaration, and the other for waiting a more favour-party, and set himself up the chamable opportunity.In the midst of this indecision of his ministers, the king acted for himself; he recalled the declaration, broke the seal with his own hands, and in person as sured the parliament if they would pass the money-bill, he would give bis assent to such others as they

ORTHOD. JOUR. VOL. VI.

world, and application to business, but of no principle, honour, or conscience; in confirmation of which, he had chalked out a way for the king his master to have trampled op the necks of his people, and to have been as absolute as the great Mogul; but Charles, through a diffidence in his nature, and aversion to enterprises of hazard, but chiefly out of a principle of generosity that would not permit him to make so ill a return to a people who had so frankly restored him, rejected the pernicious advice; this not a little disgusted Shaftesbury, whose resentments being more inflamed afterwards by the king not concurring in some other of his arbitrary projects, made him at last break all measures with the court, go over to the other

pion of the popular faction; and as he was a man violent in his passions, and implacable in his malice, he conceived so mortal an aversion to the king, that like a baffled ravisher, he resolved to ruin that virtue which he could not debauch."-The disclosure of Shaftesbury's defection