BY THE REV. SIR HARCOURT LEES, BART. IN WHICH THE CATHOLICS ARE
VINDICATED FROM HIS ABUSE, AND THEIR CLAIMS FOR UNRESTRICTED
EMANCIPATION, CONSIDERED ***

Transcriber’s Note: The Greek is transcribed as printed, although a
_correct_ transcription has also been provided at the end of the book!




                               THE IMPROVED
                                ANTIDOTE,
                           SUPPOSED TO BE MORE
                       Active in Expelling Poison,
                         _THAN A LATE INVENTION_,
                                  BY THE
                     _Rev. Sir Harcourt Lees, Bart._
                               IN WHICH THE
                         CATHOLICS ARE VINDICATED
                            _FROM HIS ABUSE_,
                           AND THEIR CLAIMS FOR
                        Unrestricted Emancipation,
                               CONSIDERED.

                        _Addressed to the Public._

    πασῃ φυλαχῃ την ψυχην τηρητεον, μη δια τησ των λορων ἡδονησ
    παραδεξ αμενοι τι λαθωμεν των χειρονων ωσπεβ ὁι τα δηλητηρια
    μετα του μελιτοσ προσ ιεμενοι
                                                           BASIL.

                                _DUBLIN_:
                  PRINTED, AND SOLD BY THE BOOKSELLERS,
                                  1820.




TO THE PUBLIC, &c.


Should a great and commercial People experience an unlooked for reverse
of fortune; should a rapid decay of Trade, a long protracted and ruinous
War, an expenditure of the Public Money, at once lavish and unnecessary,
should even all these causes conspire with an oppressive national debt,
in reducing them from opulence and prosperity to the lowest ebb of
distress, the consequences must be melancholy and alarming: On one hand,
the People, impatient of this calamitous change, will murmur against
Government, and proceed to disorderly and tumultuous Insurrections. On
the other, Administration, foreseeing danger to its own permanence and
safety, will perhaps, adopt coercive measures, not altogether consistent
with the liberty of its subjects:—Under these circumstances, every
well intentioned mind will be deeply affected with concern, for the
welfare of his country; various means will be recommended of healing its
disorders, or, at least, of mitigating their virulence; and no one can be
reprehensible in proposing a Remedy, or an alteration, even, though the
success be doubtful:—Influenced by such considerations, we also appeal to
the indulgence of a generous Public, and should the application we offer
prove beneficial, the utmost wish of our heart will be gratified, should
it, on the contrary, be neglected or derided, the consciousness of an
upright intention, must in some measure console us.

An Antidote has been already prescribed by a Revd. Baronet, we
presume with the same view; the application of which, however, in our
opinion, would tend to cherish the malignancy of the disease, rather
than to eradicate its cause:—Wherefore, alarmed for the constitution
of the patient, should it be adopted, and at the same time, though
we acknowledge and applaud the Revd. Author’s anxiety in this case,
suspecting that he would prefer a partial to a complete Restoration, we
humbly beg leave to state our reasons for differing in sentiment with
a man of his consummate knowledge and experience, together with our
objections to his Antidote.

That the present crisis is an alarming one, every man capable of
reflection, will readily admit, that, however, every artifice of audacity
and craft has been exerted (and with success exerted) to undermine the
religious, moral, and political sentiments of the great mass of the
manufacturing and agricultural orders of Society in England, seems to
require some farther proof, than the mere assertion of the Author, before
we can assent to it, with an equal degree of conviction:—Is it probable
that, notwithstanding the firmness which has so eminently distinguished
the present Administration, such artifices should be resorted to with
impunity? Is it possible that success should attend such artifices,
notwithstanding the vigilance of Ministers, so unhesitatingly displayed
in the removal of Lord Fitzwilliam? Perhaps, the Revd. Author meant
obliquely to censure Administration, for overlooking such attempts in the
first instance, and subsequently, for not foreseeing and guarding against
their pernicious effects, for not suppressing tumultuous assemblies,
when, (according to his assertion) the then existing laws, were of
sufficient force to stamp the greater part of them with the Seal of
illegality.

It is a melancholy consideration, that the Christian Religion, which
inculcates universal good will and beneficence, as the peculiar doctrine
of its founder, should have been not unfrequently perverted, in
consequence of the self-interested and prejudiced views of individuals,
into an instrument of cruelty and oppression; and it is probable that
this perversion should have an influence, in bringing into disrepute
the Religion we profess, (which is meant we presume, by the overthrow
of our God) far more prevalent than the effusions of impiety and
atheism, however circulated in private, or openly and daringly boasted
of;—The pure and simple precepts of Christianity call forth our utmost
admiration, the sanctity and beneficence of its founder, excite in
us reverence and love, can then these impious and atheistical dogmas
(inspiring us but with horror) can these dogmas it may be asked,
counteract the influence of the Religion in which we have been educated,
which we have been taught, and which we are inclined from its pure
morality to respect? It is the abuse of Christianity, its pretended
friends, not its open and avowed antagonists, that will ever abridge its
permanence or diffusion.

Power, wealth, and consequence, are the prime motives of human exertion,
and when once in possession of these objects, men are equally anxious
to preserve, as they originally were to acquire them:—the establishment
of Hierarchies is of human invention, and of course, must partake in
the imperfections of humanity; These Hierarchies vest in the several
members composing them, no small share of profit and authority, to retain
which, is their common interest; whenever the particular tenets, for
the maintenance of which, the establishment was originally formed, are
called in question, its members, alarmed at the impending danger, resort
to every means in their power, of upholding their own, and of repelling
the influence of their assailants, among which, persecution may perhaps
appear a ready and effectual mode of quelling all opposition.

The Church of Rome exceeded all other Hierarchies in extent of
Dominion, of Power, and of Influence; its exertions, therefore, against
all assailants would be proportionably vigorous, its persecutions
proportionably extensive:—these assertions are not advanced with the
view of vindicating Persecution, they are meant merely to account,
in some measure, for its origin;—convinced that the God of Mercy can
delight only in Virtue and Integrity, every reflecting mind must abhor
and condemn the mistaken zeal of those, who think they promote the
service of the Divinity, by torturing and afflicting his creatures:—but
have the members of the Protestant Establishment entirely abstained
from the exercise of this instrument, to establish or confirm their
Power? Are they, altogether, innocent of resorting to this object of
their reprehension? For a solution of these questions we may recur to
our own domestic annals. Has not the bulk of the Irish Nation been
subject to the will and caprice of a few individuals (in comparison
with its population) and this, for adhering to the religion of their
forefathers?—Have not the ministers of this religion (after being
compelled to seek their education in some foreign country) been
debarred from the exercise of their sacred functions except by stealth
or privacy?—Have not the adherents to this Religion been shackled in
every effort to better their condition?—Have they not been rendered
incapable of acquiring real property?—If possessed of such property,
have they not been subject to its entire forfeiture by information or
discovery?—Were not such forfeitures intended to act as allurements
for children to inform, even, against their own parents?—Was not every
father of a family liable to punishment for educating his children, in
that religious persuasion, which he esteemed the only true one?—Were not
Catholics ineligible to any office of power or trust?—Were not these Acts
in force for nearly a century?—Many other grievances, equally oppressive
in addition to these, were inflicted on them in direct violation of the
Treaty of Limerick, in which it was stipulated, that the Irish should
be admissible to all the Privileges of subjects, upon taking the oath
of Allegiance, without being bound to take the oath of Supremacy:—our
domestic annals, then, afford a strong presumption that the Protestant
Establishment has been no less culpable, in the exercise of persecution,
as an instrument to support its power, than the Romish Hierarchy so much
inveighed against; whilst its present conduct, in still withholding
from the Catholics a full participation in the privileges to which its
Protestant Subjects are admitted, is a convincing proof that it continues
actuated by a spirit of intolerance;—not to particularize the absurd
calumnies, the foul misrepresentations, so vehemently urged against
them, and of which some of its ministers (we regret to observe) are
too intemperate in the application;—strange inconsistency that there
is in mankind, when the very means they severely reprehend, are not
frequently applied by themselves.—Can it be supposed, that men of well
cultivated understandings, should be so lost to all sense of morality,
so destitute of respect for their own characters, as to look upon
wilful perjury as a virtue, when resorted to for particular purposes,
or particular interests?—Can it be admitted that men, many of them eye
witnesses of, and sufferers in the late revolutionary calamities on
the Continent, when they return home should, by the most atrocious of
crimes, voluntarily endanger the peace and tranquility of their native
Country? Their own conduct is a full refutation of the calumnious charges
advanced against them, a positive proof that they seriously regard
their moral obligations;—they are, not only, peaceable in their own
demeanor,—they render the people, of whom they are the pastors, quiet
and inoffensive;—were they disposed to estimate wilful perjury as venial,
or, in some particular instances, as laudable, they would recommend it
to their several flocks, and thus, would the Catholics, by being freed
from the restraint of morality, become admissible to all the privileges
of subjects; but it is the part, only, of an abandoned profligate, to
profess his conformity with the established doctrines, and to violate
the most solemn engagements, for the advancement of his own private
interest or ambition;—the man of integrity disclaims all compromise with
his conscience, he will submit to every privation, and will encounter
indigence and obscurity, rather than deserve the imputation of guilt:—the
express denial of the Catholic Universities that any earthly power can
grant absolution for perjury, the solemn abjuration of such a doctrine
by the Priesthood themselves, but above all, the uniform tenor of their
conduct, proves that these calumnies are altogether unfounded.

National reflections, it has been observed, are not justified in theory,
nor on any general principles;—the same observation will hold good
in regard to Sects, Parties, or Professions:—particular individuals
may, undoubtedly, be just objects of censure, particular tenets of
reprehension, but indiscriminate abuse, is the offspring of prejudice
or malevolence, it can never derive its origin from sober reason and
impartiality.—To follow the author of the Antidote through his abusive
rhapsody against the Schismatics, would, perhaps, engage us too far in
scurrility, to examine into the tenets, he attributes to them, will,
at least, more usefully employ our attention. A new sect has been
lately formed, the constitution of whose church, he says, instructs its
adherents that, through belief, they will escape from the guilt and
punishment of sin; this proposition, advanced as one of the tenets of
the new sect, is scarcely intelligible;—that a due portion of belief
will exonerate us from the punishment of sin, may be readily understood,
however we may doubt of its truth, but that the commission of sin will
not involve us in guilt, is a proposition that cannot without difficulty
be comprehended. The Revd. Author may mean perhaps, that they maintain
faith to be more meritorious than good works, a doctrine which has been
ascribed to many of the sectaries, but, as it is not included by him
who founded our Religion, among the immediate requisites for salvation,
it ought to be examined with the utmost caution, and, if upon such an
examination, it should appear disadvantageous to the interest of society,
it ought at once to be rejected—according to this tenet, its adherents
are not required to cultivate those good qualities, which are beneficial
to mankind; they neglect the occasions of beneficence, they lose even
the dispositions of benevolence, in cultivating faith, which quality
above all others, will insure their acceptance with God. They expose
themselves to the frauds of knaves, or the errors of fanatics, into which
frauds and errors however, they dare not examine, as to doubt, is to fail
in that essential point, on which they found their future hope;—under the
influence likewise of this principle, the tenor of their conduct becomes
a matter of no moment, it induces negligence in regard to their duties,
as men in a state of society, since active virtue can be of no avail,
where faith is esteemed the sole requisite for justification:—a less
grave argument also, though upon so serious a subject, may, perhaps, be
not inapplicable. Faith depends upon ignorance, of course the less a man
knows, the more he has to believe, hence the most ignorant, with a due
supply of credulity, will become the most meritorious of christians:—we
would moreover, recommend it to the Revd. Author, of the Antidote, to
examine more accurately into his own Articles of Belief, as required by
law, before he censures this doctrine of the Sectaries.

They hold, moreover, as the Rev. Author informs us, farther, that,
if once justified, no outrage they can afterwards commit, no sin (it
does not signify of how horrible a nature, they can be guilty of) will
deprive them of eternal salvation;—We readily join with Sir Harcourt
Lees in reprobating such a tenet, it is absurd and presumptuous;—The
determinations of God are impenetrable by man;—his acceptance of our
feeble efforts to conciliate his favor, can be discovered only by the
Revelation he has communicated.—How then can we become confident in our
own justification, during our present state of existence, in which we
are unceasingly liable to error? The very supposition involves in it
an absurdity;—but to arrogate to ourselves exemption from punishment
for all future transgressions, is to assume the peculiar province of
the Deity, and is equally impious, as it is presumptuous;—this tenet is
also subversive of general Benevolence,—its votaries must, necessarily,
look upon themselves as the sole partakers in justification, and the
rest of mankind as outcasts from God’s Mercy. They will esteem them,
therefore, but little entitled to their consideration and regard;—the
conceit of being justified must originate either in actual, or fancied
inspiration, but inspiration is a real feeling of the Divine Presence,
enthusiasm a false one, and the effects are nearly the same in either
case,—how then will they guard themselves from misapprehension? how will
they be able to distinguish between Divine Inspiration, and mere mortal
enthusiasm?—The former will, we must acknowledge, dissipate all doubt,
and confirm them in virtue, but the latter may lead them into errors,
which it will be difficult, if not impossible to repair:—may not these
tenets however, be somewhat overcharged, I do not mean by design, but
through misapprehension.—The consciousness of a scrupulous discharge of
their relative duties may, in some instance, give birth to presumption,
and leave men to conceive themselves entitled to justification from
their own superior merits; but these sectaries strongly impressed with
the imperfection of human nature, attributing such conceptions to the
arrogance of human reason, regard Faith as an humble acknowledgement
of their incompetence to merit the Divine Favor, they rely solely on
the Mercy of God for justification;—hence their preference of faith, in
comparison with their own exertions for this purpose;—by these means,
however, their minds became enervated, their reason less vigorous, they
are less inclined to exert it, and more open to the fervor of enthusiasm,
which may, not improbably, inspire an opinion, that themselves are
favored with a Divine Communication; that hypocrites and imposters will
take advantage of this disposition is more than probable, but hypocrites
and imposters abound in all persuasions, even in the Established Church,
a good mind may be deceived, but it is hoped will not be perverted
by them;—the absurdity of such doctrines may be offered to their
consideration, convince their reason and they will abjure them, but, if
this delusion tends only to sweeten their present enjoyments, and render
them confident in future hope, why should they be grossly reviled for
their belief?

“But (he proceeds) should these schismatics form a Coalition with the
sworn enemies of our Church and constitution, the pious and merciful
Papists (as Lord Donoughmore calls them) whose Priests will give them
absolution, while the imaginations of the fanatic Enthusiast will
justify him, I should be glad to know what would soon be the fate of
both Church and King in this great Empire.” Here the Rev’d. Author
displays his motives for administering to the public, foreseeing danger
from the envenomed shafts of the fanatic, and from those of the Papist,
armed with a still more deadly poison, he compounds an Antidote that
he may counteract their pernicious effects, he expresses indeed, the
most decided contempt for Dr. Dromgoole’s Prophecy, though he evidently
apprehends its accomplishment,—but Dr. Dromgoole’s prophecy is as
harmless as himself was uninspired; the Protestant Church may defy
external violence, her danger proceeds from her own internal system,
she cherishes, within her own bosom, a principal of decay, which unless
Correctives be applied, must terminate in dissolution: The Clergy of
the establishment have been successful in their pursuit, they have
possessed themselves of the objects to which they aspired Power, Wealth
and Consequence: but in all human affairs, the completion of our desires
is generally succeeded by inactivity, after a successful termination of
our labours, we sit down to enjoy with ease and tranquility, the good
things of this life, so it is with the Clergy of the establishment,
their zeal is grown luke warm, their exertions are relaxed; In their
Churches, instead of the animated advocate infusing into his audience the
love of Religion, with admiration at its excellence, we too frequently
find an indolent drone holding forth to a drowsy congregation: In the
conventicle, on the contrary, we may be hold the schismatic, ardent in
zeal, earnest in his exhortations, vehement, impetuous, and enforcing by
his impressive manner, the uninterrupted attention of his auditors:

    ... Se vis me flere dolendum est
    Primum ipsi tibi....
    ...
    Si dicentis erunt Fortunis absona dicta
    Romani tollent Equites Peditesque Cachinnum.

The cause of this essential difference is, that the Clergy have
already attained the summit of their ambition, whereas the Fanatic is
still engaged in the pursuit after profit and estimation:—should it
be represented that, with respect to the establishment, there are
gradations in preferment, and dignities, with princely endowments,
sufficient to excite emulation even in the most indolent of its
members,—we acknowledge that such is the fact,—but how are they
distributed?—Are they held out as inducements for exertion, as the
appropriate rewards of diligence and merit?—By no means:—They are
universally disposed of through the channels of family influence, or
parliamentary interest:—the minister for the time being (in the name of
his sovereign) has the uncontrouled disposal of Church dignities, and
it is probable (it might be said notorious) that he will rather consult
how he may best strengthen his own interest for retaining his situation,
than attend to the characters and qualifications of the applicants:—it
is, by no means, intended to call in question the methods, by which the
present venerated dignitaries of the Church arrived at their eminence,
their exemplary conduct proves that they deserve it, they are beyond
dispute, endowed with piety, learning, and conscientiousness in discharge
of their sacred functions, but will their successors in office, succeed
also to their good qualities? The future probable consequences should
therefore occupy the attention of the public;—under such circumstances,
the minister may appoint to these dignities, men totally destitute of
the necessary qualifications; they, imitating the minister, may confer
their patronage upon their own immediate connexions, or upon such fawning
sycophants only as are best versed in flattery and insinuation;—can a
clergy, thus constituted, command the respect of the people? on the
contrary, they will excite contempt rather than reverence:—hence may be
discerned the principle of decay in the system, which, unless guarded
against with the utmost vigilance, threatens to prove fatal:—the Roman
Catholics, swayed by these facts, and their attendant consequences,
hesitated at the proposal of Emancipation, when clogged with the
Veto;—the clergy foresaw, that in consequence of the Veto, they would,
in fact, become dependant upon the minister for all future promotion;
the laity were alarmed, lest the priesthood should be corrupted, whilst
they suspected that, by these means, the people in general would be
demoralized, Emancipation therefore, upon such terms, they wisely
determined to reject, and they merit the applause of the public for this
their virtuous determination.—“Ere long” (the Revd. Author fervently
prays) “may there be prepared and enforced a stronger test than the
articles of religion, to clear our Parishes and to save our children from
the cruel consequences of Evangelical Instruction,” (by which expression
he is supposed to mean the errors of fanaticism.) Would he then, out
of pure good will to the Protestants, enlarge their measure of Faith
as already prescribed by law, and still farther controul their reason?
Is he aware that the defection of many, even of the Protestant clergy,
proceeds from a repugnance to these articles, and would he encrease the
schism? His hostility to the sectaries may be reasonably suspected,
when he recommends a mode, so evidently, tending to increase their
numbers. The Catholics are charged by him, with being sworn enemies to
their Protestant fellow subjects, he would, notwithstanding, imitate
the conduct he reviles, and render the hostility between all parties
irreconcilable;—he would, even arm the dignitaries of his Church with
more extensive powers, and convert those, who ought to be models of
Christian charity, into instruments of unchristian persecution: but the
Rev. Baronet has, perhaps, a mitre in contemplation, and is anxious, ere
he wields the crozier, that the office may be invested with more ample
means of exalting the Protestant Ascendancy, at the expense of all who
differ from its doctrines; It is to be hoped, however, that, should he
arrive at this proud eminence, he will exercise its present powers,
unaided by additional ones, with temperance and discretion.

The Public then will cease to wonder that the Revd. Author should so
strongly object to a right honourable gentleman’s declaration, in answer
to a Catholic Address, viz: that he is at a loss to account for the
reasons that operate, to prevent the Catholics from being “unrestrictedly
emancipated,” since this declaration militates against the Protestant
Ascendancy;—with due submission, however, to the learned Author’s
accumulated Experience (“having, from the earliest period of his academic
course, been in the habit of devoting a considerable part of his time
in the acquirement of knowledge, and of informing his mind upon matters
connected with the History, Politics, and Religions of his country.
Having been accustomed, likewise, to pass such time in the society of the
most eminent and able Writers, Politicians, and Statesmen, of ancient and
modern days.”) We cannot but accord with the above stated declaration
of the Right Honorable Gentleman, as equally just and liberal;—if the
co-operation of the Catholics, as fellow subjects, be expected, why
should they be debarred from the privileges of the subjects?—If their
attachment to the Constitution be a desirable object, why not attract
them by the united motives of interest and affection?—But how can they
be interested in, how can they affect a Constitution, which excludes
them, in particular, from its benefits and confidence?—Notwithstanding,
however, that we acknowledge the justice and liberality of this
declaration, we must beg leave to express our dissent from the same
Right Honorable Gentleman, when (according to the Report of a recent
debate) he pretends to define the term Liberty, by _Potestas faciundi
quicquid per leges liceat_;—the power of doing whatever may be permitted
by the laws, points out, only, that peculiar portion of liberty allowed
by each respective Government, to its appropriate subjects, but can never
be substituted for the general term itself.—In the Eastern regions, where
the Prince is despotic, where the will of the Sovereign is the law of
the state, the liberty of the subject will be bounded by the Will of a
Tyrant; under such circumstances the people are mere slaves;—hence, the
Right Honorable Gentleman’s definition is equally applicable to Slavery,
as to Liberty,—it may, however, be looked upon as the definition of
a lawyer, and as lawyers, in general, accommodate their pleadings to
the taste and interest of their clients, it may be presumed, that the
Right Honorable Gentleman adopted his definition to the interest, and
peculiar taste of his employer:—in the course of his harangue on the same
occasion, the Right Honorable Gentleman is reported to assert, (if we
understand the report aright,) that the great body of the people has no
right to enter into discussions concerning civil polity, or the immediate
measures of Government, an assertion that does but little credit to his
head, or his heart.—It may incline the people, however, to examine into
the Right Honorable Gentleman’s own claim to this important privilege;—it
may also be asked, who are interested in the measures adopted by
administration?—Is it the public at large? or is it the ministry? The
ministers are, indeed, a part of the people, but a failure in vigilance,
with respect to their own immediate interests, will never be attributed
to them; the security, the property, the liberty of the people, are at
stake, and it behoves them to be equally attentive to their concerns:—to
whom are ministers responsible?—to the representatives of the Nation:—who
are the constituents of this representative body?—the people:—in order
then to estimate the merits of a candidate, the people should become
competent judges of the excellence of their own Constitution, and of
the qualifications necessary, in a representative, to watch over and to
maintain its inviolability;—a close inspection therefore, into the System
of Government, and into the conduct pursued by their own representatives,
is a duty they owe themselves,—their fellow-subjects, and their
posterity;—the upright senator will also invite this serenity, whereas
the corrupt fool of a crafty minister will endeavour to evade enquiry, as
in the event of detection, he contemplates his own disgrace.

Neither does the Revd. Author spare the Radical Reformers, “Who (he says)
under the pretence of Petition, have alone in view the ascertainment
of strength, for the purposes of desolation.”——that immense multitudes
assembling from all quarters, with the intent of framing Petitions
for a reform in their representation, is alarming to the peaceable
phlegmatic subject, cannot be doubted, but it is no less certain that in
general, they conducted themselves on these occasions, with the utmost
tranquillity and discretion:—if (as he maintains) Government were armed
with sufficient powers to suppress the meetings, why were they not
resorted to in the first instance? why connive at such scenes, even in
the Metropolis, where they must undoubtedly be the most formidable, and
thus impress upon the people an idea of their legality?—Why encourage
a frequent repetition of them, and thus give occasion for the fatal
occurrences at Manchester?—If it be true that prevention is better than
a cure, were not the Ministers remiss in not instantly exerting their
powers? and that they had these powers, we have the Revd. Baronets own
authority.—Why, then, resort to new measures, when the existing laws were
sufficient for the immediate occasion?—A free Press is generally looked
upon as the surest bulwark against the encroachments of power; to it
also, we are indebted for the various improvements in Arts, in Sciences,
and even in virtue and religion, when considered as Sciences;—the
unrestrained privilege of questioning every proposition, and discussing
every subject, greatly contributes to the investigation of truth; should
the liberty of the Press, degenerate into licentiousness, a legal remedy
has, long since been provided;—should it encourage tumultuous meetings,
as the former laws (according to Sir Harcourt Lees) were of sufficient
force to suppress such assemblies, a farther restraint was unnecessary,
and uncalled for;—should it disseminate Blasphemy through the nation,
the good sense of the people will soon reject and condemn it, as is
evident from the several verdicts returned against the publications of
such a nature;—does then, the Baronet indulge in irony, when he extols
the conduct of administration? on the contrary, we rather suspect that,
misled by his own voracious appetite for praise, in too liberally
dispensing it to others, he has unguardedly conveyed censure, where he
meant but to commend.

The liberty of the Press, is without doubt, liable to abuse, so is every
privilege we enjoy, as men or as subjects, but, if it be once admitted
that the abuse of any privilege by a few individuals, is a sufficient
reason for withdrawing it from the Public at large, all their privileges
as free men will be successively forfeited:—If, indeed, Government
had not been possessed of sufficient means for remedying the apparent
disorders, they had had a decent apology for resorting to new measures,
and restrictive expedients; but, when the Revd. Author acknowledges the
competence of the powers vested in Ministers, originally to suppress
such assemblies, he according to our apprehension, (though perhaps, not
designedly,) censures their conduct in neglecting to do so.

That seats in the House of Commons, are to be purchased, is as notorious
as the sun at noon day, according to a noble member of the present
Administration, who is reported, in the public papers, to have made
use of this expression, on being convicted of bartering or attempting
to barter a seat in that house, for a Writership in the East India
Service:—it is no less confidently affirmed, that, in many instances,
Boroughs (intended to return representatives of the commercial part of
the Empire) are become the properties of private individuals, who either
appoint their own Members (with this particular proviso, that they
shall vacate their seats, unless they vote agreeably to the will of the
individual appointing them) or without hesitation sell them to the best
bidder:—it even, sometimes happens, that the Aristocracy of a county (by
which I mean the proprietors of great landed estates) consult together,
how many votes each of them can command (for they conclude that every
tenant must vote according to the direction of his landlord) and proceed
to put in nomination such candidates, as may have secured the weightiest
interest with themselves, who are generally successful; whether are
they then, the representatives of the people, or of a few individuals
constituting this Aristocracy?—Are these practices consistent with the
Constitution? or rather is not its very principle violated by them?—in
consequence of these abuses, it may reasonably be conjectured, that
the representative body will become corrupt;—that their own immediate
interests will outweigh all consideration for the public; and that they
will utterly disregard the rights and privileges of the people, to
protect which, however, they were originally instituted:—are the people
culpable if aroused by such grievances? they petition for a Reform in
the Commons House, well aware that the long duration of Parliaments, not
only gives birth to, but accelerates the progress of corruption; if they
aim at an annual, rather than a septennial parliament, concluding that,
by how much the shorter the period of their parliamentary existence may
be, the Administration will become by so much the less able and less
willing to corrupt the members, and that even should any individuals of
the representative body betray their trust, the period will soon arrive,
in which they may elect more worthy representatives?—It has been asserted
that this is contrary to the nature of our boasted constitution; but, if
the system be imperfect in this one particular, why not amend so material
a defect?—Or is the constitution immutable but for the benefit of the
Aristocracy, whilst every change is inadmissible, that will protect the
people at large in the due enjoyment of their rights and privileges?—Is
the change from a Triennial, to a Septennial Parliament (brought about
by the representative body, in direct violation of their constituents’
rights;) is this change, it may be asked, less hazardous than one which
purposes only to guard against the corruption, and to correct those
abuses which have almost imperceptibly crept into the representation?—As
the existence of corruption in the representative is too probable, so
is its prevalence in the constituent body too notorious:—election by
ballot, it has been supposed, will provide a remedy against this evil;—it
will remain unknown to the candidates for whom the voters may poll, the
application of bribery therefore will be ineffectual, as, notwithstanding
his acceptance of a bribe, the voter may still poll, according to his
inclination or his conscience, without the fear of a discovery.

In regard to the universal suffrage, it must be acknowledged that every
individual, in the state, has an interest in the proper administration
of its affairs, and that Government will, sometimes, need the support,
even of its meanest subjects; if, therefore, they are interested in,
and contribute to the support of Government, they are entitled to
a participation in its privileges;—the privilege they claim is the
Elective Franchise, and as the lower house is called the Commons House of
Parliament, why should not the members, instead of representing property,
be in fact the representatives of the People?—At the same time such
material changes adopted on a sudden, might produce tumult and disorder,
they might occasion convulsions, attended with far more dreadful effects,
than the evils they purpose to remedy;—but when a minister acknowledges
corruption in his own conduct;—when the sale of Boroughs is notoriously
practised;—when, in some instances, the representatives of a County are
returned by the influence alone of a few powerful individuals;—when the
late convictions, in the House of Commons, for bribery, prove that it is
frequently, if not generally practised by the candidates for seats in
that house, and that it has a pernicious influence upon the constituent
body;—it cannot be disputed, but that some remedy ought instantly to be
applied, in order to eradicate, or at least to check the wide spreading
infection.

Lord Grey, Lord Grenville, the Whig party, even the members of the
opposition are collectively abused by this Author; Lord Grey and Lord
Grenville, however, together with many other individuals whom he severely
censures, are men of acknowledged talents and information, as is evident
from their general conduct, and the speeches they have delivered in
various Parliamentary debates; but they differ in opinion from his
Reverence, if however, every man, who thinks differently from the learned
Author, be a profligate or a blockhead, we suspect that, besides himself,
he will scarcely find a wise or a virtuous individual throughout the
great Empire.

He again resumes his attacks upon the Catholics, we shall, however, in
the first instance, notice three questions, one particle of which he so
confidently defies them to refute:

1st. “Does not a Papist kneel down before, pray and bow to images,
pictures, and pieces of old wood representing our Blessed Saviour, the
Virgin Mary, and many Saints, and does he not do this for the purpose
either of paying adoration to these identical pieces of wood, old sheets
of oil cloth, with faces smeared on them, almost as hideous as most
of those you will see at the Catholic Board, on reading one of Robert
Peele’s Anti-catholic speeches, or to their likenesses?”—In answer to
this question we beg leave to refer to the catechisms of the catholics,
in which occur the following questions and answers:—Is it lawful to
adore the blessed Virgin or the saints?—No: for by adoration is here
meant the honor due to God alone.—Do the commandments forbid us to honor
the Saints?—No: for the honor we give them is different from that which
we pay to God, we honor the Saints as friends and faithful servants
to God.—If it is forbid in Catholics to worship the Saints, can it
be supposed that they will pay adoration to their image, pictures or
representations?—Or, is it consistent with probability that the same
Church will direct them, in their riper years, to practise, what it has
taught them when pupils, to reject and avoid?—The council of Trent has,
without doubt, declared, that due honor and respect be given to images
of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the other Saints;—and who can deny that
that degree of honor and respect, to which they are entitled, should be
paid these, or any other representations?—It is natural to be affected
at the Representation of a dear departed friend and benefactor; the
Catholics look upon them as their best of benefactors, they therefore
pay them a due degree of honor and respect, should they, however, exceed
this degree, they are not only culpable, but obnoxious likewise, to the
censures of their own Church:—the Protestants themselves regard King
William III. as their benefactor, of course they honor and drink to his
memory, some even have been so far inflamed with enthusiasm, as to drink
to his glorious and immortal memory on their bare knees, are not these
Protestants equally idolatrous with the Catholics?

Secondly, “He wishes to know whether a Papist does not pray to Saints
and Angels, and invoke their intercession, thereby making Gods, not
only of Angels, but even of dead men, although expressly informed, by
God himself, that there is but one mediator with the Father, not only
of redemption but of intercession also, which is our blessed Saviour,
and in doing so is he not guilty of idolatry?” That the Roman Catholics
intreat of Saints and Angels to forward petitions in their behalf, for
obtaining the divine mercy, is acknowledged, but that, in doing so, they
mean to worship them as Gods, or to incur the guilt of idolatry, is as
confidently denied:—they dread through an humble confidence of their own
demerits, to offer from themselves an immediate address to the Deity:—and
as Christ himself has given an example of praying for others, even his
persecutors, in those memorable words, “Pardon them O Lord, for they know
not what they do;” so the Catholics may probably imagine that the Saints
and Angels whom they address, will petition in their behalf, and as they
are pure in comparison with themselves, these petitions will have greater
effect, than the immediate addresses of a polluted sinner—we think also,
that the answer to the first, is a sufficient answer to this question.

Thirdly, “He is induced to enquire whether a Papist does not pay divine
adoration to a mixture of flour and water, made up by the hands of an
illiterate and possibly profligate priest, contrary to the figurative
sense and meaning of the Holy Scripture, and in direct opposition to
reason and common understanding? does he not believe that a Popish Priest
has the power of making a God? and does he not bow down and worship
this worse than golden image?”—It may be asked the Revd. Baronet if
he ever enquired before administering the holy Communion to his own
flock, whether the bread provided for the purpose, were made by pure
and undefiled hands, whether the wine were genuine, or brewed by some
rascally vintner;—and is not the term profligate, equally applicable to
a minister of the establishment, as to a Popish Priest, particularly, if
the minister devotes much of his time to the joys of the chase, and (we
may naturally suppose) its consequent festivity; whilst the Priest is
laboriously and almost constantly employed in the conscientious discharge
of his sacred functions? as to the adoration paid to the Host, the
Catholic believes that the Body and Blood of Christ (acknowledged to
partake of the Godhead) are actually present, and can he justly be called
idolatrous for paying adoration to the presence of Divinity?—the learned
gentleman may also be requested to explain what he means to impress
upon the mind of a Catechumen, by the following words: “the Body and
Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful
in the Lord’s Supper.”—Let it be understood, that we by no means,
recommend these doctrines, they may possibly give occasion of offence
to such tender consciences as the Baronet possesses, they are matters
of belief, and therefore left to every man’s own determination;—since,
however, some particles of his questions have been absolutely and with
truth denied, whilst others have been so far answered, we hope, as to
exculpate the Catholics from all criminality either in act or intention,
we may conclude, that should a Cardinal’s hat be now engaged to the Revd.
Baronet, he will perhaps, not only be almost, but altogether inclined to
renounce his own faith, and turn Papist.

In treating of the monstrous doctrines ascribed by Sir Harcourt Lees to
the Catholics, we may premise that their own general conduct sufficiently
refutes his accusation:—his strong assertions however, may seem to
demand some farther enquiry.

The 4th Lateran council was held in the year 1215, at which were present,
most of the christian sovereigns;—this council therefore may be properly
termed a general congress of the temporal, as well as spiritual Powers
of Christendom; they assembled for the purpose of suppressing the heresy
of the Manchæans, or Albigenses, whose doctrines were (according to
Mosheim) not only subversive of morality, decency, and good order, but
even destructive to the human species,—it was supported by the Counts
of Thoulouse, Cominges, Foix, and aided by numerous bodies of banditti,
hired for this purpose.—The heresy was condemned by the spiritual
authority of the church; and the Fiefs of the princes encouraging it,
were declared forfeitures to their liege lords, by the authority of the
sovereigns, there assembled:—the censures of this council or rather
congress were never promulgated, and scarcely known in this island, but
were directed (we believe, solely) against the Manchæans or Albigenses,
and the princes above mentioned, who encouraged and protected the
votaries of this pernicious heresy.

The council of Constance, held in the year 1414, expressly declares
that it is heretical to affirm it lawful for a subject to kill his
prince, on any pretence whatsoever, session 15. One solitary instance
of the contrary doctrine being maintained, occurs in Mariana, whose book
was condemned, and publicly burnt by a provincial council of her own
order; this Mariana was a Spaniard, born at Talavera, in the year 1537,
who became a Religious in the year 1554;—he was also condemned by the
parliament of Paris, and by the doctors of Sorbonne, and his book burnt
by the hands of the common hangman.

The council of Trent assembled in the year 1545, and continued to the
year 1563, declares, that to violate the least point of public faith
given to heretics, is a crime punishable by the laws of God and Man;
session, 15 and 18. The doctrine then of the Catholics teaches them that
no power on earth can absolve them from allegiance to their sovereigns
and civil magistrates, and obliges them to keep faith with all men:—when
therefore, the Revd. Author asserts, that according to the 4th Lateran
council, oaths taken contrary to the interest of the Popish church are
not to be called oaths, but perjuries, and that it is still in force, we
must question the accuracy of his information, in regard to its being
a received doctrine among the catholics;—the council of Constance, and
subsequently the council of Trent decreed the very reverse, and the
doctrine of the last general council must now be like the prevailing
one:—the oaths taken by the priests and Bishops regard only spirituals,
that part which refers to the Rights, Honors, State and Power of the Pope
is confined (as the Catholics assert) to such as live under the Pope’s
temporal jurisdiction, or the jurisdiction of a Catholic Sovereign;—Our
own sovereigns are bound (the author proceeds) by the coronation oath
“to the utmost of their power to maintain the true profession of the
gospel,” but by gospel, we are enjoined to do unto all men as we would
they should do unto us; persecution therefore, in the slightest degree,
is a departure from this precept,—“and the Protestant reformed religion
as established by the laws”—whether will the Protestant Religion be
better maintained by an observance of, or a deviation from, the doctrine
contained in the Gospel? “to preserve the Bishops and Clergy of this
Realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights
and privileges as by law, do or shall appertain to them, or any of
them,” Catholic Emancipation will not encroach upon these rights and
privileges, it will only procure an equal participation of civil rights
and privileges for the Catholics, which in compliance with the Gospel,
the Protestants are bound to grant, as they in a like situation, would
wish to obtain the same privileges for themselves.

As Sir Harcourt Lees is so very liberal in his application of censure
upon individuals, upon Parties, upon Sects, who may differ from himself
in opinion, with respect to the three natural points which concern human
Life, Religion, Morals and Politics, we presume that he bears in mind
and accords with the assertion of Demosthenes,[1] “that all men are,
by nature, prone to delight in detraction and invective,” but that,
through the multiplicity of his studious pursuits, the remainder of the
sentence, in which this assertion is contained, has entirely escaped his
recollection, “but to be disgusted with those who praise themselves,” as
he is no less liberal in self Commendation;—The Athenian Orator indeed
recounts to his Audience the services he had rendered the State, during
his Administration, but handsomely, apologizes for this conduct, by
premissing that he was obliged to pursue this method, in order to refute
the Calumnies of his Adversary, and that therefore the odium, naturally
attendant upon self Praise, ought to rest upon the Individual, who had
compelled him to bring forward such a Relation: Sir Harcourt Lees,
however had no adversary to contend with; no one disputed his merits; of
course he had no Calumnies to refute; we must conclude therefore, that he
expects some material Reward for his present and former Exertions, and
therefore points out his peculiar claims lest they should remain unknown
and extinguished; his success we wish not to prevent; our aim is to guard
the Public (since men are naturally inclined to delight in censure) from
imbibing prejudice through the agreeable medium of invective.

    [1] Φυσει πασιν ανθρωποις ὑπαρχει των μεν λοιδοριων κ των
    καταογριων ακουειν ἠδεως, τοις επαινουσι δ’ αὑτονς ἀχθεσθαι.

To give advice, without giving offence, is a serious difficulty;—it has
been pertinently observed, that to give advice is to seize an occasion
of displaying our own wisdom, at the expence of others, and however
readily a superiority in all other respects, may be admitted, the
assumption of superior sense and understanding is universally offensive;
the learned Baronet has made a pompous display of his diligence, his
research, his consequent information, and urges his claim to attention,
from the mortifying circumstance of our inferiority in understanding,
when compared with his own:—making no pretensions to superiority of
intellect, claiming only the free exercise of reason and common sense,
and suspecting that some ingredients in the Rev. Baronet’s prescription
(should it be adopted) might prove injurious to the general system;
We are anxious to preserve the constitution sound and vigorous, and
being members of the public, we look upon ourselves as included in
the number of patients, we shall therefore take the liberty, without
further ceremony, of examining (as far as we can understand it) into the
composition of his Antidote.

The Revd. Author thus expresses himself: “to the superintending care of
an energetic, firm, and most popular administration, I with confident
security resign the civil and constitutional difference of my country;
the established government in state, may in such hands be saved from
destruction;” we must beg leave in this particular, to dissent from his
prescription (of which we deem this an ingredient, since he recommends
it by the authority of his own example) as, however energetic, firm,
popular, and even strenuously devoted to public liberty the present
ministers may be, they are but men, of course liable to error and
assailable by the temptations of power and interest we would, on the
contrary, recommend a jealous vigilance with respect to every measure
of every administration;—the immediate interests of a minister may be
distinct from those of the people, he may therefore, in some instances
be induced to sacrifice all considerations for the public good, to the
prevailing motives of avarice and ambition:—and here we will repeat our
dissent from a Right Honorable Gentleman, should he have asserted (which
however, we gather only from a News-paper report) that the people have no
right to enter into discussions concerning civil Polity in general, or
the immediate measures of government; his legal experience we presume,
will inform him that a Trustee is accountable for the proper management
of his trust;—both the executive and legislative bodies are trustees of
the people, to whom they are responsible, for the due discharge of the
sacred trust reposed in them; the more they enquire into the effects
resulting from the measures of every administration, the more competent
will they become in appreciating the merits of their respective trustees,
and the more clearly will they discern the propriety of conferring upon,
or withholding from them their farther confidence.

He considers “unrestricted Emancipation to be impossible, so long as
the Constitution in Church and State shall be Protestant” and asserts
“that the necessity of excluding Papists from Parliament, and from
the great offices of State, is imperious, in order to preserve both
from destruction.” Neither can we subscribe to this opinion of the
Revd. Author;—We have endeavored to prove (and hope with success)
that the Authorities he quotes are unfounded, or obsolete and at
present of no force:—an equal Participation in the same rights and
privilege produces union and harmony, even among those who, from the
circumstance of receiving different educations, may have imbibed
different religious tenets; whilst a partial preference, and distinct
privileges annexed to the profession of a particular faith, encourage
the growth of jealousy and discussion:—_Divide and impera_ is the
boasted maxim of a crooked policy;—a well constituted Government
consults for, and endeavours to promote the common welfare of all its
subjects:—what have been the measures of policy pursued with regard
to Ireland? The bulk of its population is Catholic, and has during a
century groaned under the arbitrary sway of a Protestant Government,
partial to professors of its own faith, and arming them with distinct
privileges;—the Catholics have been subject to an Oligarchy, composed of
their declared opponents;—they have been debarred from acquiring real
property;—their Estates have been liable to confiscation, for refusing
to swear contrary to their consciences;—they have been restricted in
the free exercise of their religion, and from educating their children
in that faith which they esteemed the true one;—can it be expected,
that these circumstances should attach them to the constitution? they
acknowledge its excellence, and that its subjects enjoy a greater portion
of liberty, than the subjects of any other state in Europe;—they look
upon themselves, however, not as its subjects, but its slaves:—instead
of interminable hostility against the Catholics, we would earnestly
recommend conciliation;—let them be once admitted to all the privileges
of subjects, they will (we dare affirm) become equally zealous in their
attachment to the Constitution, as the Protestant himself.—In maintaining
the contrary opinion, we regret that the Revd. Sir Harcourt Lees,
should forget his character as a gentleman and a scholar, for, however
he may vent his spleen in gross and vulgar abuse, a sinner against
good-breeding, and the laws of decency will no more be esteemed a good
author, than will a sinner against grammar, good argument, or good sense.

He is scarcely less abusive in his animadversions upon the Fanatics
or Evangelical, and if they, in reality, maintain such tenets as he
attributes to them, we must acknowledge that they are objectionable; they
tend to diminish the general benevolence of mankind, and to render them
regardless of moral rectitude; but persecution is still more dangerous,
and in proposing a strong test, in addition to the Thirty-nine Articles
he seems actuated, in some measure, by a spirit of persecution; even
Bishop Burnet (whose orthodox we presume will not be disputed) confesses
that the requiring subscription to the Thirty nine Articles, is a great
imposition:—and, would you, Revs. Sir, impose a more grievous test of
orthodoxy?—be assured, that the strength of your test, and its embracing
a multitude of objects will not tend to confirm your establishment:—it
may and probably will flourish, in power and wealth, with the government
of which it forms a part, but the superior excellence of the doctrines
you profess, your own exemplary deportment in private life, together with
a zealous exertion in the discharge of your sacred functions, will also
render its influence extensive, or its duration permanent:—here we would
recommend (but with the utmost deference and humility) the co-operation
of Government,—were the gradations in preferment allotted to gradations
in merit,—were the dignities of the Church, exclusively, appropriated
to eminence in virtue, piety, learning, the clergy in early life would
be stimulated to exertion for the attainment of these good qualities,
their exertions would, in general, be crowned with success, and thus, at
a more advanced period, they would become illustrious ornaments to their
profession; whilst the people instructed by the impressive exhortations,
and influenced by the upright conduct of their clergy, would be far more
inclined to the practise of morality and good-order.

In regard to the radical reformers, their views may possibly be directed
to tumult and anarchy, but the ostensible object of their contemplation
do not appear to us visionary and impracticable, such material changes,
however, admitted at once into the system, might be attended with danger
and convulsion, we wilt by no means venture to deny that it might be so,
yet Burnet (zealously devoted to Government in his time) recommends the
annual Election of Representatives as an effectual expedient to stem the
progress of corruption, which had, even then, made great inroads among
all ranks of people: Election by ballot would defeat all the purposes
which, at present, induce many of the candidates to resort to bribery;
whilst universal suffrage would disable them from tampering with all the
voters:—corruption has moreover in some instances, and at some periods,
insinuated itself into the representative body;—the expediency of reform,
therefore, can be no longer doubtful;—and that reform is necessary, the
most eminent characters in our Empire have, long since, acknowledged,
they have likewise on several occasions attempted to introduce it;—whilst
Foreigners contemplating the excellence of the British Constitution, and
enumerating the beneficial consequences, resulting to the several Nations
of Europe, from the example of a free and independent State, flourishing
among themselves, have deeply lamented the existence of a vice in the
system, which must gradually undermine it;—O Honte (says Raynal) l’Homme
riche achete les suffrages de ses Commettans, pour obtenir l’Honneur
de les representer; la Cour achete les suffrages des Representans
gouverner plus despotiquement; une Nation sage ne travailleroit elle
pas a prevenir l’une & l’autre corruption? N’est il pas etonnant que
cela ne se soit pas fait, le jour qu’un Representant eut l’impudence
de faire attendre ses Commettans dans son Antichambre, & de leur dire
ensuite, je ne sais ce que vous voulez, mais je n’en ferai qu’a ma tete;
je vous ai achetés fort cher, & j’ai bien resolu de vous vendre le plus
cher que je pourrai:—we here confidently recommend a radical reform in
ourselves, for the purpose of insuring to the body politic a sound and
perfect recovery—Let every member of the state correct his own vices—and
the voters should not only correct themselves; but it is their duty
to examine into the qualifications which can entitle a candidate to
their approbation;—is he frugal in his expences without meanness?—is he
liberal, without profusion or ostentation?—is his private life marked by
no destructive vice?—they may safely conclude that such a representative,
unassailable by corruption, will discharge his trust with fidelity.

In consequence of the demise of our late and regretted Monarch, the
period is at hand when the people will have a legal opportunity of
freely and openly expressing their sentiments, in regard to the measures
lately adopted by Administration;—if, in their opinion, the good and
loyal subject is farther protected, by these means, in the unmolested
enjoyment of his rights and privileges;—if the cottage of the meanest
peasant still remains his castle, from which he may legally repel all
violent intrusion;—if the Press restrained only in its licentiousness,
is confirmed in the full exercise of its liberty (the great Bulwark of
the British Constitution)—then will their former members, who supported
such enactments, be returned to Parliament, as deserving objects of their
preference:—but should they think that encroachments on civil liberty
are substituted as safeguards to the Constitution;—that the habitation
of every British subject is exposed, even, to nightly visitations, at
the capricious will of a Magistrate;—that the liberty of the Press
is essentially violated, under a specious pretext of correcting its
abuses, and preventing the dissemination of blasphemous and seditious
libes;—the people will be aroused to a consideration of the danger
impending over themselves, and therefore be cautious in their choice
of Representatives;—in either case, however, we finally recommend
inviolable abstinence from corruption:—Let no views of present emolument,
no promises of further patronage,—let neither threats, nor intreaties
prevail on you to depart from the conscientious discharge of your duty
as voters:—the corruption of the constituent, will serve as an apology
for the corruption of the Representative body:—exhibit in yourselves a
generous example of reform:—your Representatives, chosen for the good
qualities you have discerned in them, will copy the example and thus
will the pernicious disorder, preying upon your very vitals, be in some
measure checked, if not entirely eradicated from your constitution.

We have thus far obtruded upon the Public, in consequence of our
objections to the Antidote of Sir Harcourt Lees, and conclude with an
anxious wish that, whatever application may be adopted by them, it may
most conduce to the advancement of civil and religious liberty, and may
best contribute to the present and future welfare of the people.

                                                               PHILODEMUS.




Transcriber’s Note:


The Greek passage on the title page would be better rendered:

    πασῃ φυλαχῃ την ψυχην τηρητεον, μη δια της των λογων ἡδονης
    παραδεξαμενοι τι λαθωμεν των χειρονων ὡσπερ ὁι τα δηλητηρια
    μετα του μελιτος προσιεμενοι.

And the Greek passage in the footnote:

    Φυσει πασιν ανθρωποις ὑπαρχει των μεν λοιδοριων και των
    κατηγοριων ακουειν ἡδεως, τοις επαινουσι δ’ αὑτονς ἀχθεσθαι.

A list of changes made to the text:

  Page 3, “oppulence” changed to “opulence” (from opulence and
    prosperity)
  Page 3, “coersive” changed to “coercive” (adopt coercive measures)
  Page 5, “vigilence” changed to “vigilance” (the vigilance of
    Ministers)
  Page 6, “tenents” changed to “tenets” (whenever the particular
    tenets)
  Page 9, “witnesess” changed to “witnesses” (men, many of them eye
    witnesses)
  Page 11, “tenents” changed to “tenets” (one of the tenets of the
    new sect)
  Page 11, “tenent” changed to “tenet” (according to this tenet)
  Page 12, “inaplicable” changed to “inapplicable” (may, perhaps,
    be not inapplicable)
  Page 15, “adminstering” changed to “administering” (his motives
    for administering)
  Page 17, “conscientousness” changed to “conscientiousness” (and
    conscientiousness in discharge)
  Page 19, “irreconciliable” changed to “irreconcilable” (all
    parties irreconcilable)
  Page 21, “quiequid” changed to “quicquid” (Potestas faciundi
    quicquid per leges liceat)
  Page 21, “undersand” changed to “understand” (if we understand
    the report aright)
  Page 22, “serinity” changed to “serenity” (will also invite this
    serenity)
  Page 23, “themelves” changed to “themselves” (they conducted
    themselves on these occasions)
  Page 25, “appology” changed to “apology” (they had had a decent
    apology)
  Page 26, “greivances” changed to “grievances” (if aroused by such
    grievances)
  Page 26, “accellerates” changed to “accelerates” (accelerates the
    progress of corruption)
  Page 26, “septenial” changed to “septennial” (a septennial
    parliament)
  Page 30, duplicated word “the” removed (Do the commandments)
  Page 30, “probality” changed to “probability” (is it consistent
    with probability)
  Page 31, “maing” changed to “making” (thereby making Gods, not
    only of Angels)
  Page 32, “poluted” changed to “polluted” (of a polluted sinner)
  Page 32, “anwer” changed to “answer” (is a sufficient answer to
    this question)
  Page 32, “appliable” changed to “applicable” (equally applicable
    to a minister)
  Page 33, “Catolics” changed to “Catholics” (ascribed by Sir
    Harcourt Lees to the Catholics)
  Page 34, “Albigensis” changed to “Albigenses” (against the
    Manchæans or Albigenses)
  Page 35, “Marianna” changed to “Mariana” (Mariana, whose book was
    condemned)
  Page 35, “teach-them” changed to “teaches them” (The doctrine
    then of the Catholics teaches them)
  Page 35, “geueral” changed to “general” (the doctrine of the last
    general council)
  Page 36, “confinad” changed to “confined” (Power of the Pope is
    confined)
  Page 37, “apoligizes” changed to “apologizes” (apologizes for
    this conduct)
  Page 38, “univerrsally” changed to “universally” (is universally
    offensive)
  Page 40, “unrestrcited” changed to “unrestricted” (unrestricted
    Emancipation to be impossible)
  Page 40, “Paticipation” changed to “Participation” (equal
    Participation in the same rights)
  Page 41, “jealously” changed to “jealousy” (the growth of
    jealousy and discussion)
  Page 41, “disscussion” changed to “discussion” (the growth of
    jealousy and discussion)
  Page 41, “priveleges” changed to “privileges” (arming them with
    distinct privileges)
  Page 42, “benovelence” changed to “benevolence” (the general
    benevolence of mankind)
  Page 43, “extentive” changed to “extensive” (render its influence
    extensive)
  Page 43, “upwright” changed to “upright” (the upright conduct of
    their clergy)
  Page 43, “impractible” changed to “impracticable” (visionary and
    impracticable)
  Page 45, “bein” changed to “bien” (j’ai bien resolu; the French
    text left otherwise uncorrected)
  Page 47, “obtrurded” changed to “obtruded” (We have thus far
    obtruded upon the Public)
  Page 47, “Harcout” changed to “Harcourt” (the Antidote of Sir
    Harcourt Lees)